One and Done Results

[Hauerwas]

The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

[G man]

Unfortunately I think the data speaks for itself. Can you imagine what the games played would look like without a national title sprinkled in? I don't mind the one and done but we need to find a way to get better results.

[Olympic Fan]

Very selective facts. Just for perspective, let's add a few more. I'm not going to waste time doing everybody, but comparing Duke (one-and-done heavy) with UNC (no one and dones):

Overall record since 2011: Duke 213-51; UNC 202-60
ACC championships since 2011: Duke 2, UNC 1 (actually since Duke won titles in 2009 and 2010 also, Duke has win four of the last nine ACC titles)
Top 10 finishes since 2011: Duke 6, UNC 4
Head to head wins since 2011: Duke 11, UNC 4

I might argue that Duke's disappointing NCAA record has a lot to do with major injuries in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017. In that time, UNC suffered a major injury to Kendall Marshall in 2012 that really hurt their NCAA chances (but since the injury didn't occur until the Sweet 16, not the same impact as Duke losing Kyrie Irving, Ryan Kelly (twice) or Amile Jefferson (twice)

And Duke has seen the second weekend four times (not twice) in your timeframe -- 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016.

[Furniture]

The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

I think K should consider playing a deeper bench;-)

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

[Dukehky]

Also, only last year did we have a team of one and dones and not do well.

Kyrie was the only one, Austin was the only one, Jabari was the only one, Ingram was the only one.

Losing in the first round with single one and done players is not indicative of the one and done phenomenon that people are talking about. Lots of teams have 1 really good freshman, and you want to have really good freshmen.

2015 we had more than 1 one and done but we only recruited one to be a one and done (Jahlil, the staff expected Winslow and Jones to be multi year guys until late in the year for Winslow and after the tournament for Tyus).

Last year was the first season in which we brought in more than one guy that was FOR SURE leaving, Giles and Tatum.

I don't think recruiting one and dones has been an issue with us. I think it's been injuries and bad matchups. Losing young players to transfer hasn't been super helpful either, just means we have to bring in more freshmen to field a team, but those new frosh are not usually elite freshmen talents.

2015 set us back because we didn't expect to lose Tyus, they started going hard at Ingram once Justise started playing better. We tried to adjust by bringing in Thornton but that didn't work out because his dad is crazy, which set us back for this year. This year probably hurt a little bit too with the unexpected departure of Jackson, but I think the staff was prepared to lose Grayson, and instead of losing Grayson, we lost Luke. They're not the same player, but for recruiting purposes, they kind of are.

It's really clear by the recruiting patterns that the staff has started to implement especially for the class of 2018, that they are looking to return to classes that are filled in with more kids who are likely to be around for longer, mixed in with maybe 1 or 2 for sure one and dones. This year's class, I think we were trying to tread water a little bit because we're going to lose Carter (unless he really likes college or something because he talked an awful lot about academics), and we're going to lose Duval. I don't expect Trent to bounce, but I didn't expect Frank to leave either. I don't know who, but it's possible someone transfers out, we are bringing in 7 freshmen, which means some of them aren't every going to play, and kids want to play.

I mean, you can complain about one and dones all you want. But we are not UK, we don't recruit 5 kids whose intention it is to leave after a year, we had a great season in 2015 and kids took advantage, and then last year we got a little unlucky with Frank and Luke (even though we were lucky that they were both really good players). There's always something to be said about having a pro on the floor though. Like, last year, let's say we didn't want the one and dones, and we decided to pursue Dedric Lawson, who was ranked 38 in the class, we would have been in a whole heap of trouble.

The way we've been running the team, it's also really hard to recruit those lower ranked kids. Like, I'm shocked that O'Connell and Tucker were so adamant about coming to Duke. They would have been key players if not starters on the vast majority of other teams in the country next year. That's not to say that won't happen at Duke, but our track record lately has not been super great for non-elite level freshmen.

