Recruiting is an art, not a science

[Jumbo]

This was a thread I wanted to start anyway, but in light of Taylor King’s transfer, I thought it was particularly fitting now. My thoughts are more broad-based, though, so I didn’t think it fit that thread well. And I still owe Gary a response, so I’ll post it here when I get a chance.

At last count, that thread had more than 300 responses and plenty of bickering. But what most of the posts had in common was an implicit desire to view recruiting through some sort of scientific or business model. Sadly, it doesn’t work that way. People have wondered why we’ve lost players. Why we haven’t landed others. Why some haven’t improved. Why our roster size has fluctuated. The answer is really simple: We’re dealing with kids. And they’re not just any kids; they’re all high-achievers.

To recap, we got one combined year out of Livingston, Deng and Humphries, leaving us with an incredibly short-handed roster in 2004-05. So Coach K made a conscious decision to use more of our scholarships. We discussed that at length on the DBR, and we ALL said at the time that a likely byproduct would be periodic transfers.

In the thread about Taylor King, one poster questioned the idea of his being a safety valve behind Kyle Singler. I don’t think K viewed him that way. I’m sure K thought King, just like everyone else, would have a chance to compete for playing time. But the fact that he also served a different purpose couldn’t be considered a bad thing.

The problem is that next year, Duke was scheduled to have 12 scholarship players. And 12 simply does not divide into 200 available minutes nicely, especially when you have three potentially elite players (Singler, Scheyer and Henderson) plus a four-year starter at PG (Paulus). None of the 12 kids want or expect to sit. But someone has to. And sometimes, a kid will decide that’s not good enough, and he’ll leave. Or kids will leave for other reasons – because they are kids. That’s okay. That was part of the plan. Duke wanted to have enough players to be able to deal with attrition of every type.

But that’s where the art comes in. How do you find guys like Nick Horvath, Casey Sanders or Lee Melchionni, who adjust to any role? And when you look for those guys, how do you make sure they are actually good enough to play? How do you find guys with the skills to be elite players, but also a willingness to stick around for at least a couple of years? How do you make sure they can handle Duke’s academic load, get along with each other and react to K’s demanding nature? There are so many variables, and then you have to consider the following: Kids are committing earlier than ever. Coaches are forced to evaluate these guys at 15 and 16. Think about that for second! These kids are still immature when they are in college; now picture any teenager you know. We’re expecting teenagers to make perfect decisions, and our staff to make perfect decisions about them?

Of course not. There will be mistakes in evaluation, mistakes in development, mistakes by the kids themselves. We’ve had hits and misses for decades, just like other programs. That will not change. That’s why this is an art, not a science. And this art form is constantly evolving. K has changed his recruiting strategy many times, and he might be in the process of doing so again. But the one aspect of science you can apply to these strategies is that each will cause anticipated reactions. If you bring in a lot of kids like Favors, you risk a) more one-and-done departures b) a lack of veteran stars and c) sufficient depth. Conversely, if you bring in more multi-year players and try to fill at least 11 scholarships (if not all 13), you are going to have attrition. Very few kids that Duke targets will be willing to sit for four years, or even sit for two years and see how years three and four go, because they are used to being stars and have been told how great they are their whole lives. That’s the nature of the beast.

It’s critical to remember this. No matter what strategy we employ, disappointment is somewhat inevitable in this sport. Someone mentioned that people tend to remember the $10 they lose more than the $15 they win. And that’s even more true in a game defined by a tournament where 64 of 65 teams lose their final game. I struggle with these emotions as much as anyone. It hurt to lose to WVU. It hurt to lose Taylor King. It hurts to let your mind wander and start to question the future.

So, I think the only way to survive as a college hoops fan is to force yourself to place things in the appropriate perspective, which would not include freaking out when last year’s 10th man decides to transfer from a team that should have 11 scholarship players next year. Otherwise, college basketball just stops being fun. As Tony Soprano would tell us, we’ve got to remember the good times. And then we need to have enough faith to know that more will be on the way, even with various speed bumps that jolt us more than they should.

[Clipsfan]

Nicely said. I think that another point which people haven't mentioned as much is that we're just now going to be settling down to the point where we'll have solid-to-great upper classmen on our team. It makes a large difference to have juniors and seniors who have not only been through it all multiple times but have had the chance to continue to develop both physically and mentally. Those tough losses of personnel 3-5 years ago have led to our current situation, but it looks like we're going to have solid players of the 3-4 year variety leading our team going forward. Our down years while adjusting were 22-11 and 28-6. That's really not all that bad, even for the program that many have considered the epitome of college basketball over the past 20+ years. On top of it all, I really like rooting for the guys as individuals. It's great to be able to say that.

[freedevil]

So, I think the only way to survive as a college hoops fan is to force yourself to place things in the appropriate perspective, which would not include freaking out when last year’s 10th man decides to transfer from a team that should have 11 scholarship players next year.

If that's not a "nice gratuitous insult," then I don't know what is.

As for the rest, I don't disagree with much. Obviously recruiting is not a science by any means. But perhaps posters should stop flouting how incredibly selective Duke is in the recruiting process in terms of who it will offer a scholarship, given that even that selectivity (if you will) is by no means perfect. So, when random posters suggest, "Hey, why aren't we recruiting 'X'" - maybe people should not electronically slap them with a high and mighty answer about Duke's standards for recruiting.

[Clipsfan]

For the whole season, he did average the 9th most minutes of any player on the team, which would suggest that calling him the 10th player is an insult. However, I have to assume that the fact that his average minutes declined from roughly 12.6/game for the first 20 games to 5.6/game over the last 14 would suggest that he was moving down the depth chart.

In contrast, McClure, the 10th player by overall average minutes, went from 10.7 to 7.6 over the same span. The players towards the bottom of the order all took a hit later in the season, but King suffered the most and was the 10th player in the depth order at the end of the season.

I say this from a purely minutes/numbers basis, not from anything else.

[BCGroup]

It’s critical to remember this. No matter what strategy we employ, disappointment is somewhat inevitable in this sport. Someone mentioned that people tend to remember the $10 they lose more than the $15 they win. And that’s even more true in a game defined by a tournament where 64 of 65 teams lose their final game. I struggle with these emotions as much as anyone. It hurt to lose to WVU. It hurt to lose Taylor King. It hurts to let your mind wander and start to question the future.



Our brains are wired in ways that we remember the negatives more than the positives. I could pull the research on that, but for a quick link, I found this:
Why do we remember negative events?

Whenever emotions are activated, especially strong emotions, the information or experience is entrenched into memory. Often times we tend to dwell on it, thereby rehearsing it and entrenching it even further. It is also easier to recall negative memories when we are in a bad mood. Why? Because we remember things in the state that we learned them so whenever you are feeling angry you will more easily recall other situations in which you were angry.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_memory1.htm

[Wander]

I think the question that people want addressed isn't "Why are players transferring out of Duke" but rather "Why are players transferring out of Duke recently at a higher rate than other elite programs like UNC, UCLA, Kansas, etc?"

I'm not really taking a side here (DO we have a higher transfer rate than those schools recently? I honestly don't know), but I'd say that's the relevant question.

[JasonEvans]

If that's not a "nice gratuitous insult," then I don't know what is.

Ummm, actually, it was a fact. Or it was at least close to a fact. In terms of minutes played (which is a pretty solid measure, I'd say) Taylor King was 9th on Duke, just a fraction of a minute ahead of David McClure (and McClure was playing more than King at the end of the season). I have a hard time seeing how you could call King anything but the 9th or 10th man.

-Jason "Jumbo's post was fabulous perspective, IMO" Evans

[MarkD83]

I looked at the UNC roster for this year and give you my thoughts.

There are 17 players on the UNC roster.

Eight play all or most of the minutes. Frasor is hurt making 9 players.

The players on the rest of the roster are all from North Carolina. I know that some of them are scholarship players (at least Graves and Copeland) and some walk-ons, but none of them are going to be homesick and most of them probably grew up as UNC fans.

So UNC has great players but is not 10-11 deep so playing time is not an issue.

[BD80]

Recruiting is an art, not a science

Amen.

However, there is a science to succeeding, and we have one of the best trained coaches in the world in that respect. Coach K studied at West Point, which has trained some of the best leaders in history. Many will scoff, but West Point is still an elite educational institution, and the training is perfect for coaches. Army officers learn how to recruit and train soldiers and to plan the best use of their resources - logistics. They learn back-up and contingency plans. Any wonder Coach K is associated with our business school?

Coach K is an "artist" in being able to forge personal relationships - his manner of recruiting - but has the "science" of being a master of his resources. I am anxious to celebrate his next success.

I don't see Taylor King as a failure, just as a experiment that didn't succeed. Taylor did not immediately "click" and apparently wasn't happy with his role as 10th man or his chances of PT over the next several years. It was worth the scholarship last year to see if Taylor would reach his potential at Duke or be a solid bench contributor. We didn't pass over any "hot" recruit to get Taylor. Taylor wants to leave, let us wish him well and move on. This gives Coach K another "resource" - a scholarship - let's see what he does. Taylor wasn't the answer to our perceived weakness in the low post (although I think Lance and Zoub as upperclassmen will make it one of our strengths) - now we have more options.

[keithg]

Thoughts on the Carolina argument:

It was thought of almost universally this year that Duke was deeper than Carolina...

but when we go to play them in Cameron, we use 5 players for 15 minutes or more...they use 7.

Perhaps they have less players transfer because their style of play and coaching philosophy cultivates the development of a bench even at the expense of losing a particular game.

I think Coach K has always been more comfortable with going to each battle with his best soliders sometimes losing sight of the war.

[MarkD83]

I guess my point about UNC is/was that there are really only 8 players on their team this year that expect to play major minutes. Frasor is hurt and the other 8 players may just be happy to wear a UNC uniform.

[moonpie23]

i'm in the music business, and i've always used the analogy that being a rock band and being successful is very akin to being a successful basketball team. there are a ton of talented musicians out there, but finding them, getting them to work together and having the right combination at the right time against the right competition is incredibly difficult.


you can scout them, speculate about their future ability to handle all the OTHER parts of the music business, but there are no guarantees.

aside from the "talent" part, the dynamic of working as a team, along with the various "assistant coaches", there are always wild cards and sometimes, it just doesn't work out...


additionally, in the music business, when the team (band) succeeds, THEY ARE GREAT!...when the team (band) fails, fire the manager (coach). I mean, how could they (manager or coach) have SO much talent and NOT win....?

[dw0827]

But that’s where the art comes in. How do you find guys like Nick Horvath, Casey Sanders or Lee Melchionni, who adjust to any role? And when you look for those guys, how do you make sure they are actually good enough to play? How do you find guys with the skills to be elite players, but also a willingness to stick around for at least a couple of years? How do you make sure they can handle Duke’s academic load, get along with each other and react to K’s demanding nature? There are so many variables, and then you have to consider the following: Kids are committing earlier than ever. Coaches are forced to evaluate these guys at 15 and 16. Think about that for second! These kids are still immature when they are in college; now picture any teenager you know. We’re expecting teenagers to make perfect decisions, and our staff to make perfect decisions about them?

