How About Reason to Discuss the Merits of OAD?

[Kedsy]

But what about guys like Frank and Tyus or any one of the 100+ guys who have declared early?

I don't understand what you mean here. I doubt either Frank Jackson or (especially) Tyus Jones would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. They left after one year of college and both got drafted and both got guaranteed, multi-year NBA contracts (not two-way or G-League or undrafted free agent).

The fact is, the OAD discussion as it is framed by most people wouldn't really affect guys like Frank or Tyus or Justise or Luke Kennard or Rodney Hood or (probably) Gary Trent. Unless they mandated a MLB-type rule forcing kids who go to college at all to stay multiple years, all those guys still would have played briefly in college and then left exactly when they did.

[Matches]

I agree about sending the MBIII's of the world directly to the NBA. The very top prospects don't need the G-League. But what about guys like Frank and Tyus or any one of the 100+ guys who have declared early? There are 60 draft spots for those guys (plus seniors and international players). Yes, the G-League will always be the minor leagues and that's exactly that the NBA needs is a proper, well funded minor league.

I just don't think that guys like Frank or Tyus will ever choose the minor leagues over college, regardless of how said minor league is configured or how little interest they may have* in being college students. Maybe they would if there was a baseball-style rule forcing guys to stay in college for three years, but I think that's a non-starter in basketball.


* I don't mean to imply that Tyus or Frank or anyone specifically didn't want to be a student. I don't know them and have no idea.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am not sure we have "lost" many to the NBA because of the one and done rule. Many of those who left Duke after one year would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. Its really more like we "found" a year of Bagley, Carter etc. because of the rule. I think most, but not all, of those who left Duke recently after a year fit into that category.
SoCal

The negative I see is the cost of these "found" years being the lost development and experience of Bolden, Alex, Javin, and other longer term players, and subsequent later maturation or transfer of others. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Duke has been an attractive destination for top tier talent for a long time. I do think that some "system" identity gets lost with the quick turnover of the players.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The negative I see is the cost of these "found" years being the lost development and experience of Bolden, Alex, Javin, and other longer term players, and subsequent later maturation or transfer of others. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Duke has been an attractive destination for top tier talent for a long time. I do think that some "system" identity gets lost with the quick turnover of the players.

There is no doubt that everything you say above is valid. That said, how do you turn down Jah, Tre, Justice, Marvin, Zion, RJ, Cam etc...if they want to come to Duke for their one year? Especially if you're a 70 year old coach and not looking for a 2-3 year rebuild project.

It's a bit of a true Catch 22. And nothing happens in a vacuum to be sure as well.

I would also say that in our OAD era, we have a Natty - we have another year where we were a spin out from going to the FF...and then who would bet against Duke with a healthy Harry Giles from winning another natty? Again, I defer to your vacuum theory...but one could argue that we're a couple of strokes of pure bad luck from maybe having an entirely different feeling after the last two seasons.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There is no doubt that everything you say above is valid. That said, how do you turn down Jah, Tre, Justice, Marvin, Zion, RJ, Cam etc...if they want to come to Duke for their one year? Especially if you're a 70 year old coach and not looking for a 2-3 year rebuild project.

It's a bit of a true Catch 22. And nothing happens in a vacuum to be sure as well.

I would also say that in our OAD era, we have a Natty - we have another year where we were a spin out from going to the FF...and then who would bet against Duke with a healthy Harry Giles from winning another natty? Again, I defer to your vacuum theory...but one could argue that we're a couple of strokes of pure bad luck from maybe having an entirely different feeling after the last two seasons.

Good points all. I am still trying to figure out the framework for an off season discussion of what DBR deems a "successful" or "satisfying" season. I sense there will be a lot of variance in the responses.

Stay tuned.

[Kedsy]

Okay, that’s cool. But tell me how you and these “dozens and dozens of posts that provide quantitative analysis of the breakdown between the various models of recruiting and corresponding results” factor in enjoyment for the fans? I can tell you from speaking to dozens of long-time Duke fans that nearly to a person say they don’t like the new model of recruiting excessively from the OAD pool of recruits. They would much prefer Duke recruit PRIMARILY from the pool of recruits who will likely stay four years and actually graduate.

