PDA

View Full Version : Is Duke program now just like Calipari 2.0?



kybluedevil
04-08-2019, 07:26 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Tre's return. But let's be honest. Coach K and Calipari have similar recruiting goals: Get the best players for one year. Hope the team meshes from November-March. Reload, Repeat, Rinse, etc.

It is debatable if this tactic has been effective. Sure, we have had some players not develop as upper classemen. And Luke Kennard left earlier than most have hoped. But everything I found detestable in what Calipari did at Kentucky has now been increasingly found in Durham. Best example: last year's team. We were lucky to have Grayso Allen. And yes, we were two bounces away from back-to-back final Fours. And I agree it's hard to turn away recruits like Zion and RJ when they come knocking on your door.

But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

proelitedota
04-08-2019, 07:31 PM
We didn't change. The players did.

Nolan, Singler, Henderson would all be one or two n dones in this era of Duke basketball.

Steven43
04-08-2019, 07:32 PM
Uh oh. Here comes trouble. I’m not even going to touch this right now. By the way, could you please post the quote or interview where Coach K “avowed he would never succumb to this”?

-jk
04-08-2019, 07:42 PM
Both are reacting to what the NBA is handing them. That's a given; they're both really good.

I think K is handling it better.

K doesn't chase players off, but actually welcomes marginal first rounders back. With open arms!

Calipari's won one NCAA, and missed it entirely another time. K's won two in the last 10 years (3 in 20); one with OaD players and one without, and hasn't missed in decades.

UVa? It's UVa's first final four in decades. (We have baggage so I won't emphasize last year - we came close enough in '86.) It's not easy for anyone, no matter how good a program they have.

Izzo? He has a reputation, but really hasn't covered.

unc cheated so aggressively for decades (and I'm absolutely sure they still do, just better; it's built into their "Way"), that they don't count in any way, shape, or form.

Nova? They would be a more interesting question...

-jk

freshmanjs
04-08-2019, 07:44 PM
Both are reacting to what the NBA is handing them. That's a given; they're both really good.

I think K is handling it better.

K doesn't chase players off, but actually welcomes marginal first rounders back. With open arms!

Calipari's won one NCAA, and missed it entirely another time. K's won two in the last 10 years (3 in 20); one with OaD players and one without, and hasn't missed in decades.

UVa? It's UVa's first final four in decades. (We have baggage so I won't emphasize last year - we came close enough in '86.) It's not easy for anyone, no matter how good a program they have.

Izzo? He has a reputation, but really hasn't covered.

unc cheated so aggressively for decades (and I'm absolutely sure they still do, just better; it's built into their "Way"), that they don't count in any way, shape, or form.

Nova? They would be a more interesting question...

-jk

Agree, although to be fair, Cal's miss happened when Noel had a season ending injury. If Brandon Ingram had such an injury in 2016, there's a good chance we would have similarly missed. Cal's tournament results have been outstanding at KY (as K's have been at Duke).

Owen Meany
04-08-2019, 08:17 PM
But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

UNC recruited Okafor, Winslow, Jones, Rivers, Kyrie, Parker, Ingram, Bagley, Carter, Trent, Williamson, Barrett, and Reddish (I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive). The only Duke OAD and can think of they didn't recruited was Duval. They just missed out on these players, as Roy Williams has explicitly stated. They have already had 2 players declare this year after one season. They had one the year before last as well. They are all in on Cole Anthony for next year who will certainly be OAD.

JetpackJesus
04-08-2019, 08:17 PM
What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days? That Coach K is better at recruiting and developing players?

Roy had two OAD's this year--despite his best efforts to hold one of those players back--to Duke's (probably) three, and Roy offered at least one of Duke OAD's. He would have several more OAD's over the years if he were better at developing his top recruits or better at landing the players he recruits.

Dukehky
04-08-2019, 08:35 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Tre's return. But let's be honest. Coach K and Calipari have similar recruiting goals: Get the best players for one year. Hope the team meshes from November-March. Reload, Repeat, Rinse, etc.

It is debatable if this tactic has been effective. Sure, we have had some players not develop as upper classemen. And Luke Kennard left earlier than most have hoped. But everything I found detestable in what Calipari did at Kentucky has now been increasingly found in Durham. Best example: last year's team. We were lucky to have Grayso Allen. And yes, we were two bounces away from back-to-back final Fours. And I agree it's hard to turn away recruits like Zion and RJ when they come knocking on your door.

But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

I am so tired of this. Duke has been the best program of the decade. There are 2 titles with 2 completely different ways of doing things. If Kyrie stays healthy, there's also likely a back to back championship in there.

UNC had a phenomenal two year run with starting line-ups packed with seniors who were mcdonalds all Americans. Don't let the fact that they beat us twice this year when we didn't have our best player cloud your mind.


UVA lost to a 16 seed last year and is currently enjoying their first run to the Final Four since Ralph Sampson.

MSU hasn't won a title since 2000.

Yes I'm happy we're not any of those teams.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Who cares if K and Calipari have the same goals? Every coach in the country has the same goal, to recruit good players and win the national title. Get over your sensibilities because YOU want to see kids stay at Duke for longer and develop. As long as the kids who come in play hard and try their best on and off the court, they can do what they want after their freshman year. I'm sorry that what you would prefer the program to look like isn't how it is currently going.

I would not trade my years watching Marvin Bagley, Zion or RJ for anything. They gave it everything they had. Who gives a S*** that they happened to be recruits Calipari also wanted and stayed one year.

Shut this thread down and any other threads that resemble them.

Also, "Old Duke" teams were loaded with talent. Look at 2001, DUnleavy, Boozer, Williams, Battier, Duhon? Are you freaking kidding me, every one of them was a McD's AA who stayed 4 years. Let's go 06, Shelden, JJ, Dockery, McRoberts, Paulus, Nelson... All McDonalds all Americans who stayed more than one year.

It's not K who has changed, it is college basketball and the players who play it. I mean, sure, if we want to keep kids who stay all 4 years, we can recruit in the 30s and 40s, and then we'd suck. Then everyone would complain about us not getting talent.

I'll take the talent and trust K to sort it all out. It's freaking hard to win a national championship, it's hard to win an ACC regular season championship, especially with the unbalanced schedules and the fact that we get UNC and UVA nearly every year.

FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT!

CameronCrazy'11
04-08-2019, 08:44 PM
I don't think the recruiting strategy has actually changed that much. Duke has always gone after the best players. They just weren't landing the top kids every year in the late 2000's like they are now, and as a result players tended to stay longer. Now, because of olympics, national championships, Duke Blue Planet, or whatever the reason is, they are landing top 5 guys consistently.

And to be honest, I don't think there's any program out there that could be landing one-and-dones like Duke does every year, but chooses not to. There are programs that have one-and-done players, programs that target those kids but don't sign them, and programs that don't even try because they wouldn't be considered.

CDu
04-08-2019, 09:00 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Tre's return. But let's be honest. Coach K and Calipari have similar recruiting goals: Get the best players for one year. Hope the team meshes from November-March. Reload, Repeat, Rinse, etc.

It is debatable if this tactic has been effective. Sure, we have had some players not develop as upper classemen. And Luke Kennard left earlier than most have hoped. But everything I found detestable in what Calipari did at Kentucky has now been increasingly found in Durham. Best example: last year's team. We were lucky to have Grayso Allen. And yes, we were two bounces away from back-to-back final Fours. And I agree it's hard to turn away recruits like Zion and RJ when they come knocking on your door.

But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

Yes, Duke and Kentucky have VERY similar recruiting strategies.

No, it is not really debatable whether or not it has been effective. Duke has had much more success since going all-in on one-and-dones: three elite-8s and a title in 5 years compared with two elite-8s and a title in the prior 10 years. And the historical tourney success of those teams landing multiple one and dones has been better than the success of teams without. No, it does not guarantee a title, as a 6-game single-elimination makes even the absolute best teams no more than a 40% chance at winning.

And let’s be clear: the UVa and UNC teams don’t resemble Duke’s best teams other than in age. Those Duke teams you reminisce about? With seniors Ferry, Laettner, Hurley, Hill, etc.? They don’t exist today. Those guys are in the NBA as freshmen and sophomores in today’s game. UNC and UVa and MSU have veteran teams because they don’t have many guys with clear-cut NBA talent.

Predicting who will be a four-year guy is hard. Who thought coming in that Kennard would leave after two years? Conversely, who thought Allen would stay four years after his sophomore year? The game has changed, not the coaches. Calipari was ahead of other coaches in recognizing it. Coach K has caught up and passed him though.

Wander
04-08-2019, 09:19 PM
Setting aside any moral questions or questions of effectiveness... yes, Duke and Kentucky are extremely similar programs right now.

75Crazie
04-08-2019, 09:22 PM
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Who cares if K and Calipari have the same goals? Every coach in the country has the same goal, to recruit good players and win the national title. Get over your sensibilities because YOU want to see kids stay at Duke for longer and develop. As long as the kids who come in play hard and try their best on and off the court, they can do what they want after their freshman year. I'm sorry that what you would prefer the program to look like isn't how it is currently going. …

FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT!
Funny, crazy pills is just what I feel like everybody is taking. You ask that we figure out what we want … I want a "Duke college basketball" program. That is not what we have now, and I want my old Duke back … and I don't care if you are sick and tired of hearing it, I for one will continue to support those that want something similar. I want a basketball program that makes use of players who WANT to be in college … and I want those who care only about professional basketball aspirations to go some different route. I realize there is no feasible alternative route today … but that is what I want to evolve, whether it is a beefed up G league or something different. I personally don't give a fig if we don't get the Marvin Bagleys or Zion Williamsons of the world, and I also do not care if the absence of those types of players means that not every Duke game of the year is on some sort of television channel. I want Duke basketball to be something that I am proud of … and my pride has disappeared.

THAT IS WHAT I WANT. And it is not necessarily a wrong desire just because it does not match yours.

Dukehky
04-08-2019, 09:39 PM
Funny, crazy pills is just what I feel like everybody is taking. You ask that we figure out what we want … I want a "Duke college basketball" program. That is not what we have now, and I want my old Duke back … and I don't care if you are sick and tired of hearing it, I for one will continue to support those that want something similar. I want a basketball program that makes use of players who WANT to be in college … and I want those who care only about professional basketball aspirations to go some different route. I realize there is no feasible alternative route today … but that is what I want to evolve, whether it is a beefed up G league or something different. I personally don't give a fig if we don't get the Marvin Bagleys or Zion Williamsons of the world, and I also do not care if the absence of those types of players means that not every Duke game of the year is on some sort of television channel. I want Duke basketball to be something that I am proud of … and my pride has disappeared.

THAT IS WHAT I WANT. And it is not necessarily a wrong desire just because it does not match yours.

So you just don't like high level college basketball? Because those who care about professional aspirations are pretty standard on high level college basketball teams. Also, why is it not okay to want to be in college for one year? I'm not thrilled to have watched Marvin Bagley and Zion because they were the number 1 recruits. I was thrilled to watch them because they played hard and did what they needed to as student athletes. Marvin was a All-Academic ACC as a freshman, I'll remind you.

Ultimately, it seems as though you don't like student athletes doing what is best for them. If Zion could have gone pro after high school but still chose to come to Duke, would you feel the same.

I'm sorry you lost your pride in Duke basketball based on the fact that we have extraordinary young people who come to Duke to play basketball then go on to pursue their professional goals after a year... Seems rational.

I'll tell the kids to get off your lawn and to stop skateboarding on the sidewalk though.

jgehtland
04-08-2019, 09:51 PM
Seems like a fairly useless argument to be having. They have already announced a sunset on the "1 year out of high school" age limit (colloquially known as the "one and done") rule for entrance into the NBA ranks. That will happen in the 2022 season. Between now and then, every team in the nation will pursue as many surefire NBA players as they can, just as they have always done. Starting in 2023, the board will be reset. It will be very similar to those "halcyon days of yore" where the expectations were not that you should immediately make the league after a year. And teams will fight over, lets face it, lesser talents to stack their rosters.

Those of us who do not begrudge a young person being allowed to pursue their professional ambitions will be happy for those young people, and sad that we don't get to see them lace it up in Duke blue and white for even a short period of time.

Those of us who would rather see players stick around for four years will have that opportunity.

And there isn't anything any of us can do about it; it happens in 3 years, like it or not. So enjoy the ride in the meantime, and let's see what the world looks like on Midnight Madness 2023.

-jk
04-08-2019, 09:59 PM
“They have already announced a sunset on the "1 year out of high school" age limit (colloquially known as the "one and done") rule for entrance into the NBA ranks. ”

Really? I haven’t seen it as a done deal.

Linky? Please?

(I’m really tired of one and done. I think we are all!)

-jk

jgehtland
04-08-2019, 10:11 PM
“They have already announced a sunset on the "1 year out of high school" age limit (colloquially known as the "one and done") rule for entrance into the NBA ranks. ”

Really? I haven’t seen it as a done deal.

Linky? Please?

(I’m really tired of one and done. I think we are all!)

-jk

You are right, it isn't official yet, my bad. Just double checked - I thought it was official, but just "likely".

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-spt-nba-one-and-done-rule-20190221-story.html

frb
04-08-2019, 10:23 PM
We didn't change. The players did.

Nolan, Singler, Henderson would all be one or two n dones in this era of Duke basketball.

Henderson would've been a first rounder but Singler and Nolan would have left to be 2nd rounders/undrafted? Unlikely. Nolan averaged 8 ppg as a Sophomore. He only turned into the player we remember as a Jr.

Singler may have been able to seek into the first round as a soph but most likely second round. He was considered basically an "as is" player. He's as good as he's ever gonna be right now. 09 was a very good draft.. even the second half of R1.. Jeff Teague, Jrue Holiday, Darren Collison, Taj Gibson, James Johnson, Wayne Ellington, Omri Casspi. Toney Douglas. All still in the NBA except Douglas.

frb
04-08-2019, 10:31 PM
look at 05 and 06... very veteran teams. both got bounced in the round of 16. it's a tough tournament to win. Coach K is considered the GOAT by some and only won it 5 times in 40 years. He had 2 dry spells of 9 years each. I think K is the GOAT. Wooden's players were mostly purchased.. no coincidence he didn't win a title at UCLA until his 13th season. When the money rolled in.

the direction of the program is just fine. We have to recruit the best of the best each year because we are expected to win every year. Have to reload with elite recruits. If you reload with non instant impact kids, you're going to have down years until you build it back up. it would be great to have 4 senior starters but what about year 1 and 2 when those seniors probably weren't that good yet? Coach K isn't afforded "down" seasons or "rebuilding years".. a down season for him is the Elite 8.

CameronCrazy'11
04-08-2019, 10:36 PM
Henderson would've been a first rounder but Singler and Nolan would have left to be 2nd rounders/undrafted? Unlikely. Nolan averaged 8 ppg as a Sophomore. He only turned into the player we remember as a Jr.