To me, those are what I call character guys. Others call them glue guys. How do you find them? Well, how do you judge the character of a person whose character is being formed before our very eyes? These are 16, 17 18 year old kids we are trying to recruit. And trying to judge their character . . . well, good luck.

The answer? Look to the family. That is probably the best indicator of what kind of character a kid is going to have. And that is exactly what Coach K does. I've heard innumerable stories about how Coach K looks to the family connections and roles and relationships to gauge a potential recruit.

Yep, measuring bounce, lateral movement, and so on can be very scientific. But judging the heart and soul of a kid? You're right, Jumbo. Pure art. And a bit of magic.

[Jumbo]

If that's not a "nice gratuitous insult," then I don't know what is.

As for the rest, I don't disagree with much. Obviously recruiting is not a science by any means. But perhaps posters should stop flouting how incredibly selective Duke is in the recruiting process in terms of who it will offer a scholarship, given that even that selectivity (if you will) is by no means perfect. So, when random posters suggest, "Hey, why aren't we recruiting 'X'" - maybe people should not electronically slap them with a high and mighty answer about Duke's standards for recruiting.

Huh? How is that an insult? Taylor King finished the year as Duke's 10th man. It's not judgmental -- it's a fact. The five starters played ahead of him down the stretch, add did Scheyer, Smith, Zoubek and McClure.

I also don't know who is talking about "selectivity" in any sense other than the fact that a) there are a number of kids Duke just can't touch academically and b) there are certain kids K won't touch because of their character. So when someone wildly suggets Duke chase a certain recruit based on nothing but some website's rankings, it comes off as naive and doesn't consider dozens of other factors -- many of which I mentioned in my original post.

I always detested it when people said "Coach K doesn't have to recruit, he selects" during Duke's unbelieveable recruiting stretch from, say, 1998-2004. It was an enormous overstatement and unfair. If that's what you mean by "selecting," I agree. But if you mean that Duke doesn't consider of variety of factors and is actually willing to recruit every kid out there, then I would have to say that you're quite wrong.

[Jumbo]

I think the question that people want addressed isn't "Why are players transferring out of Duke" but rather "Why are players transferring out of Duke recently at a higher rate than other elite programs like UNC, UCLA, Kansas, etc?"

I'm not really taking a side here (DO we have a higher transfer rate than those schools recently? I honestly don't know), but I'd say that's the relevant question.


I still have to do the research that Gary wants, but I know off the top of my head that Kansas has had a bigger transfer problem in recent years. David Padgett, C.J. Giles, J.R. Giddens and Micah Downs come to mind immediately. Those are as many transfers as Duke has lost, and they are better players.

[Wander]

Ah that's right. I thought Kansas might be one of them, but I forgot about Padgett who's way way way better than any recent Duke transfer.

[xblade]

Ah that's right. I thought Kansas might be one of them, but I forgot about Padgett who's way way way better than any recent Duke transfer.

And, though certainly not an elite program, but I think Colorado had 4 players transfer in one year a couple of years ago. Wake Forest also had 4, and Wichita State had 3 during the same time frame. Drew Lavender transferred out of Oklahoma. Here is a list of transfers during the 2006-2007 season:

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=667122

Take a look at our transfers and you'll see that almost all of them transferred to lesser programs where they were almost guaranteed to get more playing time without having to work for it, and without the pressure of big time college basketball like you have at schools like Duke, UNC, etc.

As long as it's the bench players who contribute little that are transferring, I'm okay with it. I'll let the Duke haters get all worked up about it if they want, but they don't get to define my reality. When the starters and other main players start transferring is when I'll start worrying.

[Regenman]

Again, the flippancy of stating that those that left didn't succeed anywhere is somewhat two-faced. If they weren't good enough to succeed at their next "lesser" institution, that brings up the question of why they even registered on our radar to begin with. It's not merely the fact that recruiting is an art, it's why we're finger-painting with some of these kids. You can't have it both ways.

As for Coach Self, maybe he's had more successful kids leave his program, but considering the depth he had this season, that's no problem. The point is that even the kids that left are good.

Same with Barnes' two transfers (Williams to Cincy (got hurt) and Dowell to Houston (good year).

As for the negative aspects of this season. It's not losing in the round of 32 that disturbed people, it was going 6-5 after going 22-1. Perhaps folks actually scouted us and figured it out? We'll see next season.

This is like the liberal patriotism question. Just because we question what's going doesn't mean we hate America. Really......

[xblade]

I think the question that people want addressed isn't "Why are players transferring out of Duke" but rather "Why are players transferring out of Duke recently at a higher rate than other elite programs like UNC, UCLA, Kansas, etc?"

I'm not really taking a side here (DO we have a higher transfer rate than those schools recently? I honestly don't know), but I'd say that's the relevant question.

It's not really that complicated. As we were reminded during every ball game, Duke has 8 McDonald's All Americans on their team, more than any team in the country I think, and guess what? They all want 30 minutes a game, and a couple of them think the minutes are owed to them versus them earning them.

And another thing to keep in mind too: When our underclassmen turn pro early, for some reason it's an indictment of the program, but when kids at other schools go pro early, it's seen as just the way things are these days. For example, when Deng left after a year, some folks were saying he left early because K was ruining his game, he hated Duke, etc. When Marvin Williams left UNC after a year, he was making a wise decision because he was too talented for the college game, he was a lottery pick, etc.

Bottom line, a lot of the rhetoric out there about Duke basketball is put out by people who hate Duke basketball. Don't buy into their version of how things should be just because Duke and Coach K don't march to the beat of their drummer. I'm certainly not going to let Duke haters tell me how many transfers is too many.

[xblade]

Again, the flippancy of stating that those that left didn't succeed anywhere is somewhat two-faced. If they weren't good enough to succeed at their next "lesser" institution, that brings up the question of why they even registered on our radar to begin with. It's not merely the fact that recruiting is an art, it's why we're finger-painting with some of these kids. You can't have it both ways.

As for Coach Self, maybe he's had more successful kids leave his program, but considering the depth he had this season, that's no problem. The point is that even the kids that left are good.

Same with Barnes' two transfers (Williams to Cincy (got hurt) and Dowell to Houston (good year).

As for the negative aspects of this season. It's not losing in the round of 32 that disturbed people, it was going 6-5 after going 22-1. Perhaps folks actually scouted us and figured it out? We'll see next season.

This is like the liberal patriotism question. Just because we question what's going doesn't mean we hate America. Really......


As for your original question, that's simple: in the real world, there are no guarantees. If there were, no school would ever get players that don't live up to expectations.

[accfanfrom1970]

One point Jumbo made that stikes a chord....it's the recruiting wars that bother me - in that now coaches are offering sophs in HS. How do you know what they will be like as a senior? On or off the court? But if you don't get in the mix you may miss on some great talent. Bad situation going to get worse, and lead to more transfers..

[MChambers]

I still have to do the research that Gary wants, but I know off the top of my head that Kansas has had a bigger transfer problem in recent years. David Padgett, C.J. Giles, J.R. Giddens and Micah Downs come to mind immediately. Those are as many transfers as Duke has lost, and they are better players.

So when people right that Duke has had a bigger transfer program in recent years than other programs, is that correct, as a factual matter? And even if it is, is it appropriate to make judgments based on a relatively short time period,such as five years. Assuming you have about three recruits a year, that means you are looking at statistics based on a very small sample size of about 15 players. Hard to draw any conclusions from that.

[Exiled_Devil]

Thoughts on the Carolina argument:

It was thought of almost universally this year that Duke was deeper than Carolina...

but when we go to play them in Cameron, we use 5 players for 15 minutes or more...they use 7.

Perhaps they have less players transfer because their style of play and coaching philosophy cultivates the development of a bench even at the expense of losing a particular game.

I think Coach K has always been more comfortable with going to each battle with his best soliders sometimes losing sight of the war.

I don't know where you got the idea that we were deeper than UNC. We were deep this year, UNC was as deep, if not deeper. They had three capable at the 1 (until injury), a couple at each of the 2-3, and a half dozen for the 4-5. Thy brought in a monster class 2 years ago - and noone last year. A gamble on Roy's part that worked alright. Don't be surprised if they get a bare cupboard at some point soon with the feast or famine strategy.

As for UNC having a style that focuses on building people at the possible expense of games, you can't say that this year. They only lost 2 games! It's not possible to argue that so much development went on in those three games. At least not the same argument that says volume of minutes determines development. I don't have the stats, but you could argue about playing time with min/game numbers, but not a vauge idea that Coach K focuses on winning at the expense of development and then use a team with two losses as your example of someone who doesn't do this.

[RPS]

The answer is really simple: We’re dealing with kids. And they’re not just any kids; they’re all high-achievers.Yup.


To recap, we got one combined year out of Livingston, Deng and Humphries, leaving us with an incredibly short-handed roster in 2004-05. So Coach K made a conscious decision to use more of our scholarships. We discussed that at length on the DBR, and we ALL said at the time that a likely byproduct would be periodic transfers.Yup again.


The problem is that next year, Duke was scheduled to have 12 scholarship players. And 12 simply does not divide into 200 available minutes nicely, especially when you have three potentially elite players (Singler, Scheyer and Henderson) plus a four-year starter at PG (Paulus). None of the 12 kids want or expect to sit. But someone has to. And sometimes, a kid will decide that’s not good enough, and he’ll leave. Or kids will leave for other reasons – because they are kids. That’s okay. That was part of the plan. Duke wanted to have enough players to be able to deal with attrition of every type.And again.


But that’s where the art comes in. How do you find guys like Nick Horvath, Casey Sanders or Lee Melchionni, who adjust to any role? And when you look for those guys, how do you make sure they are actually good enough to play?Because of the way the recruiting media now works, some players that the staff sees in this light might be projected as being much better by the services (after all, Duke has offered!), impacting the players' expectations along the way.


How do you find guys with the skills to be elite players, but also a willingness to stick around for at least a couple of years? How do you make sure they can handle Duke’s academic load, get along with each other and react to K’s demanding nature? There are so many variables, and then you have to consider the following: Kids are committing earlier than ever. Coaches are forced to evaluate these guys at 15 and 16. Think about that for second! These kids are still immature when they are in college; now picture any teenager you know. We’re expecting teenagers to make perfect decisions, and our staff to make perfect decisions about them?The commit "system" in football has often been compared unfavorably to that in basketball here at DBR (in general, hoops verbals are honored by coaches while gridiron verbals are not). But the very issue you raise here suggests that maybe it isn't so bad. The football "system" raises its own set of problems, of course, but if a verbal isn't treated as binding and the market is free 'til the LOI is signed, both coaches and players can keep evaluating the situation and can make adjustments accordingly, even if doing so has other consequences.


There will be mistakes in evaluation, mistakes in development, mistakes by the kids themselves. We’ve had hits and misses for decades, just like other programs. That will not change.Spot on.


