PDA

View Full Version : Should Duke Recruit One and Done Players?



Franzez
03-26-2008, 10:18 AM
Its commonly being done throughout the country but I want to know if you think Duke should begin recruiting guys who are only coming to college for a year then heading off to the NBA.

For example in The 2008 Class:

Recruiting guys like Tyreke Evans and Scotty Hopson who will only do 2 years of college basketball unless they suffer a serious injury.

Just want to know how you'd feel about doing that.

BlueDevilBaby
03-26-2008, 10:30 AM
It's fine by me - it's already happened a couple times (which were probably somewhat of a surprise at the time). IMO, Duke should recruit the best young men who meet Coach K's standards on and off the court and Duke's academic standards.

CenOhioDukeFan
03-26-2008, 10:32 AM
Sure. If the kid is a decent student and will go to class, I don't see why we couldn't recruit a player like that every class. Players like Kevin Love would have been HUGE for this team this year, and he's only going to be a one year wonder.

Classof06
03-26-2008, 10:40 AM
I don't think it's necessary to recruit one and done players at all.

Let's look at the most successful programs in the NCAA Tourney since 2005, a period well within what is considered the "one-and-done" era. That list would include teams like Florida, UNC, UCLA and Memphis. Of all the players at those schools over these 3 years, the only one-and-done players were Branden Wright and Marvin Williams from UNC. But even when you look at UNC, as good as Williams was, their 2005 NC team was built on the backs of 3-year players (McCants, Felton, May). And if you look at the 2007-08 team, it's built on the back of multi-year players as well (Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington, Green, Ginyard).

Memphis and UCLA have been to 2 straight Elite Eights (UCLA 2 straight Final Fours) and neither team had a one-and-done player. Instead, they're actually very mature teams, sporting several upperclassmen. Many expect Derrick Rose from Memphis to leave after this year but that is not official and he's still the only would be one-and-done player on the team. Plus the fact remains that Memphis got to two consecutive Elite Eights without him.

Whoever started this "Duke needs to start recruiting one and done players" phenomenon needs to look at the teams that have been successful over the past few years and figure out that most of them don't have one-and-done players at all. If nothing else, look at Duke. Ironically, it was the times that Duke did have the one-and-done players (Maggette, Deng, etc.) that they didn't do as well as the NC Duke teams without those one-and-done players.

Duke doesn't need to recruit one-and-done players. They need to recruit tall players :D

Cavlaw
03-26-2008, 10:40 AM
I'm not sure. The biggest difficulty I see is that Duke has historically (in the limited time I've been a fan) built its team each year around the totality of personnel available and the way they play together. Many one-and-done players appear to be "me" players, who expect a team to play around them, rather than being a component of a whole. It takes a pretty special kid to be a superstar on the court and still have the humility to know his role on a team.

Mike Krzyzewski has successfully recruited a lot of players at a high level of talent with a willingness to fit into the program (though there have been a few misses). If he ever decides to recruit a one-and-done, I'm sure it will probably be a good fit, but if he decides to do it, just because he makes that decision doesn't mean one will be available that meets his criteria.

From a personal standpoint I'd also like to see such a player have the commitment to continue working on his degree after leaving. I've really appreciated that about some of our early leavers, while those who have left without looking back I have felt less connected to as a member of the Duke community.

wumhenry
03-26-2008, 10:53 AM
If the kid is a decent student and will go to class, I don't see why we couldn't recruit a player like that every class.
Why should it matter whether a one-and-done goes to class? Or meets some unstated standard of academic aptitude?

Knowingly recruiting one-and-dones would undermine Duke's academic reputation, IMO, whether or not such transparent pretences were maintained. I also think it would (subtly) undermine fan loyalty. I vote no.

Indoor66
03-26-2008, 11:12 AM
Why should it matter whether a one-and-done goes to class? Or meets some unstated standard of academic aptitude?

Knowingly recruiting one-and-dones would undermine Duke's academic reputation, IMO, whether or not such transparent pretences were maintained. I also think it would (subtly) undermine fan loyalty. I vote no.

I agree with the above post and raise one other question.

How many one and done teams have won the NC?

Carmelo is the only one I remember. This year it might happen again, we don't know yet. I doubt the wisdom of having the one and done when considering what it can do to overall development of players within the program.

merry
03-26-2008, 11:21 AM
No, Duke should not recruit players that the staff knows or suspects plan to go pro after one year. I know a lot of other schools are doing it but so what? Sometimes players blossom faster in college than anyone expected or have family circumstances that give them more of an incentive to leave college, and that will continue to happen. But if a player has straight-to-the-league potential and just has to spend a year in college somewhere to qualify age-wise for the NBA, I would hope that we would not recruit them.

pfrduke
03-26-2008, 11:22 AM
If I remember correctly, one of the things K talked about extensively with Boozer during Carlos' freshman year was that he had difficulty "unpacking his bags" and committing to being fully "at Duke," rather than on the way to something else. The whole "unpacking your bags" idea is, I think, important to K's philosophy regarding who he wants on the team. Which is not to say that it excludes completely guys who are one and done. But I think he'd want any player he brings in, whether it be for one year or for four, to be fully "at Duke" while he was here and not looking ahead to something else.

Ignatius07
03-26-2008, 11:24 AM
Monroe has indicated he very well could be a one-and-done guy. We recruited him, and wanted him badly.

The staff must also have known that, had Livingston shown up, he was also a strong candidate.

monkey
03-26-2008, 11:29 AM
No. This is a university basketball team that is supposed to have student athletes. Recruiting someone who is known to be one and done debases the concept. Duke is an elite academic instituion and shouldn't go there.

SoCalDukeFan
03-26-2008, 11:39 AM
The One and Done Era really started last year with the NBA age limit rule or whatever it is.

Prior to that, players had an option of going straight to the NBA. You could at least hope that a player who chose pass up the NBA right out of high school and go to college was doing so with the intent of getting more out of it than a one year college experience.

Now players whose only interest is getting to the NBA as soon as possible are almost forced to go to college for a year.

Ohio State did pretty well last year with Greg Oden.

I would like to see Duke recruit student/athletes so I guess I am opposed to known one and dones.

SoCal

Franzez
03-26-2008, 11:47 AM
Monroe has indicated he very well could be a one-and-done guy. We recruited him, and wanted him badly.

The staff must also have known that, had Livingston shown up, he was also a strong candidate.
The last I heard Greg Monroe said he was committed to playing 4 years and graduating from Georgetown.I dont believe it but Georgetown has never lost a Freshman to the NBA.

The reason why I dont see him leaving early next year is because he isnt an elite NBA Prospect right now,if you look at Mock Drafts hes listed anywhere between 16-27 if he came out as a Freshman.

Also Monroe will be playing out of postion at C with Vernon Macklin playing PF.

Next Year's Georgetown team will go through Austin Freeman and Dajuan Summers rather than last year where the offense revolved around Roy Hibbert.

Franzez
03-26-2008, 11:48 AM
The One and Done Era really started last year with the NBA age limit rule or whatever it is.

Prior to that, players had an option of going straight to the NBA. You could at least hope that a player who chose pass up the NBA right out of high school and go to college was doing so with the intent of getting more out of it than a one year college experience.

Now players whose only interest is getting to the NBA as soon as possible are almost forced to go to college for a year.

Ohio State did pretty well last year with Greg Oden.

I would like to see Duke recruit student/athletes so I guess I am opposed to known one and dones.

SoCal
Actually David Stern recently has said he wants to up the age limit to 20,which would means a player would have to do at least 2 years of college.