Singler may have been able to seek into the first round as a soph but most likely second round. He was considered basically an "as is" player. He's as good as he's ever gonna be right now. 09 was a very good draft.. even the second half of R1.. Jeff Teague, Jrue Holiday, Darren Collison, Taj Gibson, James Johnson, Wayne Ellington, Omri Casspi. Toney Douglas. All still in the NBA except Douglas.

Yeah, it's not like players weren't going early back in the late 2000's. Guys like Nolan, Singler, and Scheyer were all in that weird sweet spot where their physical and skill profiles made them outstanding college players but not great NBA prospects. But plenty of other guys from their classes went pro after a year.

Furniture
04-08-2019, 10:42 PM
Both are reacting to what the NBA is handing them. That's a given; they're both really good.

I think K is handling it better.

K doesn't chase players off, but actually welcomes marginal first rounders back. With open arms!

Calipari's won one NCAA, and missed it entirely another time. K's won two in the last 10 years (3 in 20); one with OaD players and one without, and hasn't missed in decades.

UVa? It's UVa's first final four in decades. (We have baggage so I won't emphasize last year - we came close enough in '86.) It's not easy for anyone, no matter how good a program they have.

Izzo? He has a reputation, but really hasn't covered.

unc cheated so aggressively for decades (and I'm absolutely sure they still do, just better; it's built into their "Way"), that they don't count in any way, shape, or form.

Nova? They would be a more interesting question...

-jk

someone else listened to Jason’s podcast summary then.....

Steven43
04-08-2019, 11:32 PM
Surely you’re not referring to Jason Williams. I can’t see him telling the truth about UNC’s cheating or even bringing any attention to the subject at all.

75Crazie
04-08-2019, 11:56 PM
Ultimately, it seems as though you don't like student athletes doing what is best for them.
I just don't know how to respond to this … the fact you consider these players to be "student-athletes" is something I just cannot reconcile. I do not believe these OADs have any consideration whatsoever for the first part of that term.

Tjenkins
04-09-2019, 12:08 AM
Nope, not until Coach K has 2 Final Four trips vacated.

camion
04-09-2019, 12:09 AM
I just don't know how to respond to this … the fact you consider these players to be "student-athletes" is something I just cannot reconcile. I do not believe these OADs have any consideration whatsoever for the first part of that term.

I believe you are painting with too broad a brush.

jgehtland
04-09-2019, 12:17 AM
I just don't know how to respond to this … the fact you consider these players to be "student-athletes" is something I just cannot reconcile. I do not believe these OADs have any consideration whatsoever for the first part of that term.

I’m not trying to be rude here, but as pointed out earlier in this thread, Marvin Bagley was academic all-acc. He didn’t get that by mailing it in.

I know that is only one piece of evidence, but that is more evidence than you have for your “belief” that these kids don’t care about school.

You don’t know them, you just have a picture in your head of what you want them to be. Maybe some of them are just mercenaries, but you’ll find it tough sledding selling people on your belief about the character of these kids without any evidence to back it up.

Kedsy
04-09-2019, 12:49 AM
THAT IS WHAT I WANT.

Do you also want to win the lottery on a weekly basis, to date a supermodel and have your spouse be OK with it, and for movies to go back to costing a nickel?

The problem with your viewpoint is not that others may want something else, it's that your desires are virtually impossible to achieve. What's the point in pining for something that cannot happen?

Indoor66
04-09-2019, 08:12 AM
It strikes me that even if the NBA & Players Union changes the rules and eliminates the one and done, Duke and other schools will still be recruiting the very best players available. In that case, some of them will be good enough for the NBA after one or two years of college. They will "blow up" like Justice or Kennard. They could well declare for the draft after that freshman or sophomore year and leave for the NBA. Such a change in the rules does not guarantee four year guys.

Dukehky
04-09-2019, 08:56 AM
It strikes me that even if the NBA & Players Union changes the rules and eliminates the one and done, Duke and other schools will still be recruiting the very best players available. In that case, some of them will be good enough for the NBA after one or two years of college. They will "blow up" like Justice or Kennard. They could well declare for the draft after that freshman or sophomore year and leave for the NBA. Such a change in the rules does not guarantee four year guys.

We could just turn into Davidson voluntarily.

weezie
04-09-2019, 09:02 AM
Oh my. The abyss of the off season is becoming staggeringly apparent.

75Crazie
04-09-2019, 09:03 AM
The problem with your viewpoint is not that others may want something else, it's that your desires are virtually impossible to achieve. What's the point in pining for something that cannot happen?
Why? They were possible for quite a long time, conceding the fact that course requirements were significantly reduced for athletes … but they still existed. The process for a long, long time required that college athletes give at least equal time and consideration to their academic workload. The glamor of constant TV changed all that. Why cannot that national spotlight be shifted to an independent farm-type of system that would provide a non-academic alternative to college, without the hypocrisy that blindly assumes that any athlete can stay in college as long as he desires, regardless of his academic qualifications?

I was a resident of Durham went the baseball Bulls made a return and witnessed first-hand the renaissance of minor league baseball there … why is it impossible to imagine a similar nation-wide system for basketball? OK, I know why it is impossible … it takes the "amateur athletic" spotlight away from universities and disappoints the sheep that believe that college basketball is a collegiate system. But still, I can dream.

CDu
04-09-2019, 09:05 AM
It strikes me that even if the NBA & Players Union changes the rules and eliminates the one and done, Duke and other schools will still be recruiting the very best players available. In that case, some of them will be good enough for the NBA after one or two years of college. They will "blow up" like Justice or Kennard. They could well declare for the draft after that freshman or sophomore year and leave for the NBA. Such a change in the rules does not guarantee four year guys.

Yep. Unless the NBA makes players who go to college stay multiple years (which seems unlikely), the one- and two-and-dones will still exist. The NCAA has no way to keep guys in school against their wishes.

75Crazie
04-09-2019, 09:06 AM
It strikes me that even if the NBA & Players Union changes the rules and eliminates the one and done, Duke and other schools will still be recruiting the very best players available. In that case, some of them will be good enough for the NBA after one or two years of college. They will "blow up" like Justice or Kennard. They could well declare for the draft after that freshman or sophomore year and leave for the NBA. Such a change in the rules does not guarantee four year guys.
Absolutely, exceptions exist. I am talking about my perception of the system as a whole, and I really believe that this is not a flawed perception, that the scholastic part of the "student-athlete" term has become a travesty.

DavidBenAkiva
04-09-2019, 09:07 AM
It is debatable if this tactic has been effective.

There is no debating the effectiveness of Kentucky and Duke since John Calipari became the head coach in Lexington.

Over the past 10 seasons, UK has been to the Sweet 16, Elite 8, and Final 4 more often than any team in the country.

During this timeframe, Duke has 2 National Titles - as many as any team - and has been to 5 Elite 8's and 7 Sweet 16's. In the latter two categories, Duke trails only Kentucky in appearances in the NCAA Tournament.

Now you might say that Duke has only adopted the multiple one-and-done strategy for the past 5 seasons. That is an accurate assessment. During that timeframe, Duke has a National Championship, 3 Elite 8 appearances, 4 Sweet 16 appearances, and won the ACC Tournament the one year they didn't reach at least the Sweet 16. Duke has been as good or better than any program during this timeframe. Sure, Villanova won 2 National Titles and UNC made it to 2 Final Fours, winning a National Title of their own. But Nova didn't even make it out of the first weekend the other years. Meanwhile, UNC has under-performed in the NCAA Tournament relative to their seed the past 2 seasons.

If you compare Duke to "experienced teams that always seem to be in the Final Four," then Duke isn't going to stack up to those teams. Those are an amalgamation of all the best teams for that individual season. If you compare apples to apples, Duke is hands down as good or better than any program over the last decade and definitively as good or better than most over the past 5 years. Frankly, I expect that to continue to be the case and hope that Duke can win another National Title just to end these silly posts.

flyingdutchdevil
04-09-2019, 09:22 AM
The two key differences?

1) Kentucky embraced it sooner

2) Duke generally builds a better "team" with it's OADs moreso than just gathering them (I mean, pre-season, a Duval-Trent-Bagley-Carter foursome coupled with a senior Grayson seemed perfect. And an interchangeable 2-3-4 with Cam, RJ, and Zion was spectacular. And a tiny man in Tyus with a medium man in Winslow and a very large man in Jahlil was again perfect)

freshmanjs
04-09-2019, 09:28 AM
The two key differences?

1) Kentucky embraced it sooner

2) Duke generally builds a better "team" with it's OADs moreso than just gathering them (I mean, pre-season, a Duval-Trent-Bagley-Carter foursome coupled with a senior Grayson seemed perfect. And an interchangeable 2-3-4 with Cam, RJ, and Zion was spectacular. And a tiny man in Tyus with a medium man in Winslow and a very large man in Jahlil was again perfect)

What is the evidence for #2?

Steven43
04-09-2019, 09:31 AM
It strikes me that even if the NBA & Players Union changes the rules and eliminates the one and done, Duke and other schools will still be recruiting the very best players available. In that case, some of them will be good enough for the NBA after one or two years of college. They will "blow up" like Justice or Kennard. They could well declare for the draft after that freshman or sophomore year and leave for the NBA. Such a change in the rules does not guarantee four year guys.

Well, hopefully, when the OAD rule is done away with and high school graduates are allowed to go straight to the NBA they will put a rule in place that says if you do decide to go to college you have to stay at least two years. In fact, I hope they mandate that you have to stay in college for three years.

CDu
04-09-2019, 09:33 AM
Well, hopefully, when the OAD rule is done away with and high school graduates are allowed to go straight to the NBA they will put a rule in place that says if you do decide to go to college you have to stay at least two years. In fact, I hope they mandate that you have to stay in college for three years.

Yeah, these kids definitely shouldn't be allowed to chase their career dreams. Way more important to make the fans and coaches happy. /sarcasm

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-09-2019, 09:33 AM
Why? They were possible for quite a long time, conceding the fact that course requirements were significantly reduced for athletes … but they still existed. The process for a long, long time required that college athletes give at least equal time and consideration to their academic workload. The glamor of constant TV changed all that. Why cannot that national spotlight be shifted to an independent farm-type of system that would provide a non-academic alternative to college, without the hypocrisy that blindly assumes that any athlete can stay in college as long as he desires, regardless of his academic qualifications?

I was a resident of Durham went the baseball Bulls made a return and witnessed first-hand the renaissance of minor league baseball there … why is it impossible to imagine a similar nation-wide system for basketball? OK, I know why it is impossible … it takes the "amateur athletic" spotlight away from universities and disappoints the sheep that believe that college basketball is a collegiate system. But still, I can dream.

Yes, they existed. But the giant piles of money for all relevant parties are too big to pass up. The colleges won't pass on the shared revenue. The coaches won't pass on the massive contracts (which are dependent on winning year to year). The networks make billions. The advertizers and shoe companies make huge sums. The only people in the equation we expect to have the maturity to leave money on the table are the 18 (and younger) year old kids being wooed with endless possibilities.

Yes, it would be great for our school, our coaches, our players to be held to a higher standard. But honestly, I also sit around wishing people wouldn't text and drive too. You and I can form a curmudgeon club. We ain't ever gonna change anything.

Bring me back my eight team round robin ACC!

Steven43
04-09-2019, 09:37 AM
Absolutely, exceptions exist. I am talking about my perception of the system as a whole, and I really believe that this is not a flawed perception, that the scholastic part of the "student-athlete" term has become a travesty.

I would have a hard time arguing against what you say here.

Steven43
04-09-2019, 09:38 AM
Bring me back my eight team round robin ACC!
Now you’re making sense!

flyingdutchdevil
04-09-2019, 09:39 AM
What is the evidence for #2?

Kentucky had 4 PGs this year. Kentucky often has 5 5-star frontcourt players without much depth on the wings or at the guard positions. They are sometimes very "unbalanced" from an OAD perspective. Don't get me wrong; those positions where they are lean they have incredible OADs, but I often get the sense that Kentucky just collects OADs without thinking too much about positions.

Troublemaker
04-09-2019, 09:43 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Tre's return. But let's be honest. Coach K and Calipari have similar recruiting goals: Get the best players for one year. Hope the team meshes from November-March. Reload, Repeat, Rinse, etc.

It is debatable if this tactic has been effective. Sure, we have had some players not develop as upper classemen. And Luke Kennard left earlier than most have hoped. But everything I found detestable in what Calipari did at Kentucky has now been increasingly found in Durham. Best example: last year's team. We were lucky to have Grayso Allen. And yes, we were two bounces away from back-to-back final Fours. And I agree it's hard to turn away recruits like Zion and RJ when they come knocking on your door.

But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

One of the problems with these types of posts is the unrealistic expectations. The essential problem that DBR posters (and other college bball fans) don't understand: college basketball of all the sports provides easily the worst experience for its best teams and therefore the fans of those teams. We're almost always experiencing heartbreak. Besides the 6-game single-elimination tournament to decide its champion, no other sport asks its best franchises/programs to choose between talent and experience. By comparison, in college football, the NFL has a 3-and-done rule (3-and-free) instead of merely 1-and-done, so programs like Clemson and Alabama can keep their star players 3 years. (Interestingly, you almost never hear complaints about guys like Tua and Trevor Lawrence being forced to stick around for 3 years.) I would much rather be a fan of the best college football programs (or a fan of the top pro teams) than a fan of the best college basketball programs, an experience that sort of sucks sometimes, frankly.

Troublemaker
04-09-2019, 09:56 AM
The two key differences?

1) Kentucky embraced it sooner

2) Duke generally builds a better "team" with it's OADs moreso than just gathering them (I mean, pre-season, a Duval-Trent-Bagley-Carter foursome coupled with a senior Grayson seemed perfect. And an interchangeable 2-3-4 with Cam, RJ, and Zion was spectacular. And a tiny man in Tyus with a medium man in Winslow and a very large man in Jahlil was again perfect)


What is the evidence for #2?

I agree with freshmanjs, and I actually think Kentucky does it better than Duke. UK's problem and relative decline in recent seasons is all about Duke eclipsing them on the recruiting trail. I'm actually really impressed with how well UK has done with the second-tier OADs, and I think if we gave Coach K UK's talent in recent seasons, he doesn't perform as well as Cal.

To me, Coach K going all-in on OADs has produced two things:
(1) a national championship (nothing to sneeze at obviously)
(2) prevention of a Kentucky dynasty. Cal probably has another title and a couple more Final Fours if not for Duke.

CDu
04-09-2019, 10:24 AM
I agree with freshmanjs, and I actually think Kentucky does it better than Duke. UK's problem and relative decline in recent seasons is all about Duke eclipsing them on the recruiting trail. I'm actually really impressed with how well UK has done with the second-tier OADs, and I think if we gave Coach K UK's talent in recent seasons, he doesn't perform as well as Cal.

To me, Coach K going all-in on OADs has produced two things:
(1) a national championship (nothing to sneeze at obviously)
(2) prevention of a Kentucky dynasty. Cal probably has another title and a couple more Final Fours if not for Duke.

