Does Duke Need an NBA All-Star To Win the NCAA?

[Mudge]

I watch an NBA game about as often as I get the flu, but while pondering Duke players' relatively limited (aggregate) success in the NBA, during the Boston/Orlando game last weekend, the question popped into my head: Does Duke have to have the services of one or more future NBA All-Stars to win the NCAA title? Much as I dislike the NBA, and much as people (e.g.- Ozzie4Duke) here often state their lack of interest in whether a particular Duke player will go on to be a good NBA player, it does seem notable that the only times Duke has won the title, the team included one or more future NBA All-Stars:
1991- Christian Laettner and Grant Hill
1992- Laettner and Hill
2001- Carlos Boozer (was voted to the team last year, but injury prevented him from playing) and Jason Williams (some still believe he might eventually have reached All-Star status, though his first and only season did not suggest as much; on the other hand, neither did Boozer's first season).

All of the other years when Duke came close (except 1999 with Brand), the Duke teams starred players who were either NBA journeymen or did not even have NBA careers. While Duke players' aggregate lack of NBA success is disappointing to me, in a perverse way, it only reinforces for me the terrific job that Coach K is doing to get so close to titles so often, with players that are not nearly as talent-rich as Duke's many detractors allege. For instance, contrast the level of NBA talent that has traversed UNC, but with similar to less NCAA tournament success than Duke has achieved over the last 28 years.

[The1Bluedevil]

Michigan State 2000
Maryland 2002

Neither team has any NBA stars.

Also nobody could ever imagined Boozer turning into the monster he has become.

[Double DD]

Michigan State 2000
Maryland 2002

Neither team has any NBA stars.

Also nobody could ever imagined Boozer turning into the monster he has become.

That Michigan State team had Jason Richardson on it, who I'd classify as being a star.

I don't think you need an all-star, but you do need NBA-caliber talent. It might seem like an obvious stat, but almost every champion in the past 30+ years has had at least one top-15 (lottery) draft pick on it, and the majority of the time it's been multiple lottery picks. I think the only exceptions are '98 Kentucky and '87 Indiana.

With Gerald Henderson and Kyle Singler, Duke could potentially to fit that profile. Other top 10 teams like Tennessee, Michigan State, or Washington State however will most likely not have any lottery picks and perhaps should be considered longer shots to win the title. (Interestingly enough, none of the big 3 on UNC are projected as top 15 picks by any of the draft sites.)

[hc5duke]

Also nobody could ever imagined Boozer turning into the monster he has become.

Minor point, but I'd have to disagree here - I think for a lot of people it was more of a surprise that Boozer was selected in the second round than he is an all-star now.

I'd add the 1994 Arkansas team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:1994_Arkansas_basketball) to the list of teams without an NBA star (Corliss Williamson is the only name I even recognize)

[hc5duke]

All of the other years when Duke came close (except 1999 with Brand), the Duke teams starred players who were either NBA journeymen or did not even have NBA careers. While Duke players' aggregate lack of NBA success is disappointing to me

What's "close"? In 2004 we lost in the final four, and had Luol Deng on the roster. I'm going to leave the statement in bold alone since it's been disproved so many times on the board.

[crote]

I'd add the 1994 Arkansas team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:1994_Arkansas_basketball) to the list of teams without an NBA star (Corliss Williamson is the only name I even recognize)

As a Duke fan, you should probably remember Scotty Thurman (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JyitFk1ONrE).

Did the 1995 UCLA have any considerable NBA talent at all? Who was the best NBA player off of that team? Tyus Edney?

[dukelifer]

If you look over the past 20 years- a good fraction of the winners had NBA talent on their team- but they certainly do not need to be all stars. On the other had, there are lots of teams who had All-stars who never won it all. NBA - caliber talent is likely needed- certainly helps. For Duke this year- Singler, Henderson, maybe Smith and, if the stars align, Scheyer are potential NBA players.

[Mudge]

What's "close"? In 2004 we lost in the final four, and had Luol Deng on the roster. I'm going to leave the statement in bold alone since it's been disproved so many times on the board.

Close is losing a close game in the Final, after being the #1 or #2 ranked team all season... as for the part about Duke players having (in aggregate) a relative (compared to their college success and HS/college reputations/rankings) lack of success in the NBA-- NO, it hasn't been disproved... if anything, I was sort of downcast about the lack of roaring success at the next level, except for about 4 players under K (Brand, Hill, Boozer, and, to a lesser extent Laettner); compare that with the number of National Players of the Year we've had-- it's pretty clear we're getting the most out of them at the college level.

