Henry Coleman to Texas A&M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBrickey

I happen to also believe we can hand select recruits in the 30-70 range and field experienced, competitive teams.

---

Do you honestly think any team or any coach can "hand select" any recruits? That's even less true than the idea that a kid won't transfer because the guy starting ahead of him is only #30 and not #10.

Also, the first time you expounded your theory, you were looking for #20 to #50. Then it changed to #20 to #60, and now it's #30 to #70. Why do you keep moving the range? Is it because you realize the kids in the better range won't stick around until junior year before they get their chance? Well, I'm pretty sure the kids from #30 to #50 won't, either, and I'm not even confident of the kids from #50 to #70. I think CDu is right, in order to be likely to keep the kids who aren't playing around until their senior season, you'd have to be upwards of #100, and in that case (as he said) you'd basically be a mid-major, or at least no better than a lower-tier Big 6 team.

I've been studying the rosters of recent NCAA champions, and none of them appear to have tried your system, at least not consistently year-to-year. I assume it's because either (a) it's too difficult to pull off; or (b) it won't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15

We all have our narratives - he wants more exposure, he wants to be on a winner, he wants a great education, he isn't willing to put in the work, he is upset he was recruited over...

---

I have no narrative here. Simply pointing out that the kids leaving are not going to comparable academic institutions.

I have no interest in spinning a narrative. This evolution of one and done’s to come and go has killed my interest in college basketball. I love Duke, and I have loved Duke basketball for a long time, but I don’t see myself getting back to a similar level of interest.

It is not much of a brotherhood if no one wants to partake for more than eight months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1991 duke law

I have no narrative here. Simply pointing out that the kids leaving are not going to comparable academic institutions.

I have no interest in spinning a narrative. This evolution of one and done’s to come and go has killed my interest in college basketball. I love Duke, and I have loved Duke basketball for a long time, but I don’t see myself getting back to a similar level of interest.

It is not much of a brotherhood if no one wants to partake for more than eight months.

---

Thank you. I couldn’t agree more. When Coach K retires, he’s number 1 on the list of who needs to be replaced in the Duke Basketball program but number two on that list has my vote currently for whoever in the social media/marketing department/realm that continues to think it’s a good idea to market Duke as “The Brotherhood.” Cut the crap and come up with something better because it just ain’t true. It’s not even laughable at this point although it was. It’s kind of clownish now. That and a new Director of Basketball Operations are currently of the utmost importance in my opinion. Duke can do a lot better than that gimmick. With all the leaders in the thought space Duke has, that’s really weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kedsy

Do you honestly think any team or any coach can "hand select" any recruits? That's even less true than the idea that a kid won't transfer because the guy starting ahead of him is only #30 and not #10.

Also, the first time you expounded your theory, you were looking for #20 to #50. Then it changed to #20 to #60, and now it's #30 to #70. Why do you keep moving the range? Is it because you realize the kids in the better range won't stick around until junior year before they get their chance? Well, I'm pretty sure the kids from #30 to #50 won't, either, and I'm not even confident of the kids from #50 to #70. I think CDu is right, in order to be likely to keep the kids who aren't playing around until their senior season, you'd have to be upwards of #100, and in that case (as he said) you'd basically be a mid-major, or at least no better than a lower-tier Big 6 team.

I've been studying the rosters of recent NCAA champions, and none of them appear to have tried your system, at least not consistently year-to-year. I assume it's because either (a) it's too difficult to pull off; or (b) it won't work.

---

My range has changed because guys like you argue that a #25 guy like Steward will go to the NBA anyway so what’s the point? The range is not important. The theory is that you recruit at a level where the players are neither rushing to the pros nor expecting to start as freshmen.

And Coach K doesn’t recruit, he chooses. Haven’t you heard? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBrickey

My range has changed because guys like you argue that a #25 guy like Steward will go to the NBA anyway so what’s the point? The range is not important. The theory is that you recruit at a level where the players are neither rushing to the pros nor expecting to start as freshmen.

And Coach K doesn’t recruit, he chooses. Haven’t you heard? :)

---

The range is important, because at some point your players are simply not talented enough to consistently play at even a Sweet 16 level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBrickey

This. Coaches are now incentivized to steal first-time transfers from other teams over recruiting high school kids. And fans have even less reason to invest in getting to know the players.