Very few kids that Duke targets will be willing to sit for four years, or even sit for two years and see how years three and four go, because they are used to being stars and have been told how great they are their whole lives. That’s the nature of the beast.The growth of summer basketball and the recruiting media has, in one sense, levelled the playing field. But one consequence is that virtually no player flies under the radar anymore. Therefore, finding a "hidden gem" who has a chance to develop but doesn't have huge expectations doesn't happen much anymore.


It’s critical to remember this. No matter what strategy we employ, disappointment is somewhat inevitable in this sport. Someone mentioned that people tend to remember the $10 they lose more than the $15 they win.In the world of the markets, the research is pretty clear and consistent that, emotionally, people react three times more powerfully to a loss than to an equivilent gain.


So, I think the only way to survive as a college hoops fan is to force yourself to place things in the appropriate perspective, which would not include freaking out when last year’s 10th man decides to transfer from a team that should have 11 scholarship players next year.Indeed.


Otherwise, college basketball just stops being fun. As Tony Soprano would tell us, we’ve got to remember the good times. And then we need to have enough faith to know that more will be on the way, even with various speed bumps that jolt us more than they should.100% correct. However, as I noted in the 330+ post thread you referenced, I think the real problem isn't so much the general speed bump, but that Carolina is doing so well while we have struggled a bit, if only in comparison to the ridiculously high standards we have set and met in the past.

[_Gary]

I still have to do the research that Gary wants, but I know off the top of my head that Kansas has had a bigger transfer problem in recent years. David Padgett, C.J. Giles, J.R. Giddens and Micah Downs come to mind immediately. Those are as many transfers as Duke has lost, and they are better players.

Ok, just to be clear my bigger picture concern encompasses far more than just transfers from the last 7 years. I'm glad you are doing that research, but I don't want my base concern to be lost in just talking about transfers. I've said that it was a combination of

1) Transfers, specifically what seemed to be a high rate over the last 7 years

2) Guys leaving early for the NBA

3) Guys verbally committing to Duke and then not coming here (NBA or another college)

4) Missed recruits, especially big men

I've said that a combination of all those things seemed to have hit Duke harder than the other schools in the last 7 years. If that is proven wrong by the data, I'm happy to know it. Having said that, if it's proven that other teams like Kansas or UNC have lost as much man power as Duke has over the last 7 years due to a combination of all the issues I've mentioned, then I still have to be a little bit bummed because both those teams seem to be adjusting to those losses quite well at the moment. We, on the other hand, seem to be struggling (at least in post season). Perhaps it's just the "randomness" of March Madness and we've been extraordinarily unlucky over the last 7 years (minus '04) in coming up short in the NCAA's. I don't know. But it just seems to me we are getting hit very, very hard in man-power loss recently.

Just wanting to stay clear on what my concerns are. It's much more than just transfers.


Gary

[freedevil]

Gary, the NBA defections probably should not go in to your calculus. Off the top of my head, schools like UNC, UCLA, and Texas have had lots of kids jump to the pros. The NBA defections are hurting lots and lots of schools. I do think, however, that Duke has had more than its fair share of transfers (not to mention injury woes).

[_Gary]

Gary, the NBA defections probably should not go in to your calculus. Off the top of my head, schools like UNC, UCLA, and Texas have had lots of kids jump to the pros. The NBA defections are hurting lots and lots of schools. I do think, however, that Duke has had more than its fair share of transfers (not to mention injury woes).

Agreed. But my point is a combination of all these things hitting us hard within a specific time period. By itself I'd never mention the NBA defections because I know other schools have been hit hard. But when you combine it with the "one transfer a year on average" thing, the verbals that never got here, and the missed bigs in recruiting, it seems to be a problem. Again, think of a stew - not the individual ingredients alone.


Gary

[MChambers]

Gary, the NBA defections probably should not go in to your calculus. Off the top of my head, schools like UNC, UCLA, and Texas have had lots of kids jump to the pros. The NBA defections are hurting lots and lots of schools. I do think, however, that Duke has had more than its fair share of transfers (not to mention injury woes).

It does seem like we have a lot of injuries, but I suspect that we feel that way because we focus on Duke, and so we are aware of those injuries. I doubt the facts would show that we have more injuries, if someone were able to marshal the facts.

On transfers, I'm curious to see what research reveals, but I'd be leery of reading too much into a short period of time.

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

I would like to see us do a better job of recruiting players who fit our style of D. Why recruit players like Marty and Taylor when it's probable they will get limited PT due to K's frustration with their D? IMO, players such as Taylor and Marty would be much more compatable with a team that favors zone D.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[Jumbo]

Ok, just to be clear my bigger picture concern encompasses far more than just transfers from the last 7 years. I'm glad you are doing that research, but I don't want my base concern to be lost in just talking about transfers. I've said that it was a combination of

1) Transfers, specifically what seemed to be a high rate over the last 7 years

2) Guys leaving early for the NBA

3) Guys verbally committing to Duke and then not coming here (NBA or another college)

4) Missed recruits, especially big men

I've said that a combination of all those things seemed to have hit Duke harder than the other schools in the last 7 years. If that is proven wrong by the data, I'm happy to know it. Having said that, if it's proven that other teams like Kansas or UNC have lost as much man power as Duke has over the last 7 years due to a combination of all the issues I've mentioned, then I still have to be a little bit bummed because both those teams seem to be adjusting to those losses quite well at the moment. We, on the other hand, seem to be struggling (at least in post season). Perhaps it's just the "randomness" of March Madness and we've been extraordinarily unlucky over the last 7 years (minus '04) in coming up short in the NCAA's. I don't know. But it just seems to me we are getting hit very, very hard in man-power loss recently.

Just wanting to stay clear on what my concerns are. It's much more than just transfers.


Gary

No, Gary, we will not be doing "missed recruits, especially big men." Because, as we agreed upon in the other thread, when a recruit picks a school, usually five or six teams "lose out" on that guy. It's a ridiculous argument and not germane to the discussion. We will stick purely to the idea of people leaving Duke, and include Humphries and Livingston in the mix.

[MChambers]

Hi,

I would like to see us do a better job of recruiting players who fit our style of D. Why recruit players like Marty and Taylor when it's probable they will get limited PT due to K's frustration with their D? IMO, players such as Taylor and Marty would be much more compatable with a team that favors zone D.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

I don't think it is that easy to evaluate whether a 16-year-old will be able to play Duke D. I remember reading that Grant Hill's biggest concern when he started playing for Coach K was whether or not he could play good enough defense to earn many minutes. Obviously, he was able to do that, but others have not been able to do that.

[Duvall]

I don't know where you got the idea that we were deeper than UNC. We were deep this year, UNC was as deep, if not deeper. They had three capable at the 1 (until injury), a couple at each of the 2-3, and a half dozen for the 4-5.

They may have had guys who *could* play at those spots, but they only played about eight or nine during the year. After Frasor's injury it was strictly an eight-man rotation.

[Jeffrey]

I don't think it is that easy to evaluate whether a 16-year-old will be able to play Duke D. I remember reading that Grant Hill's biggest concern when he started playing for Coach K was whether or not he could play good enough defense to earn many minutes. Obviously, he was able to do that, but others have not been able to do that.

Hi,

I agree that it's very difficult to evaluate but think our extremely talented & capable staff may want to focus more on this issue since it's clearly a PT requirement. I suspect there are more (I assume this is already done) success correlations that could be determined/utilized. For an overly simple example (trying to further this discussion), if you grow up playing hoops like/where/how Hurley did you'll probably be more suitable for K's D than someone who grows up playing hoops like/where/how Marty did, right?

Jumbo, I think recruiting is both an art and a science. :)

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[Duvall]

No, Gary, we will not be doing "missed recruits, especially big men." Because, as we agreed upon in the other thread, when a recruit picks a school, usually five or six teams "lose out" on that guy. It's a ridiculous argument and not germane to the discussion. We will stick purely to the idea of people leaving Duke, and include Humphries and Livingston in the mix.

Not to mention the fact that including missed recruits would probably hurt Gary's argument, since *every* school misses on recruits. Looking at the way other schools recruited four centers to land one won't prove or disprove that there's a problem specific to Duke.

[crimsonandblue]

So when people right that Duke has had a bigger transfer program in recent years than other programs, is that correct, as a factual matter? And even if it is, is it appropriate to make judgments based on a relatively short time period,such as five years. Assuming you have about three recruits a year, that means you are looking at statistics based on a very small sample size of about 15 players. Hard to draw any conclusions from that.

The distinction between a school like Kansas and Duke is that Duke has had stability in the coaching ranks. Has Kansas had more transfers recently? You bet. Roy's last class committed to Kansas and included Padgett, Omar Wilkes, Giddens and Jeremy Case. Only Case made it through to grad. The other three left for various reasons. Of Self's first recruited class (a big class to address the loss of Wilkes and Padgett and Roy's tendency to take every other year off when recruiting to Kansas - where's that gone, by the way), Downs, CJ Giles and Alex Galindo left.

But things have settled down since. And I think Self's done a nice job of filling voids as and when he can. I hope things will settle down now. We'll see. But Self has also made it clear that he's willing and intends to "recruit over" people in a way that maybe Roy didn't while he was at Kansas. At that point, the key to avoiding transfers is just people management and trying to manage their expectations both in the recruiting process and once they hit campus. Now that Self's got his kids in place, I think he's done a nice job of this lately.

[Chicago 1995]

Not to mention the fact that including missed recruits would probably hurt Gary's argument, since *every* school misses on recruits. Looking at the way other schools recruited four centers to land one won't prove or disprove that there's a problem specific to Duke.

As a counter point as to the missed big men recruits, the comparison maybe shouldn't be to other schools, but to Duke's recruiting under K prior to this staff.

Even when we were in that ridiculous period where people claimed we didn't recruit, we selected, we missed out on plenty of kids. Still, we've missed on our primary pivot recruit four years running -- Wright, Patterson, Monroe and Echinique.

The simple fact that those kids committed elsewhere isn't the problem so much as the circumstances behind their committing elsewhere. With Wright and Monroe, we were, if you believe insiders posting here and on other Duke sights, blindsided by their committing without visiting Duke as planned. With Patterson and Echinique, the players' comments after committing show that, despite the staff's best efforts and the focusing of our efforts on those players (at the expense of other recruits), Duke wasn't a serious consideration for either player.

When we limit our targets as we do, we can't be misreading the interest of our targets this significantly, but we have four classes running. That's not something that's always happened, and that's what concerns me.

These aren't the only things giving rise to concern about the staff's evaluative skills either. You've got the questions raised about the recruitments of Pocius and King, who are/were bad fits for our defensive system, and saw their minutes limited by that lack of a fit. You've got the recruitments of Boateng & Thompson (and arguably Boykin) who left almost immediately and in retrospect, don't appear to have been Duke caliber players.

We've always missed on recruits. We've always misevaluted kids and their fit at Duke and in our system. The difference is that we're doing it at a higher rate than we did in the past.