How old are these Duke fans? Did they enjoy rooting for Duke in the mid-1970s? Or how about 2012 to 2014?

From 2008-09 to 2013-14, we didn't recruit more than one top 10 recruit per year. Our recruits were as follows:

Jabari Parker (#3) OAD
Semi Ojeleye (#32) transfer
Matt Jones (#34)
Rasheed Sulaimon (#12) transfer
Amile Jefferson (#21)
Austin Rivers (#2) OAD
Michael Gbinije (#28) transfer
Quinn Cook (#31)
Alex Murphy (#45) transfer
Marshall Plumlee (#61)
Kyrie Irving (#3) OAD
Josh Hairston (#32)
Tyler Thornton (#144)
Ryan Kelly (#14)
Mason Plumlee (#18)
Andre Dawkins (#20 to #25ish)
Elliot Williams (#15) transfer
Olek Czyz (#66) transfer
Miles Plumlee (#81)

So, of the 19 recruits that comprised the 2012 to 2014 teams (along with incoming transfers Seth Curry, Rodney Hood, and Sean Obi; though you can't always count on getting productive transfers (e.g., Obi) and anyway Hood left after only playing one year at Duke), we fans only got to see 10 of them (53%) play four years. Presumably more importantly from a fan enjoyment standpoint, two of the three teams in the 2012 to 2014 timeframe lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament. A small sample, certainly, but a much higher percentage chance of happening the fewer great players you have.

Further, times have changed since that timeframe. From 2009 to 2014, as can be seen from the above list, we got seven recruits ranked in the 10s and 20s; four of those seven stayed 4 years and one stayed 3 years (meaning we got 3 years or more from 71.4% of those recruits). Since then (2014-15 to 2018-19), we've recruited eight players in the 10s and 20s, and only one (Grayson Allen) stayed four years, with Marques Bolden (hopefully) here for at least three years (meaning assuming Marques is here we got 3+ years from only 25% of them).

So, and perhaps most importantly, in today's climate to get four year players we'd have to primarily recruit 30s and up (although some guys in that category tend to transfer, e.g., Semi Ojeleye, Alex Murphy, Olek Czyz). How much fun would it be as a fan if Javin DeLaurier and Alex O'Connell were our best players next season (or 2nd and 3rd best players along with one OAD)? Possibly less than you imagine.

I’m not telling you how to accomplish this. I’m only saying what I have heard repeated over and over again from most of the Duke fans I have talked with on the subject.

Aye, there's the rub (whatever that means). In today's climate, I don't believe there is any way to accomplish this and also have a nationally competitive team year-in and year-out (other than hope your top recruits stay several years as has happened at UNC recently; but obviously that's not a reliable or reproducible system). In other words, if the fan enjoyment of the many Duke fans who you've spoken to about this doesn't involve consistent winning, then good for them and my advice is wait until Coach K retires and they'll probably get their wish. If they do enjoy consistent winning, however, they probably shouldn't complain so much.

[OZ]

How old are these Duke fans? Did they enjoy rooting for Duke in the mid-1970s? Or how about 2012 to 2014?

From 2008-09 to 2013-14, we didn't recruit more than one top 10 recruit per year. Our recruits were as follows:

Not so old that we have forgotten that this was once an important accomplishment for "student-athletes" at DUKE: "who will likely stay four years and actually graduate".

[Kedsy]

Not so old that we have forgotten that this was once an important accomplishment for "student-athletes" at DUKE: "who will likely stay four years and actually graduate".

Again, if that's your primary goal, then fine, so long as you recognize that you can't have that and also a national title contender on a regular basis.