---

Couldn’t they also be incentivized to think long term rather than short term. I mean, if they thought Henry was going to be a force for 4 years surely they should make sure he will get minutes in the coming year. It’s sort of like everyone of us and our life at work. We have to make sure all co-workers feel inclusive. If you are a manager in a workplace you will lose lots of talent if you don’t make your co-workers feel part of a team.

By the sounds of it. From the posts in this thread Duke is not only losing players they could be losing fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furniture

Couldn’t they also be incentivized to think long term rather than short term. I mean, if they thought Henry was going to be a force for 4 years surely they should make sure he will get minutes in the coming year. It’s sort of like everyone of us and our life at work. We have to make sure all co-workers feel inclusive. If you are a manager in a workplace you will lose lots of talent if you don’t make your co-workers feel part of a team.

By the sounds of it. From the posts in this thread Duke is not only losing players they could be losing fans.

---

Furniture, You make a valid point, IMO. Problem is, it seems clear to me that Coach K doesn't think that way. During the season, he gradually winnows his rotation to a select few [please, mods, I know this is a sensitive if not hackneyed subject!] without regard, it seems, for the motivational effect on those players who don't get minutes. Over the years, I have overly empathized and sympathized with highly talented Duke players who didn't get into games or who got paltry, garbage time minutes. I have enough competitive spirit to know that that must be extremely difficult to swallow.

So, while it adds more disruption to our coaching staff's plans, I say good for you, if you are going to college to play basketball [versus being a student at Duke, a highly regarded academic institution], go to a program where you can get on the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGLC

This simply isn't true.

---

Oh, I’m afraid it is ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kedsy

Do you honestly think any team or any coach can "hand select" any recruits? That's even less true than the idea that a kid won't transfer because the guy starting ahead of him is only #30 and not #10.

Also, the first time you expounded your theory, you were looking for #20 to #50. Then it changed to #20 to #60, and now it's #30 to #70. Why do you keep moving the range? Is it because you realize the kids in the better range won't stick around until junior year before they get their chance? Well, I'm pretty sure the kids from #30 to #50 won't, either, and I'm not even confident of the kids from #50 to #70. I think CDu is right, in order to be likely to keep the kids who aren't playing around until their senior season, you'd have to be upwards of #100, and in that case (as he said) you'd basically be a mid-major, or at least no better than a lower-tier Big 6 team.

I've been studying the rosters of recent NCAA champions, and none of them appear to have tried your system, at least not consistently year-to-year. I assume it's because either (a) it's too difficult to pull off; or (b) it won't work.

---

You don't have to be pretty sure. The evidence is already there and continuing to pile up.

Of the 30 kids rated #30 through #59 in the 2020 RSCI, here's how it breaks down. Four of them never played in college at all, so it's a group of 26, not 30. Of those 26 who played as freshmen this past year, seven have already announced they're transferring, four are going to the draft, and 15 haven't indicated that they're going to transfer or declare, at least not yet, so let's consider them as staying for their sophomore years at the school at which they started. So 11 of 26 are gone from the program. That's 42% of recruits in this range, and unfortunately it includes both Jaemyn and Henry. 58% appear (at least now) to be staying for a second year. Even if you take the guys declaring for the draft out of the mix, still you'd have 7 of the remaining 22 transferring, which is 32%.

Your assertion was that guys in this range wouldn't wait around until their junior years at the school at which they started their careers. 42% of them didn't even make it to their sophomore years, though I guess leaving before their sophomore years does in a way constitute not waiting until their junior years.

A bit surprisingly, though, there does not appear to be much of a difference in minutes played for the transferring group vs. the "staying" group? The 15 guys in the "staying" group averaged 15.7 minutes per game as frosh. If you take UNC's Puff Johnson out of the mix because he was injured basically the whole year, the remaining 14 averaged 16.5 mpg. Eleven of the 14 averaged at least 10 mpg.

The seven who have already announced they're transferring averaged 14 mpg, so only 2 mpg less than the guys who stayed. Four of the seven averaged 20 mpg or more. Jaemyn averaged 12 mpg and Henry 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommy

You don't have to be pretty sure. The evidence is already there and continuing to pile up.