I agree. Calipari is a sleazy guy, but he deserves a ton of credit for reading the room before anyone else on the one-and-done model. And not just that. He deserves a ton of credit for successfully and consistently producing great defensive teams despite being consistently incredibly young. Kentucky has only been outside the top 40 defensively once this decade, and that was when they lost their starting center to a torn ACL midway through the season. And they've been top-10 in defense five times this decade despite all the roster turnover.

Coach K has succeeded in surpassing Calipari on the recruiting trail, but Cal has managed to keep his teams competitive with the big boys in spite of losing to Coach K in recruiting over the past 4-5 years. He's a heck of a coach, even though he's a sleaze.

GoDuke2015
04-09-2019, 10:37 AM
But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


.


What was so unbearable about the 2008-2009 team? They won 30 games and the ACC tournament. Great year of development for Scheyer, Zoubek, Thomas, Singler and Nolan earned a starting role. We may have gotten beat by UNC 2x but that was one of the best UNC teams ever.

CDu
04-09-2019, 10:41 AM
What was so unbearable about the 2008-2009 team? They won 30 games and the ACC tournament. Great year of development for Scheyer, Zoubek, Thomas, Singler and Nolan earned a starting role. We may have gotten beat by UNC 2x but that was one of the best UNC teams ever.

Yeah, 2007 and 2008 were much tougher years than 2009.

DevilInTheDetails
04-09-2019, 10:42 AM
Well, OADs are fine. My issue is that some players lack fundamentals. For instance, Free Throws, not flashy, not crowd pleasers, but, in seeing Virginia last night, I believe they would not have won without that fundamental skill. A coach years ago told me about how his Son would shoot 100 consecutive FTs, it he missed one, he would start the count over until he hit all 100. His Son would shoot 100s of shots every day in his teens. Press, his father and coach, was proud of his Son, Pete (who what a fairly good shooter and holds a couple NCAA records) and Pete worked tirelessly on FTs, Passing and shooting. Another coach I spoke to at Tommy Amaker's basketball camp (my Son attended), Bones McKinney, stressed the fundamentals and consistency of FTs. Those words made sense and I noticed the same fundamentals in good players' FTs. Young phenoms today seem not to grasp the need to be proficient in FTs or defense, IMO. These are not flash, but fundamental, and may have won us some close games this year. Anyway, just a nit on FTs that our team could improve.

MCFinARL
04-09-2019, 11:09 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Tre's return. But let's be honest. Coach K and Calipari have similar recruiting goals: Get the best players for one year. Hope the team meshes from November-March. Reload, Repeat, Rinse, etc.

It is debatable if this tactic has been effective. Sure, we have had some players not develop as upper classemen. And Luke Kennard left earlier than most have hoped. But everything I found detestable in what Calipari did at Kentucky has now been increasingly found in Durham. Best example: last year's team. We were lucky to have Grayso Allen. And yes, we were two bounces away from back-to-back final Fours. And I agree it's hard to turn away recruits like Zion and RJ when they come knocking on your door.

But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

Say what? Unbearable? Granted that team had a few bad losses, they won the ACC tournament and got to the Sweet 16. Maybe "disappointing," sure, but even in our disappointments we Duke fans can seem a bit entitled.

JNort
04-09-2019, 11:13 AM
These threads have gotten so stale. The OP is just not fully informed or understanding of how college and NBA basketball works.

Truth&Justise
04-09-2019, 11:48 AM
Well, OADs are fine. My issue is that some players lack fundamentals. For instance, Free Throws, not flashy, not crowd pleasers, but, in seeing Virginia last night, I believe they would not have won without that fundamental skill. A coach years ago told me about how his Son would shoot 100 consecutive FTs, it he missed one, he would start the count over until he hit all 100. His Son would shoot 100s of shots every day in his teens. Press, his father and coach, was proud of his Son, Pete (who what a fairly good shooter and holds a couple NCAA records) and Pete worked tirelessly on FTs, Passing and shooting. Another coach I spoke to at Tommy Amaker's basketball camp (my Son attended), Bones McKinney, stressed the fundamentals and consistency of FTs. Those words made sense and I noticed the same fundamentals in good players' FTs. Young phenoms today seem not to grasp the need to be proficient in FTs or defense, IMO. These are not flash, but fundamental, and may have won us some close games this year. Anyway, just a nit on FTs that our team could improve.

I agree I wish we had been a better FT shooting team. But a team can't be good at everything. I'm sure the guys practice FTs, but they also practice dribbling, 3pt shooting, midrange shooting, and other skills. And that's just in individual time, when they're also hitting the weight room and going to class. As a team, they need to run offensive sets, learn how to play team defense, and so many other skills. Time is limited. I think the coaches recognized our team was a poor FT shooting team, but devoting large amounts of practice time to FTs would have been to the ultimate detriment of the team.

We have seen plenty of individual freshmen who were great FT shooters: Tyus Jones, Gary Trent, and Jayson Tatum are recent examples just to name a few. We've also had very good individual freshmen defenders, like Tre Jones, Justise Winslow, and Wendell Carter. And this year's freshmen-laden team was very good on defense.

I understand frustration if a guy never improves from the line over the course of a career. But it's hard to be good at everything!

Though Zion came close. :D

75Crazie
04-09-2019, 01:02 PM
The OP is just not fully informed or understanding of how college and NBA basketball works.
I completely disagree. He understands how college and professional basketball works … he just doesn't like it. And he is not alone.

freshmanjs
04-09-2019, 01:28 PM
I completely disagree. He understands how college and professional basketball works … he just doesn't like it. And he is not alone.

The OP said that last year's Duke team was the best example of what he "detested" in a team and that the 2008-09 team was "unbearable", even though that team structure was exactly what he seems to be advocating.
He then said that UNC and UVA have more in common with "old Duke teams," even though UNC had multiple one-and-done's this year. So, I'd definitely agree that there is a lack of understanding.

KandG
04-09-2019, 01:42 PM
The OP said that last year's Duke team was the best example of what he "detested" in a team and that the 2008-09 team was "unbearable", even though that team structure was exactly what he seems to be advocating.
He then said that UNC and UVA have more in common with "old Duke teams," even though UNC had multiple one-and-done's this year. So, I'd definitely agree that there is a lack of understanding.

All of the above.

Many intelligent points and exchanges are taking place on this thread - despite the nature of the original post - because the quality of discourse on DBR is high among many posters. However, the launch of this thread and "Two Final Fours in 15 Years" seems more appropriate to IC.

It's fine to prefer the way college basketball was 30 years ago. It's more than fine to have a greater attachment to seniors and second-tier players who evolve more gradually and/or overachieve.

It's more peculiar when talking points devolve into the implication that Coach K has turned into a mercenary beholden to television and NBA visibility, at the expense of team-building and tournament success (again, talking points that would look quite at home on IC and other schools' boards).

JetpackJesus
04-09-2019, 01:49 PM
One of the problems with these types of posts is the unrealistic expectations. The essential problem that DBR posters (and other college bball fans) don't understand: college basketball of all the sports provides easily the worst experience for its best teams and therefore the fans of those teams. We're almost always experiencing heartbreak. Besides the 6-game single-elimination tournament to decide its champion, no other sport asks its best franchises/programs to choose between talent and experience. By comparison, in college football, the NFL has a 3-and-done rule (3-and-free) instead of merely 1-and-done, so programs like Clemson and Alabama can keep their star players 3 years. (Interestingly, you almost never hear complaints about guys like Tua and Trevor Lawrence being forced to stick around for 3 years.) I would much rather be a fan of the best college football programs (or a fan of the top pro teams) than a fan of the best college basketball programs, an experience that sort of sucks sometimes, frankly.

I think that's an apples and oranges comparison, though, because 18/19-year-olds can be (and often are) physically capable of playing in the NBA while the vast majority--I'd consider saying all, but Zion or Lebron probably could have done it--are not physically capable of playing in the NFL. The 3-and-done rule, while beneficial to NCAAF programs, is also a legitimate health and safety consideration. Maybe it would be feasible to reduce the requirement to two-years removed from HS, but I don't follow NCAAF enough to know how often players are ready for the NFL after their sophomore year.

CDu
04-09-2019, 02:02 PM
I think that's an apples and oranges comparison, though, because 18/19-year-olds can be (and often are) physically capable of playing in the NBA while the vast majority--I'd consider saying all, but Zion or Lebron probably could have done it--are not physically capable of playing in the NFL. The 3-and-done rule, while beneficial to NCAAF programs, is also a legitimate health and safety consideration. Maybe it would be feasible to reduce the requirement to two-years removed from HS, but I don't follow NCAAF enough to know how often players are ready for the NFL after their sophomore year.

I don't think Troublemaker was complaining about the justifiability of the different rules. Just noting that the rules are different, and in such a way that results in penalizing fans of college bball powers.

I'm totally in agreement that the rule for football is a good safety measure that is unnecessary in basketball. But that doesn't change the reality that the rules are disadvantageous for college teams (and their fans). Just the way it is.

Rich
04-09-2019, 02:02 PM
Do you also want to win the lottery on a weekly basis, to date a supermodel and have your spouse be OK with it, and for movies to go back to costing a nickel?

The problem with your viewpoint is not that others may want something else, it's that your desires are virtually impossible to achieve. What's the point in pining for something that cannot happen?

Nobody told me that was an option!

JetpackJesus
04-09-2019, 02:41 PM
I don't think Troublemaker was complaining about the justifiability of the different rules. Just noting that the rules are different, and in such a way that results in penalizing fans of college bball powers.

I'm totally in agreement that the rule for football is a good safety measure that is unnecessary in basketball. But that doesn't change the reality that the rules are disadvantageous for college teams (and their fans). Just the way it is.

That's a fair point. I think I lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Nugget
04-09-2019, 03:18 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Tre's return. But let's be honest. Coach K and Calipari have similar recruiting goals: Get the best players for one year. Hope the team meshes from November-March. Reload, Repeat, Rinse, etc.

It is debatable if this tactic has been effective. Sure, we have had some players not develop as upper classemen. And Luke Kennard left earlier than most have hoped. But everything I found detestable in what Calipari did at Kentucky has now been increasingly found in Durham. Best example: last year's team. We were lucky to have Grayso Allen. And yes, we were two bounces away from back-to-back final Fours. And I agree it's hard to turn away recruits like Zion and RJ when they come knocking on your door.

But surely there has to be a middle ground from the unbearable 2008-2009 Duke team, and the one-and-done teams (2011-present). Just look at Sparty, UNC, and UVA.


What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?
Duke has turned into another factory farm for the NBA. Years after Coach K avowed he would "never" succumb to this.

Let's hope things turn around soon.

The "surely there has to be a middle ground" argument also contains an extremely erroneous assumption that there is complete precision/foresight into how things will turn out from a recruiting/player assessment/player development perspective when, to the contrary, recruiting is a complete crapshoot.

As just one example, consider U.Va.'s great success with Ty Jerome (#46 RSCI in 2016) and DeAndre Hunter (#74 RSCI in 2016) as compared the the careers of the players who had those rankings in the other classes within the last 5 years.

For Jerome, the comps would be:

Class of 2014, #46: Leron Black, Illinois (who had an undistinguished career, albeit averaging 15 pts as a senior for the 14-18 Illini) and Robert Johnson, Indiana (averaged 13 and 14 pts per game his Jr. and Sr. seasons for Indiana teams that went 16-15 and 18-15).

Class of 2015, #46: K.J. Lawson, Memphis/Kansas (averaged 3 pts. per game at KU as a Jr, now transferring a second time).

Class of 2017, #46 [actually, nos. 45 and 47, as one and done Hamidou Diallo came in at #46 due to the quirk of due to his being ranked #11 by three services and not ranked by others since he did a "prep" year] Jermaine Samuels, Villanova (naturally only got 6 mpg as a Fr. on last year's juggernaut, but somewhat underwhelmed this year as Soph, only grabbing 22 mpg and 6 pts, but seems to still have potential to become a solid to very-good 4 year player) and Matt Coleman, Texas (has averaged about 10 pts his first two seasons, looks like he will be a solid 4 year PG).

Class of 2018, #46: tie between Jules Bernard, UCLA and Khavon Moore, Texas Tech. Bernard average 8 points (in 18 mpg) as a freshman for a very disappointing UCLA team, but looks like he will be an ok 4 year player, while Moore missed essentially this entire season with injury, so who knows. Also of note, #50 was Talen Horton-Tucker, who is going to be one and done for Iowa St.


Hunter is perhaps a more interesting story. While he was relatively lowly rated coming into U.Va., after his redshirt year, it was almost immediately apparent he was a high level player. And, but for his injury last season, he could have been a one and done himself had he wanted to be -- see https://www.thestepien.com/2018/02/22/deandre-hunter-arrived/ which is a piece from one of the NBA draft sites last February (before Hunter was injured) suggesting he was a Khawi Leonard-type who teams in the lottery would regret passing on.

In any event, here's the comps for his #74 ranking:

Class of 2014: Dominic Magee, Memphis (who?)

Class of 2015: Doral Moore (he was tied at #73 due to the quirk that none-and-done Thon Maker was only included in two of the six components of RSCI), Wake Forest (averaged 6 points per game for his three year career before being undrafted as an early entry). #72 in that class was Tyler Lydon, who ended up being a 2 and done first round NBA Draft pick.

Class of 2017: Dhamir Cosby-Roundtree, Villanova (similar to Jermaine Samuels, he averaged around 20 mpg and 5 pts as a Soph this year; we'll see how the rest of his career goes, but he should be a productive four year player).

Class of 2018: Iggy Brazdeikis, Michigan (potential one and done).

So, it's a very mixed bag and even when you really do hit on someone ranked in this area who overperforms, there is always a chance they may be 1 or 2 and done anyway.

CDu
04-09-2019, 03:31 PM
The "surely there has to be a middle ground" argument also contains an extremely erroneous assumption that there is complete precision/foresight into how things will turn out from a recruiting/player assessment/player development perspective when, to the contrary, recruiting is a complete crapshoot.

As just one example, consider U.Va.'s great success with Ty Jerome (#46 RSCI in 2016) and DeAndre Hunter (#74 RSCI in 2016) as compared the the careers of the players who had those rankings in the other classes within the last 5 years.

Heck, compare it to our own recruits from 2016: Marques Bolden (#11) and Javin DeLaurier (#36). Or 2017: O'Connell (69).
There is no guarantee that guys pan out.

That being said, Bennett deserves a lot of credit for helping consistently get those next-tier recruits and turn them into studs in the college game. He did it with Joe Harris. He did it with Brogdon. He did it with Hall. He did it with Hunter. He did it with Jerome. He did it with Perrantes. Not to mention the slew of bigs he's gotten value out of. Either he is spectacular at finding gems under the radar gems or he is spectacular at coaching these kids up into college stars (or both).

We've comparatively just not had anywhere near that kind of success with that level of recruit (30-150 range). It's really impressive that Bennett has done it consistently over a several-year stretch with so many different recruits. He's done it for long enough now that it doesn't feel like luck of the draw at this point.