It will be voted on but its very likely it will be passed by the 2009 NBA Draft

wiscodevil
03-26-2008, 11:50 AM
Nope!

soccerstud2210
03-26-2008, 11:57 AM
we gotta do something, its obvious that right now we are struggling with recruits... so if recruiting one and done players helps for a couple years than why not... just to get back on track

Franzez
03-26-2008, 12:05 PM
we gotta do something, its obvious that right now we are struggling with recruits... so if recruiting one and done players helps for a couple years than why not... just to get back on track
We're not struggling with recruits

We're recruiting certain players rather than recruiting any and everybody like Memphis and Louisville.

We lose Nelson for the class of 2008
We bring in Elliott Williams a McDonalds All American and Olek Czyz a 4*PF

We lose Greg Paulus,and David McClure for the class of 2009
We bring in Mason Plumlee and are recruiting hard to bring in Kenny Boynton and Leslie McDonald both will likely be McDonalds All Americans

We lose Gerald Henderson,Jon Scheyer,Lance Thomas,and Brian Zoubek for the class of 2010
We are already recruiting Brandon Knight,Deshaun Thomas,Jeremy Tyler,Jon Lubick and Josh Hairston

We're fine.:)

Bluedawg
03-26-2008, 12:10 PM
NO! Duke has high standards in academics as well as athletics and part, of that is graduation. Why change? People were up in arms with the idea of any change in academic standards in football when none was proposed. In fact Coach Cut rejected the concept as being wrong for Duke

Should we overlook that for basketball?


Duke should recruit the best young men who meet Coach K's standards on and off the court and Duke's academic standards.

Coach K's standards are that you graduate. Wouldn't knowingly accepting a one-and-done player be changing that?

soccerstud2210
03-26-2008, 12:12 PM
i understand that... but it is working pretty well for memphis and louisville both... both sweet 16 teams... not knocked out in the second rounds... thats all i'm saying... it may work for a couple of years...

rockymtn devil
03-26-2008, 12:17 PM
The original question asked--and the subsequent responses--seem a little curious to me. Duke already has recruited "one-and-done" players, so it wouldn't be a departure from the norm. Shaun Livingston was a none-and-done and, as a student at Duke when Luol Deng played, I always felt he was going to go after one year. He did. And, although he didn't leave after one year, I think Josh McRoberts, as a highly touted high school senior, was a player who could've reasonably been considered a potential one-and-done.

I don't think it's K's primary recruiting goal. But I also don't think it's any team's primary recruiting goal. Thad Matta expected Oden to go pro after one year, but he likely didn't think Cook and Connely would go as well. He recruited them for the long-term. I think instead of focusing on the likelihood that a given player will leave after a year, the coaches should look to whether a given player will a) be in a position to succeed academically at Duke and b) fit in well with the team and the program. And, I think Duke does both of those.

MrBisonDevil
03-26-2008, 12:19 PM
Nope.

I would stop all contributions to the Duke athletic department if Duke becomes a one & done pro basketball factory. I'm not the only one...

Edouble
03-26-2008, 12:22 PM
I agree with the above post and raise one other question.

How many one and done teams have won the NC?

Carmelo is the only one I remember. This year it might happen again, we don't know yet. I doubt the wisdom of having the one and done when considering what it can do to overall development of players within the program.

In response to that question, another question:

When was the last time Duke won a NC without a National Player of the Year?

Well, it was Battier in 2001, and Laettner in 1992. After the past two years it seems like it's becoming likely that one of these on-and-done guys is always gonna make a strong case for National POY. I'm not saying a senior will never be POY again, but it just seems that every year these frosh are more and more ready to play. Carmelo seemed like an anomoly to me at the time, but maybe he was just an early preview of the future of college basketball. I'm not saying this is what I believe for sure, but just something to consider. I don't have a problem with a one-and-done guy at Duke. Deng worked out beautifully, and we haven't been to a Final Four since we had a one-and-done guy.

As far as one-and-done guys being "me, me, me", I don't think that's the case. Magette and Marvin Williams were 6th men. Brandan Wright was not getting too many shots a game and actually made Carolina into a really good team last year, not a one man show. I think if Coach K had a guy like Durant or Beasley, he would get the ball into that guy's hands early and often in order to win games, not because the player was a prima donna.

Franzez
03-26-2008, 12:29 PM
i understand that... but it is working pretty well for memphis and louisville both... both sweet 16 teams... not knocked out in the second rounds... thats all i'm saying... it may work for a couple of years...
Both schools have notable character issues among their players.

Memphis likes to recruit from prep schools to fill their team,they currently have 8 players on their team who attended a prep school.

Louisville likes to recruit players from high schools who had rough upbringings and that may have led to troubles in school.

Either way both teams will lose in the Sweet 16:D

dukepsy1963
03-26-2008, 12:49 PM
Never one-and-done!! Everyone loses in the long run.... Bring back the old days somehow...... Go to college, play a sport, get a degree, ........expand your mind, not just your body and pocketbook! I hate what the NBA has done to basketball!!

soccerstud2210
03-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Both schools have notable character issues among their players.

Memphis likes to recruit from prep schools to fill their team,they currently have 8 players on their team who attended a prep school.

Louisville likes to recruit players from high schools who had rough upbringings and that may have led to troubles in school.

Either way both teams will lose in the Sweet 16:D

true, and true... :) i would love to see both out in this round... but you do understand the point i was making...

it is working for them... and if that is what we are going after then let's do it... but if we are going for graduation rates and more to life than basketball players, then we don't need to start changing everything...

Franzez
03-26-2008, 01:14 PM
true, and true... :) i would love to see both out in this round... but you do understand the point i was making...

it is working for them... and if that is what we are going after then let's do it... but if we are going for graduation rates and more to life than basketball players, then we don't need to start changing everything...
It worked for us too,we went 28-6 this season with only one Senior on our team and with injuries to some of our key players this season.

soccerstud2210
03-26-2008, 01:29 PM
It worked for us too,we went 28-6 this season with only one Senior on our team and with injuries to some of our key players this season.

out in the second round of the NC is not a pretty good season... sorry... that is not duke basketball worthy...

Franzez
03-26-2008, 01:44 PM
out in the second round of the NC is not a pretty good season... sorry... that is not duke basketball worthy...
It is Duke basketball worthy,the guys played hard this season,we had good team chemistry,and Greg Paulus began to mature.

We cant go to at least the Sweet 16 ever year,we have a young team and this was a good stepping stone for us next season.

Im very proud of this season.

soccerstud2210
03-26-2008, 02:00 PM
It is Duke basketball worthy,the guys played hard this season,we had good team chemistry,and Greg Paulus began to mature.

We cant go to at least the Sweet 16 ever year,we have a young team and this was a good stepping stone for us next season.

Im very proud of this season.

a couple years ago, that statement would have been heresy... this is why there are so many articles floating around about how duke basketball is on the decline... why we aren't a powerhouse program, and so on... i'm sorry, but if losing in the first round last year and losing in the second round to a very mediocre big east team is a good season... i don't know if i can except that... and don't get me wrong... i am not saying the guys didn't play hard or do well, just saying that it is not duke basketball worthy...

Franzez
03-26-2008, 02:09 PM
a couple years ago, that statement would have been heresy... this is why there are so many articles floating around about how duke basketball is on the decline... why we aren't a powerhouse program, and so on... i'm sorry, but if losing in the first round last year and losing in the second round to a very mediocre big east team is a good season... i don't know if i can except that... and don't get me wrong... i am not saying the guys didn't play hard or do well, just saying that it is not duke basketball worthy...
College Basketball has changed since the 90's there arent anymore "Powerhouse" teams.

For example,
Florida

Won Back-to-Back National Championships
Currently in the NIT

For example,
Arizona

Was a "powerhouse" school through the late 80's-early 2000's now havent reached the Sweet 16 in 3 consecutive years.

For example,
Syracuse

Was a "powerhouse" school through the 70's-80's and had good years in the 90's and 2000's but now have failed to go past the 1st round in the last 4 years.