The last non-five star player I remember getting key minutes as a freshman was Tyler Thornton, and he wouldn't have sniffed the court had Kyrie not gotten hurt. Even Grayson, a McD's AA five star who was like low twenties in ranking got real spotty minutes as a freshmen. Javin Delaurier was high thirties in one of the best recruiting classes ever and he played what, 68 minutes this year? Kids want to play, and kids that know they are 4 year players aren't going to play as freshmen and they are going to get recruited over. Just kind of the way of the world right now. Not everyone can get lucky and have their 5 star players be bad their first two years and stay 3/4 years, and have those players be juniors and seniors in the same year and win a title.

[ipatent]

The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

The numbers would be even worse had the '15 team not had things fall into place with the defense and Winslow's shooting getting markedly better late in the season.

[Troublemaker]

Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

Coach K probably doesn't believe any disappointing results in recent seasons have much to do with recruiting OADs. I'm dubious that it's a major factor as well.

In any case, he is also recruiting multi-year guys.

[ipatent]

Coach K probably doesn't believe any disappointing results in recent seasons have much to do with recruiting OADs. I'm dubious that it's a major factor as well.

In any case, he is also recruiting multi-year guys.

Coach K built his reputation by beating more talented teams coaching up four-year players to play as a unit. Younger fans should watch the '86 team on YouTube. It was a thing of beauty. He lost some of the edge he had over other coaches when he embraced one-and-dones, because it takes even a great coach a few years to get a team to play like that.

Eight miles down the road, Roy Williams has danced around NCAA sanctions and parlayed his lack of four year players into 11 tournament wins in two years. Roy has gotten his kids to stay, while Duke has been having a bad run of luck with players like Thornton not willing to wait for their place in the spotlight and Jackson/Tyus Jones leaving before expected.

I think the point guard position has become even more critical in the OAD era. I'd look to have a four year PG on the team at all times who is willing to play behind the one and dones but good enough to keep an inexperienced team cohesive when he's on the floor.

That's not to say the OAD strategy has been a total flop, it did yield a championship. Who knows what next year's team will bring? At least there will be a true PG and clearly defined roles.

[wavedukefan70s]

Coach K built his reputation by beating more talented teams coaching up four-year players to play as a unit. Younger fans should watch the '86 team on YouTube. It was a thing of beauty. He lost some of the edge he had over other coaches when he embraced one-and-dones, because it takes even a great coach a few years to get a team to play like that.

Eight miles down the road, Roy Williams has danced around NCAA sanctions and parlayed his lack of four year players into 11 tournament wins in two years. Roy has gotten his kids to stay, while Duke has been having a bad run of luck with players like Thornton not willing to wait for their place in the spotlight and Jackson/Tyus Jones leaving before expected.

I think the point guard position has become even more critical in the OAD era. I'd look to have a four year PG on the team at all times who is willing to play behind the one and dones but good enough to keep an inexperienced team cohesive when he's on the floor.

That's not to say the OAD strategy has been a total flop, it did yield a championship. Who knows what next year's team will bring? At least there will be a true PG and clearly defined roles.

Spot on in my opinion.

[Kedsy]

The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.

Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

I thought this was a parody post (and I apologize for the rest of this post if it actually is parody), but now I think you really mean it. "Change in approach with a new university president about to take office"? That's flabbergasting on so many levels.

Coach K is going to continue to recruit the best players he can for as long as he's here. And for those who don't like that, check back in with me after he's gone. As for UNC's success, if Arkansas hadn't blown a decent lead in the last couple minutes in the Round of 32, would those "many fans" even be talking about this?

Finally, does anyone really think the best strategy is to recruit guys in the 50s to 90s and supplement those with a few top recruits who inexplicably decide to stay three or four years? The first part of that doesn't work for most teams who are forced to do it (because they can't successfully get the better recruits), at least not consistently, and the second part is both unpredictable and unsustainable.

After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

[Furniture]

After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

Now that is what I call SPOT ON!!

[sagegrouse]

Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.



I thought this was a parody post (and I apologize for the rest of this post if it actually is parody), but now I think you really mean it. "Change in approach with a new university president about to take office"? That's flabbergasting on so many levels.

