Time For Duke Fans To Show Who They Are

[scottdude8]

Just wanted to start a thread to give a virtual standing ovation for today's front page article from JD. I was actually thinking about writing something similar, but I ceded dibs to the guy who's been contributing on DBR juuuuust a bit longer than I have

In my mind, any analysis or criticism of this Duke team that doesn't take into account the insanity of this pandemic is fundamentally flawed. I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home, as is my wife, so we've been amongst the luckiest population during this past year. And I'm STILL struggling mightily, especially over the past month or so (Toronto is back under lockdown). If a relatively fortunate adult man is struggling like this with the pandemic, can you imagine how it must be affecting these players? Many of them are away from home for the first time in their lives, and have been in relative isolation for months (it's my understanding that even though they're in the WaDuke with the team, they're still instructed to minimize contact, i.e. socialize virtually, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong there). They've lost out on so many of the things that make being a Duke student, let alone a Duke basketball player, an amazing experience. And on top of all of that, they've been dealt arguably the worst hand of any major conference school when it comes to the impact of the pandemic, with nearly half a dozen games cancelled due to COVID issues for the opposition.

Can we please keep that in mind next time we want to tear down these kids after a loss? This just isn't a normal year, and these kids deserve our support and compassion for being able to go out, compete and display the character we expect from Duke student athletes. I still am optimistic the wins and losses will start to swing our way now that everyone is healthy (knock on wood) and we can start to get a rhythm going. But even if it doesn't, I'll still be immensely proud of this program for how they've represented Duke this year, and encouraged for the future by the flashes we've seen from many of the kids we expect to be around next year.

Next play is GT tomorrow. Let's go get a win.

[DevilYouKnow]

Having a very young team, being robbed of game experience, having your coach quarantined, two of your players out with injuries, no fans in Cameron on top of a totally weird college experience with COVID-19...

It's no surprise this team is having challenges putting together their identity.

I think Coach K picked a great year to have a team struggle.

Genius.

I'm still enjoying watching Duke hoops.

[OldPhiKap]

Just wanted to start a thread to give a virtual standing ovation for today's front page article from JD. I was actually thinking about writing something similar, but I ceded dibs to the guy who's been contributing on DBR juuuuust a bit longer than I have

In my mind, any analysis or criticism of this Duke team that doesn't take into account the insanity of this pandemic is fundamentally flawed. I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home, as is my wife, so we've been amongst the luckiest population during this past year. And I'm STILL struggling mightily, especially over the past month or so (Toronto is back under lockdown). If a relatively fortunate adult man is struggling like this with the pandemic, can you imagine how it must be affecting these players? Many of them are away from home for the first time in their lives, and have been in relative isolation for months (it's my understanding that even though they're in the WaDuke with the team, they're still instructed to minimize contact, i.e. socialize virtually, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong there). They've lost out on so many of the things that make being a Duke student, let alone a Duke basketball player, an amazing experience. And on top of all of that, they've been dealt arguably the worst hand of any major conference school when it comes to the impact of the pandemic, with nearly half a dozen games cancelled due to COVID issues for the opposition.

Can we please keep that in mind next time we want to tear down these kids after a loss? This just isn't a normal year, and these kids deserve our support and compassion for being able to go out, compete and display the character we expect from Duke student athletes. I still am optimistic the wins and losses will start to swing our way now that everyone is healthy (knock on wood) and we can start to get a rhythm going. But even if it doesn't, I'll still be immensely proud of this program for how they've represented Duke this year, and encouraged for the future by the flashes we've seen from many of the kids we expect to be around next year.

Next play is GT tomorrow. Let's go get a win.

We are all frustrated. This is worth keeping in mind.