[The1Bluedevil]

The distinction between a school like Kansas and Duke is that Duke has had stability in the coaching ranks. Has Kansas had more transfers recently? You bet. Roy's last class committed to Kansas and included Padgett, Omar Wilkes, Giddens and Jeremy Case. Only Case made it through to grad. The other three left for various reasons. Of Self's first recruited class (a big class to address the loss of Wilkes and Padgett and Roy's tendency to take every other year off when recruiting to Kansas - where's that gone, by the way), Downs, CJ Giles and Alex Galindo left.

But things have settled down since. And I think Self's done a nice job of filling voids as and when he can. I hope things will settle down now. We'll see. But Self has also made it clear that he's willing and intends to "recruit over" people in a way that maybe Roy didn't while he was at Kansas. At that point, the key to avoiding transfers is just people management and trying to manage their expectations both in the recruiting process and once they hit campus. Now that Self's got his kids in place, I think he's done a nice job of this lately.


I'm a little surprised with as good of recruitor as Self is that he had to go the JUCO route for two players next year.

[_Gary]

No, Gary, we will not be doing "missed recruits, especially big men." Because, as we agreed upon in the other thread, when a recruit picks a school, usually five or six teams "lose out" on that guy. It's a ridiculous argument and not germane to the discussion. We will stick purely to the idea of people leaving Duke, and include Humphries and Livingston in the mix.

Ok, your majesty [i.e. "we" will not be discussing it]. :D

In all seriousness, I can understand that portion of the stew being too big and complicated to discuss. And yes, many schools lose out when a recruit finally announces for someone. Having said that, let's be honest. Duke's a big time, big name school. And you know I'm specifically referencing recent bigs who did have Duke whittled down to their final 2 or 3, and often the signs were that Duke was in the lead. Wright going to UNC was really out of the blue and I have to believe we thought we had the kid. And up until the last minute we thought we had great shots at Patterson and Monroe. So I think to be honest we have to admit there are some differences between generally missing on recruits and consecutive misses on bigs over and over and over when we were in the final 2 or 3. But I promise I will not bring that portion of the stew back up in discussion for this thread. Just wanted to make that one point about why I thought it was germane for this particular portion of time in Duke Basketball history (last 7 years).


Gary

P.S. I'm in agreement with Chicago1995's basic points. Very good post, IMHO, that gets to the heart of what I'm talking about. Especially paragraphs 3, 4 and 6.

[gvtucker]

As a counter point as to the missed big men recruits, the comparison maybe shouldn't be to other schools, but to Duke's recruiting under K prior to this staff.

(...snip...)

We've always missed on recruits. We've always misevaluted kids and their fit at Duke and in our system. The difference is that we're doing it at a higher rate than we did in the past.

You point out mistakes, and yet you're not pointing out the lack of those mistakes in the past, so I think your contention that we're missing out at a higher rate than we did in the past is still wanting for data.

Go all the way back to our first big recruiting class. We only landed David Henderson because we missed out on Curtis Hunter (to UNC, no less). Hunter was a high profile recruit, Henderson wasn't on the national radar. Top big man targets like John Brownlee, Jerrod Mustaf, and Uwe Blab went elsewhere. Shoot, we could go on forever, just thinking of ACC players that went elsewhere, guys like Jimmy Miller and Loren Woods are on that list. Seems like we regularly got beat out by Kansas for people like Jacque Vaughn. Or how about Richard Keene? He was a high profile recruit in Illinois, it was only after he chose U of I that we focused on another player in that state, Chris Collins.

People are tending to exagerrate current misses only because recruiting is a more publicized game now. Nobody paid much attention to misses in the past because there weren't services on the internet like Scout and Rivals that would publicize a player's list of potential schools as soon as one could be generated. And, as noted on this thread, people are focusing on things that went wrong to a ridiculous extent without realizing that every single other program in the country misses out on just as many recruits, too.

[crimsonandblue]

I'm a little surprised with as good of recruitor as Self is that he had to go the JUCO route for two players next year.

I don't know that we had to, necessarily, although we missed on a bunch of our targets (Osby, Liggins, Morgan, etc.). What we needed to do was do something to balance out these classes. Bringing in six freshmen just wasn't going to work.

Assuming things go as they appear (meaning we lose Rush and Arthur "early" and just those two), without bringing in two juco kids and excluding walkons we would have 1 senior (Chalmers), 1 junior (Collins), 3 sophs (Reed, Aldrich and a redshirted Morningstar), and then as many freshmen as we could find (Morris twins, Q. Thomas, Releford, and ________).

Instead we will have 1 senior, 3 juniors, 3 sophs, and 4 freshmen. It's a "luxury" that Duke doesn't have, but it's a tactic I like because otherwise, all these playing time issues you're worried about with having 12 guys really come home to roost. You just can't have that imbalance and recruit as you'd like and absorb misses on the recruiting trails, etc.

[Chicago 1995]

You point out mistakes, and yet you're not pointing out the lack of those mistakes in the past, so I think your contention that we're missing out at a higher rate than we did in the past is still wanting for data.



That's fair, gv. I probably should have said "seems" like we're missing at a higher rate.

Also, by missing, I didn't just mean the kids that didn't end up in Durham. I also meant the kids that did end up in Durham and didn't meaningfully contribute in any way, like the transfers or Pocius.

Going back to my following of Duke recruiting, which dates back to 1991, I can't recall a stretch where we continually missed out on recruits at a position of need for a stretch like we've had with post recruits. I certainly don't recall a stretch where we both missed out on key recruits at the rate we've been missing *and* were also missing on the talent level of the kids we were bringing in to the extent we have.

The closest thing I can recall is the stretch from 1993 to 1996 where, in retrospect, I think we can fairly say we missed on the evaluation of a number of the players we brought in. But we were bringing in a lot of -- not all certainly -- the players we wanted, and we weren't consistently missing completely at any one position of import. Right now, we're both missing in evaluating too many of the kids we're bringing in *and* we've also got the problem of filling the five hole.

[The1Bluedevil]

I don't know that we had to, necessarily, although we missed on a bunch of our targets (Osby, Liggins, Morgan, etc.). What we needed to do was do something to balance out these classes. Bringing in six freshmen just wasn't going to work.

Assuming things go as they appear (meaning we lose Rush and Arthur "early" and just those two), without bringing in two juco kids and excluding walkons we would have 1 senior (Chalmers), 1 junior (Collins), 3 sophs (Reed, Aldrich and a redshirted Morningstar), and then as many freshmen as we could find (Morris twins, Q. Thomas, Releford, and ________).

Instead we will have 1 senior, 3 juniors, 3 sophs, and 4 freshmen. It's a "luxury" that Duke doesn't have, but it's a tactic I like because otherwise, all these playing time issues you're worried about with having 12 guys really come home to roost. You just can't have that imbalance and recruit as you'd like and absorb misses on the recruiting trails, etc.

I have seen Little and Appleton play and think Appleton will more of a factor. Especially if Mario leaves.

[The1Bluedevil]

Rivals.com's thought on the 07 class. http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=793057

[devildeac]

Wish you wouldn't post stuff like this Jumbo, it is just simply too well thought out, rational and makes too d@mned much sense(jk). Thank you again for the analysis and sense of reason.

[Jumbo]

In another thread, Gary wrote (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128944&postcount=83):

Jumbo, let's just make it simple: Do you, or do you not, believe that Duke has taken a harder hit than any other national power program in the last 7 years when it's come to transfers and early departures. We can leave the misses out of it if you think that makes it too complicated. No matter how we slice it, I say we have taken the biggest hit in the college bball world. Do you dispute my claim? Yes - or - No.

I did dispute Gary's claim, and said I'd do some research to back up my opinion. I'm proud to report that I've finished that research, and it's even stronger than I expected. Before getting to that, though, let me discuss a couple of problems with the initial premise.

First, how do we identify the "national power programs?" Do we include traditional powers like Indiana who have faded? What about schools very recently on the rise, like Memphis? Florida won back-to-back titles, then made the NIT this year. Georgetown was crumbling until JT III arrived. UConn's last three seasons have ended in a loss to George Mason, a Tourney-less year, and a loss to San Diego in the first round of the NCAA Tourney. It's amazing that over a span as seemingly short as seven years, barely any program can be considered consistently "elite." In the end, I picked 10 schools to examine: UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, UConn, Syracuse, Texas, Florida, Arizona and Michigan State. Apologies go out to Georgetown, Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin and Indiana, among others. And I didn't even mention Maryland.

Secondly, Gary gave himself a convenient escape route when he essentially blamed UNC's transfers on a coaching change. The amazing thing I found when deciding which schools to use was how many have changed coaches since the end of the 2001-02 season, which is the point from which I began measuring. Just look at this year's Final Four -- UCLA, UNC and Kansas all have switched coaches since then. Calipari has the longest tenure, and he has only been at Memphis since 2000-01. Of the 10 teams I picked, four (UNC, UCLA, Kansas and Kentucky) went through coaching changes over that period. And we know how much turmoil Arizona went through this year.

Anyway, I present a list of each school's transfers, early entries (either to the NBA or Europe, in a couple of cases) and non-arrivals. The non-arrivals were really tough to track if they weren't drafted or went to another school (like Kris Humphries). I might be missing some. I tried to avoid including walk-ons among transfers. I did include kids who were kicked off the team, though, particularly when they ended up at another college. Finally, I did not include Carlos Boozer and Jason Williams among Duke's early-entry losses, because they announced their intention a year earlier, allowing Duke to prepare for their departure, and graduated early. I did include Mike Dunleavy, though, because his departure was a surprise. And keep in mind that this list will grow for several of the other schools this year, because some announcements are expected to come. By contrast, I have already included Taylor King for Duke, and don't expect anyone to leave early for th the NBA. Anyway, check out the list. Not only do the numbers make for an interesting comparison, so too does the quality of players lost. If I'm missing names, or have included some in error, please let me know and I'll make the appropriate adjustments.