Coach K is going to continue to recruit the best players he can for as long as he's here. And for those who don't like that, check back in with me after he's gone. As for UNC's success, if Arkansas hadn't blown a decent lead in the last couple minutes in the Round of 32, would those "many fans" even be talking about this?

Finally, does anyone really think the best strategy is to recruit guys in the 50s to 90s and supplement those with a few top recruits who inexplicably decide to stay three or four years? The first part of that doesn't work for most teams who are forced to do it (because they can't successfully get the better recruits), at least not consistently, and the second part is both unpredictable and unsustainable.

After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

The other point I would make is the omission of 2010 in the analysis. Three of the top five NBA picks were freshmen -- Wall, Favors and Cousins -- and 2010's inclusion would add six tournament wins to the Duke total. And, although Kentucky won three games, Wisconsin and Kansas won only one game, Louisville lost its only game, and --- UNC, UConn and Zona did not make the tournament.

[OldPhiKap]

Small sample size. And with last year's injuries, can't draw much from that.

A group of one-and-done players means greater risk, greater reward. A poker player would say: a greater variance style.

For better or worse, it's the current state of reality. Are we supposed to pass on top 20 players because they may (or likely will) leave early? Don't see how or why we would do that.

I miss the days of four-year, or even three-year, star players. But I also miss vinyl albums, prog rock, and the day's when I could eat pizza without expanding my waist. Times change. "Chaos killed the dinosaurs."

[Hauerwas]

Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.

The point is that while Uk has gone all in on the one and done recruitment while others have abstained for the most part, only kentucky has had real success in the tournament with this risky strategy. Whether it's K's defense, or lack of a true point guard, or the inability to blend the new guys with the old, K has honestly failed in comparison to both Cal's one and done system, as well as failing to Roy's system of signing lower level talent, keeping that talent, and developing old teams that know how to win in March.

Jabari had no clue how to win a game in March, it was pitiful. Austin Rivers, seriously. Then this year with Tatum, Giles, Jackson, et al we get embarrassed by an SEC team that got hot, and were of course themselves older and tougher and knew "how to win". K's one and done's don't seem to know how to win, how to play defense, or how to understand the value of roles. everyone's a scorer, everyone's playing for draft stock and not competing to fill a need that the team has. Just doesn't feel much like Duke basketball these days.

[rsvman]

Let's not forget that the Cheaters win over Arkansas was also aided and abetted by an egregious missed call.

Oh, and that Kentucky was also ahead by five with about 2.5 minutes remaining and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by double-teaming Pinson (of all people) while leaving Maye (one of only two guys on the team that could be effective from outside that night) wide.freaking.open. The NCAA tournament is a crapshoot.

As for ACC titles, the schedule was very unbalanced. We won the actual ACC title, by the way. Not anciently, but this very year. Less than three months ago. How quickly people forget.

[Hauerwas]

After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16. That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era. This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?

The better question is, where does K go from here? Does he double down and take a hybrid approach. This year's decisions forced him to take a hybrid approach and I believe it will be a successful strategy for years to come. Grabe 1-2 5 stars, fill them with 3 4 stars, and meld them with who is left to form a real team with some sustainability, depth, and experience.

This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

How does getting struck by lightening work one out of ten times again?

[OldPhiKap]

Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16. That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era. This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?

The better question is, where does K go from here? Does he double down and take a hybrid approach. This year's decisions forced him to take a hybrid approach and I believe it will be a successful strategy for years to come. Grabe 1-2 5 stars, fill them with 3 4 stars, and meld them with who is left to form a real team with some sustainability, depth, and experience.

This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

I will take a national championship once every ten years. That is a sick average for almost every non-spoiled fan base in the nation.

I understand the point, but not sure what you are advocating. Who have we passed on that we should have recruited? Who did we accept upon whom we should have passed?

We have won two national championships in the last eight years. So, K doesn't know what he's doing all of a sudden?

[NYBri]

Don't like OAD, but that's where the game is.