Of the 30 kids rated #30 through #59 in the 2020 RSCI, here's how it breaks down. Four of them never played in college at all, so it's a group of 26, not 30. Of those 26 who played as freshmen this past year, seven have already announced they're transferring, four are going to the draft, and 15 haven't indicated that they're going to transfer or declare, at least not yet, so let's consider them as staying for their sophomore years at the school at which they started. So 11 of 26 are gone from the program. That's 42% of recruits in this range, and unfortunately it includes both Jaemyn and Henry. 58% appear (at least now) to be staying for a second year. Even if you take the guys declaring for the draft out of the mix, still you'd have 7 of the remaining 22 transferring, which is 32%.

Your assertion was that guys in this range wouldn't wait around until their junior years at the school at which they started their careers. 42% of them didn't even make it to their sophomore years, though I guess leaving before their sophomore years does in a way constitute not waiting until their junior years.

A bit surprisingly, though, there does not appear to be much of a difference in minutes played for the transferring group vs. the "staying" group? The 15 guys in the "staying" group averaged 15.7 minutes per game as frosh. If you take UNC's Puff Johnson out of the mix because he was injured basically the whole year, the remaining 14 averaged 16.5 mpg. Eleven of the 14 averaged at least 10 mpg.

The seven who have already announced they're transferring averaged 14 mpg, so only 2 mpg less than the guys who stayed. Four of the seven averaged 20 mpg or more. Jaemyn averaged 12 mpg and Henry 5.

---

This is some great analysis. Thanks for sharing. I expect those turnover numbers will be record highs due to the Covid season and lots of kids entering the portal before knowing it would be a permanent option. But no doubt the turnover will remain higher in this range with a lot of dissatisfied kids changing schools after their freshman years - but never be as high as among recruits 1-30.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommy

You don't have to be pretty sure. The evidence is already there and continuing to pile up.

Of the 30 kids rated #30 through #59 in the 2020 RSCI, here's how it breaks down. Four of them never played in college at all, so it's a group of 26, not 30. Of those 26 who played as freshmen this past year, seven have already announced they're transferring, four are going to the draft, and 15 haven't indicated that they're going to transfer or declare, at least not yet, so let's consider them as staying for their sophomore years at the school at which they started. So 11 of 26 are gone from the program. That's 42% of recruits in this range, and unfortunately it includes both Jaemyn and Henry. 58% appear (at least now) to be staying for a second year. Even if you take the guys declaring for the draft out of the mix, still you'd have 7 of the remaining 22 transferring, which is 32%.

Your assertion was that guys in this range wouldn't wait around until their junior years at the school at which they started their careers. 42% of them didn't even make it to their sophomore years, though I guess leaving before their sophomore years does in a way constitute not waiting until their junior years.

A bit surprisingly, though, there does not appear to be much of a difference in minutes played for the transferring group vs. the "staying" group? The 15 guys in the "staying" group averaged 15.7 minutes per game as frosh. If you take UNC's Puff Johnson out of the mix because he was injured basically the whole year, the remaining 14 averaged 16.5 mpg. Eleven of the 14 averaged at least 10 mpg.

The seven who have already announced they're transferring averaged 14 mpg, so only 2 mpg less than the guys who stayed. Four of the seven averaged 20 mpg or more. Jaemyn averaged 12 mpg and Henry 5.

---

Can't spork you, but great post. This just shows how random recruiting is going to be.

Quite a challenge for coaches, not to mention fans.

It feels like heresy sometimes on the board to suggest that setting the priority on recruiting and developing multi-year talent might end up yielding better results than a strategy of focusing on landing the very best recruits available - multiple OADs (our norm since 2015).

Looking back I tend to judge the success of a season on 1) national championship, 2) Final 4 and 3) enjoyment of the players. Others may have different criteria. For example, if we win the ACC championship but then lose out in the round of 32, I don't tend to value that championship over the early NCAA tourney exit.

My eye test and gut tell me that the recent Final Fours and National Championships have been dominated by experienced teams. I don't have the time to do the analysis directly, but a quick search produced the following:

- The current OAD era started in 2006 (Shawnee Williams, 17th) and then exploded in 2007 (8 of 21 top picks were freshmen)

- Since 2006, in the last 15 Final Fours, 12 of the 60 (20%) of the Final Four teams had a first-rounder OAD

- Only KY (2012) and Duke (2015) have won championships during this period with a lottery-pick OAD

- Duke won two championships during this span. 2015 with multiple OADs and 2010 with a team of veterans. There were 10 total OADs in the 2010 NBA draft, so the OAD phenomenon was well underway in 2010 - just not yet at Duke.