There is much more parity in college basketball now with the top high school players having to go to college and taking away a scholarship for a good player who would've gone to a school like Uconn for example but now heads to a school like Virginia Tech.

soccerstud2210
03-26-2008, 02:14 PM
College Basketball has changed since the 90's there arent anymore "Powerhouse" teams.

For example,
Florida

Won Back-to-Back National Championships
Currently in the NIT

For example,
Arizona

Was a "powerhouse" school through the late 80's-early 2000's now havent reached the Sweet 16 in 3 consecutive years.

For example,
Syracuse

Was a "powerhouse" school through the 70's-80's and had good years in the 90's and 2000's but now have failed to go past the 1st round in the last 4 years.

There is much more parity in college basketball now with the top high school players having to go to college and taking away a scholarship for a good player who would've gone to a school like Uconn for example but now heads to a school like Virginia Tech.

i guess Kansas, UCLA, and UNC are exceptions to that statement...

SeattleIrish
03-26-2008, 04:50 PM
i guess Kansas, UCLA, and UNC are exceptions to that statement...

We're not too far away from UCLA having some lousy years (mid 90s?), and Kentucky/Indiana both could have been added to the list. Heck, Illinois was a monster for a while and nothing now.

UNC can't claim to be an "exception", unless you're remarking on the exceptional 8-20 year?

Lets just hope we've reached a low point...I'm still in the gutter about Greg Echifurutger :-(

s.i.

Clipsfan
03-26-2008, 04:55 PM
We're not too far away from UCLA having some lousy years (mid 90s?), and Kentucky/Indiana both could have been added to the list. Heck, Illinois was a monster for a while and nothing now.

UNC can't claim to be an "exception", unless you're remarking on the exceptional 8-20 year?

Lets just hope we've reached a low point...I'm still in the gutter about Greg Echifurutger :-(

s.i.

UCLA did win the national title in 1995, so the mid-90s couldn't have been all bad.

merry
03-26-2008, 05:12 PM
Actually David Stern recently has said he wants to up the age limit to 20,which would means a player would have to do at least 2 years of college.

It will be voted on but its very likely it will be passed by the 2009 NBA Draft

Age 20 as of when? Plenty of kids these days are 19 before they ever get to college.

miramar
03-26-2008, 06:22 PM
While you can't stop it from happening, as we saw with Luol Deng, I certainly hope that Duke doesn't go down the one and done path. Maybe I'm naive, but I think we're better than that. Or at least we should strive to be.

Much of the concern has been because of the late season problems the last two years, but I really don't believe that will be a long-term concern. Remember that we only had one senior this year and none last year, and I think things should be different from now on.

While things have changed a lot since Al McGuire's announcing days, towards the end of close games he would always say, "Get dah ball in the dah hands of your seenioh, get the ball ta yuh seenioh." I don't want to make Duke seem like a mid major, but most players develop so much from one year to the next that this general rule still applies (although nowadays he would probably include juniors as well).

Turk
03-26-2008, 06:59 PM
I'd hate it if Duke chased the best players that were clearly looking for someplace to play some ball, stay warm, and get good TV exposure until they were NBA-eligible... (and yes, I'm exaggerating a little to help make the point...)

The trick is how to adapt to the changing landscape. Supposing the NBA keeps the age limit where it is, I'd want to say, "Here's all the good reasons for you to play for Duke for at least two years. We'll help you decide what's best for you and your family and no one has more NBA contacts than we do... If you've already made up your mind to declare for the NBA after one year no matter what happens, this isn't the place for you...)

So let's pretend Coach K wanted to go after such a "one-and-done" kid, what would the living-room pitch be? Why is Duke a better one-year school than some "Big State U"? I don't think that's our strong suit.

Coach K has adapted in so many ways with the players he's getting over the years. Sure it would have been nice to beat WVU last weekend, but that doesn't mean Duke needs to start chasing longshots. I'm happy with the recruiting approach.

Turk

mgtr
03-26-2008, 07:52 PM
If we recruit one and dones, how are we better than Memphis? Sorry, I am not interested in rooting for another Memphis -- I think Duke has higher standards than that.

dukestheheat
03-26-2008, 08:04 PM
NO.

dukestheheat

weezie
03-26-2008, 09:05 PM
If we recruit one and dones, how are we better than Memphis? Sorry, I am not interested in rooting for another Memphis -- I think Duke has higher standards than that.


Yeah, I just don't see the admissions office going along with the gangsta' baller quota.

geraldsneighbor
03-26-2008, 10:13 PM
lives near me and is involved in a murder investigation in his home town of Chester. He drove a car last November when his cousin shot and killed a man in a drive-by. The basketball academy Evans' attends didn't suspen him in fact they put a body guard on the bench for all games the rest of the season. These are the guys we don't want at Duke. Even a guy like Beasley with his ties to Nolan Smith had a colorful past after he was booted from Oak Hill following his Junior season. Guys like Deng didn't set the program back, but it certainly helps having some seniors. Hopefully Gerald will stick around his senior year as I assume he will.

MulletMan
03-26-2008, 10:33 PM
Ooooooooo-Kaaay... so I think its a bit of a mischaracterization to say that Deng was a one and done player. Those of you who "knew" that he was gone after a year must have been closer to him than the coaching staff and the basketball office, because they were shocked, absolutley shocked that he left after his freshman year.

Let me take this opportunity to address a couple of issues that have been on my mind for a while...

1. Why does everyone just assume that players want to come to Duke? I mean, regardless of your standing as a four year player or a one and doner, K will make you go to class. You're not sliding here. When people talked about Josh, what'd you hear? "He hated going to class, he disliked studying, etc." What you DIDN'T hear was, "Josh isn't going to class anymmore." To play at Duke you attend class and make grades... period.

Now, if you're Michael Beasley, and you know that you're going to college for a year and you've got K in your living room (and yes, I know we weren't in on Beasley, but go with me here) and he says, "Michael we'd love to have you join our program for as long as you like. With your skill set, you will probably play a ton because we don't have a lot of depth at the post postion, and you'll work out in the best facilities in the country. We also play in a great conference and you'll play against great competition. Furthermore, we have great academics... some of the best in the nation. We'll expect you to attend class and represent the University as a student-athlete to the best of your ability."

Then Bobby Huggins walks into your living room (and yes I know that Huggy Bear isn't the coach at KSU, but he did recruit Beasley, so go with me here) and Huggy says, "Michael we'd love to have you join our program for as long as you like. With your skill set, you will probably play a ton because we don't have a lot of depth at the post postion, and you'll work out in the best facilities in the country. We also play in a great conference and you'll play against great competition. Now, as far as class goes, I don't give a flying s*** if you go or not. We'll drop you in a few classes to keep your grades, up, but if you don't want to go to class, don't worry about it."

Do you think that its possible that an 18-year old kid who figures he's 12 months away from living out his dream and making millions to play basketball would like what Huggy has to say just a bit more than what K has to say? Maybe? I mean, a lot of kids struggle with thier studies in high school, and not all of them can be Sean Dockery.

2. The changing landscape of college basketball has changed our recruiting philosophy. There is no question about that. Fact is that in 03-04 when we brought Deng in, we assumed that he would be staying for at least 2 or 3 years. If he'd stayed until he was a senior or even a junior, we'd have had some pretty formidable teams. I think that his leaving caught the coaching staff off guard, and the fact that Livingston went straight to the NBA, they were caught off guard again... and he'd have been a senior this year. So it seems like, with the G, Z, LT, Scheyer, et al class we started recruiting a different kind of player. I think that K is bringing in more guys that will be around longer so that we end up with a continual series of teams that are deep with seniors. Livingston and D-mark would have been formidable together. Think about it, next year we will have a senior class of Paulus, Marty, possibly McClure. 2 years from now we'll have a Sr class of Scheyer, Zoubek, Thomas and possibly G. The following year it will be TK, Nolan, and possibly Kyle (hey... its possible). We will continue to recruit guys who are willing to stay for a while, and hopefully end up with teams that are loaded with Jrs and Srs as oppsed to Freshman. I think before we start screaming that we should bring in a bunch of guys who don't have the willingness to become a part of the Duke family the long term, perhaps we as fans should just place some trust in the coaching staff and see how this new strategy goes.