Duke
Transfers: 4 (Michael Thompson, Eric Boateng, Jamal Boykin, Taylor King)
Early Entries: 4 (Mike Dunleavy, Shavlik Randolph, Luol Deng, Josh McRoberts)
Non-Arrivals: 2 (Shaun Livingston, Kris Humphries)

North Carolina
Transfers: 3 (Adam Boone, Brian Morrison, Neil Fingleton)
Early Entries: 5 (Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Sean May, Marvin Williams, Brandan Wright)
Non-Arrivals: 2 (J.R. Smith, JamesOn Curry)

UCLA
Transfers: 5 (Nican Robinson, Andre Patterson, Ryan Walcott, Ryan Wright, Chase Stanback)
Early Entries: 5 (Trevor Ariza, Jordan Farmar, Arron Afflalo, Kevin Love, Darren Collison)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Kansas
Transfers: 7 (David Padgett, Nick Bahe, Alex Galindo, J.R. Giddens, Micah Downs, C.J. Giles, Omar Wilkes)
Early Entries: 4 (Drew Gooden, Julian Wright, Darrell Arthur, Brandon Rush)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Kentucky
Transfers: 8 (Jason Parker, Rashaad Carruth, Marvin Stone, Bernard Cote, Shagari Alleyne, Rekalin Sims, Adam Williams, Alex Legion)
Early Entries: 3 (Kelenna Azubuike, Randolph Morris*, Rajon Rondo)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

UConn
Transfers: 8 (Scott Hazelton, Marcus White, Antonio Kellogg, Ben Eaves, Rob Garrison, Marcus Johnson, Doug Wiggins, Curtis Kelly)
Early Entries: 7 (Caron Butler, Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva, Josh Boone, Marcus Williams, Rudy Gay)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (Andrew Bynum)

Syracuse
Transfers: 6 (DeShaun Williams, James Thues, Billy Edelin*, Louie McCroskey, Mike Jones, Josh Wright)
Early Entries: 2 (Carmelo Anthony, Donte Greene)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Texas
Transfers: 3 (Dion Dowell, Mike Williams, Edgar Moreno)
Early Entries: 5 (T.J. Ford, P.J. Tucker, Daniel Gibson, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Durant)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (C.J. Miles)

Florida
Transfers: 9 (James White, Orien Greene, Mario Boggan, Chris Capko, Mohamed Abukar, Ryan Appleby, David Huertas, Brandon Powell, Jonathan Mitchell)
Early Entries: 7 (Anthony Roberson, Matt Walsh, Christian Drejer*, Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Taurean Green)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Arizona
Transfers 7 (Will Bynum, Dennis Latimore, Tyler Tiederman, Beau Muhlbach, Jesus Verdejo, J.P. Prince, Laval Lucas-Perry)
Early Entries: 3 (Andre Iguodala, Marcus Williams, Jerryd Bayless)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (Ndudi Ebi)

Michigan State
Transfers 3 (Brandon Cotton, Justin Ockerman, Maurice Joseph)
Early Entries: 3 (Marcus Taylor, Erazem Lorbek, Shannon Brown)
Non-Arrivals 0 (None that I could find)

*I'm not including early entries from this season until they sign with an agent.

[gvtucker]

One addition, Jason Parker would be a transfer for Kentucky (to South Carolina).

He'd be an nonarrival for UNC if your database went back another year.

And would Zach Randolph be an early entry for Michigan State? I think he left in 2001.

[freedevil]

Now that, is some analysis/research. Repost in its own thread, lock, and pin to the top maybe?

[Jumbo]

One addition, Jason Parker would be a transfer for Kentucky (to South Carolina).

He'd be an nonarrival for UNC if your database went back another year.

And would Zach Randolph be an early entry for Michigan State? I think he left in 2001.

Both Parker and Randolph left their respective schools after the 2001 season, so neither qualified.

[Duvall]

Thanks, Jumbo.

I think the most important facts from that post are the transfer histories of UConn, Syracuse, Texas, Florida, Arizona and Michigan State - they show pretty convincingly that even elite programs with stable coaching situations with championship-level coaches can have transfer numbers in line with or greater than those seen at Duke in recent years. It's just something that happens.

[MChambers]

Jumbo, why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?

Maybe you need to go back to see how many transfers Wooden had? :)

[Ultrarunner]

Rivals.com's thought on the 07 class. http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=793057

It was interesting to look at the list and note that the impact freshmen dominated the top spots. However, many of these same freshmen will be declaring for the NBA (several already have, Gordon most recently). Effectively, Rivals created a snapshot of the programs this year and assessed grades based on just this year's experience.

It would be much more informative to look at these same programs in two more years to assess exactly how good the classes were. Florida currently rates a "C" but if the kids continue to play without any heart, will that degrade? If they stick around and turn it around, would they rate a higher grade than K-State or USC, post Beasley or Mayo that currently enjoy A+/A- grades? By waiting until the class reaches their junior year, you give the kids a chance to develop. Some will surprise and turn into All-conferenece players. Others will disappoint. (I always think of Efrem Winters of Illinois, a can't miss prospect with a pro body as a freshman, who just never seemed to ever reach his potential.) A good example is Henderson who disappointed a bit last year relative to his hype but just finished a terrific season and looks to explode into an All-ACC player next year.

Many of the programs were also ranked highly for pulling in large classes. How many of the programs that brought in big numbers (K-State, Florida) will see those players transfer? Jumbo's numbers indicate at least a few probably will.

A difinitive assessment of the recruiting classes requires a bit more time than Rivals gives it. There is a large difference between creating an impact and having a lasting impression. Who was a better recruit for their school, JJ Redick or Tyrus Thomas? Based on one year, Thomas. On a career, it's JJ and it's not even close.

[Regenman]

I understand the rationale but I think it's a stretch to not include Boozer or Williams, but then put (as representative examples) (a) the Florida kids (Noah, Horford) who could have left after their first championship and we all knew were not coming back, (b) Okafor who was on track to graduate in 3 years (and did), or (c) Kevin Durant (along the same logic as Greg Oden or Michael Beasley).

Like we all know, statistics are useless without context. Using Texas (my undergrad) as an example (yes, I went to Duke for law), I'll take a brief look at the early entries..

Both Shav and McRoberts left early, from positions that were need positions for Duke, with the general consensus that they could use much more work at Duke. They, in essence, fled from the Duke program--Shav undrafted (right?) and McRoberts a 2nd rounder. Dunleavey, Deng, Williams were drafted well and Boozer fell for inexplicable reasons. But Shav and McRoberts were not in the same boat as the others.

The closest parallel from the Texas perspective is Daniel Gibson, who left Texas early and dropped in the second round. That loss was at least mitigated by having Augustin come in. I won't count PJ Tucker in the same boat because he did win the Big 12 Player of the Year as a junior and it was unclear whether an additional year would improve his game. TJ Ford, Aldridge and Durant were all top 10 picks.

The basic issue is that Duke has lost 4 big men (Thompson, Boateng, Randolph and McRoberts) who all underperformed (at Duke and elsewhere) and has another injury prone big man in Zoubek who doesn't seem to fit Coach K's current system or historical legacy of big men. That just begs the question of whether its (a) scouting, (b) coaching, or (c) luck. And I guess we all look at it differently.

And I admit I'm hard on the coaches. I'm also quite critical of Mack Brown. These guys get paid MILLIONS of dollars to coach. Mack Brown also gets a lot of talent, but it doesn't translate all the time on the field.

Part of similarity is that a close rival just happens to look better (UNC in basketball for Duke and Oklahoma in football for Texas) and that's painful. Though Mack made an adjustment this year by bringing in a fire and brimstone defensive coordinator (to handle the criticism that his team plays without emotion in a number of big games).

PS Another thought. While Coach K has been a constant, the assistant coaches have not. We won the championship in 2001, but I don't think Collins was involved in recruiting the major players on that team since he joined the staff in 2000. Wojo joined in '99.

[Buckeye Devil]

Expectations of fans are frequently unrealistic and that is especially true when it is a big-time successful program like Duke b-ball or a power football program. I have to remind myself of this regularly as I follow only Duke basketball and Ohio State football and to a slightly lesser degree Ohio State b-ball.

Consider Regenman's position on Mack Brown. In the past 7 seasons Texas is 76-14 with a conference title, a NC, 6 bowl wins, and 4 top 10 finishes. I will admit they have lost 5 to Oklahoma which is a rub, I know. But double digit wins for 7 years in a row with an average record of (almost) 11-2 is pretty strong. Yet there is reason to find fault in at least 1 UT fan's mind, and I am sure in the minds of many more. I guess that is to be expected where the expectation is to compete for a NC regularly.

I guess what I am saying is that we need to be a bit more realistic and maybe even more fair in what to expect year in and year out. I am really disappointed about the results of recent years and I think that there are some legitimate concerns. But let's face it, if Duke would have beat UCONN in the Final 4 in 2004, or not have run into a horrid matchup with LSU in 2006, there would probably be little or no discussion about decline, recruiting, transfers, or too much else. I think expectations need to be high, albeit fair, remembering that 1) we are dealing with kids, 2) success sometimes requires some luck, including with recruiting, and 3) the landscape of college b-ball and athletics in general is not the same as it was a few years ago.

[tropical storm]

I would echo the thoughts that Jason Williams and Carlos Boozer should be included in the Duke early entry bucket. While they may have announced their intentions a year early, this is really no different that Okafor, Horford, Noah, May, Felton, Mccants, Durant, Anthony etc... all of whom for one reason or another the coach knew were entering their last/only year in that program.

Another reason to include them would be that while we knew they were gone, their loss certainly still effected us in the same way as the aforementioned players from other programs. It is not like Coach K could say now that I know Jason is leaving let me go and find a high school player who will be as good next year as Jason would be.

I think the analysis would basically still produce the same results. Which would be:

1. Duke has been effected slightly more than most other elite teams, but has definitely not been hit the hardest, and the difference is statistically insignificant.

2. Transfers have not played any significant factor in any elite programs performance (amazingly few impact players)

3. Early entry- seems to fall into one of two categories, guys who stayed 3 years and largely won championships for their schools and guys who stayed one year and did not (my apologies to Anthony). This seems to support the need to target elite players, and then just pray that yours stick around long enough.

[_Gary]

Thanks for supplying the info Jumbo. I'll reply in detail when I get a chance, hopefully some time early next week. There are important variables that you did not take into account, which I really thought we all understood, but alas. I'll try to make those points as soon as I can.


Gary

[K24U]

To recap, we got one combined year out of Livingston, Deng and Humphries, leaving us with an incredibly short-handed roster in 2004-05. So Coach K made a conscious decision to use more of our scholarships. We discussed that at length on the DBR, and we ALL said at the time that a likely byproduct would be periodic transfers.

It is true that Duke got one year combined out of Humphries, Deng and Livingstone which left the team severely short handed. It is also true the team should have had a back up plan in place. Duke’s lack of obtaining a back up plan is why Duke is having recruiting problems today. Coach K use to be able to wave his magic wand and the kids would come running to play at Duke. Coach K has been waving his wand now for a few years now and they aren’t running to Duke like they use to. Duke has in the past gone after one player and as been willing to allow players to hold Duke hostage while they make their decision. In some cases Duke prevailed and others they didn’t. The waving of the wand stopped working several years ago for to many reasons to get into here, none of which really have anything to do with Duke. Problem is Duke hasn’t changed the wand.

Duke needs to change its recruiting practices today for 2009 and 2010. If Duke fails to change their recruiting practices things will get worse with each year. I hate to say it but Duke has to recruit like UNC has. Duke needs to identify 5 or 6 players in each position and make offers to each 5. Tell the 5 players they offered first come first serve. Duke has to turn the tide where the players are forced to want to come and play for Duke, not the other way around. Coach K and Duke need to make that wand magical once again.


In the thread about Taylor King, one poster questioned the idea of his being a safety valve behind Kyle Singler. I don’t think K viewed him that way. I’m sure K thought King, just like everyone else, would have a chance to compete for playing time. But the fact that he also served a different purpose couldn’t be considered a bad thing.