What I did not find, but would be super interesting, is what is the average age for the starting line-up on the 15 previous national champions? Obviously, young in 2012 and 2015, but I expect those two years would really stand out as outliers next to the other 13 champions.

I've loved watching our OAD stars. Next year we are going to be absolutely loaded and have a great chance of hanging more banners. I don't consider myself anti-OAD and I definitely support giving these kids the right to transfer and own their college experience. What frustrates me is a close-minded view that the only way for Duke to run a sustainably excellent program these days is to continue to target multi-OADs every year. It's one approach, but it's not an open and shut case - especially if you factor in educating our athletes, integrating them into the campus experience, and keeping a fan base engaged - all other factors alongside winning basketball games.

Bringing in multiple OADs is an approach that few teams have the luxury to execute on. We are fortunate. .But is it the best approach for hanging Final 4 and National Championship banners? The data over the past 15 years doesn't really support that case, so I think it's a fair debate for fans to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBrickey

It feels like heresy sometimes on the board to suggest that setting the priority on recruiting and developing multi-year talent might end up yielding better results than a strategy of focusing on landing the very best recruits available - multiple OADs (our norm since 2015).

Looking back I tend to judge the success of a season on 1) national championship, 2) Final 4 and 3) enjoyment of the players. Others may have different criteria. For example, if we win the ACC championship but then lose out in the round of 32, I don't tend to value that championship over the early NCAA tourney exit.

My eye test and gut tell me that the recent Final Fours and National Championships have been dominated by experienced teams. I don't have the time to do the analysis directly, but a quick search produced the following:

- The current OAD era started in 2006 (Shawnee Williams, 17th) and then exploded in 2007 (8 of 21 top picks were freshmen)

- Since 2006, in the last 15 Final Fours, 12 of the 60 (20%) of the Final Four teams had a first-rounder OAD

- Only KY (2012) and Duke (2015) have won championships during this period with a lottery-pick OAD

- Duke won two championships during this span. 2015 with multiple OADs and 2010 with a team of veterans. There were 10 total OADs in the 2010 NBA draft, so the OAD phenomenon was well underway in 2010 - just not yet at Duke.

What I did not find, but would be super interesting, is what is the average age for the starting line-up on the 15 previous national champions? Obviously, young in 2012 and 2015, but I expect those two years would really stand out as outliers next to the other 13 champions.

I've loved watching our OAD stars. Next year we are going to be absolutely loaded and have a great chance of hanging more banners. I don't consider myself anti-OAD and I definitely support giving these kids the right to transfer and own their college experience. What frustrates me is a close-minded view that the only way for Duke to run a sustainably excellent program these days is to continue to target multi-OADs every year. It's one approach, but it's not an open and shut case - especially if you factor in educating our athletes, integrating them into the campus experience, and keeping a fan base engaged - all other factors alongside winning basketball games.

Bringing in multiple OADs is an approach that few teams have the luxury to execute on. We are fortunate. .But is it the best approach for hanging Final 4 and National Championship banners? The data over the past 15 years doesn't really support that case, so I think it's a fair debate for fans to have.

---

This analysis is flawed. As you note, there are very few teams each year with lottery-pick one-and-done talent on their team, whereas there are hundreds that don't have such players. In a six-game, single-elimination tournament, you want volume of teams. So it is not surprising that more teams without one-and-dones have won titles.

Look, we get that you don't like the way we've gone about recruiting, and that's fine. But the data suggest pretty strongly that having the best talent leads to better results. It doesn't always lead to titles, and we can debate whether it is preferable to field a less consistently awesome team but a more college-like team. But saying that only 20% of the Final Four teams had one-and-done stars and only 2 of 15 title teams had one-and-done stars is not a reasonable way of arguing in favor of going away from one-and-dones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilirium

Oh, I’m afraid it is ...

---

Cool, show me there was evidence that Henry was thinking about transferring before we brought in Theo John.