3. Why don't we go get X? Why aren't we looking for a (insert position of need here)? Do y'all reall think that the coaching staff is inept in identifying the needs of the basketball team? Do you believe that they are unaware that we're pretty thin in the post right now? Or is it possible that they believe that Z and LT will make progress over the summer that will make them more valuable than, say, an unproven freshman who was a highly rated recruit who averaged 10 points and 5 boards as the biggest guy on the court in high school? I'm just sayin'

I guess, I think people should jsut relax about the recruiting stuff. We get who we get, and more often than not they are the guys we want. If guys don't want to coem to Duke, then its OK that they go elsewhere, because they most likely wouldn't have worked in the system or with the coaches.

geraldsneighbor
03-26-2008, 10:39 PM
will be back definetly. I think K values him as a leader. He doesn't offer alot of offense but he can play some D and has experience. K always seems to speak highly of him. Also, Marty's a junior all over again. So the senior class is Greg, Dave, and Jordan.

MulletMan
03-26-2008, 10:44 PM
will be back definetly. I think K values him as a leader. He doesn't offer alot of offense but he can play some D and has experience. K always seems to speak highly of him. Also, Marty's a junior all over again. So the senior class is Greg, Dave, and Jordan.

There are no guarentees that guys who've graduated will come back simply because they have a year of eligibility left. Trust me, I pray that Dave comes back, but you never know until it actually happens.

Edouble
03-26-2008, 10:45 PM
Do you believe that they are unaware that we're pretty thin in the post right now? Or is it possible that they believe that Z and LT will make progress over the summer that will make them more valuable than, say, an unproven freshman who was a highly rated recruit who averaged 10 points and 5 boards as the biggest guy on the court in high school? I'm just sayin'.

I think Patrick Patterson would have been more valuable than Z or LT this year. If not better than... he would have at least made their minutes better b/c they would have had some back-up. Shelden was better than Casey Sanders when he stepped on campus.

Something must be wrong with the big man recruiting. Evidence: we have like 8 awesome guards and 1 1/2 big guys. Aware or not, we have missed out on a big time big guy for two years in a row. We've also had two big guys transfer. Maybe we're not recruiting correctly? Nah, that couldn't be it.

geraldsneighbor
03-26-2008, 10:49 PM
There is no guaruntee the Boat would've flurished in Durham anyway. Boykin didn't want to wait for his time to come and was home sick. Hes getting minimal minutes for Cal who fired their coach today. No promises there.

Edouble
03-26-2008, 11:08 PM
There is no guaruntee the Boat would've flurished in Durham anyway. Boykin didn't want to wait for his time to come and was home sick. Hes getting minimal minutes for Cal who fired their coach today. No promises there.

Yeah, you're right! I say Boykin play and he didn't look good enough to play in the ACC at all. So, we recruited the wrong big guys. It just seems like something is wrong with our big guy recruiting. Z got injured, that can't be helped. But look what happened when Marty got injured--we were fine, b/c we have a sick stable of ridiculous guards. But when Z gets injured we are really thin, and we have no pure inside bangers. McClure is incredible, but he can't be expected to guard a guy that is 4" and 50 lbs. bigger than him. King is a 3-point shooting specialist at this point and not a post player. Singler and Thomas are small forwards/tweeners that can exploit mis-matches with the other team's power forward.

geraldsneighbor
03-26-2008, 11:14 PM
While Singler shoots the 3 well, I think that when he got to involved on the outside his inside game suffered. UNC pt.1 was the best game Singler ever played. He shot the 3, and played well inside. Thats the Singler I want to see more of. King also defensivly at 230 lbs. can body up on the inside. I thought he played some solid D Saturday late in the first half when it was him and McClure down low.

MulletMan
03-26-2008, 11:23 PM
Shelden was better than Casey Sanders when he stepped on campus.


Really? Was he leaps and bounds better when he stepped on campus?

Here are two stat lines from the 2002-2003 Duke Blue Devils... tell me which one belongs to Casey and which belongs to Shel

PPG, RPG, Blks, Stls, MPG, Fouls
8.2, 5.9, 52, 23, 19.2, 102
4.6, 5.4, 54, 17, 17.8, 102

Yeah... there was such a clear difference between the two.

Jumbo
03-26-2008, 11:43 PM
Actually David Stern recently has said he wants to up the age limit to 20,which would means a player would have to do at least 2 years of college.

It will be voted on but its very likely it will be passed by the 2009 NBA Draft
That is totally incorrect. A change would have to be collectively bargained and the current collective bargaining agreement doesn't expire until after the 2010-11 season. A change is far from "likely."

Jumbo
03-26-2008, 11:47 PM
Never one-and-done!! Everyone loses in the long run.... Bring back the old days somehow...... Go to college, play a sport, get a degree, ........expand your mind, not just your body and pocketbook! I hate what the NBA has done to basketball!!

Uh, what has the NBA "done to basketball?" Don't they play basketball in the NBA? Or am I missing something?

Jumbo
03-26-2008, 11:58 PM
i guess Kansas, UCLA, and UNC are exceptions to that statement...

I could've sworn UNC lost to George Mason in the second round two years ago and went 23-8. I could've sworn that UNC was 19-11 in 2003-04, 19-16 in 2002-03 and 8-20 in 2001-02. By your definition, none of those seasons were successful. So, that's hardly a consistent program that is an "exception to that statement." In fact, by your standards, UNC has had one great season (2005 national title) over the prior seven seasons, and I'm not sure how you'd define last year's Elite Eight finish. We'll see how things turn out for them this year.

UCLA has made the last two Final Fours. In 2004-05 they were ... 18-11. 2003-04? 11-17. 2002-03? 10-19. Noticing a trend? I applaud the program for three excellent seasons (including this one).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Kansas made the Final Four under Bill Self? (Hint: I'm not wrong.) In 2004-05, Kansas went 23-7 and lost in the first round to Bucknell. In 2005-06, Kansas went 25-8 and lost in the first round to Bradley. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those nearly identical results to seasons you have considered "failures" at Duke? (Hint: I'm not wrong.)

Your arguments are getting weaker as this thread progresses.

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 12:05 AM
There is no guaruntee the Boat would've flurished in Durham anyway. Boykin didn't want to wait for his time to come and was home sick. Hes getting minimal minutes for Cal who fired their coach today. No promises there.

Boykin didn't have issues with Duke. He had family issues and transferred to be closer to home.

bhd28
03-27-2008, 12:07 AM
Uh, what has the NBA "done to basketball?" Don't they play basketball in the NBA? Or am I missing something?

Do you REALLY not understand what he means? Hmmm....

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 12:10 AM
Yeah, you're right! I say Boykin play and he didn't look good enough to play in the ACC at all. So, we recruited the wrong big guys.
Boykin wasn't a "big guy." He was a lean 6'7" when he came to Duke. We brought in two bigs that year, and they were named McRoberts and Boateng.


It just seems like something is wrong with our big guy recruiting.
Aren't we already discussing that in enough other threads?


Z got injured, that can't be helped. But look what happened when Marty got injured--we were fine, b/c we have a sick stable of ridiculous guards. But when Z gets injured we are really thin, and we have no pure inside bangers.

Now, I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that losing Marty wasn't such a big deal because he was, I dunno, our sixth-best guard? Now I'm gonna go out on another limb. Maybe Duke (and every other program, for that matter) has more depth in the backcourt because big guys are, I don't know, rare? Maybe -- just maybe -- a larger proportion of the population is, say, 6'4" than, say, 6'10". You might not have noticed, but excellent big guys aren't growing on trees, and there are more than 300 schools in Division I and more than 70 in the six power conferences. Geez.