DukeTrinity11
04-09-2019, 03:36 PM
Heck, compare it to our own recruits from 2016: Marques Bolden (#11) and Javin DeLaurier (#36). Or 2017: O'Connell (69).
There is no guarantee that guys pan out.

That being said, Bennett deserves a lot of credit for helping consistently get those next-tier recruits and turn them into studs in the college game. He did it with Joe Harris. He did it with Brogdon. He did it with Hall. He did it with Hunter. He did it with Jerome. He did it with Perrantes. Not to mention the slew of bigs he's gotten value out of. Either he is spectacular at finding gems under the radar gems or he is spectacular at coaching these kids up into college stars (or both).

We've comparatively just not had anywhere near that kind of success with that level of recruit (30-150 range). It's really impressive that Bennett has done it consistently over a several-year stretch with so many different recruits. He's done it for long enough now that it doesn't feel like luck of the draw at this point.
Bennett has surpassed K as a Xs & Os coach and developer of talent at this point. We need to keep recruiting at a high level to keep up is essentially the takeaway here which I agree with.

Just give me more RJ's and Zion's and we"ll figure it out.

Nugget
04-09-2019, 03:49 PM
Heck, compare it to our own recruits from 2016: Marques Bolden (#11) and Javin DeLaurier (#36). Or 2017: O'Connell (69).
There is no guarantee that guys pan out.

That being said, Bennett deserves a lot of credit for helping consistently get those next-tier recruits and turn them into studs in the college game. He did it with Joe Harris. He did it with Brogdon. He did it with Hall. He did it with Hunter. He did it with Jerome. He did it with Perrantes. Not to mention the slew of bigs he's gotten value out of. Either he is spectacular at finding gems under the radar gems or he is spectacular at coaching these kids up into college stars (or both).

We've comparatively just not had anywhere near that kind of success with that level of recruit (30-150 range). It's really impressive that Bennett has done it consistently over a several-year stretch with so many different recruits. He's done it for long enough now that it doesn't feel like luck of the draw at this point.

Fair point -- Bennett's hit rate really is remarkable.

Steven43
04-09-2019, 04:07 PM
Heck, compare it to our own recruits from 2016: Marques Bolden (#11) and Javin DeLaurier (#36). Or 2017: O'Connell (69).
There is no guarantee that guys pan out.

That being said, Bennett deserves a lot of credit for helping consistently get those next-tier recruits and turn them into studs in the college game. He did it with Joe Harris. He did it with Brogdon. He did it with Hall. He did it with Hunter. He did it with Jerome. He did it with Perrantes. Not to mention the slew of bigs he's gotten value out of. Either he is spectacular at finding gems under the radar gems or he is spectacular at coaching these kids up into college stars (or both).

We've comparatively just not had anywhere near that kind of success with that level of recruit (30-150 range). It's really impressive that Bennett has done it consistently over a several-year stretch with so many different recruits. He's done it for long enough now that it doesn't feel like luck of the draw at this point.
Okay, I think the question has quite clearly become “How do we get this guy?”

GoDuke2015
04-09-2019, 04:20 PM
Bennett has surpassed K as a Xs & Os coach and developer of talent at this point.


uh...what? Tell that to Matt Jones, Miles Plumlee, Seth Curry, etc. You give K three-four years with these guys and they'll develop tremendously.

Rich
04-09-2019, 04:24 PM
Bennett has surpassed K as a Xs & Os coach and developer of talent at this point.

I'd say K's development of Luke Kennard, who would've been a senior on this team, was too good.

GoDuke2015
04-09-2019, 04:40 PM
Bennett has surpassed K as a Xs & Os coach and developer of talent at this point.

I'm sure UMBC agrees! K was one of only two coaches to beat him all year...and K did it twice (including once without his starting PG)!!

CDu
04-09-2019, 04:52 PM
uh...what? Tell that to Matt Jones, Miles Plumlee, Seth Curry, etc. You give K three-four years with these guys and they'll develop tremendously.

Yeah, none of these guys approached the level of play that Harris, Brogdon, Jerome, Hunter, and Guy did.


I'd say K's development of Luke Kennard, who would've been a senior on this team, was too good.

Kennard, who was a higher-rated recruit than any Tony Bennett recruit...

Don’t get me wrong: I am thrilled with the Duke program and wouldn’t trade it for anything. But let’s be honest here: Bennett’s consistent success this decade in finding lesser-tier recruits and making them college stars is REALLY impressive, and probably unmatched in the sport right now.

I would of course rather have Coach K’s recruits, but I have no problem giving Bennett credit where credit is due.

Kfanarmy
04-09-2019, 05:14 PM
I’m not trying to be rude here, but as pointed out earlier in this thread, Marvin Bagley was academic all-acc. He didn’t get that by mailing it in.

I know that is only one piece of evidence, but that is more evidence than you have for your “belief” that these kids don’t care about school.

You don’t know them, you just have a picture in your head of what you want them to be. Maybe some of them are just mercenaries, but you’ll find it tough sledding selling people on your belief about the character of these kids without any evidence to back it up.

This is just silly. Clearly there are Duke Basketball players who have NO intention of staying at Duke beyond a year. These colleges are being used like a farm system for the NBA and the students are knowingly participating, because they must. The fact that the OP laments that the system has changed from "kids playing basketball while getting their degree" to" kids going to class while getting to the NBA," doesn't mean OP is questioning their character. He is simply valuing the university over the NBA basketball farm site. Focus on basketball over university is where baby blue went wrong IMO.

Nugget
04-09-2019, 05:27 PM
I am thrilled with the Duke program and wouldn’t trade it for anything. But let’s be honest here: Bennett’s consistent success this decade in finding lesser-tier recruits and making them college stars is REALLY impressive, and probably unmatched in the sport right now.

I would of course rather have Coach K’s recruits, but I have no problem giving Bennett credit where credit is due.

Yep, on both counts. Also, I think Jay Wright deserves a fair amount of credit for player development also -- the vast majority of his two national title teams consisted of non-Top 20 recruits, except for Brunson.

-jk
04-09-2019, 06:06 PM
We could just turn into Davidson voluntarily.

Chicago went further.

(Farther? Someone have their style manual handy?)

-jk

richardjackson199
04-09-2019, 06:08 PM
Chicago went further.

(Farther? Someone have their style manual handy?)

-jk

Further is correct. Farther means literal distance only.

GoDuke2015
04-09-2019, 06:12 PM
But let’s be honest here: Bennett’s consistent success this decade in finding lesser-tier recruits and making them college stars is REALLY impressive, and probably unmatched in the sport right now.

Fair enough. Bennett is a great coach and he deserves all the credit he's getting. Does anyone know how much he's getting paid? Obviously, I don't think he leaves after this title, but couldn't a bigger program swoop in a pay him 2x, 3x what UVA is paying him?

richardjackson199
04-09-2019, 06:15 PM
Fair enough. Bennett is a great coach and he deserves all the credit he's getting. Does anyone know how much he's getting paid? Obviously, I don't think he leaves after this title, but couldn't a bigger program swoop in a pay him 2x, 3x what UVA is paying him?

Like an NBA team.

-jk
04-09-2019, 06:17 PM
Like an NBA team.

No NBA franchise wants anything to do with the Packline.

-jk

Dukehky
04-09-2019, 06:19 PM
Bennett has surpassed K as a Xs & Os coach and developer of talent at this point. We need to keep recruiting at a high level to keep up is essentially the takeaway here which I agree with.

Just give me more RJ's and Zion's and we"ll figure it out.

I know he just won a title, but Duke is the only team in the country that consistently beats UVA...

I really don't understand why so many people think K all of a sudden sucks at coaching the technical aspects of basketball just because Bennett has a system that won him his first title. Especially considering the fact that Duke changes its offense nearly every year to fit it's personnel. I'd say it's pretty incredible that K implements a new system each summer and Duke is as good on offense as they are. Whole lot easier to do the same stuff over and over.

I will also note that the changing of the system each year makes is substantially harder for role players to produce. Less talented players need the consistency of a system to be make up for that lesser talent. Knowing their roles and executing the system is what enables players to get way better as they advance.

Being able to adapt the offense around talent is both a blessing and a curse. It maximizes what your most talented players can do, but it makes it harder for role players to meaningfully contribute.

flyingdutchdevil
04-09-2019, 06:24 PM
I know he just won a title, but Duke is the only team in the country that consistently beats UVA...

I really don't understand why so many people think K all of a sudden sucks at coaching the technical aspects of basketball just because Bennett has a system that won him his first title.

Because Coach K gets the best recruits season in, season out and doesn’t live up to ACC nor Tournament expectations. It’s why I laugh when folks think he deserves votes for Coach of the Year. If recruiting was a criteria, sure. But if it’s getting the most of your team, absolutely not.

I agree with DukeTrinity - Bennett is the best Xs and Os coach and developer of talent in the ACC. And it ain’t close.

jgehtland
04-09-2019, 06:26 PM
This is just silly. Clearly there are Duke Basketball players who have NO intention of staying at Duke beyond a year. These colleges are being used like a farm system for the NBA and the students are knowingly participating, because they must. The fact that the OP laments that the system has changed from "kids playing basketball while getting their degree" to" kids going to class while getting to the NBA," doesn't mean OP is questioning their character. He is simply valuing the university over the NBA basketball farm site. Focus on basketball over university is where baby blue went wrong IMO.

“I just don't know how to respond to this … the fact you consider these players to be "student-athletes" is something I just cannot reconcile. I do not believe these OADs have any consideration whatsoever for the first part of that term.”

He literally said he doesn’t believe any of the one and dones cares at all about being a student. That is what he said. That’s a broad generalization with nothing but his own “belief” to back it up. Sure, some of these guys probably don’t care. That’s not what he said.

NSDukeFan
04-09-2019, 06:49 PM
Because Coach K gets the best recruits season in, season out and doesn’t live up to ACC nor Tournament expectations. It’s why I laugh when folks think he deserves votes for Coach of the Year. If recruiting was a criteria, sure. But if it’s getting the most of your team, absolutely not.

I agree with DukeTrinity - Bennett is the best Xs and Os coach and developer of talent in the ACC. And it ain’t close.

Why wouldn’t recruiting be part of the criteria? Who doesn’t believe that’s an important part of top level university coaching? Why would you laugh when people suggest coach K should get coach of the year votes? Is young talent such an advantage over experience that he doesn’t have to do anything? He has on occasion had to deal with injuries yet his teams are competitive every single year and you think it’s a joke that people on a Duke board might consider him deserving of coach of the year votes?

Pghdukie
04-09-2019, 07:12 PM
I'm as big a Duke fan as anyone, but I will revert to last year vs Kansas. Grayson drives and takes a shot that rolls off. Bagley would have been my play on an iso. This year, Barrett drives thru, gets mugged, and we know the result. Zion on an iso play would have been my play.
I am NOT PLAYING ARMCHAIR COACH. I'll bleed Duke blue forever. What ever K calls - I'll stick by him.

Rich
04-09-2019, 07:33 PM
Because Coach K gets the best recruits season in, season out and doesn’t live up to ACC nor Tournament expectations. It’s why I laugh when folks think he deserves votes for Coach of the Year. If recruiting was a criteria, sure. But if it’s getting the most of your team, absolutely not.


Why wouldn’t recruiting be part of the criteria? Who doesn’t believe that’s an important part of top level university coaching? Why would you laugh when people suggest coach K should get coach of the year votes? Is young talent such an advantage over experience that he doesn’t have to do anything? He has on occasion had to deal with injuries yet his teams are competitive every single year and you think it’s a joke that people on a Duke board might consider him deserving of coach of the year votes?

They said a similar thing about the USA Team - "I could coach those NBA players to a gold medal" -- until they started losing consistently, that is until Coach K righted the ship. There are different ways of coaching, and to say he doesn't get the most out of his team is laughable.

-jk
04-09-2019, 07:35 PM
I'm as big a Duke fan as anyone, but I will revert to last year vs Kansas. Grayson drives and takes a shot that rolls off. Bagley would have been my play on an iso. This year, Barrett drives thru, gets mugged, and we know the result. Zion on an iso play would have been my play.
I am NOT PLAYING ARMCHAIR COACH. I'll bleed Duke blue forever. What ever K calls - I'll stick by him.

I suspect both years ended with K's "B" plays (maybe "C"). The "A" plays were already shut down, one way or another...

-jk

SavDukeGrad
04-09-2019, 07:35 PM
I really like Tony Bennett and think he’s a great coach.

But don’t I remember that he red shirts most of his players? I don’t think he did with Guy and Jerome (Guy was a McD’s AA iirc), but I think he usually red shirts most of his players, especially the front court players (Hunter, Huff, etc).

This has 2 consequences that I see:
It hurts with the top recruits, since 5* players don’t want to redshirt. Which directly affects the guys he goes after.
And it really helps with player development, as you have an extra year to develop those players.

Edouble
04-09-2019, 07:37 PM
Bennett has surpassed K as a Xs & Os coach and developer of talent at this point. We need to keep recruiting at a high level to keep up is essentially the takeaway here which I agree with.

Curious if you felt this way about Bennett last season, with UVA coming off of a historic loss in the first round of the NCAAs, which followed on the heels of the biggest choke job I've ever seen in a Regional Final, in 2017 against Syracuse.

Bennett is a good coach. Coach K also beat him twice head to head this season.

Virginia also got extremely lucky in several tournament games this year. Their two overtime games, in particular, could have easily ended in a defeat in regulation with better game management by the opposing team/coach.

Hartford Dukie
04-09-2019, 07:44 PM
Perhaps this point has been made previously (if so, apologies) - but just to throw another log (gasoline?) on the fire, if Hampton (am a bit skeptical) and Hurt (quite confident) both come, then we are likely starting four freshmen and a sophomore next year. Hampton won't be coming to sit.

Devil2
04-09-2019, 07:45 PM
They said a similar thing about the USA Team - "I could coach those NBA players to a gold medal" -- until they started losing consistently, that is until Coach K righted the ship. There are different ways of coaching, and to say he doesn't get the most out of his team is laughable.

Let's not get too enamored with UVA. They squeaked to the championship winning two overtime games and one miracle play. They helped themselves win those games but also benefited from mistakes by the opposing team and officiating. As shown below they won their tournament games by the second smallest combined margin. They also had one of the easiest paths based upon combined seeds

Point Differential by a Tournament Winner: Update

Virginia got taken to overtime, but came out with an 8-point victory in the national final, thus finishing with a tournament point differential of +45, the second lowest point differential of a national champion in the shot clock era. 1997 Arizona still holds the lowest point differential in that time span, and they also had to go to overtime to win their championship game.
Year School Diff
1997 Arizona +32
2019 Virginia +45
2014 UConn +47
1988 Kansas +53
2003 Syracuse +54

HereBeforeCoachK
04-09-2019, 11:51 PM
Let's not get too enamored with UVA. They squeaked to the championship winning two overtime games and one miracle play. They helped themselves win those games but also benefited from mistakes by the opposing team and officiating. As shown below they won their tournament games by the second smallest combined margin. They also had one of the easiest paths based upon combined seeds

Point Differential by a Tournament Winner: Update

Virginia got taken to overtime, but came out with an 8-point victory in the national final, thus finishing with a tournament point differential of +45, the second lowest point differential of a national champion in the shot clock era. 1997 Arizona still holds the lowest point differential in that time span, and they also had to go to overtime to win their championship game.
Year School Diff
1997 Arizona +32
2019 Virginia +45
2014 UConn +47
1988 Kansas +53
2003 Syracuse +54

Interesting look back here. That 97 Arizona team was dead in the water versus College of Charleston in the first weekend, and somehow miraculously escaped...

lotusland
04-10-2019, 12:06 AM
UVA is going to hoist a championship banner which they earned. I’m very enamered with their accomplishments this year.