Stephen43 said that almost all Duke fans with whom he has spoken feel that way, but based on the amount of whining we see around here when the team loses just one or two games to lesser teams or flames out early in the tournament, I believe either his group doesn't represent Duke fans as a whole or those fans haven't owned up to the idea that in today's climate it's essentially impossible to have a roster of four-year players and also have a top 10 team every year.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Another facet of OAD that is more difficult to quantify is what these players do to the locker room and team chemistry. It seems nearly impossible to imagine that there wouldn't be a divide between six month student athletes and four year guys, no matter how pleasant and congenial the short timers are.

To clarify, it seems to me that our OAD players have been great campus citizens and all round nice dudes, but I can't believe that it doesn't do something strange to the team energy to have a handful of players who are making a pit stop on the way to their seven figure contracts.

(I used more smarmy words in this post than I usually do in discussing any Duke players, but I am feeling a little saucy today, and this thread seems the right place to ask these questions... I look forward to watching Bags and Carter in the NBA next year.)

[lotusland]

I bolded the gist of it and how it fits into this definitive OAD thread. Sounds like Pat Forde needed a column for a deadline. I feed like separate housing for athletes is the least of the problems with OADs.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-sh...191051138.html

Don’t let the idyllic campus, small enrollment and huge tuition fool you. Duke is taking another step toward Jock School status.

A university that U.S. News & World Report ranks among the 10 best in America in 2018 is tweaking its standards again for the sake of athletics. An esteemed academic institution that once at least aspired to keep sports seamlessly interwoven into the overall mission of the university has further frayed that tapestry. The most prestigious member of the Atlantic Coast Conference might not be on a slippery slope to Alabama, but it’s not Stanford, either.

A few years ago, the once-exalted ivory tower of men’s basketball reduced itself to a one-and-done trade school — the University of Kentucky Tobacco Road Campus, basically. Now Duke is making another concession that says a lot about the power athletics has to construct its own reality, separate from that of the university as a whole. It is creating a different set of living conditions for athletes than for the student body at large.

[Ian]

Again, if that's your primary goal, then fine, so long as you recognize that you can't have that and also a national title contender on a regular basis.

Stephen43 said that almost all Duke fans with whom he has spoken feel that way, but based on the amount of whining we see around here when the team loses just one or two games to lesser teams or flames out early in the tournament, I believe either his group doesn't represent Duke fans as a whole or those fans haven't owned up to the idea that in today's climate it's essentially impossible to have a roster of four-year players and also have a top 10 team every year.

Fans always gripe when their teams lose, that's the nature of sports fandom.

The difference is when it wasn't *all* just about winning we at least had other things to point to as "silver linings" when we lose. We got to watch young men grow up, mature, improve, we got to see true student athletes who love the school as much as we do represent their school, etc, etc. Now we don't have any of those other things, so it's all about winning now, and if now we don't win, the fans literally have nothing to fall back on. I'm okay with winning less if it meant having those other things to feel good about when we do lose.

Plus I am still not persuaded that the current system is best for winning for Coach K. I think at most all your number have shown is that given an average coach, recruiting top talent instead of top 50 talent probably leads to more wins. I think giving Coach K more top 50 players who stay 3-4 years and less top 10 player who leave after 1 year would not lead to him winning less, and quite possibily more.

[Kedsy]

Plus I am still not persuaded that the current system is best for winning for Coach K. I think at most all your number have shown is that given an average coach, recruiting top talent instead of top 50 talent probably leads to more wins. I think giving Coach K more top 50 players who stay 3-4 years and less top 10 player who leave after 1 year would not lead to him winning less, and quite possibily more.

Obviously it's impossible to prove that, one way or the other. I will note that Coach K has had a player who was consensus-ranked in the top 6 in all but ten seasons at Duke:

1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2013

In those 10 seasons, Duke won a total of 9 NCAA tournament games (and three of those nine came in 2013).


Put another way, in today's climate, the following guys most likely would not have stayed four years:

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Danny Ferry, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, Cherokee Parks, Trajan Langdon, Shane Battier, Kyle Singler, Mason Plumlee

And Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy most likely wouldn't have stayed three years. For that matter, who knows if Elton Brand would have stayed two years.