I'll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronDuke

Thank you. I couldn’t agree more. When Coach K retires, he’s number 1 on the list of who needs to be replaced in the Duke Basketball program but number two on that list has my vote currently for whoever in the social media/marketing department/realm that continues to think it’s a good idea to market Duke as “The Brotherhood.” Cut the crap and come up with something better because it just ain’t true. It’s not even laughable at this point although it was. It’s kind of clownish now. That and a new Director of Basketball Operations are currently of the utmost importance in my opinion. Duke can do a lot better than that gimmick. With all the leaders in the thought space Duke has, that’s really weak.

---

Maybe you're right that a new slogan will be needed, but remember that you're not the only audience for the "Brotherhood" branding--it's also aimed at recruits. And it'd be foolish to say it's been anything but astoundingly successful since its introduction. The players bought into it, the former players bought into it, and it got recruits to buy in as well. When you have buy-in from all levels, that is a potent force for promoting the program. And it has given former players yet another avenue for staying in touch with the program and reaching out to the new generation.

You might find it disingenuous, but hard to argue it hasn't worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGLC

Cool, show me there was evidence that Henry was thinking about transferring before we brought in Theo John.

I'll wait.

---

Not saying you're wrong, but do we ever have real evidence for or against a player transferring, except in the most extreme cases? Fact is we don't know what's going on in these kids' heads, and anyone who claims to know is speculating more often than not. The cases where there's a reporter who has an in with a family member, and can get real insight into a players' thinking both before and after a decision such as this, are few and far between (and often behind paywalls).

You're more than entitled to your opinion that Theo forced Henry out. Given the sequence of events, I'd say that's more likely than not. But that's all we have, circumstantial evidence at best. Unless Henry or a trusted source close to the program comes out and say something directly, we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other.

This is a message board, so of course we're going to speculate, debate, etc. But there is no clear "truth" given what we know in this situation. Feel free to make your argument, but don't dismiss any other argument due to a "lack of evidence", because any theory has the exact same amount of first-hand evidence at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGLC

Cool, show me there was evidence that Henry was thinking about transferring before we brought in Theo John.

I'll wait.

---

You could argue, although with less public opinion support, that there was no evidence that he was considering it before Nate James left.

I think Theo John had more impact to the decision, but I find it hard not to think that when a bad mamma jamma like coach James leaves, there is bound to be seismic fallout. It's like Thanos snapping along to under pressure by queen...

The various iterations of this thread all act like OAD guy wear name tags. We don’t know who will be OAD, especially with transfers without penalty. There are some guys who are highly likely to be OAD, so if you want Duke to stop recruiting those guys.. I mean... ok? That doesn’t seem like a great way to improve the team, but {shrug} if you just don’t want those guys or don’t feel having them is consistent with the school’s educational mission, so be it.

The notion that we can perfectly identify guys who are talented, but not on the radar of NBA scouts, but who would be content to ride the bench for a year or two at Duke without transferring, AND who will then develop into high-level collegiate players as upperclassmen but still not leave for the NBA until after senior year is silly, particularly if one expects us to find 2-3 of these unicorns every single year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kedsy

Do you honestly think any team or any coach can "hand select" any recruits? That's even less true than the idea that a kid won't transfer because the guy starting ahead of him is only #30 and not #10.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkyBrickey

My range has changed because guys like you argue that a #25 guy like Steward will go to the NBA anyway so what’s the point? The range is not important. The theory is that you recruit at a level where the players are neither rushing to the pros nor expecting to start as freshmen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kedsy

The range is important, because at some point your players are simply not talented enough to consistently play at even a Sweet 16 level.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommy

Of the 30 kids rated #30 through #59 in the 2020 RSCI, here's how it breaks down. Four of them never played in college at all, so it's a group of 26, not 30. Of those 26 who played as freshmen this past year, seven have already announced they're transferring, four are going to the draft, and 15 haven't indicated that they're going to transfer or declare, at least not yet, so let's consider them as staying for their sophomore years at the school at which they started. So 11 of 26 are gone from the program. That's 42% of recruits in this range, and unfortunately it includes both Jaemyn and Henry. 58% appear (at least now) to be staying for a second year. Even if you take the guys declaring for the draft out of the mix, still you'd have 7 of the remaining 22 transferring, which is 32%.