JetpackJesus
04-10-2019, 01:07 AM
I really like Tony Bennett and think he’s a great coach.

But don’t I remember that he red shirts most of his players? I don’t think he did with Guy and Jerome (Guy was a McD’s AA iirc), but I think he usually red shirts most of his players, especially the front court players (Hunter, Huff, etc).

This has 2 consequences that I see:
It hurts with the top recruits, since 5* players don’t want to redshirt. Which directly affects the guys he goes after.
And it really helps with player development, as you have an extra year to develop those players.
Hunter was a 4-star recruit. Huff was a 4-star recruit that was 6'11" and 190lbs when he arrived on campus.

Guy was 4-star and did not red shirt.

I don't think 5-star recruits are going to shy away from UVA because of red shirts to 4-star recruits.

If you're good enough, Bennet will play you, I think. Now, if we're talking about Roy...

jgehtland
04-10-2019, 06:46 AM
Yeah, none of these guys approached the level of play that Harris, Brogdon, Jerome, Hunter, and Guy did.


A tiny nit to pick: Seth Curry quite definitely DID play at their level - and may have exceeded it were it not for a season- long injury that kept him out of practice. Seth’s junior/season stats compare quite well with Guy, for example.

indy1duke
04-10-2019, 07:30 AM
Let's not get too enamored with UVA. They squeaked to the championship winning two overtime games and one miracle play. They helped themselves win those games but also benefited from mistakes by the opposing team and officiating. As shown below they won their tournament games by the second smallest combined margin. They also had one of the easiest paths based upon combined seeds

Point Differential by a Tournament Winner: Update

Virginia got taken to overtime, but came out with an 8-point victory in the national final, thus finishing with a tournament point differential of +45, the second lowest point differential of a national champion in the shot clock era. 1997 Arizona still holds the lowest point differential in that time span, and they also had to go to overtime to win their championship game.
Year School Diff
1997 Arizona +32
2019 Virginia +45
2014 UConn +47
1988 Kansas +53
2003 Syracuse +54

Interesting chart. I think the calculations could be improved by using 0 as the imput for overtime games. Virginia’s 8 point victory is truly misleading in a vacuum.

CDu
04-10-2019, 07:59 AM
A tiny nit to pick: Seth Curry quite definitely DID play at their level - and may have exceeded it were it not for a season- long injury that kept him out of practice. Seth’s junior/season stats compare quite well with Guy, for example.

Fair point. I will amend to say we have had one lower-rated guy to reach the level of the long list of guys at UVa this decade. And worth noting that that one guy was a transfer who had already shown elite scoring chops in college before being recruited by Duke.

weezie
04-10-2019, 08:18 AM
Curious if you felt this way about Bennett last season, with UVA coming off of a historic loss in the first round of the NCAAs, which followed on the heels of the biggest choke job I've ever seen in a Regional Final, in 2017 against Syracuse.

Bennett is a good coach. Coach K also beat him twice head to head this season.

Virginia also got extremely lucky in several tournament games this year. Their two overtime games, in particular, could have easily ended in a defeat in regulation with better game management by the opposing team/coach.


This needs repeating.

uh_no
04-10-2019, 08:27 AM
This needs repeating.

not really. it sounds like being a sore loser...the same kind of things we complained UNC fans said after our 2010 title.

devildeac
04-10-2019, 08:30 AM
Curious if you felt this way about Bennett last season, with UVA coming off of a historic loss in the first round of the NCAAs, which followed on the heels of the biggest choke job I've ever seen in a Regional Final, in 2017 against Syracuse.

Bennett is a good coach. Coach K also beat him twice head to head this season.

Virginia also got extremely lucky in several tournament games this year. Their two overtime games, in particular, could have easily ended in a defeat in regulation with better game management by the opposing team/coach.

Interesting story my wife shared with me about Bennett from a friend who attended a UVa FB game in 2009 and met Tony outside the stadium as the new coach was handing out pocket schedules for the MBB team and inviting the FB game attendees to come to a basketball game that season. My, how times have changed...

jgehtland
04-10-2019, 09:03 AM
not really. it sounds like being a sore loser...the same kind of things we complained UNC fans said after our 2010 title.

I don’t think so ... the poster is responding to people making declarative statements about how Bennet is better than K. The response to that is, essentially, “recency bias”. I don’t think anybody is using last year to say “Bennet is a bad coach” or even to say they don’t deserve this year’s title. Just that, perhaps, winning a title doesn’t automatically make you better than they guy with the most all time wins. ;)

I could be wrong; ascribing motives to other people is a poor way to spend my time, I’m sure.

kybluedevil
04-10-2019, 09:42 AM
ORIGINAL POSTER HERE:

Let's view this thread simply from an entertainment viewpoint. This year was an exception with Zion being a once-in-a-generational talent. That being said, I would argue that having kids stick around for 2+ years is simply better for Duke (or even KY) fans and basketball as a whole. It's hard to invest a lot of time and emotional energy into a squad that you will only see for 1 (or 2 years). Yes, we are not going to the final four very year. But give me a Ryan Kelly to develop over time than a 1AD.

Also, this may be a moot point with the NBA rule sunsetting. But I doubt Coach K will be at the helm to take advantage of mentoring/coaching student athletes in the mid 2020's.

Interesting comments re: Bennet getting guys ranked in #30-50s. Duke didn't seem to be having same success prior to 2010 season with McDonald AA's and returning players.

Go Duke

RPS
04-10-2019, 10:24 AM
Let's view this thread simply from an entertainment viewpoint.
Interesting thread, with reasonable arguments on all sides. However, it appears to me that the key issue has not been addressed: How is big-time college basketball (either/both the Duke/UVA models) consistent with the mission of a major research university?

75Crazie
04-10-2019, 11:15 AM
Interesting thread, with reasonable arguments on all sides. However, it appears to me that the key issue has not been addressed: How is big-time college basketball (either/both the Duke/UVA models) consistent with the mission of a major research university?
Thank you for stating the key issue so succinctly, but I would quibble with one thing … you frame it for a "major research university" … I would make it broader and frame it for any institution of higher learning. And I would answer that for many P5 universities, it is NOT consistent, primarily because those basketball programs have positioned themselves (due to circumstances only partly under their control) as the only feasible path for progression to professional basketball for those high school players who are not quite ready to jump directly to the NBA. The system works for those percentage of players who can compete to some degree in the academic world of such institutions … it fails for those players who have no ability or inclination to compete in that world.

jgehtland
04-10-2019, 11:17 AM
Interesting thread, with reasonable arguments on all sides. However, it appears to me that the key issue has not been addressed: How is big-time college basketball (either/both the Duke/UVA models) consistent with the mission of a major research university?

I would argue that a University's main jobs are:

1) to prepare students to participate in a vocation after they leave school, and
2) to be a center for research

Varsity athletics of all types are fertile ground for all kinds of research, which I'm sure is part of the package of being a student athlete. More particularly, some of the athletes that roll through major universities intend to pursue that sport as their livelihood (more in basketball and football, I'm sure, but also golf, tennis, and the like. This is even true of some of the "olympic" athletes). When a golfer leaves after two years, or a tennis player, etc., this handwringing seldom if ever arises. More importantly, and I've brought this up a before, nobody cares when the guy who founded Bungie dropped out after his sophomore year to start a video game company, and nobody cared when the kid left after his freshman year to be a LucasArts designer. If you come to school to get better at what you want to do with your life, and then you get an opportunity to go do that thing, it is PART of the mission of the school to send you merrily on your way, and WELCOME YOU BACK if you decide more education is wanted/needed.

While on campus, athletes should have to meet the same requirements as the rest of the student population to maintain good standing; otherwise, if you get a chance to jumpstart your career (in whatever field) why not take it? And why should the University care?

Ian
04-10-2019, 11:33 AM
I don’t think so ... the poster is responding to people making declarative statements about how Bennet is better than K. The response to that is, essentially, “recency bias”. I don’t think anybody is using last year to say “Bennet is a bad coach” or even to say they don’t deserve this year’s title. Just that, perhaps, winning a title doesn’t automatically make you better than they guy with the most all time wins. ;)

I could be wrong; ascribing motives to other people is a poor way to spend my time, I’m sure.


Of course winning a title doesn't automatically make you the best, Kevin Ollie has a title too. But Bennett has a much larger body of work than that, winning the title is a big deal for him because it was the only thing that was keeping him from being called the best. If you take the last 3 seasons as a whole, no other team, not even Duke, has a comparable regular season record, conference record, and now after his title, no team has a better NCAA Tournament record. And he has accomplished this without landing the kind of heralded recruiting classes that Duke has been getting.

Now it doesn't make him a better coach than Coach K when you compare careers, but recency bias or not, Coach K is at the tailend of his career, and Bennett is in the prime of his, so I think a good argument (and one that I'm inclined to agree with) can be made that right now and for the near future, Bennett is best coach in college basketball.

RPS
04-10-2019, 12:31 PM
Thank you for stating the key issue so succinctly, but I would quibble with one thing … you frame it for a "major research university" … I would make it broader and frame it for any institution of higher learning.
I completely agree with your point. I was merely framing the issue for Duke.

RPS
04-10-2019, 12:44 PM
I would argue that a University's main jobs are:

1) to prepare students to participate in a vocation after they leave school, and
2) to be a center for research

I disagree with (1), as I see a major distinction between a university (especially a great one) and a vocational school. I think the focus should be education over vocation.


When a golfer leaves after two years, or a tennis player, etc., this handwringing seldom if ever arises. More importantly, and I've brought this up a before, nobody cares when the guy who founded Bungie dropped out after his sophomore year to start a video game company, and nobody cared when the kid left after his freshman year to be a LucasArts designer.
I have no issue with talented students leaving for great opportunity. I take issue with a university program that is (a) not designed primarily for education; and (b) designed for students to leave without completing their degree.

DarkstarWahoo
04-10-2019, 01:27 PM
@RPS and @jgehtland both make great points that I have nothing to add to except:

I did not go to business school. You know who else didn't go to business school? LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant.

75Crazie
04-10-2019, 01:31 PM
Varsity athletics of all types are fertile ground for all kinds of research, which I'm sure is part of the package of being a student athlete. More particularly, some of the athletes that roll through major universities intend to pursue that sport as their livelihood (more in basketball and football, I'm sure, but also golf, tennis, and the like. This is even true of some of the "olympic" athletes). When a golfer leaves after two years, or a tennis player, etc., this handwringing seldom if ever arises. More importantly, and I've brought this up a before, nobody cares when the guy who founded Bungie dropped out after his sophomore year to start a video game company, and nobody cared when the kid left after his freshman year to be a LucasArts designer. If you come to school to get better at what you want to do with your life, and then you get an opportunity to go do that thing, it is PART of the mission of the school to send you merrily on your way, and WELCOME YOU BACK if you decide more education is wanted/needed.
I mostly agree with your statements, but not with the analogy you are drawing. In general, the student who leaves because of a better opportunity made it into college on his/her own academic merits and at least initially intends to pursue a degree. If such a student is not on some sort of scholarship and decides to leave for greener pastures, that is his/her own business (a scholarship muddies the waters a bit, and brings into question whether the cost of that scholarship should be repaid at some point). A basketball or football player at a P5 institution will often (I would even say usually) not make it into that school on his/her academic merits alone and, in a not-insignificant percent of cases (my opinion, admittedly), have little to no interest in pursuing a degree. I consider that to be a significant issue with your analogy.


While on campus, athletes should have to meet the same requirements as the rest of the student population to maintain good standing; otherwise, if you get a chance to jumpstart your career (in whatever field) why not take it? And why should the University care?
I agree whole-heartedly with your first statement … but disagree with the last. I would think a good university would care a great deal about student retention; graduation rates are, if nothing else, a source of pride.

CDu
04-10-2019, 01:36 PM
I agree whole-heartedly with your first statement … but disagree with the last. I would think a good university would care a great deal about student retention; graduation rates are, if nothing else, a source of pride.

Do you think Harvard is disappointed with having Bill Gates as an alumnus because he didn't graduate?

EKU1969
04-10-2019, 01:56 PM
In this day and age of high tech, there are less and less disciplines that require actual degrees; Medicine, education, law come to mind as needing degrees. I know many people who have done nicely in business, upper management in construction and transportation, and even environmental sciences without degrees.
Would making degrees available in sports related disciplines help alleviate our consternation?

PackMan97
04-10-2019, 02:08 PM
What does it say that the recent UVA & UNC teams bear more in similarity to the "old" Duke teams than what Duke is fielding these days?


First of all, Duke should NEVER NEVER strive to be anything like UNC. They are cheaters with no honor or integrity. So, that's a non-starter...NOW ARE YOU SAYING THAT the Duke teams of old had athletes that didn't go to class, enrolled in a fake degree program and were put on probation by their academic accrediting agency for academic fraud...in which case "you got some 'splaining to do".

Second, UNC's recent run of upperclassmen has only been accomplished by holding back NBA prospects their freshmen and sophomore years to let them bloom as juniors and seniors. All you have to look at is UNC's top recruits over the past decade. They have typically been the last of the Top 20, or last of the burger boys still enrolled in college. It's one of the reasons that Roy's recruiting has suffered until very recently. Top recruits notice that the way to get to the NBA is not to go to UNC.

So, maybe UVa's teams are a bit like the Duke teams of old...but please never compare yourself to the cesspool to your south.

clinresga
04-10-2019, 02:19 PM
I mostly agree with your statements, but not with the analogy you are drawing. In general, the student who leaves because of a better opportunity made it into college on his/her own academic merits and at least initially intends to pursue a degree.
This distinction between "academic" and "athletic," characterizing one as noble and desirable, and the other as somehow unseemly and unworthy of respect, is at the least pedantic, and at the most, classist and even edging towards racist. D-1 OADs have spent their lives working extraordinarily hard to perfect a combination of mental and physical skills that are far beyond the average person's abilities. Why do we extol a performing violinist, who practices mental and physical disciplines to perform music, as "academically acceptable," but not a basketball player who does the same kinds of training? Why is music intrinsically superior to athletics? OADs make it into colleges on their own merits. You may choose to call them non-academic but I think that's artificial.