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 12:11 AM
Do you REALLY not understand what he means? Hmmm....

I really don't. What has the NBA "done to" basketball? Someone fill me in.

The1Bluedevil
03-27-2008, 12:17 AM
This has nothing to do with the original point of the thread but seeing the last post talk about expectations I was curious to ask the question.

I'm sure everyone had a different opinion on what they thought the outcome of Duke's season would be, but when Duke was setting #2 in the nation it would be hard pressed for fans expectations to not to change (I know mine certainly did). If someone had told me in October that Duke would have finished 28 and 6, beat UNC and climbed has high as #2 I would have done cartwheels on the spot. However saying this, watching Duke struggle down the stretch and lose to West Virginia, I had to think should I be thrilled that Duke played outstanding basketball for 4 1/2 months (that very few people expected) or be disappointed by the last month?

How do we as fans gage our own changing expectations during a season?

I find that question extremely tough to answer.

FerryFor50
03-27-2008, 11:08 AM
a couple years ago, that statement would have been heresy... this is why there are so many articles floating around about how duke basketball is on the decline... why we aren't a powerhouse program, and so on... i'm sorry, but if losing in the first round last year and losing in the second round to a very mediocre big east team is a good season... i don't know if i can except that... and don't get me wrong... i am not saying the guys didn't play hard or do well, just saying that it is not duke basketball worthy...

West Virginia is far from mediocre.

They are a solid Big East team who took down Georgetown in the Big East tourny.

Some teams just peak at different times. WVU peaked at the end of the season. Duke peaked in the beginning of the season.

Edouble
03-27-2008, 11:31 AM
Maybe Duke (and every other program, for that matter) has more depth in the backcourt because big guys are, I don't know, rare? Maybe -- just maybe -- a larger proportion of the population is, say, 6'4" than, say, 6'10". You might not have noticed, but excellent big guys aren't growing on trees, and there are more than 300 schools in Division I and more than 70 in the six power conferences. Geez.

I think we've pretty much got a leg up in recruiting big guys on 99% of those 300 Division I schools--we're Duke!

Edouble
03-27-2008, 11:36 AM
Really? Was he leaps and bounds better when he stepped on campus?

Here are two stat lines from the 2002-2003 Duke Blue Devils... tell me which one belongs to Casey and which belongs to Shel

PPG, RPG, Blks, Stls, MPG, Fouls
8.2, 5.9, 52, 23, 19.2, 102
4.6, 5.4, 54, 17, 17.8, 102

Yeah... there was such a clear difference between the two.

I don't know, was he leaps and bounds better? I know he was better, and I also know that your stat lines don't tell the whole story. Is there a "missed lay-up from 2 inches" category, or a "couldn't catch the ball standing alone under the basket" category? Are factors like "scares the other team's players" or a "makes the other team's players laugh" appropriate to include? Landlord's got his jersey in the rafters and was better than Casey Sanders, a 4-year project player, from day 1.

dw0827
03-27-2008, 11:42 AM
I think we've pretty much got a leg up in recruiting big guys on 99% of those 300 Division I schools--we're Duke!

. . . and therefore entitled . . .

wow.

MulletMan
03-27-2008, 11:48 AM
I don't know, was he leaps and bounds better? I know he was better, and I also know that your stat lines don't tell the whole story. Is there a "missed lay-up from 2 inches" category, or a "couldn't catch the ball standing alone under the basket" category? Are factors like "scares the other team's players" or a "makes the other team's players laugh" appropriate to include? Landlord's got his jersey in the rafters and was better than Casey Sanders, a 4-year project player, from day 1.

I mean, this is an incredible arguement. You've got memories that are colored in your own mind, and you're using those to make points about the difference between players. Let's get back to the actual issue.

Will the court reporter please read back the testimony...



Shelden was better than Casey Sanders when he stepped on campus.


Direct quote my friend. My point would be that the stats don't necessarily support the arguement that Shel was "better" than Casey when he stpped on campus. Shelden may have been more talented than Sanders when he stepped on campus, but was he a better college player? I don't know. And yes, I certainley understand intangibles, but I also don't see a stat that reflects 4 years in the Duke system, the experience of winning a national championship and being a key player in that run by stepping up your game at a time when your team needed you. Those are all things that Sanders had over Shel when he first stepped on campus. I believe their similar outputs over the course of Shel's first season and Casey's last would reflect this point. Furthermore, don't mistake Shelden as a senior with Shelden as a freshman. Shel as a frosh was a good, but not great player.

The larger point, however, is that a lot of Duke fans seem to think that a player has to come in and make some huge impact as a freshman. Yeah, Loul Deng had a great freshman year... did you see who was around him? And he was probably the biggest impact freshman that we've had in the last 15 years. So I think he's the exception to the rule. You just don't get that many guys who are monsters / impact guys in thier first year. Here or anywhere else, so my point would be that instead of marking some kid coming in as the savior, have a little patience and let them develop. And before you write off guys who are in thier formative years and signal a death knell for the program, just wait and see what happens... I'm almost positive that our staff has more experience with player development than you or I do.

Chitowndevil
03-27-2008, 11:50 AM
Depends completely on how you define "one and done".

If it's a kid that has the talent to jump to the NBA after one year, but is willing to commit fully to the program and to being a student athlete during the time he spends at Duke, absolutely. Realistically right now, going after most talented player means you are taking this risk--if Kyle Singler had put on some muscle before arriving at Duke and averaged 25ppg this season, he'd be gone.

If it's a kid that's in "NBA or bust" mode (as was reportedly the case with Humphries) and views his year in college simply as a way to show off for scouts, then no. No way.

MulletMan
03-27-2008, 11:54 AM
Depends completely on how you define "one and done".

If it's a kid that has the talent to jump to the NBA after one year, but is willing to commit fully to the program and to being a student athlete during the time he spends at Duke, absolutely. Realistically right now, going after most talented player means you are taking this risk--if Kyle Singler had put on some muscle before arriving at Duke and averaged 25ppg this season, he'd be gone.

If it's a kid that's in "NBA or bust" mode (as was reportedly the case with Humphries) and views his year in college simply as a way to show off for scouts, then no. No way.


Well put. I suppose that you're right in that there's no real assurance that someone like Kyle (or in retrospect Luol) will stay. But there are certianley kids like Hump who already have one foot out the door. I agree that those guys shouldn't even be bothered with.

dyedwab
03-27-2008, 01:22 PM
Well put. I suppose that you're right in that there's no real assurance that someone like Kyle (or in retrospect Luol) will stay. But there are certianley kids like Hump who already have one foot out the door. I agree that those guys shouldn't even be bothered with.

Right on. I think that this is really where the argument is. Do we recruit guys like Beasley, Mayo, who essentially would be heading to the NBA but for the age limit, or do we focus on guys who we THINK would stay more than a year. Recruiting is not a perfect science, and as we saw, Deng shocked everyone, but I'd rather us pursue the type of player we are recruiting, then recruit guys who absolutely know that Duke will be a temporary stopover for a year

Edouble
03-27-2008, 01:31 PM
You just don't get that many guys who are monsters / impact guys in thier first year.

My friend, were you watching college basketball this year?

MulletMan
03-27-2008, 02:43 PM
My friend, were you watching college basketball this year?

Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy

That's about it. These guys aren't a dime a dozen, nor does each of these schools have a continual stream of players of this caliber. USC, K-State, Vandy and Pitt have not had these types of talents in a long while. Nor, do I think, they expect to have a once-in-a-decade talent every season. Those types of guys are few and far between, and to think that we can just pluck those guys from the sky is shortsighted and hubristic.