[Mudge]

Michigan State 2000
Maryland 2002

Neither team has any NBA stars.

Also nobody could ever imagined Boozer turning into the monster he has become.

My surprise was that a guy who came into college with an NBA body (6'10', then 6'9', then 6'8"... he kept shrinking, according to the NBA... and 270 lbs.) who could catch anything, shoot (and score) with either hand anywhere within 7-8 feet of the basket, and played against taller people all the time, playing out of position at center, was somehow not seen to be a better prospect than the Darko's of the world... I think they were clueless on him.

[CDu]

As a Duke fan, you should probably remember Scotty Thurman (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JyitFk1ONrE).

Did the 1995 UCLA have any considerable NBA talent at all? Who was the best NBA player off of that team? Tyus Edney?

You beat me to the punch. The UCLA team had several good college players. Their best player was Ed O'Bannon - the national POY and an ill-fated lottery pick. Edney was their second-best player. In addition to him, they had a freshman who exploded in the tournament (Toby Bailey) and had NBA athleticism. They also had Charles O'Bannon, who was a pretty good college player. They had a 7-footer (Zidek) who gave them productive minutes. And they had good talent on the bench (JR Henderson, Cameron Dollar, and Kris Johnson).

O'Bannon and Edney made it to the league for sure, but none of those guys really made an impact in the NBA.

[Mudge]

That Michigan State team had Jason Richardson on it, who I'd classify as being a star.

I don't think you need an all-star, but you do need NBA-caliber talent. It might seem like an obvious stat, but almost every champion in the past 30+ years has had at least one top-15 (lottery) draft pick on it, and the majority of the time it's been multiple lottery picks. I think the only exceptions are '98 Kentucky and '87 Indiana.


Somehow, people have turned this into: Does every title winner need some kind (any variety will do) of future NBA players on their roster... that's not what I asked-- I said does DUKE need future NBA ALL-STARS on its team to win the title-- we've had plenty of good teams with future NBA players on them, but those teams didn't win the title, unless we had future NBA All-Stars... I'm asking, is that the level of excellence Duke needs, to enable us to get over the hump? And if so, are we kidding ourselves about teams that lack that level of quality, as time and time again, we've fallen just short when our teams lacked that transcendent quality?

I don't really care what other schools have been able to accomplish with various kinds of players... Coach K maintains that he, his staff, and his players don't outsmart the opposition-- we outwork and outhustle and out-"effort" them. So, is that strategy only able to take you so far, when you get to those last few games, if your team doesn't include a top-quality NBA player... put another way, would we have won titles in 1991-92, if we replaced Laettner and Hill with S. Williams and Redick?

[CDu]

Somehow, people have turned this into: Does every title winner need some kind (any variety will do) of future NBA players on their roster... that's not what I asked-- I said does DUKE need future NBA ALL-STARS on its team to win the title-- we've had plenty of good teams with future NBA players on them, but those teams didn't win the title, unless we had future NBA All-Stars... I'm asking, is that the level of excellence Duke needs, to enable us to get over the hump? And if so, are we kidding ourselves about teams that lack that level of quality, as time and time again, we've fallen just short when our teams lacked that transcendent quality?

I don't really care what other schools have been able to accomplish with various kinds of players... Coach K maintains that he, his staff, and his players don't outsmart the opposition-- we outwork and outhustle and out-"effort" them. So, is that strategy only able to take you so far, when you get to those last few games, if your team doesn't include a top-quality NBA player... put another way, would we have won titles in 1991-92, if we replaced Laettner and Hill with S. Williams and Redick?



With regard to this year, I'd lean towards a definite "no." This is a very watered down season. All of the teams, even the "elite" teams, have flaws. It's not like 1991, when we needed to be great to beat UNLV, or 1992, when we needed to be great to beat Michigan.

In general, I'd say "no" as well. And I'd say the references to teams who've won it without great NBA talent is completely relevant. Do you think that those teams had better coaches? Or do you think there's something inherent in the Duke uniforms that makes them require NBA all-star talent? Because those are the only arguments I could see as to why someone would say those examples are irrelevant. And I think those arguments are incorrect and silly, respectively. Other than that, I see no reason why bringing up examples of teams who have won it all without All-Star talent isn't relevant.