If such a student is not on some sort of scholarship and decides to leave for greener pastures, that is his/her own business (a scholarship muddies the waters a bit, and brings into question whether the cost of that scholarship should be repaid at some point).

Of course it should be their own decision. And please show me the last time any college took a student who received an academic scholarship based on grades, had the student leave early for a 6 figure job at Alphabet, and had the college attempt to recoup the money given to that student for the scholarship.


A basketball or football player at a P5 institution will often (I would even say usually) not make it into that school on his/her academic merits alone and, in a not-insignificant percent of cases (my opinion, admittedly), have little to no interest in pursuing a degree. I consider that to be a significant issue with your analogy.

The OAD makes it into college based on extraordinary achievement in their field of expertise. Like any comp sci major these days, they are less concerned over a degree than using college as a jumping off point for a fabulous career. If I were a sophomore holding an offer from Facebook to start at $200K, I'd be a fool to stay two more years to study more computer science when I'd learn it infinitely better from the best coders in the world at FB. Ditto for the NBA.

75Crazie
04-10-2019, 03:42 PM
This distinction between "academic" and "athletic," characterizing one as noble and desirable, and the other as somehow unseemly and unworthy of respect, is at the least pedantic, and at the most, classist and even edging towards racist. D-1 OADs have spent their lives working extraordinarily hard to perfect a combination of mental and physical skills that are far beyond the average person's abilities. Why do we extol a performing violinist, who practices mental and physical disciplines to perform music, as "academically acceptable," but not a basketball player who does the same kinds of training? Why is music intrinsically superior to athletics? OADs make it into colleges on their own merits. You may choose to call them non-academic but I think that's artificial.
Oh, please, you are extrapolating wildly. There is very little correlation between music students and scholarship athletes. There are accepted academic programs for music students that are tuned to their intended vocation; I suggest the academic programs that many college basketball and football players are placed in were put into place specifically to get those athletes through to graduation with a minimum of friction. But even that is beside the point. I accept that there are some athletes who do intend on getting some sort of a degree in some sort of actual study program; my point is that a high percentage of upper tier athletes have no such intent and never will.

Your statement that the distinction between "academic" and "athletic" is potentially racist is incredibly insulting. Colleges and universities are academic institutions, first and foremost. I am advocating for an alternate path for athletes in high-revenue sports that does not involve participation in such an academic environment; preferably, something similar to the baseball model, where an aspiring athlete can choose between a path tailored solely for the sport and a path that combines academics and athletics. I flat refuse to acknowledge any racist component of such a desired model.

And your statement that "OADs make it into colleges on their own merits" is facetious; those merits have nothing whatsoever to do with the academic studies that they get placed in.

JetpackJesus
04-10-2019, 03:56 PM
ORIGINAL POSTER HERE:

Let's view this thread simply from an entertainment viewpoint. This year was an exception with Zion being a once-in-a-generational talent. That being said, I would argue that having kids stick around for 2+ years is simply better for Duke (or even KY) fans and basketball as a whole. It's hard to invest a lot of time and emotional energy into a squad that you will only see for 1 (or 2 years). Yes, we are not going to the final four very year. But give me a Ryan Kelly to develop over time than a 1AD.

Also, this may be a moot point with the NBA rule sunsetting. But I doubt Coach K will be at the helm to take advantage of mentoring/coaching student athletes in the mid 2020's.

Interesting comments re: Bennet getting guys ranked in #30-50s. Duke didn't seem to be having same success prior to 2010 season with McDonald AA's and returning players.

Go Duke
I guess I can't relate to the bold because my time and emotional energy are invested in the name on the front of the jerseys and not the names on the back. I can understand liking certain players more than others--I'm sure we all have favorites--but that does not factor into my love for Duke or its basketball program.

jgehtland
04-10-2019, 04:34 PM
Oh, please, you are extrapolating wildly. There is very little correlation between music students and scholarship athletes. There are accepted academic programs for music students that are tuned to their intended vocation; I suggest the academic programs that many college basketball and football players are placed in were put into place specifically to get those athletes through to graduation with a minimum of friction. But even that is beside the point. I accept that there are some athletes who do intend on getting some sort of a degree in some sort of actual study program; my point is that a high percentage of upper tier athletes have no such intent and never will.

Your statement that the distinction between "academic" and "athletic" is potentially racist is incredibly insulting. Colleges and universities are academic institutions, first and foremost. I am advocating for an alternate path for athletes in high-revenue sports that does not involve participation in such an academic environment; preferably, something similar to the baseball model, where an aspiring athlete can choose between a path tailored solely for the sport and a path that combines academics and athletics. I flat refuse to acknowledge any racist component of such a desired model.

And your statement that "OADs make it into colleges on their own merits" is facetious; those merits have nothing whatsoever to do with the academic studies that they get placed in.

Take the racist bit out - of course the athletes made it into school on their own merits. *I* couldn't have earned an athletic scholarship to Duke in any way, shape or form. Why? I didn't put in the effort to develop my skills they way they did. I think the discussion was rather: why *can't* we envision a world where the study of athletics is treated the way the study of music is? Music majors have to take broad based education courses (math, languages, etc.) and so should athletes. But music majors get to take the majority of their classes in performance, training on their instruments, etc. Why isn't that true of athletes? Why is the performance of a highly trained physical skill assumed to be different in those two cases?

Just imagine a world where you replaced all the orchestra classes and piano instruction with similar athletic endeavors. Now let's poke holes in THAT.

PackMan97
04-10-2019, 04:47 PM
. But music majors get to take the majority of their classes in performance, training on their instruments, etc. Why isn't that true of athletes? Why is the performance of a highly trained physical skill assumed to be different in those two cases?

It is true of athletes. There are many schools that have excellent BFA programs in the performing arts using the human body as the means of expression. One is even located in North Carolina, the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF THE ARTS . They have excellent ballet and contemporary dance programs.

Oh, I think I understand now...the playing of a GAME is considered a lesser performance than art.

JetpackJesus
04-10-2019, 05:13 PM
Oh, please, you are extrapolating wildly. There is very little correlation between music students and scholarship athletes. There are accepted academic programs for music students that are tuned to their intended vocation; I suggest the academic programs that many college basketball and football players are placed in were put into place specifically to get those athletes through to graduation with a minimum of friction. But even that is beside the point. I accept that there are some athletes who do intend on getting some sort of a degree in some sort of actual study program; my point is that a high percentage of upper tier athletes have no such intent and never will.

Your statement that the distinction between "academic" and "athletic" is potentially racist is incredibly insulting. Colleges and universities are academic institutions, first and foremost. I am advocating for an alternate path for athletes in high-revenue sports that does not involve participation in such an academic environment; preferably, something similar to the baseball model, where an aspiring athlete can choose between a path tailored solely for the sport and a path that combines academics and athletics. I flat refuse to acknowledge any racist component of such a desired model.

And your statement that "OADs make it into colleges on their own merits" is facetious; those merits have nothing whatsoever to do with the academic studies that they get placed in.

The bold is utter nonsense. Remember you are posting on DBR, not IC. Here is a list (https://trinity.duke.edu/undergraduate/majors-minors) of academic programs offered at Duke (Trinity). Which ones were put into place for athletes?

MartyClark
04-10-2019, 05:34 PM
The value of a college education is an interesting issue these days. I put 2 1/2 of my 3 kids through undergraduate education and think it was a good investment. My 3d kid dropped out after two years and is pursuing some artistic/trade options. I made my other two pay for their graduate degrees which they did with different results. One son got a Masters in Arabic Studies from Georgetown. This has worked well for him. The Georgetown brand and alumni support is wonderful. His twin brother got a Masters in International Studies from the University of Denver. The program wasn't good, they gave him no vocational support. He finally managed to find a job with a Human Rights organization in New York. His master's degree was a waste of money and D.U., despite Condaleeza Rice and claiming to be the 7th best master's program in the field, was a joke.

I am a firm believer in the value of a liberal arts education for young people. I think we all benefit from having informed, smart, young people who are voting and making decisions about our country's future. At the same time, the cost of a college degree is crazy expensive. There are trades and occupations that don't require a college degree. Really smart, computer oriented kids can go to coding school and succeed or fail without the economic detriment of college debt.

-jk
04-10-2019, 05:44 PM
It is true of athletes. There are many schools that have excellent BFA programs in the performing arts using the human body as the means of expression. One is even located in North Carolina, the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF THE ARTS . They have excellent ballet and contemporary dance programs.

Oh, I think I understand now...the playing of a GAME is considered a lesser performance than art.

I have a nephew studying voice there. Or is he playing? Well, no, I guess not "playing"; that's the other nephew who studies piano, or maybe my kid with his double bass. (But, Lord knows, my kid plays way more than he studies!)

-jk

75Crazie
04-10-2019, 05:49 PM
The bold is utter nonsense. Remember you are posting on DBR, not IC. Here is a list (https://trinity.duke.edu/undergraduate/majors-minors) of academic programs offered at Duke (Trinity). Which ones were put into place for athletes?
I was referring to college basketball and football in general, particularly P5 schools, and not Duke in particular. I have previously posted elsewhere on this board that, until the past several years, I took pride in the rigor of the admittance process and academic program for Duke athletes as compared to most other schools. The only reason I qualify "the past several years" is because I am no longer convinced of the academic program rigor in the case of OADs. Maybe it is still there, I don't know … but the image of it suffers when so many basketball players leave after or during their first year. A different thread just started indicates that most Duke OADs do in fact complete their second semester classes; if this is true, it does cause me some little bit of pride.

clinresga
04-10-2019, 06:34 PM
Oh, please, you are extrapolating wildly. There is very little correlation between music students and scholarship athletes. There are accepted academic programs for music students that are tuned to their intended vocation; I suggest the academic programs that many college basketball and football players are placed in were put into place specifically to get those athletes through to graduation with a minimum of friction. But even that is beside the point. I accept that there are some athletes who do intend on getting some sort of a degree in some sort of actual study program; my point is that a high percentage of upper tier athletes have no such intent and never will.

You miss my point. I think there's a valid argument that the actual act of playing basketball can be considered an honorable educational (dare I say "academic") enterprise. It can be part of the mission of the school. It can be a mental and physical challenge that leads to personal growth. It is, at least until the NBA puts an end to the absurd OAD rule itself, a necessary step on the path to a career, just as a college degree is prerequisite for a budding lawyer. And we can argue all day about why you think that playing a sport at the highest level is a less honorable way to spend a year in college than playing the bassoon.


Your statement that the distinction between "academic" and "athletic" is potentially racist is incredibly insulting. Colleges and universities are academic institutions, first and foremost. I am advocating for an alternate path for athletes in high-revenue sports that does not involve participation in such an academic environment; preferably, something similar to the baseball model, where an aspiring athlete can choose between a path tailored solely for the sport and a path that combines academics and athletics. I flat refuse to acknowledge any racist component of such a desired model.

The "hint" of racism I made passing reference to is not an accusation that you, or anyone else in this debate, is a racist. It's more a subtle cultural perception that I wonder about: could there be an unconscious tendency in society to take activities associated with the minority communities (say, basketball, rap music) and assume they are somehow intellectually less worthy than activities associated with the majority Eurocentric community (ballet, classical music). I think sports are cool, thought provoking, and capable of creating joy in a way that compares to, say, classical music. I do not think that sports are "below" an "academic institution." PackMan97 hits that attitude on the head: "it's a game, so it's not worthy."


And your statement that "OADs make it into colleges on their own merits" is facetious; those merits have nothing whatsoever to do with the academic studies that they get placed in.

Again, if you understand that I think the act of playing basketball at an OAD level IS the academic study that OADs are pursuing, then you'd see that I am totally correct. They are in college because they have, through a combination of talent, hard work, and excellent teaching, made it into college on the basis of their own merits.

PackMan97
04-10-2019, 08:17 PM
I have a nephew studying voice there. Or is he playing? Well, no, I guess not "playing"; that's the other nephew who studies piano, or maybe my kid with his double bass. (But, Lord knows, my kid plays way more than he studies!)

-jk

Do you think they would kick him out of school if he went on American idol, or maybe America's got talent?

clinresga
04-11-2019, 08:45 AM
Do you think they would kick him out of school if he went on American idol, or maybe America's got talent?


Yup, that's the point.

I do think that the concept of higher education is broadening and while it's a bit counter-intuitive, I wonder if some day that pursuing athletics at a very high level will be given "academic" respect. Heck, they give out scholarships for playing in the marching band, so I presume that having a band play at your football games is considered a valid academic exercise. Why is what the guys on the field are doing somehow less worthy?

PackMan97
04-11-2019, 09:43 AM
Yup, that's the point.

I do think that the concept of higher education is broadening and while it's a bit counter-intuitive, I wonder if some day that pursuing athletics at a very high level will be given "academic" respect. Heck, they give out scholarships for playing in the marching band, so I presume that having a band play at your football games is considered a valid academic exercise. Why is what the guys on the field are doing somehow less worthy?

I have no problem with athletes getting graded...I remember from PE at NC State...those were TOUGH classes to get an A in. IIRC for basketball you needed a really good time in various agility skills, you needed to be able to hit 80% FT's and there was some sort of rebounding/tip drill that you needed an ungodly high number for to ace the skills portion of the class. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a kid who makes 50% of his FT's or has too high of a turnover rate should earn a failing grade ;)

75Crazie
04-11-2019, 09:51 AM
Again, if you understand that I think the act of playing basketball at an OAD level IS the academic study that OADs are pursuing, then you'd see that I am totally correct. They are in college because they have, through a combination of talent, hard work, and excellent teaching, made it into college on the basis of their own merits.
OK, I think I see the direction you are coming from … a right angle to reality, but still I see it. In case it is not obvious … I am buying nothing of what you are trying to hawk.

CDu
04-11-2019, 09:56 AM
OK, I think I see the direction you are coming from … a right angle to reality, but still I see it. In case it is not obvious … I am buying nothing of what you are trying to hawk.

So do you think pursuing an education in playing piano is worthy of a degree program, but an education in playing sports is not? And if so, why? And if you don't think that, then what exactly do you not agree with in his or her suggestion?

EKU1969
04-11-2019, 09:57 AM
And, in the team concept drills, the “ gets along well with others” needs to be high😂. Seriously, I agree that high level college athletics are disciplines unto themselves and athletes should be accorded recognition as such. If they are good enough to leave after one year, or one semester, so be it. Having said that, perhaps getting rid of OAD will bring back The 4 year players that so many on this board seem to desire (maybe not🤭).

uh_no
04-11-2019, 10:01 AM
OK, I think I see the direction you are coming from … a right angle to reality, but still I see it. In case it is not obvious … I am buying nothing of what you are trying to hawk.

I'm not trying to prey on your using the wrong homophone here, but I think your line of reasoning is cuckoo :D :D

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-11-2019, 10:14 AM
You miss my point. I think there's a valid argument that the actual act of playing basketball can be considered an honorable educational (dare I say "academic") enterprise. It can be part of the mission of the school. It can be a mental and physical challenge that leads to personal growth. It is, at least until the NBA puts an end to the absurd OAD rule itself, a necessary step on the path to a career, just as a college degree is prerequisite for a budding lawyer. And we can argue all day about why you think that playing a sport at the highest level is a less honorable way to spend a year in college than playing the bassoon.