King was recruited for one reason, to shoot the 3 ball. Coach K knew the rest of King’s game needed to be built. I would hope all would agree that King was a liability at every other aspect of the game. From the very beginning of practices Coach K and the staff had been working with King on shot selection and defense. In the beginning of the season K shot well and the team was able to work around King’s deficiencies. As time went on King’s shot went away for different reasons. K inserted King into the game to give the offense a spark. If he couldn’t provide that spark he was benched. I read somewhere to look at King this way, King was hired to do a job, that job was to provide a spark for this year on offense, when King could no longer do that job he had nothing to offer. So just like in real life that person was replaced. I really think King is in for an awakening. No one is going to give him free reign to shoot the ball from half court or anywhere he wants to throw it up from. He won’t get play time if the rest of his game doesn’t improve unless like in the beginning he continues to hit shots that are reasonable.



The problem is that next year, Duke was scheduled to have 12 scholarship players. And 12 simply does not divide into 200 available minutes nicely, especially when you have three potentially elite players (Singler, Scheyer and Henderson) plus a four-year starter at PG (Paulus). None of the 12 kids want or expect to sit. But someone has to. And sometimes, a kid will decide that’s not good enough, and he’ll leave. Or kids will leave for other reasons – because they are kids. That’s okay. That was part of the plan. Duke wanted to have enough players to be able to deal with attrition of every type.

True that 12 doesn’t divide into 200 available minutes nicely, but if Coach K and his staff would give those highly recruited players a little more play time, maybe they would have stayed and maybe they would have been happy. Other teams have the same problem and deal with it very nicely. The problem has been Duke hasn’t recruited the right type of player to allow this. Just like the NBA draft some high school players are rated upon potential and the future while others are rated on the talent they already have. Boateng, Boykin, King were rated on potential not on what they have. Duke knew these players needed development and were willing to wait on that development, the kids didn’t realize it and weren’t willing to learn and develop and work hard to earn it. Like you said though, there kids!!!!!!!!!

[Edouble]

Both Parker and Randolph left their respective schools after the 2001 season, so neither qualified.

Parker left UK after the 2001-02 season. He actually played minutes during the 2000-01 season, then injured his ACL and sat out the 2001-02 season as a Wildcat. Oddly, once recovered, he then transferred, officially leaving after the 2001-02 season, arriving at South Carolina in August of 2002. It seems like he left UK during the timeframe that you are using for your comparison.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2003-02-22-notebook_x.htm

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statistics/Players/Parker_Jason.html

[Jumbo]

Parker left UK after the 2001-02 season. He actually played minutes during the 2000-01 season, then injured his ACL and sat out the 2001-02 season as a Wildcat. Oddly, once recovered, he then transferred, officially leaving after the 2001-02 season, arriving at South Carolina in August of 2002. It seems like he left UK during the timeframe that you are using for your comparison.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2003-02-22-notebook_x.htm

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statistics/Players/Parker_Jason.html

Good call. I'll adjust accordingly.

[Jumbo]

I understand the rationale but I think it's a stretch to not include Boozer or Williams, but then put (as representative examples) (a) the Florida kids (Noah, Horford) who could have left after their first championship and we all knew were not coming back, (b) Okafor who was on track to graduate in 3 years (and did), or (c) Kevin Durant (along the same logic as Greg Oden or Michael Beasley).

The difference, as I mentioned, was that none of those other players announced what they were doing a year in advance. Duke treated Boozer and J-Will as if they were seniors in 2001-02, essentially. And Duke recruited with the firm knowledge that those guys would be gone, which partially helped the team bring in such an enormous class (Redick, Williams, Shav, Thompson, Dockery, Melchionni). The Florida case was different. Taurean Green was certainly not a lock to leave. There was some brief talk of going for a three-peat. Okafor certainly wasn't a lock to leave before his senior season. The J-Will/Boozer situatio was close to unique.


Both Shav and McRoberts left early, from positions that were need positions for Duke, with the general consensus that they could use much more work at Duke. They, in essence, fled from the Duke program--Shav undrafted (right?) and McRoberts a 2nd rounder. Dunleavey, Deng, Williams were drafted well and Boozer fell for inexplicable reasons. But Shav and McRoberts were not in the same boat as the others.

It's not fair to say either guy "fled." If you really look at Josh, you could argue he never wanted to be at Duke badly in the first place. He always wanted to go pro. And everything I've read from Shav indicated that he was running to the NBA (no matter how strange the notion seemed at the time) rather than running from Duke. Both certainly needed to improve, but there's no reason players can't improve as much -- or more -- as pros as at Duke. And there's certainly nothing unusual about players leaving without being top prospects -- we can fill this board with guys just from the last three drafts. I don't see how Shav/McRoberts leaving is special in any way.


The basic issue is that Duke has lost 4 big men (Thompson, Boateng, Randolph and McRoberts) who all underperformed (at Duke and elsewhere) and has another injury prone big man in Zoubek who doesn't seem to fit Coach K's current system or historical legacy of big men. That just begs the question of whether its (a) scouting, (b) coaching, or (c) luck. And I guess we all look at it differently.

I think most things in life are a combo-job. And I think (as another poster pointed out), unrealistic expectations played a part. From the day Thompson signed with Duke, I never expected him to be a major contributor, because he was the third big man in his class. I was not surprised when he transferred, nor was I upset. But some people expected him to be a force. So they'll look back at his departure and lament it. It's also way too early to judge Zoubek.


And I admit I'm hard on the coaches. I'm also quite critical of Mack Brown. These guys get paid MILLIONS of dollars to coach. Mack Brown also gets a lot of talent, but it doesn't translate all the time on the field.

Part of similarity is that a close rival just happens to look better (UNC in basketball for Duke and Oklahoma in football for Texas) and that's painful. Though Mack made an adjustment this year by bringing in a fire and brimstone defensive coordinator (to handle the criticism that his team plays without emotion in a number of big games).

Wow. You expect talent to translate "all the time on the field?" That's just setting yourself up for disappointment. How anyone can be upset with the job Mack Brown has done at Texas, regardless of how often you've lost to Oklahoma, is beyond me. Go back and pop in a tape of the Rose Bowl against USC. The attitude you described here is the problem with sports in these days. Expectation are absurd. In every game, there has to be a winner and a loser. And there needs to be some nuance involved in evaluating overall performance.

[Jumbo]

It is true that Duke got one year combined out of Humphries, Deng and Livingstone which left the team severely short handed. It is also true the team should have had a back up plan in place. Duke’s lack of obtaining a back up plan is why Duke is having recruiting problems today.
This has been repeated ad nauseam in various recruiting threads, but Duke has a) changed its recruiting significantly since the Deng/Livingston/Humphries situations (which I noted in my original post) and indeed recruits with backup plans in mind. If Duke didn't have backup plans, we wouldn't have 11 scholarship players on next year's roster.



Coach K use to be able to wave his magic wand and the kids would come running to play at Duke. Coach K has been waving his wand now for a few years now and they aren’t running to Duke like they use to. Duke has in the past gone after one player and as been willing to allow players to hold Duke hostage while they make their decision. In some cases Duke prevailed and others they didn’t. The waving of the wand stopped working several years ago for to many reasons to get into here, none of which really have anything to do with Duke. Problem is Duke hasn’t changed the wand.

This "magic wand" myth has been debunked repeatedly here. K has always lost recruits he has wanted. Always. From Jason Collier to Jared Jeffries, we can provide you a pretty comprehensive list of major recruiting misses that spans K's career. In fact, one exists somewhere here, which I can link if you want.


Duke needs to change its recruiting practices today for 2009 and 2010. If Duke fails to change their recruiting practices things will get worse with each year. I hate to say it but Duke has to recruit like UNC has. Duke needs to identify 5 or 6 players in each position and make offers to each 5. Tell the 5 players they offered first come first serve. Duke has to turn the tide where the players are forced to want to come and play for Duke, not the other way around. Coach K and Duke need to make that wand magical once again.

I'm not opposed to offering multiple scholarships, but that has its drawbacks too (like developing relationships). More to the point, though, it's ridiculous to assume that Duke will even be able to find five or six guys at each position every year worth a scholarship offer. Take this year. There certainly weren't six guys at Monroe's position who fit Duke's profile and were worth offering.


King was recruited for one reason, to shoot the 3 ball. Coach K knew the rest of King’s game needed to be built. I would hope all would agree that King was a liability at every other aspect of the game. From the very beginning of practices Coach K and the staff had been working with King on shot selection and defense. In the beginning of the season K shot well and the team was able to work around King’s deficiencies. As time went on King’s shot went away for different reasons. K inserted King into the game to give the offense a spark. If he couldn’t provide that spark he was benched. I read somewhere to look at King this way, King was hired to do a job, that job was to provide a spark for this year on offense, when King could no longer do that job he had nothing to offer. So just like in real life that person was replaced. I really think King is in for an awakening. No one is going to give him free reign to shoot the ball from half court or anywhere he wants to throw it up from. He won’t get play time if the rest of his game doesn’t improve unless like in the beginning he continues to hit shots that are reasonable.


True that 12 doesn’t divide into 200 available minutes nicely, but if Coach K and his staff would give those highly recruited players a little more play time, maybe they would have stayed and maybe they would have been happy. Other teams have the same problem and deal with it very nicely. The problem has been Duke hasn’t recruited the right type of player to allow this. Just like the NBA draft some high school players are rated upon potential and the future while others are rated on the talent they already have. Boateng, Boykin, King were rated on potential not on what they have. Duke knew these players needed development and were willing to wait on that development, the kids didn’t realize it and weren’t willing to learn and develop and work hard to earn it. Like you said though, there kids!!!!!!!!!

You're contradicting yourself here. First, you compare Taylor King to a guy hired to do a job who couldn't do it, justifying his time on the bench. Then you say Duke should play his highly recruited players more to keep them happy. Then you say King was rated high based on potential but didn't develop and needed to work harder to earn playing time. So, which is it? FWIW, Boykin wasnt rated highly at all, and certainly wasn't considered to have great "potential." King wasn't rated high based on "potential" either -- it was based on production (beyond the arc), with everyone realizing he had a limited ceiling.

[freedevil]

More to the point, though, it's ridiculous to assume that Duke will even be able to find five or six guys at each position every year worth a scholarship offer. Take this year. There certainly weren't six guys at Monroe's position who fit Duke's profile and were worth offering.

I think this point needs to be emphasized more. I, for one, lose sight of this fact very often - there's a reality check out there that many of us fans forget: should Duke miss on its favorite target at a certain position in a given year (which obviously every school does, and often) does not necessarily mean there's a backup plan worth pursuing, at all!

[K24U]

This has been repeated ad nauseam in various recruiting threads, but Duke has a) changed its recruiting significantly since the Deng/Livingston/Humphries situations (which I noted in my original post) and indeed recruits with backup plans in mind. If Duke didn't have backup plans, we wouldn't have 11 scholarship players on next year's roster.

Show me one time in the past 3 years that Duke lost out on a recruit and had a backup plan. Every player that is on Duke’s roster this year was part of the master plan, not a back up. You say that Duke has changed its recruiting since Deng/Livingstone/Humphries, I guess I would have to agree if you’re talking about 2009 recruits. Duke has definitely cast a wider net with the 2009 class.