Here's the thing, of the 16 teams left in the NCAA tournament, how many of them have one of these super-stud game changing impact freshman? UCLA has Love, but they've been to the Final Four for 2 years, so the question really is will he put them over the top (and FTR, I don't think he's one and done)? As for the other 15 team, what do they have in common? Oh that's right, upperclassmen who have been there before and are leaders. Guys not worried about thier stats and point totals.

wumhenry
03-27-2008, 02:48 PM
Do we recruit guys ... who essentially would be heading to the NBA but for the age limit, or do we focus on guys who we THINK would stay more than a year.
It's not just whether they're willing to stay more than a year but whether they're capable of staying four years and graduating. Duke shouldn't recruit semiliterate hulks with 85 IQs even if they're keen to stay for four years.

The administration should discreetly specify SAT and GPA cut-offs for scholarship athletes, and the cut-offs should be high enough to exclude anyone who couldn't meet graduation requirements without cheating.

CDu
03-27-2008, 02:48 PM
I mean, this is an incredible arguement. You've got memories that are colored in your own mind, and you're using those to make points about the difference between players. Let's get back to the actual issue.

Will the court reporter please read back the testimony...




Direct quote my friend. My point would be that the stats don't necessarily support the arguement that Shel was "better" than Casey when he stpped on campus. Shelden may have been more talented than Sanders when he stepped on campus, but was he a better college player? I don't know. And yes, I certainley understand intangibles, but I also don't see a stat that reflects 4 years in the Duke system, the experience of winning a national championship and being a key player in that run by stepping up your game at a time when your team needed you. Those are all things that Sanders had over Shel when he first stepped on campus. I believe their similar outputs over the course of Shel's first season and Casey's last would reflect this point. Furthermore, don't mistake Shelden as a senior with Shelden as a freshman. Shel as a frosh was a good, but not great player.

The larger point, however, is that a lot of Duke fans seem to think that a player has to come in and make some huge impact as a freshman. Yeah, Loul Deng had a great freshman year... did you see who was around him? And he was probably the biggest impact freshman that we've had in the last 15 years. So I think he's the exception to the rule. You just don't get that many guys who are monsters / impact guys in thier first year. Here or anywhere else, so my point would be that instead of marking some kid coming in as the savior, have a little patience and let them develop. And before you write off guys who are in thier formative years and signal a death knell for the program, just wait and see what happens... I'm almost positive that our staff has more experience with player development than you or I do.

I disagree with you here. Shelden was most certainly a better player when he stepped onto Duke's campus. He was a better high school player AND better prepared to play in college. Casey was completely uncoordinated coming out of high school. He was fast and could jump, but couldn't handle ANY contact. Shelden, on the other hand, was definitely raw offensively, but he capable of handling consistent minutes and was a solid rebounder and defender.

Both players developed substantially over their four years. Shelden improved from a raw, rugged rebounder/defender to being one of the best all-around post players in the country. Casey improved from being completely unusable to being about what Shelden was as a freshman.

MulletMan
03-27-2008, 02:53 PM
I disagree with you here. Shelden was most certainly a better player when he stepped onto Duke's campus. He was a better high school player AND better prepared to play in college. Casey was completely uncoordinated coming out of high school. He was fast and could jump, but couldn't handle ANY contact. Shelden, on the other hand, was definitely raw offensively, but he capable of handling consistent minutes and was a solid rebounder and defender.

Both players developed substantially over their four years. Shelden improved from a raw, rugged rebounder/defender to being one of the best all-around post players in the country. Casey improved from being completely unusable to being about what Shelden was as a freshman.

Exactly! At the time Shel started, they were about the same.

I suppose that I read the "Shelden was better than Casey when he stepped on campus" to read "Shelden, as a wet behind the ears freshman, was better than Casey Sanders when he (Shelden) stepped on campus in the fall of 2002". Like, he was better that very day compared to Casey on that very day, not Casey as a freshman.

CDu
03-27-2008, 02:54 PM
Really? Was he leaps and bounds better when he stepped on campus?

Here are two stat lines from the 2002-2003 Duke Blue Devils... tell me which one belongs to Casey and which belongs to Shel

PPG, RPG, Blks, Stls, MPG, Fouls
8.2, 5.9, 52, 23, 19.2, 102
4.6, 5.4, 54, 17, 17.8, 102

Yeah... there was such a clear difference between the two.

I'd say there was a clear difference. The freshman Shelden was clearly better than the senior Sanders. He averaged nearly double the points while matching him in pretty much every other category.

CDu
03-27-2008, 02:55 PM
I suppose that I read the "Shelden was better than Casey when he stepped on campus" to read "Shelden, as a wet behind the ears freshman, was better than Casey Sanders when he (Shelden) stepped on campus in the fall of 2002". Like, he was better that very day compared to Casey on that very day, not Casey as a freshman.

Even in your interpretation (which could be the correct one), I'd say Shelden was better. He matched Casey in every category, and nearly doubled Casey's scoring average.

hedgehog
03-27-2008, 02:55 PM
Didn't we recruit the possible one-and-done Eric Gordon, but lost out? Were we not recruit possible one-and-done Kevin Love for a little while before their was a mutual loss of interest?

MulletMan
03-27-2008, 02:59 PM
Even in your interpretation (which could be the correct one), I'd say Shelden was better. He matched Casey in every category, and nearly doubled Casey's scoring average.

He scored about 3 more PPG. However, as argued above, there were different intangibles that go along with each player at the particular time, and to say that Shel as a freshman was CLEARLY the better player for that team at that time is, as I originally stated, not really true.

Yes, he was clearly the better talent, but there's a reason why they averaged nearly the same amount of playing time over the course of the season, isn't there? Or is the coaching staff in the habit of playing guys who shouldn't be in the game?

(In all actuality, this arguement has moved way off base from the original point, which, I believe, was, that one and doners are unique talents, and not all freshman are neccesarily better than the incumbant that plays thier position simply because they are a highly rated recruit.)

CDu
03-27-2008, 03:01 PM
Exactly! At the time Shel started, they were about the same.

I suppose that I read the "Shelden was better than Casey when he stepped on campus" to read "Shelden, as a wet behind the ears freshman, was better than Casey Sanders when he (Shelden) stepped on campus in the fall of 2002". Like, he was better that very day compared to Casey on that very day, not Casey as a freshman.

As I said in another post, Casey as a senior was close to what Shelden was as a freshman. But I still would say that Shelden was better as a freshman than Casey as a senior. Casey was still very awkward and virtually useless offensively. Shelden was certainly rough around the edges, but could score a little bit in the paint. Shelden could do all the things Casey could do, but he added to that the ability to score some.

MulletMan
03-27-2008, 03:01 PM
Didn't we recruit the possible one-and-done Eric Gordon, but lost out? Were we not recruit possible one-and-done Kevin Love for a little while before their was a mutual loss of interest?

I guess that would depend on your defenition of "recruit". I mean, guys get differing levels of attention and commitment from the staff, right?

Love made his own bed.

Gordon, I can't recall.

Wander
03-27-2008, 03:08 PM
Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy


You include Greene but not Harden, Singler, Patterson, Griffin, and Rose? How was he better than any of these guys, let alone all five?

CDu
03-27-2008, 03:08 PM
He scored about 3 more PPG. However, as argued above, there were different intangibles that go along with each player at the particular time, and to say that Shel as a freshman was CLEARLY the better player for that team at that time is, as I originally stated, not really true.

Yes, he was clearly the better talent, but there's a reason why they averaged nearly the same amount of playing time over the course of the season, isn't there? Or is the coaching staff in the habit of playing guys who shouldn't be in the game?

(In all actuality, this arguement has moved way off base from the original point, which, I believe, was, that one and doners are unique talents, and not all freshman are neccesarily better than the incumbant that plays thier position simply because they are a highly rated recruit.)