The "hint" of racism I made passing reference to is not an accusation that you, or anyone else in this debate, is a racist. It's more a subtle cultural perception that I wonder about: could there be an unconscious tendency in society to take activities associated with the minority communities (say, basketball, rap music) and assume they are somehow intellectually less worthy than activities associated with the majority Eurocentric community (ballet, classical music). I think sports are cool, thought provoking, and capable of creating joy in a way that compares to, say, classical music. I do not think that sports are "below" an "academic institution." PackMan97 hits that attitude on the head: "it's a game, so it's not worthy."


Again, if you understand that I think the act of playing basketball at an OAD level IS the academic study that OADs are pursuing, then you'd see that I am totally correct. They are in college because they have, through a combination of talent, hard work, and excellent teaching, made it into college on the basis of their own merits.

I consider myself incredibly sensitive to racial bias and/or language - I've often taken some unpopular stances on this board for it. However, saying that a university not embracing top tier athletics and all the baggage that goes along with it is acting in a racist manner is wholly absurd. A college has every right to carve out its own mission, and if it decides to be wholly dedicated to academic endeavors, it ought to follow that path. Suggesting that a school that isn't offering athletic scholarships to top basketball recruits is being racist is similar to arguing that a hospital ought to send people out to fight fires. It simply doesn't pass muster.

There's a lot of folks on this board who want Duke to roll back their way of doing things to a previous era - I frequently agree with lots of their points. It does feel in some ways like Power Conference Sports and Duke basketball in particular have "jumped the shark," and are no longer fulfilling the mission of institutions of higher learning, but are rather revenue and marketing streams that frequently actually run counter to providing academic opportunities in some ways. But, personally, using a racial sensitivity argument to validate some of these changes rings incredibly false to me.

Lurkingdukedog
04-11-2019, 10:19 AM
Do you think Harvard is disappointed with having Bill Gates as an alumnus because he didn't graduate?

Not to pick nits but I don't think one can qualify as an alumnus if one doesn't graduate

CDu
04-11-2019, 10:30 AM
Not to pick nits but I don't think one can qualify as an alumnus if one doesn't graduate

You might want to check Webster's on this. ;) It's a common mistake to assume that only graduates are alumni.

Truth&Justise
04-11-2019, 10:55 AM
I consider myself incredibly sensitive to racial bias and/or language - I've often taken some unpopular stances on this board for it. However, saying that a university not embracing top tier athletics and all the baggage that goes along with it is acting in a racist manner is wholly absurd. A college has every right to carve out its own mission, and if it decides to be wholly dedicated to academic endeavors, it ought to follow that path. Suggesting that a school that isn't offering athletic scholarships to top basketball recruits is being racist is similar to arguing that a hospital ought to send people out to fight fires. It simply doesn't pass muster.


I think clinresga fairly adressed this point: it is baked into the definition of what we consider "academic endeavors." As was stated in the portion you quoted:


The "hint" of racism I made passing reference to is not an accusation that you, or anyone else in this debate, is a racist. It's more a subtle cultural perception that I wonder about: could there be an unconscious tendency in society to take activities associated with the minority communities (say, basketball, rap music) and assume they are somehow intellectually less worthy than activities associated with the majority Eurocentric community (ballet, classical music).

And it gets back to the question that has been asked in this thread multiple times: why is classical music (or any other performance art) considered "academic" but athletics are not? It's not unfounded to suggest that unconscious racial biases have played a role in what fields are recognized as worthy of the academy, and what fields are excluded.

CDu
04-11-2019, 11:12 AM
I think clinresga fairly adressed this point: it is baked into the definition of what we consider "academic endeavors." As was stated in the portion you quoted:



And it gets back to the question that has been asked in this thread multiple times: why is classical music (or any other performance art) considered "academic" but athletics are not? It's not unfounded to suggest that unconscious racial biases have played a role in what fields are recognized as worthy of the academy, and what fields are excluded.

Yep. I admit that, prior to this discussion, I also was okay with "the arts" being educational but athletics being not. It simply hadn't been something I'd considered before. But this discussion has made me actually think about it, and in doing so I don't have a good reason why one should be considered academic and the other not. It seems totally reasonable to me to argue that if studying piano in college is suitable for a major, that studying basketball should be too.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-11-2019, 11:16 AM
I think clinresga fairly adressed this point: it is baked into the definition of what we consider "academic endeavors." As was stated in the portion you quoted:



And it gets back to the question that has been asked in this thread multiple times: why is classical music (or any other performance art) considered "academic" but athletics are not? It's not unfounded to suggest that unconscious racial biases have played a role in what fields are recognized as worthy of the academy, and what fields are excluded.

Thanks for the reply and the measured response. I still don't see it. I don't fault Mc Donalds for not selling tacos, making them racist against Latinos.

Also, the idea that revenue sports are "black culture" on par with rap music doesn't really wash with me either.

Of course, perhaps I am being disingenuous, in that I do see view the rules not allowing athletes to receive meaningful revenue for their work as having a racial component. So, I guess it is difficult to make those two views agree.

I guess I wouldn't fault a college or university for not wanting a music program either.

*shrugs* I will bow out of this discussion unless someone asks me further direct questions.

75Crazie
04-11-2019, 12:58 PM
I'm not trying to prey on your using the wrong homophone here, but I think your line of reasoning is cuckoo :D :D
Not sure I understand. According to the Free Dictionary, one of the definitions of "hawker" ("one who sells goods aggressively, especially by calling out") is "a person who hawks wares", indicating that "hawk" should indeed be a correct verb Anyway, that was the meaning I was referencing. Now, about that "cuckoo" statement ...

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-11-2019, 01:02 PM
Not sure I understand. According to the Free Dictionary, one of the definitions of "hawker" ("one who sells goods aggressively, especially by calling out") is "a person who hawks wares", indicating that "hawk" should indeed be a correct verb Anyway, that was the meaning I was referencing. Now, about that "cuckoo" statement ...

Yes, different than "hocking" something.

75Crazie
04-11-2019, 01:04 PM
So do you think pursuing an education in playing piano is worthy of a degree program, but an education in playing sports is not? And if so, why? And if you don't think that, then what exactly do you not agree with in his or her suggestion?
An education in "playing" sports? No, I am most definitely of the opinion that that is not a valid college program, and is instead a poor justification for the behavior of modern collegiate sports programs. What would a bachelor degree in playing football be called, specifically? Now, an education in "teaching" sports, or music, or …? Sure, I can get that. But still this argument is specious, because my contention is that OADs have, for the most part, no interest at all in a college degree in any program … not even sports administration. I grant that there are exceptions, but I believe (without any definitive proof) that my contention is largely correct.

devildeac
04-11-2019, 01:17 PM
I'm not trying to prey on your using the wrong homophone here, but I think your line of reasoning is cuckoo :D :D

This discussion is for the birds, but I suspect they'll still be a lot of (h)owling.

CDu
04-11-2019, 01:23 PM
An education in "playing" sports? No, I am most definitely of the opinion that that is not a valid college program, and is instead a poor justification for the behavior of modern collegiate sports programs. What would a bachelor degree in playing football be called, specifically? Now, an education in "teaching" sports, or music, or …? Sure, I can get that. But still this argument is specious, because my contention is that OADs have, for the most part, no interest at all in a college degree in any program … not even sports administration. I grant that there are exceptions, but I believe (without any definitive proof) that my contention is largely correct.

So should I assume that you are opposed to degrees in performing arts then?

More specifically, there are degree programs for people to play piano. Or to act. Etc. Do you think those are bogus?

If not, what is different about them than sports?

uh_no
04-11-2019, 01:31 PM
So should I assume that you are opposed to degrees in performing arts then?

More specifically, there are degree programs for people to play piano. Or to act. Etc. Do you think those are bogus?

If not, what is different about them than sports?

To eliminate almost all other variables, what would be the difference between a degree in jazz performance vs basketball.

Lurkingdukedog
04-11-2019, 02:05 PM
You might want to check Webster's on this. ;) It's a common mistake to assume that only graduates are alumni.

I stand corrected -- thanks. "An alumnus is a graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university" -- the need to graduate does not seem to be a defining factor although what you say is true, it is a common mistake.

PackMan97
04-11-2019, 02:51 PM
An education in "playing" sports? No, I am most definitely of the opinion that that is not a valid college program, and is instead a poor justification for the behavior of modern collegiate sports programs. What would a bachelor degree in playing football be called, specifically? Now, an education in "teaching" sports, or music, or …? Sure, I can get that. But still this argument is specious, because my contention is that OADs have, for the most part, no interest at all in a college degree in any program … not even sports administration. I grant that there are exceptions, but I believe (without any definitive proof) that my contention is largely correct.

Is this a chicken and egg problem? Would more OAD be interested in academics if there were academic programs that interested them? In particular, programs that would increase their chances of becoming a professional athlete?

I would imagine a "sports" degree would include courses on sports history, coaching, nutrition, health and safety, offensive and defensive tactics and strategies, etc. I dare say I bet a lot of coaches would love their kids to be able to spend time outside of practice being taught about the sport.

75Crazie
04-11-2019, 04:00 PM
To eliminate almost all other variables, what would be the difference between a degree in jazz performance vs basketball.
I dispute that there is such a thing as a "degree in jazz performance". I am not an expert in what degrees there are in music … but I would suppose that they involve learning a lot of music theory, which is not the simplest of things to learn. There are music conservatories where one can learn that sort of thing, so I have no idea what a college would provide over and above that. I am not the one that tried to compare music degrees to sports degrees, I think that is a digression. My opinion is that there are valid sports degrees as well as valid music degrees, but while performance levels of playing sports or music might be some small part of such a degree, it is not close to the full component. And, once again, I am positing that most OADs have no intention of returning to get any kind of degree, and thus their participation in a college sport does not meet the intent of what a college sport should be (again, in my opinion). I do not know how to validate such a claim, maybe there are statistics on this available somewhere.

uh_no
04-11-2019, 04:17 PM
I dispute that there is such a thing as a "degree in jazz performance". I am not an expert in what degrees there are in music … but I would suppose that they involve learning a lot of music theory, which is not the simplest of things to learn.

There are absolutely degrees in performance, and they can absolutely be done with a focus on jazz. Yes, there is classroom time.



There are music conservatories where one can learn that sort of thing, so I have no idea what a college would provide over and above that. I am not the one that tried to compare music degrees to sports degrees, I think that is a digression. My opinion is that there are valid sports degrees as well as valid music degrees, but while performance levels of playing sports or music might be some small part of such a degree, it is not close to the full component. And, once again, I am positing that most OADs have no intention of returning to get any kind of degree, and thus their participation in a college sport does not meet the intent of what a college sport should be (again, in my opinion). I do not know how to validate such a claim, maybe there are statistics on this available somewhere.

If there was a major in basketball, which involved classroom time studying theory of the sport and such, I'm sure every player would take that. It's not the players' fault such a class or program doesn't exist, and it's lack of existence doesn't make it necessarily less valid of an avenue of study than would a performance degree. I only mention Jazz to eliminate the insinuations of racism. If that is accepted, then one has to accept that if a player has an opportunity to leave early, then it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Did bill gates intend to graduate when he went to harvard? Would it matter if he did or didn't?

jgehtland
04-11-2019, 04:22 PM
I dispute that there is such a thing as a "degree in jazz performance". I am not an expert in what degrees there are in music … but I would suppose that they involve learning a lot of music theory, which is not the simplest of things to learn. There are music conservatories where one can learn that sort of thing, so I have no idea what a college would provide over and above that. I am not the one that tried to compare music degrees to sports degrees, I think that is a digression. My opinion is that there are valid sports degrees as well as valid music degrees, but while performance levels of playing sports or music might be some small part of such a degree, it is not close to the full component. And, once again, I am positing that most OADs have no intention of returning to get any kind of degree, and thus their participation in a college sport does not meet the intent of what a college sport should be (again, in my opinion). I do not know how to validate such a claim, maybe there are statistics on this available somewhere.

Given that your argument comes down to a "belief" that can't be proven (student records are protected from public release for privacy reasons so unless an athlete has publicly disclosed his or her participation in further coursework after leaving the University, we can't know that) then I don't think there is much to discuss.

Surely, there are some athletes who come to school intending to stay exactly as long, and do exactly as much, as needed to be able to pass through to the next stage. But there are quite clearly multiple examples given of "OADs" that do NOT share that view, and therefore I find your broad brush to be just that, an overgeneralization.

So, I'm out on this one since there is no way to prove either side of that belief. I'd urge everyone to remember that these are kids, with hard choices to make, and while they are in school are subject to an unbelievable amount of pressure. I wouldn't want to have gone through school with their workload and rigorous scheduling, that is for sure, and there may be more motivations for escaping the NCAA matrix than just chasing the paycheck.

CDu
04-11-2019, 04:30 PM
I dispute that there is such a thing as a "degree in jazz performance". I am not an expert in what degrees there are in music … but I would suppose that they involve learning a lot of music theory, which is not the simplest of things to learn. There are music conservatories where one can learn that sort of thing, so I have no idea what a college would provide over and above that. I am not the one that tried to compare music degrees to sports degrees, I think that is a digression. My opinion is that there are valid sports degrees as well as valid music degrees, but while performance levels of playing sports or music might be some small part of such a degree, it is not close to the full component. And, once again, I am positing that most OADs have no intention of returning to get any kind of degree, and thus their participation in a college sport does not meet the intent of what a college sport should be (again, in my opinion). I do not know how to validate such a claim, maybe there are statistics on this available somewhere.

There are absolutely degrees in music performance. And various other performing arts. And I don’t think the performance part of those performing arts degrees is a small part of those degree programs.

As such, why aren’t there similar degree tracks for athletes? There are TONS of courses that could be taught. In football, you could have classes on offensive and defensive schemes that would prepare them for their teams AND for careers in coaching. There could be courses on optimizing nutrition, physical training routines, and practice scheduling. Game theory could be taught with a focus on play calling. They could teach play development. Program management. Probably countless others. And you know what? With the exception of the last few, these are all things they are already doing but getting zero credit for, and are all extremely academic.

You talk about one and dones not being a part of the academic mission, but one could argue that this is because, for whatever reason, schools just haven’t viewed how much study and academic rigor are involved in sports - it just isn’t a perspective that folks at the head of universities have considered before.

EKU1969
04-11-2019, 05:07 PM
Perhaps it’s because sports are perceived as games. All sports, high school, college, and pro are Big Business and have been for some time. I, for one, do not see a reversal of this any time soon. We either accept it, fight it, or look to something else for our entertainment needs. And, therefore, sports should be a discipline unto its own.