If he hadn't had the above players for as many years as he did, my guess is K wouldn't have near the record that he does, because he would have had to play primarily with more top 50 players and fewer top 10 players.

[JNort]

I am not sure we have "lost" many to the NBA because of the one and done rule. Many of those who left Duke after one year would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. Its really more like we "found" a year of Bagley, Carter etc. because of the rule. I think most, but not all, of those who left Duke recently after a year fit into that category.

I don't like the rule at all but with the rule I don't see what else K can do Obviously some players are ready for the NBA after high school so why force them to wait a year? If you are Coach K are you not going to recruit the Marvin Bagley's of the world because you will only have him for a year? And maybe have to play against him for a year? What would be the outcry here if Coach K had said before the early signing period that he was not going to offer a scholarship to Barrett, Williamson, Reddish and Jones because there was too high a likelihood that each would be here a year?

SoCal

Idk. I don't think Carter goes pro out of high school. We would never have got Jah, Austin, Bagley and Jabari for certain imo. Only other would have probably been Tatum and Ingram. I don't remeber what they Irving hype was out if high school as far as NBA prospects go. Didn't most scouts prefer Josh Selby and the other top 3 pg that year.

[JNort]

Fans always gripe when their teams lose, that's the nature of sports fandom.

The difference is when it wasn't *all* just about winning we at least had other things to point to as "silver linings" when we lose. We got to watch young men grow up, mature, improve, we got to see true student athletes who love the school as much as we do represent their school, etc, etc. Now we don't have any of those other things, so it's all about winning now, and if now we don't win, the fans literally have nothing to fall back on. I'm okay with winning less if it meant having those other things to feel good about when we do lose.

Plus I am still not persuaded that the current system is best for winning for Coach K. I think at most all your number have shown is that given an average coach, recruiting top talent instead of top 50 talent probably leads to more wins. I think giving Coach K more top 50 players who stay 3-4 years and less top 10 player who leave after 1 year would not lead to him winning less, and quite possibily more.

and I still think you don't necessarily understand what this would mean. If we are contending on a regular basis with that type of talent then that probably means some guys are over achieving. When they do that they will tend to leave early also so they can maximize draft status. So same thing happens but with less talent.

[BD80]

Forde makes some good points, but takes some cheap shots:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-sh...191051138.html

[scottdude8]

Forde makes some good points, but takes some cheap shots:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-sh...191051138.html

It sickens me that Yahoo would waste (hypothetical) ink on this story. Time and resources investigating this could’ve been spent holding UNCs feet to the fire about the academic scandal, further investigating the massive coverup of sexual assault at MSU, or investigating a situation where a school provided actually problematic benefits to athletes (cough cough Louisville).

Should Duke be perfect and have no differences in treatment between athletes and non-athletes? Of course. Is that at all realistic? Of course not! Show me a single D1 school that does that and I’ll show you a postdoctoral research position that pays six figures (academia humor! lol).

Luckily no one reads Yahoo so this is a non-issue. But it is making me unrealistically angry. If I brought this article to my editor back in my Chronicle days I’d expect, or at least strongly hope, I’d have been laughed out of the office.

[flyingdutchdevil]

It sickens me that Yahoo would waste (hypothetical) ink on this story. Time and resources investigating this could’ve been spent holding UNCs feet to the fire about the academic scandal, further investigating the massive coverup of sexual assault at MSU, or investigating a situation where a school provided actually problematic benefits to athletes (cough cough Louisville).

Should Duke be perfect and have no differences in treatment between athletes and non-athletes? Of course. Is that at all realistic? Of course not! Show me a single D1 school that does that and I’ll show you a postdoctoral research position that pays six figures (academia humor! lol).

Luckily no one reads Yahoo so this is a non-issue. But it is making me unrealistically angry. If I brought this article to my editor back in my Chronicle days I’d expect, or at least strongly hope, I’d have been laughed out of the office.

Why does this bother you? Because Duke was used as the prime example?