This "magic wand" myth has been debunked repeatedly here. K has always lost recruits he has wanted. Always. From Jason Collier to Jared Jeffries, we can provide you a pretty comprehensive list of major recruiting misses that spans K's career. In fact, one exists somewhere here, which I can link if you want.

I know that Duke has lost recruits it went after and has for years. Did not matter as much in the past because Duke was recruiting for the future. You can’t recruit for the future anymore; you have to recruit for today. If Duke had a viable backup plan as you say because we have 11 scholarship players, wouldn’t Duke have a low post player?



I'm not opposed to offering multiple scholarships, but that has its drawbacks too (like developing relationships). More to the point, though, it's ridiculous to assume that Duke will even be able to find five or six guys at each position every year worth a scholarship offer. Take this year. There certainly weren't six guys at Monroe's position who fit Duke's profile and were worth offering.

I was trying to make a point and really didn’t think Duke could find 5 at every position every year. Didn’t think someone would take the point so literally.


You're contradicting yourself here. First, you compare Taylor King to a guy hired to do a job who couldn't do it, justifying his time on the bench. Then you say Duke should play his highly recruited players more to keep them happy. Then you say King was rated high based on potential but didn't develop and needed to work harder to earn playing time. So, which is it? FWIW, Boykin wasnt rated highly at all, and certainly wasn't considered to have great "potential." King wasn't rated high based on "potential" either -- it was based on production (beyond the arc), with everyone realizing he had a limited ceiling.

Let me clear it up a bit then. King was brought in to shoot the 3 ball. When he couldn’t do it K benched him. I never said that I thought he should have been benched. I was just stating a fact. It is my feeling that you have give your developing players time on the court.

You say Boykin wasn’t highly rated I guess that depends on what you consider to be highly rated. To me if you’re in the top 100 of every recruiting services list, you’re highly rated.

I still disagree that King was brought in because of production. King was not brought in to play a major role on the team this year. Coach K knew King had work to do and saw him as a project, much like JJ and so many other players at Duke. I guess Zoubek was recruited for his production and not his potential.

I don’t want to get into a peeing match with you I was just giving a rebuttal to your post. I love Duke Basketball but don’t look at the program with dark blue glasses on. Duke has problems just like every other program. If Duke didn’t have any problems they would win the championship every year.

If everyone agreed with you it would make for a pretty boring message board, there would be nothing to talk about.

[chrisheery]

detailing transfers, early entries, and non-arrivals of major basketball programs was one of the best posts I have ever read. Absolute proof that we overreact to transfers.

Also, looking through the list, the only guy I can remember having any impact on the team he went to was Bynum. Did anyone else play a key role for the team he went to?

[Jumbo]

K24U,
When you want to quote someone, you can click the "quote" button, rather than quick reply. And then if you want to quote certain sections, followed by your own text, just copy and paste the tags that pop up. Anyway, on to your points...

Show me one time in the past 3 years that Duke lost out on a recruit and had a backup plan.
Duke lost out on Brandan Wright. All along, Lance Thomas was the backup plan. Duke landed him. Duke has had plenty of other backup plans in place. Sadly, Duke didn't land all those guys. For instance, Duke started out recruiting Kevin Love, then soured on him. So Duke turned to Blake Griffin and Gary Johnson, but missed on both guys. Duke then went to its backup-backup plan, Patrick Patterson, but he picked Kentucky.


Every player that is on Duke’s roster this year was part of the master plan, not a back up.
I don't understand what that means, but I just told you Lance Thomas was Duke's backup plan after missing on Brandan Wright.


You say that Duke has changed its recruiting since Deng/Livingstone/Humphries, I guess I would have to agree if you’re talking about 2009 recruits. Duke has definitely cast a wider net with the 2009 class.
No, that's not what I mean. After Duke got one combined year out of those three guys, K began targeting players who would be at Duke for longer periods of time and decided to try to fill as many of his 13 available scholarships as possible. Sure, he went after the occasional guy who was potentially a one-and-done player (McRoberts, Wright, Monroe), but Duke has brought in consistently large classes with more long-term players. That's a stark contrast to the previous strategy. Among other things, K never came close to filling the 13 scholarships. It had been a decade since Duke had this many scholarship players on the roster.


I know that Duke has lost recruits it went after and has for years. Did not matter as much in the past because Duke was recruiting for the future. You can’t recruit for the future anymore; you have to recruit for today.
I don't understand what you mean by "recruiting for the future."


If Duke had a viable backup plan as you say because we have 11 scholarship players, wouldn’t Duke have a low post player?
Brian Zoubek is certainly a low-post player. How good he'll be remains to be seen, but the coaches projected him as an Aaron Gray type of a project who would hopefully produce as a junior and a senior. We'll soon learn if they were right. More to the point, though, is this: There is a difference between having a backup plan and that backup plan succeeding. Duke has gone after players after missing on others. Some of them have just elected to go to other schools. If your definition of a backup plans means having someone waiting in the wings who will be a sure thing to sign at the first chance he gets, that's an unrealistic expectation. Not gonna happen.



Let me clear it up a bit then. King was brought in to shoot the 3 ball. When he couldn’t do it K benched him. I never said that I thought he should have been benched. I was just stating a fact. It is my feeling that you have give your developing players time on the court
No, you were stating an opinion, as I think you can certainly argue that Coach K didn't bring in King to only "shoot the 3 ball."


You say Boykin wasn’t highly rated I guess that depends on what you consider to be highly rated. To me if you’re in the top 100 of every recruiting services list, you’re highly rated.
When I think of "highly rated," I think of someone with the potential to be a star. Boykin was always described as a workmanlike player who might develop into a solid role player -- nothing more.


I still disagree that King was brought in because of production. King was not brought in to play a major role on the team this year. Coach K knew King had work to do and saw him as a project, much like JJ and so many other players at Duke.
Uh, J.J. started as a freshman and led the team in scoring. I never expected King to contribute much as a frosh, largely because he had a number of better players ahead of him. That doesn't mean he was strictly brought in as a "project" or because of his "potential." It's not like King was some sort of a raw athlete who needed to be shaped into a basketball player. King had been highly touted for years, verbally committed to UCLA as an 8th-grader and had a fairly established skill set.


I guess Zoubek was recruited for his production and not his potential.
Not at all. Zoubs was the definition of a project.


I don’t want to get into a peeing match with you I was just giving a rebuttal to your post.
Same here.


I love Duke Basketball but don’t look at the program with dark blue glasses on.
Same here.


Duke has problems just like every other program.
I agree.


If Duke didn’t have any problems they would win the championship every year.
That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?


If everyone agreed with you it would make for a pretty boring message board, there would be nothing to talk about.
Amen. That's why we all take the time to debate this stuff, right?

[Jumbo]

detailing transfers, early entries, and non-arrivals of major basketball programs was one of the best posts I have ever read. Absolute proof that we overreact to transfers.
Thanks! And now I'll have to start updating some of the other teams (adding Bayless to Arizona's early-entry list, for instance).


Also, looking through the list, the only guy I can remember having any impact on the team he went to was Bynum. Did anyone else play a key role for the team he went to?

Actually, there were quite a few high-impact transfers on that list. To name some:
-David Padgett was a terrific player for Louisville this year.
-J.R. Giddens was a stud at New Mexico this season.
-James White played a big role at Cincy.
-Mario Boggan became a star at Oklahoma State.
-Ryan Appleby became a starter at Washington.

There are others who made big impacts on new programs, and others who are waiting in the wings to do that (Alex Legion, for instance).

[MChambers]

Look at this way: many of the best freshman will be entering the draft: Love, Rose, Beasley, Gordon, and Griffin (I think). Can you name the one freshman who was mentioned before the season and during the year as being of the same skill level, yet isn't going pro? (Hint: he's in Durham.)

[burns15]

I have been discussing the state of Duke's program with my dad recently and I have come up with some interesting observations. I have delayed posting them for 2 weeks after the WV game in order to stay clear of any accusations of rash decisions or emotional respone. But what I discovered was a very disturbing trend with big men. On the surface a lot of people have made the point that Duke lacks quality big men, but after taking a second look this is true. First off in recent years Duke has had several players transfer out after roughly one year in the program (Michael Thompson, Jamal Boykin, Eric Botaeng, Taylor King, and even Chris Burgess). The thing that troubles me here is that for 3 consecutive years someone has transfered out of the program. This tells me that something to do with the Duke basketball program has gone seriously wrong to make these players transfer after one year. Secondly, after being the last major school to have an early defection to the NBA, Duke has had more than its fair share in recent years. More interesting is the number of big men who have left Duke early (Josh McRoberts, Shavlik Randolph, Corey Maggette). Thirdly, Duke has begun to lose battles on the recruiting trail for big men (Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, Greg Echenique, and even Kris Humphries). All of these big men who came and transferred/left early, or never even came at all qualifies as a big problem for this Duke program and demands that the coaching staff re-evaluate some of their philosophies. I understand that each player could have transferred for personal reason and we could look at each of these events as a single event that had no effect on the others, but I think with the mass quantity of information provided here that something must not totally be clicking with the Duke program. Whether this problem exists in coaching style, evaluation of talent, ability to communicate with potential recruits, or a supposed image that Duke cannot develop big men, I dont know. Don't get me wrong, I am the biggest Duke fan you will find, but I think that the program needs to seriously re-evaluate what is going on because losing in the first and second round is not acceptable for this DUke program.

[Jumbo]

I've edited the original post to include Bayless...

[Jumbo]

More early entry updates...

[slower]

True that 12 doesn’t divide into 200 available minutes nicely

Sure it does! 16 minutes and 40 seconds each. :D

[mgtr]

Several people in this and other threads have made the point that, with one and done, or two and thru, we need to build a team for right now, and not for the future.
Looking at the KU team in the championship game, I find that there were seven players who got significant minutes: Arthur and Collins are sophomores, Chalmers and Rush are juniors, and Jackson, Kaun, and Robinson are seniors. Aldrich, a freshman, got limited minutes in the championship game, but played a lot in the semi-final.
I conclude from this that it is certainly possible to build a team over time, that a coach doesn't have to run out and grab a bunch of one and dones.
While it is only my own hangup, if Coach K brought in a bunch of one and dones, I would probably start to lose interest in the Duke team. Our most recent one and done, Luol Deng, didn't start out as a one and done, but became as his freshmen performance improved with a) his ability, b) Duke coaching, and c) time.

[CDu]

Several people in this and other threads have made the point that, with one and done, or two and thru, we need to build a team for right now, and not for the future.
Looking at the KU team in the championship game, I find that there were seven players who got significant minutes: Arthur and Collins are sophomores, Chalmers and Rush are juniors, and Jackson, Kaun, and Robinson are seniors. Aldrich, a freshman, got limited minutes in the championship game, but played a lot in the semi-final.

I conclude from this that it is certainly possible to build a team over time, that a coach doesn't have to run out and grab a bunch of one and dones.