Not to nitpick, but I'm going to nitpick. He averaged closer to four more points per game. And when one guy averages only 4.6 points per game, a 3.6 point per game difference is very significant. Shelden was, in my opinion, CLEARLY the better player. He could do everything that Casey did, and he could also score a bit. Casey still had zero offensive game. Shelden didn't have much, but he had some. Thus, equal in everything and significantly better in one thing means clearly better.

Why did Coach K play Casey about as much as Shelden? My guess is lack of options and the fact that Shelden wasn't ready to be a 30+ minutes guy. And The difference between Shelden and Casey wasn't so huge that Casey didn't merit time. Both committed a lot of fouls, so both had to play. Hence both averaged less than 20mpg (along with Shav and the Vath, who got 13.5 mpg each).

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 03:15 PM
Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy

That's about it. These guys aren't a dime a dozen, nor does each of these schools have a continual stream of players of this caliber. USC, K-State, Vandy and Pitt have not had these types of talents in a long while. Nor, do I think, they expect to have a once-in-a-decade talent every season. Those types of guys are few and far between, and to think that we can just pluck those guys from the sky is shortsighted and hubristic.

Here's the thing, of the 16 teams left in the NCAA tournament, how many of them have one of these super-stud game changing impact freshman? UCLA has Love, but they've been to the Final Four for 2 years, so the question really is will he put them over the top (and FTR, I don't think he's one and done)? As for the other 15 team, what do they have in common? Oh that's right, upperclassmen who have been there before and are leaders. Guys not worried about thier stats and point totals.

You forgot Derrick Rose, among others.

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 03:24 PM
Not for nothing, but Casey never gets credit for a nice finish to his career. In a close loss to a really good Kansas team to close his career, Casey went 28 minutes, grabbed seven boards and blocked five shots. Come to think of it, I'd love Casey Sanders with this current group.

rockymtn devil
03-27-2008, 03:25 PM
It's not just whether they're willing to stay more than a year but whether they're capable of staying four years and graduating. Duke shouldn't recruit semiliterate hulks with 85 IQs even if they're keen to stay for four years.

The administration should discreetly specify SAT and GPA cut-offs for scholarship athletes, and the cut-offs should be high enough to exclude anyone who couldn't meet graduation requirements without cheating.

I absolutely agree with the first part of this. The key question to ask is whether or not the recruit can succeed at Duke. But, I strongly disagree with the second point about enforcing a strict SAT/GPA cutoff. There is a player who played at Duke this decade who I doubt would've met this criteria (I won't name the player because I think it's irrelevant). But, through interactions that I had with him (interviews on several occasions) I can say that he was the most insightful and intelligent Duke basketball player that I interacted with in my four years. Further, after seeing his performance on the court, I was not at all surprised that he succeeded in the classroom. I think Coach K is an excellent character judge and should be trusted to recruit players that he is confident will succeed at Duke.

I'll also go back to my original point--Duke has in the past gone after likely one-and-done players. A previous post noted shock that Deng left after one year. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never thought he'd be there for more than a year.

rockymtn devil
03-27-2008, 03:27 PM
Not for nothing, but Casey never gets credit for a nice finish to his career. In a close loss to a really good Kansas team to close his career, Casey went 28 minutes, grabbed seven boards and blocked five shots. Come to think of it, I'd love Casey Sanders with this current group.

Agreed. And he did that against one of the premier big men in the country that season. Although, if I recall correctly, Collison did have a monster game that night.

Johnboy
03-27-2008, 04:17 PM
merry said it well above. I want Duke recruiting kids who are serious about being students and getting their degree. I can accept that we will have surprises like Deng, and I certainly don't hold his leaving against him.

Classof06
03-27-2008, 04:53 PM
Guys like Deng didn't set the program back, but it certainly helps having some seniors.

While Luol is a good guy and really left Duke out of necessity, I would argue that his departure certainly set Duke back, no doubt about it. Combine that with Livingston going straight to pros and, IMO, you're talking about a situation that Duke only recently recovered from, if at all. Some might argue we still haven't recovered based on the way the last two seasons have gone.

I clearly have no proof of it but I believe Luol's departure cost Duke a national title. When I say "cost," that implies that Luol did something wrong. He didn't. I knew him personally and he was a phenomenal kid, pure class act. But you mean to tell me we wouldn't have gotten by Michigan State in the '05 Elite Eight with Luol? We would've been every bit as good as UNC that year. In fact, Luol's only year at Duke was the last time we swept UNC. Think about it...

CDu
03-27-2008, 06:57 PM
While Luol is a good guy and really left Duke out of necessity, I would argue that his departure certainly set Duke back, no doubt about it. Combine that with Livingston going straight to pros and, IMO, you're talking about a situation that Duke only recently recovered from, if at all. Some might argue we still haven't recovered based on the way the last two seasons have gone.

I clearly have no proof of it but I believe Luol's departure cost Duke a national title. When I say "cost," that implies that Luol did something wrong. He didn't. I knew him personally and he was a phenomenal kid, pure class act. But you mean to tell me we wouldn't have gotten by Michigan State in the '05 Elite Eight with Luol? We would've been every bit as good as UNC that year. In fact, Luol's only year at Duke was the last time we swept UNC. Think about it...

I don't know that we would have won the title in 2005 (we did lose our senior PG/leader and UNC added a stellar freshman to a very talented and veteran team), but I agree that the loss of Deng set the team back. How could it not?

I agree as well that the loss of Deng and Livingston really hurt the 2005 team, and maybe the 2006 team. But anything beyond that falls to the following recruiting classes. Livingston was widely considered a one- or two-year commitment, and Deng should have been expected to go the JWill route and graduate in three years. They'd have been gone by 2006, and if Coach K wasn't recruiting as such, then I'd say he wasn't doing his job.

The "struggles" of 2007 and 2008 are founded more on some of our elite recruits not reaching their elite status potential at the college level and maybe some transfers, not on the early departures (or non-arrivals) of Deng, Humphries, and Livingston.

Lulu
03-27-2008, 07:14 PM
Are they ever going to get rid of this completely idiotic rule? It truly couldn't be more stupid. What is it technically? that a player must be 19 to enter the NBA? or must be a year out of high school?

It's like the NBA got ticked at college for complaining about all the early departures, so they decided to screw them even more. One-and-done is so utterly pointless, just make it none-and-gone. 1 year doesn't count as a commitment of any sort, it's just a year that they're forced out of the NBA.

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 07:21 PM
Are they ever going to get rid of this completely idiotic rule? It truly couldn't be more stupid. What is it technically? that a player must be 19 to enter the NBA? or must be a year out of high school?

It's like the NBA got ticked at college for complaining about all the early departures, so they decided to screw them even more. One-and-done is so utterly pointless, just make it none-and-gone. 1 year doesn't count as a commitment of any sort, it's just a year that they're forced out of the NBA.

No, the NBA decided to help its own game. Despite numerous prep-to-pro success stories (LeBron, Dwight Howard, etc.), there were obviously numerous other flameouts. The NBA's job is to look out for the ... NBA. And everyone figured out that it would be easier to evaluate talent if guys went ot college for at least a year, and that players would (hopefully) come into the league more polished, mature and recognizeable with college experience.

Now, I don't like the rule only in the sense that I don't believe players with no interest in attending college should be there. But I like it from an NBA standpoint, and that's the NBA's concern. The fraud that is the NCAA is to blame -- if they really wanted to crack down on one-and-done, academic-free programs (cough, Kansas State, cough), they could and would.

pfrduke
03-27-2008, 07:26 PM
No, the NBA decided to help its own game. Despite numerous prep-to-pro success stories (LeBron, Dwight Howard, etc.), there were obviously numerous other flameouts. The NBA's job is to look out for the ... NBA. And everyone figured out that it would be easier to evaluate talent if guys went ot college for at least a year, and that players would (hopefully) come into the league more polished, mature and recognizeable with college experience.