Good for Forde. Of course Duke treats athletes differently. And if all 3xx DI schools do too, then shame on them as well.

I’m not upset by the article or at Forde or at Duke. Sadly, these double standards exist and continue to exist.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I bolded the gist of it and how it fits into this definitive OAD thread. Sounds like Pat Forde needed a column for a deadline. I feed like separate housing for athletes is the least of the problems with OADs.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-sh...191051138.html

Don’t let the idyllic campus, small enrollment and huge tuition fool you. Duke is taking another step toward Jock School status.

A university that U.S. News & World Report ranks among the 10 best in America in 2018 is tweaking its standards again for the sake of athletics. An esteemed academic institution that once at least aspired to keep sports seamlessly interwoven into the overall mission of the university has further frayed that tapestry. The most prestigious member of the Atlantic Coast Conference might not be on a slippery slope to Alabama, but it’s not Stanford, either.

A few years ago, the once-exalted ivory tower of men’s basketball reduced itself to a one-and-done trade school — the University of Kentucky Tobacco Road Campus, basically. Now Duke is making another concession that says a lot about the power athletics has to construct its own reality, separate from that of the university as a whole. It is creating a different set of living conditions for athletes than for the student body at large.

I read it. If you have not, don't waste your time. Freshmen athletes will room with freshmen athletes but freshmen engineers may room with English majors.. Does not seem like a big deal to me. One of the first responders said he was an athlete and at his school after the frosh year athletes chose to room with athletes.

SoCal

[Steven43]

I think "former players" is a better description than "alums" as, to my knowledge, none of these former players have graduated. I know Kyrie says that he plans to but one year of classes doesn't get you very far towards a degree, and by being a part of successful teams making deep playoff runs, he hasn't had much opportunity to take summer classes.

I really dislike the idea of OAD and hope it is eliminated as soon as possible. If you want to go to school, go to school. If you don't, don't. But don't force people to go to school when they don't have any desire to be there. I'm not saying this applies to our OADs, just the concept in general.

I admire that Coach K and Duke always want to be the best at everything and there are many players who arrive with every intention to stay for a few years and then get an offer they can't refuse from the NBA, but I am not a fan of OAD and though I love seeing the superstars pass through Durham every year, my love of Duke basketball that started well before I matriculated at the university is not what it once was. And though I greatly enjoy following recruiting, I do not enjoy the annual need to have a perfect class because the cupboard is bare - so far it has worked out really well for us, but that could change very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about whether the plan to replace OAD should require this who matriculate to be required to stay for a few years or not. But either way, I think that after a few years of everything sorting itself out, most players will end up either going straight to the NBA or sticking around for a few years.

Now get off my lawn...

Well said. You get an A+.

[OZ]

Again, if that's your primary goal, then fine, so long as you recognize that you can't have that and also a national title contender on a regular basis.

"How old are these Duke fans?"

First, it sounds as if you have concluded the only way to have a national contender on a "regular basis" is to load up on OADs. This past final four must have been a head scratcher for you.
Second, call me OLD - I am OLD - but my "primary goal" for athletes at Duke is to get a good education. Wasn't one of the reasons some were so hard on the cheaters was that the athletes were deprived of a quality education. What exactly is the quality of one year at a university?
Third, I am so OLD, I can recall a time when rumors circulated that banners would not be hung until every player graduated. At one time, that was a standard we were proud of. Do you not think we have sacrificed a little of our values and academic integrity with the OADs? Well, I do...I guess that is because I am so old.
Fourth, I attend the basket ball games, but admittedly, not with the same enthusiastic commitment. Now that goes to football and LAX. I find it more to the OLD Duke standard with which I am most comfortable... pulling for players who commit to the University as well as the value of a Duke education.
My primary goal? Well, if it means loading up with a new team of OADs to be a "regular contender;" I guess that's not it for me.
OLD? I am so old, I can remember a man selling apples at basketball games. I can also recall one of my friends getting tossed for tossing an apple core at the refs.