Ultimately, winning a title takes talent and luck. We've almost always had great talent. What we haven't always had is great luck. You absolutely need some of both. If you have more talent, you need less luck. If you have less talent, you need more luck. We can win it all without NBA All-Star talent. We just have to have better fortune, like that Arkansas team and that UCLA team.

[sagegrouse]

I'd add the 1994 Arkansas team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:1994_Arkansas_basketball) to the list of teams without an NBA star (Corliss Williamson is the only name I even recognize)

Unhappily, despite an ocean of wine and Scotch whiskey, I still recognize the name Scotty Thurman.

sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

All of the other years when Duke came close (except 1999 with Brand), the Duke teams starred players who were either NBA journeymen or did not even have NBA careers.

I like these kind of discussions, but lets look at the contrapositive (I have no idea what that means:) ):

Years in which Duke had future NBA All-Star talent and did not win a NC:

1963 (Mullins) [OK, so I'm a geezer for bringing up the 1960s]
1964 (Mullins and Marin) Of course, UCLA's Goodrich and Hazzard were pretty good too
1966 (Marin)
1989 (Laettner) Yeah, I know Christian was a freshman, but you used Michigan in 1992 as an example, and all those great players were as well
1990 (Laettner)
1994 (Hill)
1999 (Brand)

So now we have ten years when Duke reached the FF with a future NBA All-Star on the team... and we won three times. So that leaves only four FFs when we did not have an NBA All-Star and did not win: 1978, 1986, 1988, and 2004. Anyone here believe we shouldn't have won in 1986 and 2004?

So I'm not sure what all this proves, but FWIW, Duke's team this year probably does have at least one future NBA All-Star in Gerald (unbelievably explosive and supremely smooth).


sagegrouse

'Also, while I am thinking about FFs, if Duke does not reach the FF this year, Markie will join Wojo as the only two four-year K players since the Dawkins-Alarie-Bilas class NOT to play in a FF'

[Billy Dat]

Obviously, winning the NCAA Tournament requires mix of things of which talent is 1 (what match-ups you draw, whether or not your team is healthy, whether you can weather a bad shooting night, etc.) But, having 1-2 NBA players gives you a shot every time. Much of my strong feeling on this topic comes from watching KState take it to Kansas last night. I want no part of Michael Beasley in March, NO PART! OJ Mayo's running mate from HS, Billy Walker, aint too shabby for KSU either. Those are two NBAers who are going to cause some real problems. Of course, if they keep their current run up, they could crack the top 10 come tourny time and only make some highly ranked team's fan base have sleepless nights leading up to the Regionals.

I think Henderson, Nolan Smith and Singler are all potential NBAers, and I have to add Markie if he keeps up his torrid play (he is an NBA level athlete he;d back by his shooting) and Taylor King has to be in the convo as not too many guys his size can shoot like he can. None of these guys are likely All Stars, but so precious few are.

[Mudge]

I like these kind of discussions, but lets look at the contrapositive (I have no idea what that means:) ):

Years in which Duke had future NBA All-Star talent and did not win a NC:

1963 (Mullins) [OK, so I'm a geezer for bringing up the 1960s]
1964 (Mullins and Marin) Of course, UCLA's Goodrich and Hazzard were pretty good too
1966 (Marin)
1989 (Laettner) Yeah, I know Christian was a freshman, but you used Michigan in 1992 as an example, and all those great players were as well
1990 (Laettner)
1994 (Hill)
1999 (Brand)

So now we have ten years when Duke reached the FF with a future NBA All-Star on the team... and we won three times. So that leaves only four FFs when we did not have an NBA All-Star and did not win: 1978, 1986, 1988, and 2004. Anyone here believe we shouldn't have won in 1986 and 2004?

So I'm not sure what all this proves, but FWIW, Duke's team this year probably does have at least one future NBA All-Star in Gerald (unbelievably explosive and supremely smooth).


sagegrouse

'Also, while I am thinking about FFs, if Duke does not reach the FF this year, Markie will join Wojo as the only two four-year K players since the Dawkins-Alarie-Bilas class NOT to play in a FF'

It is important to note that I did not postulate that the presence of a future NBA All-Star guaranteed that Duke would win an NCAA title-- it's the concept of necessary, but not sufficient. Otherwise, Duke would have won the NCAA tournament every year that Hill, Laettner, Brand, or Boozer was on Duke's team.