MartinNessley
04-11-2019, 05:45 PM
I dispute that there is such a thing as a "degree in jazz performance". I am not an expert in what degrees there are in music … but I would suppose that they involve learning a lot of music theory, which is not the simplest of things to learn. There are music conservatories where one can learn that sort of thing, so I have no idea what a college would provide over and above that. I am not the one that tried to compare music degrees to sports degrees, I think that is a digression. My opinion is that there are valid sports degrees as well as valid music degrees, but while performance levels of playing sports or music might be some small part of such a degree, it is not close to the full component. And, once again, I am positing that most OADs have no intention of returning to get any kind of degree, and thus their participation in a college sport does not meet the intent of what a college sport should be (again, in my opinion). I do not know how to validate such a claim, maybe there are statistics on this available somewhere.

How in the world can you not be aware of music performance degrees? Maybe you should google before you dispute.

HereBeforeCoachK
04-11-2019, 05:56 PM
Perhaps it’s because sports are perceived as games. All sports, high school, college, and pro are Big Business and have been for some time. I.

Not all sports.....some sports are "big charities" in college and high school, being supported by monies those sports cannot possibly produce. May be fees, taxes, or profits from other sports, but most sports in HS and college are not big business at all.

75Crazie
04-11-2019, 06:39 PM
There are absolutely degrees in music performance. And various other performing arts. And I don’t think the performance part of those performing arts degrees is a small part of those degree programs.
...
You talk about one and dones not being a part of the academic mission, but one could argue that this is because, for whatever reason, schools just haven’t viewed how much study and academic rigor are involved in sports - it just isn’t a perspective that folks at the head of universities have considered before.
OK, I stand corrected regarding musical performance degrees … I allowed a digression to arrest my focus for a bit. I'd like to see statistics regarding the percentage of musical performance degree candidates who leave after one or two years because of professional opportunities vs the percentage of basketball athletes who leave after one year because of professional opportunities.

I think your last statement is right on. Nobody looks at the rigor of academic studies for P5 school basketball and football athletes because nobody really wants to know; it is inconvenient to many to know the truth of that. If you do not agree, then I'd like an explanation of the last 25 years at the cesspool down the road. While I think uNC is unique in the degree to which they took a professional disinterest in that academic rigor, I do not for a second believe they are the least bit unique in the fact that the disinterest occurs.

Indoor66
04-11-2019, 06:46 PM
Maybe the academic discussion deserves a separate thread on the Office Topic board.

CDu
04-11-2019, 06:47 PM
OK, I stand corrected regarding musical performance degrees … I allowed a digression to arrest my focus for a bit. I'd like to see statistics regarding the percentage of musical performance degree candidates who leave after one or two years because of professional opportunities vs the percentage of basketball athletes who leave after one year because of professional opportunities.

I think your last statement is right on. Nobody looks at the rigor of academic studies for P5 school basketball and football athletes because nobody really wants to know; it is inconvenient to many to know the truth of that. If you do not agree, then I'd like an explanation of the last 25 years at the cesspool down the road. While I think uNC is unique in the degree to which they took a professional disinterest in that academic rigor, I do not for a second believe they are the least bit unique in the fact that the disinterest occurs.

I think you misunderstood my last paragraph entirely. I was saying that athletes are subjected to a TON of academic rigor. It just isn’t the academic rigor that you and I are used to. They spend countless hours studying film, memorizing playbooks, signals, etc, to the degree necessary to make split-second decisions. It is arguably every bit as challenging as studying biology or sociology. Just different. And because it is different, it has unfortunately not been recognized as such by school presidents and the general public.

EKU1969
04-11-2019, 07:13 PM
Not all sports....some sports are "big charities" in college and high school, being supported by monies those sports cannot possibly produce. May be fees, taxes, or profits from other sports, but most sports in HS and college are not big business at all.

Your second sentence makes my point...revenue sports generate enough money to keep other sports going, whether through direct payments or having donors give to all sports. As you like to say, “They are all related😉”

clinresga
04-12-2019, 09:47 AM
An education in "playing" sports? No, I am most definitely of the opinion that that is not a valid college program, and is instead a poor justification for the behavior of modern collegiate sports programs. What would a bachelor degree in playing football be called, specifically? Now, an education in "teaching" sports, or music, or …? Sure, I can get that. But still this argument is specious, because my contention is that OADs have, for the most part, no interest at all in a college degree in any program … not even sports administration. I grant that there are exceptions, but I believe (without any definitive proof) that my contention is largely correct.

What a wonderful example of circular reasoning. You argue that playing (a loaded word, really) sports is not a legitimate academic enterprise, and therefore no degree should be offered. You then "prove" that athletes are not academically serious students because they are not pursuing a degree.

And yes, I get it that for you, academics is narrowly defined as "book learning." One that would exclude, for example, music performance. The proud graduates holding degrees in performance from the Juilliard School ("The Diploma program is a three-year program of study for the few very gifted undergraduate musicians in keyboard, orchestral instruments, and voice, who for personal or professional reasons must pursue a non-degree course of study concentrating almost exclusively on performance") would beg to differ.

If you accept a broader definition of what an academic pursuit can be, one that encompasses playing sports at the highest level, then OADs are indeed pursuing a degree. And I'd argue that whether it takes one year or four, a student who ends up in the NBA would be considered to have satisfied the graduation requirements of that performing sports degree, indeed, graduating summa cum laude.

You will likely then argue that a sports performance degree program should be by nature at a specialized "conservatory" like Julliard rather than a mainstream college like Duke. And I'd reply that as long as Duke wants to enroll these highly talented kids in order to gain the enormous institutional benefits of having a highly visible program like Duke Basketball, then Duke must accept the responsibility to provide these kids with a proper opportunity to pursue their chosen profession.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-12-2019, 09:52 AM
What a wonderful example of circular reasoning. You argue that playing (a loaded word, really) sports is not a legitimate academic enterprise, and therefore no degree should be offered. You then "prove" that athletes are not academically serious students because they are not pursuing a degree.

And yes, I get it that for you, academics is narrowly defined as "book learning." One that would exclude, for example, music performance. The proud graduates holding degrees in performance from the Juilliard School ("The Diploma program is a three-year program of study for the few very gifted undergraduate musicians in keyboard, orchestral instruments, and voice, who for personal or professional reasons must pursue a non-degree course of study concentrating almost exclusively on performance") would beg to differ.

If you accept a broader definition of what an academic pursuit can be, one that encompasses playing sports at the highest level, then OADs are indeed pursuing a degree. And I'd argue that whether it takes one year or four, a student who ends up in the NBA would be considered to have satisfied the graduation requirements of that performing sports degree, indeed, graduating summa cum laude.

You will likely then argue that a sports performance degree program should be by nature at a specialized "conservatory" like Julliard rather than a mainstream college like Duke. And I'd reply that as long as Duke wants to enroll these highly talented kids in order to gain the enormous institutional benefits of having a highly visible program like Duke Basketball, then Duke must accept the responsibility to provide these kids with a proper opportunity to pursue their chosen profession.

Should Duke also, as an institution of higher learning, open their doors to trade school students? Teach machining classes, kitchen science classes, and woodworking?

I am in no way disparaging these pursuits, but to suggest Duke ought to be all things to all students is absurd.

clinresga
04-12-2019, 09:57 AM
Should Duke also, as an institution of higher learning, open their doors to trade school students? Teach machining classes, kitchen science classes, and woodworking?

I am in no way disparaging these pursuits, but to suggest Duke ought to be all things to all students is absurd.

If Duke started touting a CIA-level cooking program, featuring an on-campus Michelin ** restaurant, and flooding social media with references to the "cooking brotherhood" of chefs, somms, and GM's who trained at Duke and now run the best restaurants in the world, then yeah, Duke should be obligated to provide those students with an opportunity to get culinary degrees.

Of course Duke cannot and should not be all things to all people. But it was Duke's decision to go all in on hoops as part of the university's identity. And by doing so, they gain an obligation to provide those students with an "academic" path forward.

CDu
04-12-2019, 09:58 AM
I am in no way disparaging these pursuits, but to suggest Duke ought to be all things to all students is absurd.

I don't think he or she was making the argument that Duke ought to be all things to all students. That seems like a kind of unfair and tangential counterargument to be making here.

I think the argument is more that athletes are subjected to a brutal academic load. They have the academic requirements of their sport and desired profession (and those are absolutely brutal in and of themselves), PLUS the academic requirements of an undergraduate student. And the argument is that if people are willing to consider performing arts as degree programs, why can't sports be considered a performance degree program as well?

clinresga
04-12-2019, 10:07 AM
I don't think he or she was making the argument that Duke ought to be all things to all students. That seems like a kind of unfair and tangential counterargument to be making here.

I think the argument is more that athletes are subjected to a brutal academic load. They have the academic requirements of their sport and desired profession (and those are absolutely brutal in and of themselves), PLUS the academic requirements of an undergraduate student. And the argument is that if people are willing to consider performing arts as degree programs, why can't sports be considered a performance degree program as well?

Exactly. It's a novel notion, and raises serious qualms (like, what the Cheats did would have been OK--but it was not, because those were NOT the rules during the many years they cheated). But it is intellectually more honest when we admit that a very small number of students may be talented enough that playing their chosen sport can be their sole "academic" pursuit. Just like a vanishingly small number of students are accepted into Julliard to study performance only. And like OADs, they are the ones who end up soloing with the NY Philharmonic. If I were Zion, I'd be trying to eat, drink, and breathe basketball, 24/7, have a fabulous career in the Association, and then exercise his other academic talents a la LaBron. If Duke wants him, Duke should accept this premise.

richardjackson199
04-12-2019, 01:01 PM
Maybe Calipari 2.0 means Calipari wants his players to stay at least 2.0 years before leaving. Herro may return? Keldon Johnson may return? Hagans is returning. Richards is returning again. Before the season even guys like EJ Montgomery probably thought they were OAD.

It's like Calipari has now sold his studs on the idea that they're all going to be the next PJ Washington. He's also bringing in more grad transfers. I think he's quietly trying to have older teams. He's correctly assuming that too many freshmen OAD's usually won't get it done. But he still wants to appear to be a prime location for top OAD studs.

Cal is slimy, but smart. But I really hope Johnson and Herro leave. I think they will.

Dukehk
04-12-2019, 01:05 PM
Maybe Calipari 2.0 means Calipari wants his players to stay at least 2.0 years before leaving. Herro may return? Keldon Johnson may return? Hagans is returning. Richards is returning again. Before the season even guys like EJ Montgomery probably thought they were OAD.

It's like Calipari has now sold his studs on the idea that they're all going to be the next PJ Washington. He's also bringing in more grad transfers. I think he's quietly trying to have older teams. He's correctly assuming that too many freshmen OAD's usually won't get it done. But he still wants to appear to be a prime location for top OAD studs.

Cal is slimy, but smart. But I really hope Johnson and Herro leave. I think they will.

Johnson is projected in the lottery so he is gone.

Herro is also rising up the draft board. Currently he is a first round lock and likely to be mid-late pick. I don't think anyone would turn that down. I would be very surprised if he did.

DarkstarWahoo
04-12-2019, 01:14 PM
Maybe Calipari 2.0 means Calipari wants his players to stay at least 2.0 years before leaving. Herro may return? Keldon Johnson may return? Hagans is returning. Richards is returning again. Before the season even guys like EJ Montgomery probably thought they were OAD.

It's like Calipari has now sold his studs on the idea that they're all going to be the next PJ Washington. He's also bringing in more grad transfers. I think he's quietly trying to have older teams. He's correctly assuming that too many freshmen OAD's usually won't get it done. But he still wants to appear to be a prime location for top OAD studs.

Cal is slimy, but smart. But I really hope Johnson and Herro leave. I think they will.

Grad transfers are also a good way to take a flier on guys and fill holes without being on the hook for (potentially) four years of a scholarship if someone busts. It's the equivalent of short contracts in professional sports. It reduces risk.

DukeTrinity11
04-12-2019, 02:20 PM
Maybe Calipari 2.0 means Calipari wants his players to stay at least 2.0 years before leaving. Herro may return? Keldon Johnson may return? Hagans is returning. Richards is returning again. Before the season even guys like EJ Montgomery probably thought they were OAD.

It's like Calipari has now sold his studs on the idea that they're all going to be the next PJ Washington. He's also bringing in more grad transfers. I think he's quietly trying to have older teams. He's correctly assuming that too many freshmen OAD's usually won't get it done. But he still wants to appear to be a prime location for top OAD studs.

Cal is slimy, but smart. But I really hope Johnson and Herro leave. I think they will.
Once again for the millionth time, freshman OADs do great in the NCAAT.

2010 Wall and Cousins: Elite 8
2012 Teague, Davis and MKG: National Title
2014 Randle and Young: Title Game
2015 Towns, Booker and Lyles: Final 4
2015 Jones, Winslow and Okafor: National Title
2017 Tatum and Giles: 2nd Round (Giles wasn't really a OAD talent at Duke since he was injured)
2017 Fox, Bam and Monk: Elite 8
2018 SGA and Knox: Sweet 16
2018 Bagley and Carter: Elite 8
2019 Zion, Barrett and Reddish: Elite 8
2019 Herro and Johnson: Elite 8

So of 11 teams anchored by multiple freshmen who declared for the draft and were 1st Rounders: 2 Titles, 2 Final 4s, 5 Elite 8s, 1 Sweet 16 and 1 2nd Round Appearance

I'd rather get the most top end talent and just roll the balls out rather than get bottom top 100 players and have them coached up magnificently.

OAD is a tremendous success.

richardjackson199
04-12-2019, 02:34 PM
Once again for the millionth time, freshman OADs do great in the NCAAT.

2010 Wall and Cousins: Elite 8
2012 Teague, Davis and MKG: National Title
2014 Randle and Young: Title Game
2015 Towns, Booker and Lyles: Final 4
2015 Jones, Winslow and Okafor: National Title
2017 Tatum and Giles: 2nd Round (Giles wasn't really a OAD talent at Duke since he was injured)
2017 Fox, Bam and Monk: Elite 8
2018 SGA and Knox: Sweet 16
2018 Bagley and Carter: Elite 8
2019 Zion, Barrett and Reddish: Elite 8
2019 Herro and Johnson: Elite 8

So of 11 teams anchored by multiple freshmen who declared for the draft and were 1st Rounders: 2 Titles, 2 Final 4s, 5 Elite 8s, 1 Sweet 16 and 1 2nd Round Appearance

I'd rather get the most top end talent and just roll the balls out rather than get bottom top 100 players and have them coached up magnificently.

OAD is a tremendous success.

Condescend much?

I was just making a point that Calipari who used to celebrate how many OAD's he had now seems to be having a lot of highly ranked guys stay a little longer, a la Roy. I don't care how right you think you are or how wrong you think I am. You don't score points by being rude.

frb
04-12-2019, 02:57 PM
Grad transfers are also a good way to take a flier on guys and fill holes without being on the hook for (potentially) four years of a scholarship if someone busts. It's the equivalent of short contracts in professional sports. It reduces risk.

100%. basically no risk. all upside. i like those kind of bets.