Completely agree. Furthermore, UNC built their Final Four team without a one-and-done player, either. Memphis was built largely thanks to a one-and-done, and UCLA certainly benefited from their one-and-done, but it's not the only path to the Final Four.


Our most recent one and done, Luol Deng, didn't start out as a one and done, but became as his freshmen performance improved with a) his ability, b) Duke coaching, and c) time.

I disagree a bit on this point. Deng certainly had the potential to be a one-and-done from the beginning, in terms of talent. Before he arrived, Coach K made the comparisons to Carmelo Anthony as an impact freshman. Deng was one of the rare examples of guys who could be one-and-dones but were expected to stay for a while. His one-and-done status came thanks to pressure to provide for his family who was in financial need.

[Jumbo]

Just added more Florida guys. Waiting for that rebuttal from Gary ... ;)

[Indoor66]

Just added more Florida guys. Waiting for that rebuttal from Gary ... ;)

Hey Jumbo, where (or in what post #) is the revised list?

[Jumbo]

Hey Jumbo, where (or in what post #) is the revised list?

I'm updating post #45 as more guys transfer or go pro early.

[Indoor66]

I'm updating post #45 as more guys transfer or go pro early.

Thanks, that is very helpful.

[Skitzle]

In another thread, Gary wrote (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128944&postcount=83):


I did dispute Gary's claim, and said I'd do some research to back up my opinion. I'm proud to report that I've finished that research, and it's even stronger than I expected. Before getting to that, though, let me discuss a couple of problems with the initial premise.

First, how do we identify the "national power programs?" Do we include traditional powers like Indiana who have faded? What about schools very recently on the rise, like Memphis? Florida won back-to-back titles, then made the NIT this year. Georgetown was crumbling until JT III arrived. UConn's last three seasons have ended in a loss to George Mason, a Tourney-less year, and a loss to San Diego in the first round of the NCAA Tourney. It's amazing that over a span as seemingly short as seven years, barely any program can be considered consistently "elite." In the end, I picked 10 schools to examine: UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, UConn, Syracuse, Texas, Florida, Arizona and Michigan State. Apologies go out to Georgetown, Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin and Indiana, among others. And I didn't even mention Maryland.

Secondly, Gary gave himself a convenient escape route when he essentially blamed UNC's transfers on a coaching change. The amazing thing I found when deciding which schools to use was how many have changed coaches since the end of the 2001-02 season, which is the point from which I began measuring. Just look at this year's Final Four -- UCLA, UNC and Kansas all have switched coaches since then. Calipari has the longest tenure, and he has only been at Memphis since 2000-01. Of the 10 teams I picked, four (UNC, UCLA, Kansas and Kentucky) went through coaching changes over that period. And we know how much turmoil Arizona went through this year.

Anyway, I present a list of each school's transfers, early entries (either to the NBA or Europe, in a couple of cases) and non-arrivals. The non-arrivals were really tough to track if they weren't drafted or went to another school (like Kris Humphries). I might be missing some. I tried to avoid including walk-ons among transfers. I did include kids who were kicked off the team, though, particularly when they ended up at another college. Finally, I did not include Carlos Boozer and Jason Williams among Duke's early-entry losses, because they announced their intention a year earlier, allowing Duke to prepare for their departure, and graduated early. I did include Mike Dunleavy, though, because his departure was a surprise. And keep in mind that this list will grow for several of the other schools this year, because some announcements are expected to come. By contrast, I have already included Taylor King for Duke, and don't expect anyone to leave early for th the NBA. Anyway, check out the list. Not only do the numbers make for an interesting comparison, so too does the quality of players lost. If I'm missing names, or have included some in error, please let me know and I'll make the appropriate adjustments.

Duke
Transfers: 4 (Michael Thompson, Eric Boateng, Jamal Boykin, Taylor King)
Early Entries: 4 (Mike Dunleavy, Shavlik Randolph, Luol Deng, Josh McRoberts)
Non-Arrivals: 2 (Shaun Livingston, Kris Humphries)

North Carolina
Transfers: 3 (Adam Boone, Brian Morrison, Neil Fingleton)
Early Entries: 5 (Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Sean May, Marvin Williams, Brandan Wright)
Non-Arrivals: 2 (J.R. Smith, JamesOn Curry)

UCLA
Transfers: 4 (Nican Robinson, Andre Patterson, Ryan Walcott, Ryan Wright)
Early Entries: 5 (Trevor Ariza, Jordan Farmar, Arron Afflalo, Kevin Love, Darren Collison)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Kansas
Transfers: 7 (David Padgett, Nick Bahe, Alex Galindo, J.R. Giddens, Micah Downs, C.J. Giles, Omar Wilkes)
Early Entries: 2 (Drew Gooden, Julian Wright)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Kentucky
Transfers: 8 (Jason Parker, Rashaad Carruth, Marvin Stone, Bernard Cote, Shagari Alleyne, Rekalin Sims, Adam Williams, Alex Legion)
Early Entries: 3 (Kelenna Azubuike, Randolph Morris*, Rajon Rondo)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

UConn
Transfers: 6 (Scott Hazelton, Marcus White, Antonio Kellogg, Ben Eaves, Rob Garrison, Marcus Johnson)
Early Entries: 7 (Caron Butler, Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva, Josh Boone, Marcus Williams, Rudy Gay)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (Andrew Bynum)

Syracuse
Transfers: 6 (DeShaun Williams, James Thues, Billy Edelin*, Louie McCroskey, Mike Jones, Josh Wright)
Early Entries: 2 (Carmelo Anthony, Donte Greene)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Texas
Transfers: 3 (Dion Dowell, Mike Williams, Edgar Moreno)
Early Entries: 5 (T.J. Ford, P.J. Tucker, Daniel Gibson, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Durant)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (C.J. Miles)

Florida
Transfers: 9 (James White, Orien Greene, Mario Boggan, Chris Capko, Mohamed Abukar, Ryan Appleby, David Huertas, Brandon Powell, Jonathan Mitchell)
Early Entries: 8 (Anthony Roberson, Matt Walsh, Christian Drejer*, Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Taurean Green, Marreese Speights -- may return)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Arizona
Transfers 7 (Will Bynum, Dennis Latimore, Tyler Tiederman, Beau Muhlbach, Jesus Verdejo, J.P. Prince, Laval Lucas-Perry)
Early Entries: 3 (Andre Iguodala, Marcus Williams, Jerryd Bayless)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (Ndudi Ebi)

Michigan State
Transfers 3 (Brandon Cotton, Justin Ockerman, Maurice Joseph)
Early Entries: 3 (Marcus Taylor, Erazem Lorbek, Shannon Brown)
Non-Arrivals 0 (None that I could find)


Superb post Jumbo.

Any chance you can * or highlight in some fashion the programs that have had coaching changes, as well as which players that transferred were recruited by the current staff.

May be a lot to ask but I think it applies. Looking at UCLA specifically, Ryan Wright is the only guy that transferred and was recruited by Howland.

[Jumbo]

Just had a though -- should Taylor King count as a "non-arrival" for UCLA?

[Ignatius07]

Only if you also count Gordon as one for Illinois.

I say no - neither signed an LOI.

[johnb]

Seems to me is that the people who disagree with Jumbo misunderstand the extent to which chance is inherent in sports.

1. The best experts can--maybe--agree more or less on the identities of the top 100 high school players, but they disagree dramatically on the order, especially out of the top 10. To my mind, this means there are hundreds of guys playing college basketball who see themselves as having been top 50 recruits (say 80 kids/year x 4 years).

2. Further, individual basketball games are often decided by a few plays. Duke could have 6 or 8 NC's if things had broken our way. OTOH, we could have none. Don't believe it? Which is more likely, a couple of Laettner shots or our '99 team not winning?

Given the above, the best any team can hope for is to be consistently in the top 10.

3. We can look at the numbers for trends (and I find the efforts enjoyable), but don't confuse these numbers for facts. Statistics that make use of n's of 1 or 5 or 10 are essentially worthless. While I suppose we could guess why Taylor transferred (too little PT; future roster backlog; the Duke team; the coaching staff; the students; the fans; the school atmosphere), I don't think anyone knows.

4. Similarly, I doubt if any of the posters know how King's transfer will impact future recruits (it might remind a marginal recruit of the lack of pt; it might frighten away the next best thing who is also from California; it might provide reassurance that Duke isn't a haven for slow white 3 point shooters; it might open up a spot for a guy ranked number 43 in hs who turns out to have his number retired, etc).

There is inherent uncertainty in all of this, from recruiting, to the games, to the transfers, to the future. To think that we are immune from the uncertainty seems naive to me. Though if you'd like more confidence about these, you might try: http://www.astrology-online.com/

[Saratoga2]

Several people in this and other threads have made the point that, with one and done, or two and thru, we need to build a team for right now, and not for the future.
Looking at the KU team in the championship game, I find that there were seven players who got significant minutes: Arthur and Collins are sophomores, Chalmers and Rush are juniors, and Jackson, Kaun, and Robinson are seniors. Aldrich, a freshman, got limited minutes in the championship game, but played a lot in the semi-final.
I conclude from this that it is certainly possible to build a team over time, that a coach doesn't have to run out and grab a bunch of one and dones.
While it is only my own hangup, if Coach K brought in a bunch of one and dones, I would probably start to lose interest in the Duke team. Our most recent one and done, Luol Deng, didn't start out as a one and done, but became as his freshmen performance improved with a) his ability, b) Duke coaching, and c) time.

As Bobby Knight says, you win games with good players. Coach K has certainly done that of late in the guard area with Henderson, Scheyer, Paulus, Smith, Pocius and Williams. They all look to be multi-year players and there is a lot of athleticism and length in this group. The Memphis team showed how lanky guards can shutdown teams with shorter guards (Texas, Michigan State), so coach K is going in the right direction. McDonald is another 6'5" guard possibly on the horizon who fits the mold well.

We haven't been as fortunate in the area of the front line, but have a real gem in Singler and two improving bigger men in Thomas and Zoubek with Czyz coming. They also are multi-year guys, so while other teams are suffering a lot of one and doners, Duke will have a veteran team with a nice mix of young athletes coming in.

Coach K has tried to come up with at least one banger, but chance has kept that from happening. All he can do is to keep trying with the guys who fit the Duke mold and hope that a Shelden type comes along. I am happy with coach K's approach and definitely am happy that we won't be losing a lot of talent to the NBA or in transfers. The King transfer was kind of inevitable.

[Jumbo]

Just added some more transfers and early-entry guys. I'll add more early-entry guys once they sign with agents. Gary, I'm still waiting for your response! ;)

[CDu]

As Bobby Knight says, you win games with good players. Coach K has certainly done that of late in the guard area with Henderson, Scheyer, Paulus, Smith, Pocius and Williams. They all look to be multi-year players and there is a lot of athleticism and length in this group. The Memphis team showed how lanky guards can shutdown teams with shorter guards (Texas, Michigan State), so coach K is going in the right direction. McDonald is another 6'5" guard possibly on the horizon who fits the mold well.

I probably wouldn't include Paulus on a list of players who are lanky and athletic who can shut down other teams' shorter guards...