My question is perhaps better framed by asking: Can Duke win the NCAA when we don't have that level of player? So far, the answer has been "No". As I don't see that level of player (NBA All-Star) amongst this year's team, does this suggest that Duke can not get over the hump to win a title this year (or perhaps any future year, with only this cast of players)? On the other hand, who knows whether Duke's next NBA All-Star is going to walk through the door with next year's recruiting class?

[Heelkiller1]

I for one belive that not having a all-star caliber player has actually help the team .they are playing more like a team than i have seen in many years ,it really seems to be a group effort.They are a closer and over all better group with out that all pro type ,so to answer your question YES i think we can win it all , This is my first post on this site even though i have read it for some time thanks for having me .OH and GO TO HELL CAROLINA

[speedevil]

i think the team with the most will be pro players getting significant minutes (10+) will have the best chance to win the ncaa. such as kansas

[Classof06]

But I think Gerald Henderson is in great position to become an eventual NBA All-Star. I was actually talking to my brother about this last night. If he keeps working on his game and improving his skills the way he has been since coming to Durham, I think the sky's the limit for Gerald. I really do.

[Abraxas]

- it's pretty clear we're getting the most out of them at the college level.

I totally agree. Living in a great NBA city (SA Spurs), I have always been struck by the size and athleticism of NBA players. See my comments in the 6 NBA players thread. Duke players are smart with great heart. Boozer is better than Brand. He is a beast and deserved being a 2nd time selection All-Star.

Grant Hill is a different mold than our two NBA PF. Singler and Henderson are potentially SF/SG NBA players with All-Star potential.

I like our team a lot this season. Although they might not win it all this season (I do hope for a Final Four), next season they will be a tremendous team. Both players could be lottery picks in 2009.

As to the question asked at the beginning of the thread, I also agree. I do believe that we need a couple of good NBA players (i.e.: Williams and Redick) and another couple of juniors/seniors that know coach K's system to have a good chance for a championship.

[speedevil]

I totally agree. Living in a great NBA city (SA Spurs), I have always been struck by the size and athleticism of NBA players. See my comments in the 6 NBA players thread. Duke players are smart with great heart. Boozer is better than Brand. He is a beast and deserved being a 2nd time selection All-Star.

Grant Hill is a different mold than our two NBA PF. Singler and Henderson are potentially SF/SG NBA players with All-Star potential.

I like our team a lot this season. Although they might not win it all this season (I do hope for a Final Four), next season they will be a tremendous team. Both players could be lottery picks in 2009.

As to the question asked at the beginning of the thread, I also agree. I do believe that we need a couple of good NBA players (i.e.: Williams and Redick) and another couple of juniors/seniors that know coach K's system to have a good chance for a championship.

how is boozer better than brand?

while boozer is on the better team, brand is by far the better player and much more important to the teams chances of winning than boozer.

[colchar]

Minor point, but I'd have to disagree here - I think for a lot of people it was more of a surprise that Boozer was selected in the second round than he is an all-star now.

I'd add the 1994 Arkansas team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:1994_Arkansas_basketball) to the list of teams without an NBA star (Corliss Williamson is the only name I even recognize)

And we lost to them with Grant Hill, the future all-star, in the lineup.

[Abraxas]

how is boozer better than brand?

while boozer is on the better team, brand is by far the better player and much more important to the teams chances of winning than boozer.

All-Star NBA Selections:
Brand - 2 in 9 seasons
Boozer - 2 in 6 seasons

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/Category:Duke_Blue_Devils

We are splitting hairs. I seen both of them played while healthy and while having a good supporting cast. The Clippers had too many injuries, but both of them were injured for significant periods during 2 seasons. Brand is not "by far the better player" in my opinon. Boozer would have 3 or 4 All-Star selections by his 9th season.

[speedevil]

All-Star NBA Selections:
Brand - 2 in 9 seasons
Boozer - 2 in 6 seasons

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/Category:Duke_Blue_Devils

We are splitting hairs. I seen both of them played while healthy and while having a good supporting cast. The Clippers had too many injuries, but both of them were injured for significant periods during 2 seasons. Brand is not "by far the better player" in my opinon. Boozer would have 3 or 4 All-Star selections by his 9th season.

can someone put up a poll on this debate?
who is the better player between brand and boozer?

if all star selections is the only criteria your using to compare the 2 players, then yes boozer does have a slight edge, only because he has 2 in 6 years compared to brands 2 in 9, if thats even correct.

i dont think you dare look up their career stats and compare brand to boozer. if you do, then you will realize that brand is "by far the better player"