---

The dramatic opening of the transfer portal impacts college basketball as profoundly as the OAD era has. I think it punctures for good the "good ol' days" mentality that all Duke needs to do is to find less talented players who would stay for four years and morph into Christian Laettner. What this year shows is that a substantial proportion of the most talented players--easily down to RSCI 70, if not further--are willing to change institutions in pursuit of their personal goals. There is nothing to suggest this will not be the permanent reality going forward. Even elimination of the OAD rules will not change this, as the mobility impacts players far less highly rated than OADs. The much-beloved era of teams loaded with three and four year veterans will never return.

I don't think any of us would not prefer those days, at least as fans. The reality is that we all benefited from what in retrospect was a form of indentured servitude, in which the norms of the time forced players to stay in one place for four years. I am confident that given the chance, the Hurleys and Hills and Brands would have been OADs, and many of the "supporting cast" players would have relocated to other programs promising more PT. This year will be the new reality. And in an era where even mid-level talent cannot be presumed to stay for four years, the only sensible strategy is to recruit the best players possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1991 duke law

I have no narrative here. Simply pointing out that the kids leaving are not going to comparable academic institutions.

I have no interest in spinning a narrative. This evolution of one and done’s to come and go has killed my interest in college basketball. I love Duke, and I have loved Duke basketball for a long time, but I don’t see myself getting back to a similar level of interest.

It is not much of a brotherhood if no one wants to partake for more than eight months.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronDuke

Thank you. I couldn’t agree more. When Coach K retires, he’s number 1 on the list of who needs to be replaced in the Duke Basketball program but number two on that list has my vote currently for whoever in the social media/marketing department/realm that continues to think it’s a good idea to market Duke as “The Brotherhood.” Cut the crap and come up with something better because it just ain’t true. It’s not even laughable at this point although it was. It’s kind of clownish now. That and a new Director of Basketball Operations are currently of the utmost importance in my opinion. Duke can do a lot better than that gimmick. With all the leaders in the thought space Duke has, that’s really weak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truth&Justise

Maybe you're right that a new slogan will be needed, but remember that you're not the only audience for the "Brotherhood" branding--it's also aimed at recruits. And it'd be foolish to say it's been anything but astoundingly successful since its introduction. The players bought into it, the former players bought into it, and it got recruits to buy in as well. When you have buy-in from all levels, that is a potent force for promoting the program. And it has given former players yet another avenue for staying in touch with the program and reaching out to the new generation.

---

This "there's no brotherhood" notion is to me an example of the entitled and condescending attitude for which we fans are often guilty. First, I can guarantee that the actual members of the Brotherhood disagree with Cameron that it's "crap." It's about Duke basketball players maintaining a connection to Duke, and expressing it by supporting their fellow alums in the NBA. And the notion that an OAD cannot be grateful and loyal to Duke is also by every indication wrong. Did you listen to JJ Redick's pod (my favorite source of NBA inside info) with Zion? JJ's connection to Zion, and Zion's connection to Duke and Coach K are genuine and yes, there is a brotherhood there. It's not for you--it's for the players, be they potential recruits or NBA superstars.

This attitude is just juvenile sour grapes. Couple that with the elitism I see on this thread ("VCU--OMG, he might as well have gone to community college") and it's not a pretty picture. We all make choices--root for Duke hoops as it evolves, or leave the fan base and find another sport to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truth&Justise

Maybe you're right that a new slogan will be needed, but remember that you're not the only audience for the "Brotherhood" branding--it's also aimed at recruits. And it'd be foolish to say it's been anything but astoundingly successful since its introduction. The players bought into it, the former players bought into it, and it got recruits to buy in as well. When you have buy-in from all levels, that is a potent force for promoting the program. And it has given former players yet another avenue for staying in touch with the program and reaching out to the new generation.

You might find it disingenuous, but hard to argue it hasn't worked.

---

I’m with CameronDuke 100% on this.
And the usefulness of the “Brotherhood” that you point out is exactly what is going on in broader American society today. To wit, every group has there own “truth”, their own “facts”. That is without regard to whether it is real or not.
The Brotherhood marketing garbage might work on 17 year-old basketball prodigies, but by age 19 a different truth emerges. It should be retired.
And every non-Duke fan laughs in my face whenever i jokingly bring it up.