Now, I don't like the rule only in the sense that I don't believe players with no interest in attending college should be there. But I like it from an NBA standpoint, and that's the NBA's concern. The fraud that is the NCAA is to blame -- if they really wanted to crack down on one-and-done, academic-free programs (cough, Kansas State, cough), they could and would.

Also, even though it may be a stretch to say the two are causally related (given that we've only had two drafts without high schoolers), the level of talent and the quality of play in the NBA is as good as it has been in 15-20 years. At the very least, it certainly hasn't hurt the league.

Lulu
03-27-2008, 07:33 PM
Why is it in the back of my head somewhere that th NBA player's union had something to do with this decision? Am I completely wrong?

Jumbo
03-27-2008, 07:54 PM
Why is it in the back of my head somewhere that th NBA player's union had something to do with this decision? Am I completely wrong?

The rule change couldn't have happened without the Players' Union's consent. It had to be collectively bargained. So, in the last CBA, the union pretended to make a big deal out of this, so they could get some other concessions in return. In truth, the rule was good for the union, too -- it projected jobs a bit longer.

geraldsneighbor
03-27-2008, 09:20 PM
No, you guys are right. If we had Deng for a year or two more we probably would've made 2 more final fours and probably won it all once. That being said I don't blame Luol for looking out for Luol. I don't think it ripped the team apart. If we had Luol we beat Michigan State. Luol did cost us, but I don't hold it against him.

yancem
03-27-2008, 11:56 PM
Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy

That's about it. These guys aren't a dime a dozen, nor does each of these schools have a continual stream of players of this caliber. USC, K-State, Vandy and Pitt have not had these types of talents in a long while. Nor, do I think, they expect to have a once-in-a-decade talent every season. Those types of guys are few and far between, and to think that we can just pluck those guys from the sky is shortsighted and hubristic.

Here's the thing, of the 16 teams left in the NCAA tournament, how many of them have one of these super-stud game changing impact freshman? UCLA has Love, but they've been to the Final Four for 2 years, so the question really is will he put them over the top (and FTR, I don't think he's one and done)? As for the other 15 team, what do they have in common? Oh that's right, upperclassmen who have been there before and are leaders. Guys not worried about thier stats and point totals.

I think you hit on the main point (at least from a purely basketball standpoint). Even though it might seem like it in the nba, basketball is a team sport, no one, not even the greatest of the greatest, can carry a college team to a final four or NC without some decent players around him (just ask Durant). Carmelo is the only true freshman star to lead his team to a NC and he had another star freshman (McNamara) and a stud sophomore (Warrick) helping out. Oden had a lot of help and OSU got to the f4 but couldn't finish the deal. Love may help get UCLA over the hump this year but they have gotten to the f4 the last 2 years with out him and have several key upperclassmen.

In my opinion, this means that one and done (OAD) stud freshman are only worth it if you already have a strong team with upperclassmen and you just need a little push to get to the top. Duke may have a shot at the f4 or NC next year but probably won't be completely dominate so that would be a case where a OAD stud might be a positive.

If you don't have the good core to surround a OAD stud then he ends up being like a sugar high, you win a few extra games, sell a few extra tickets but after the season, you're worse off then when you started (OSU is a perfect example). Also, look at the tournament the last several years. A lot of the teams doing well are the programs with a solid group of upperclassmen that have good team chemistry. With the exception of OSU last year (and they had 3 freshman that declared for the draft although only Oden was supposed to be the only OAD), there aren't a lot of young teams making a loud of noise come tournament time. Plus recruiting players that don't stick around for more than a year or two puts a lot of pressure on your recruiting to be top notch every single year. Look at the way GaTech has yoyod the past couple of years. OSU is doing the same thing. SoCal seems to falling into that trap as well.

In the end, I think that recruiting has to be balanced. It's impractical to think that you can land bona fide nba all stars every year. What I think that K is trying to do and which I think is smart, is to target a mix of players, a few that can make an impact as freshman but will most likely be at least 3-4 year guys (Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith), some that might take a year or two to develop but will be starters or at least big contributers their junior and senior season (Zoubek, Thomas, King) and the occasional freshman stud that may only stick around a season or two but could pay big dividends (Singler). This should ensure that you always have a few junior and seniors that are strong leaders and contributers (unlike last year) but also allow for going for some truly top end recruits. We haven't seen the fruits of this approach yet but I think that next year things will come together (or at least I hope).

Now on the student athlete/college integrity side, i think that you would be hard pressed to advocate for OAD's.

CDu
03-28-2008, 08:57 AM
No, you guys are right. If we had Deng for a year or two more we probably would've made 2 more final fours and probably won it all once. That being said I don't blame Luol for looking out for Luol. I don't think it ripped the team apart. If we had Luol we beat Michigan State. Luol did cost us, but I don't hold it against him.

For the record, I don't think Luol was looking out for Luol by going pro. I thought he was getting pressure from his family to go pro.

MulletMan
03-28-2008, 10:09 AM
For the record, I don't think Luol was looking out for Luol by going pro. I thought he was getting pressure from his family to go pro.

Concur. Luol wanted to stay. From what I remember his family wanted him to go for the cash so that they could help out people back home financially.

MulletMan
03-28-2008, 10:11 AM
I think you hit on the main point (at least from a purely basketball standpoint). Even though it might seem like it in the nba, basketball is a team sport, no one, not even the greatest of the greatest, can carry a college team to a final four or NC without some decent players around him (just ask Durant). Carmelo is the only true freshman star to lead his team to a NC and he had another star freshman (McNamara) and a stud sophomore (Warrick) helping out. Oden had a lot of help and OSU got to the f4 but couldn't finish the deal. Love may help get UCLA over the hump this year but they have gotten to the f4 the last 2 years with out him and have several key upperclassmen.

In my opinion, this means that one and done (OAD) stud freshman are only worth it if you already have a strong team with upperclassmen and you just need a little push to get to the top. Duke may have a shot at the f4 or NC next year but probably won't be completely dominate so that would be a case where a OAD stud might be a positive.

If you don't have the good core to surround a OAD stud then he ends up being like a sugar high, you win a few extra games, sell a few extra tickets but after the season, you're worse off then when you started (OSU is a perfect example). Also, look at the tournament the last several years. A lot of the teams doing well are the programs with a solid group of upperclassmen that have good team chemistry. With the exception of OSU last year (and they had 3 freshman that declared for the draft although only Oden was supposed to be the only OAD), there aren't a lot of young teams making a loud of noise come tournament time. Plus recruiting players that don't stick around for more than a year or two puts a lot of pressure on your recruiting to be top notch every single year. Look at the way GaTech has yoyod the past couple of years. OSU is doing the same thing. SoCal seems to falling into that trap as well.

In the end, I think that recruiting has to be balanced. It's impractical to think that you can land bona fide nba all stars every year. What I think that K is trying to do and which I think is smart, is to target a mix of players, a few that can make an impact as freshman but will most likely be at least 3-4 year guys (Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith), some that might take a year or two to develop but will be starters or at least big contributers their junior and senior season (Zoubek, Thomas, King) and the occasional freshman stud that may only stick around a season or two but could pay big dividends (Singler). This should ensure that you always have a few junior and seniors that are strong leaders and contributers (unlike last year) but also allow for going for some truly top end recruits. We haven't seen the fruits of this approach yet but I think that next year things will come together (or at least I hope).

Now on the student athlete/college integrity side, i think that you would be hard pressed to advocate for OAD's.

Well stated on all counts. The core is key. Heck, look at UF's back-to-back guys... none were superstars thier first year.

Matches
03-28-2008, 10:18 AM
I agree that it undermines the school academically. It's one thing to have a guy like Luol break out as a freshman and decide to go pro, but recruiting someone who we know in advance has no interest in school and will likely be gone in a year undermines the basketball program's credibility with professors and administrators.