[johnb]

Just wanted to start a thread to give a virtual standing ovation for today's front page article from JD. I was actually thinking about writing something similar, but I ceded dibs to the guy who's been contributing on DBR juuuuust a bit longer than I have

In my mind, any analysis or criticism of this Duke team that doesn't take into account the insanity of this pandemic is fundamentally flawed. I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home, as is my wife, so we've been amongst the luckiest population during this past year. And I'm STILL struggling mightily, especially over the past month or so (Toronto is back under lockdown). If a relatively fortunate adult man is struggling like this with the pandemic, can you imagine how it must be affecting these players? Many of them are away from home for the first time in their lives, and have been in relative isolation for months (it's my understanding that even though they're in the WaDuke with the team, they're still instructed to minimize contact, i.e. socialize virtually, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong there). They've lost out on so many of the things that make being a Duke student, let alone a Duke basketball player, an amazing experience. And on top of all of that, they've been dealt arguably the worst hand of any major conference school when it comes to the impact of the pandemic, with nearly half a dozen games cancelled due to COVID issues for the opposition.

Can we please keep that in mind next time we want to tear down these kids after a loss? This just isn't a normal year, and these kids deserve our support and compassion for being able to go out, compete and display the character we expect from Duke student athletes. I still am optimistic the wins and losses will start to swing our way now that everyone is healthy (knock on wood) and we can start to get a rhythm going. But even if it doesn't, I'll still be immensely proud of this program for how they've represented Duke this year, and encouraged for the future by the flashes we've seen from many of the kids we expect to be around next year.

Next play is GT tomorrow. Let's go get a win.

The reporter wasn’t tearing down the players. He asked a fairly innocuous question. Coach K could have fielded it easily, but I’d agree that his response was modestly out of line. K didn’t sound all that angry, but when you’re the GOAT, you aren’t going to get a pass when you go after a student journalist, especially one who’s doing his job.

I also think it’s not disloyal to voice criticism.

For example, for many of us, it’s difficult to maintain enthusiasm about a Duke program that has long been driven by 1 and done superstars. Hard to argue with the results, but it’s also hard to develop specific player loyalty when the best player (or 2 or 3 or 4) leaves early for the pros. And this year, when practice time is going to be limited, a 1 and done team is going to be especially vulnerable. I certainly wouldn’t turn on the players, but it’s also true I barely know who they are.

And for some of us, it’s hard to be enthusiastic this year about either of Duke’s big contact sports (football and basketball). As K has implied, we shouldn’t have played the season. Not that our own players are likely to get ill—the school seems to have done a good job—but I worry about the various workers (including coaches) as well as the messaging about business as usual. Our country should have led the world out of this mess, but instead we’ve spent a year in a herky jerky mess of a response, and playing contact sports during the pandemic is—imho—a big Coach K error. Obviously, he disagrees since the team is playing it’s games, but it can’t be an easy decision to expose his players and himself to illness every day. No wonder he’s stressed.

[Billy Dat]

I am Spartacus!

[Kedsy]

For example, for many of us, it’s difficult to maintain enthusiasm about a Duke program that has long been driven by 1 and done superstars. Hard to argue with the results, but it’s also hard to develop specific player loyalty when the best player (or 2 or 3 or 4) leaves early for the pros. And this year, when practice time is going to be limited, a 1 and done team is going to be especially vulnerable. I certainly wouldn’t turn on the players, but it’s also true I barely know who they are.

Except this isn't a "1 and done team." There is probably just one guy (Jalen Johnson) who is one-and-done on this team. For those who turn up their nose at the OAD culture, this should be a team you celebrate, no different from freshman-dominated teams in 1998 or 2000 or 2003 or 2007 or 2015 (which ended with 3 OAD, but nobody thought that would happen when the players were being recruited). Or last season, for that matter (which had two OADs but again only one could have been predicted during the recruiting process).

If they played today, do you think guys like Johnny Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Hurley, Laettner, Grant Hill, Jason Williams, Boozer, Battier, Redick, Shelden Williams, or Singler would have played in college for three or four years? Because what I think the anti-OAD crowd are really pining for are top 10 recruits who stay in school. But that's not going to happen, so this is what you get. Either hope for more one-and-done players, or get used to maintaining enthusiasm for having a top 10 team only once every few years.

[CDu]

Except this isn't a "1 and done team." There is probably just one guy (Jalen Johnson) who is one-and-done on this team. For those who turn up their nose at the OAD culture, this should be a team you celebrate, no different from freshman-dominated teams in 1998 or 2000 or 2003 or 2007 or 2015 (which ended with 3 OAD, but nobody thought that would happen when the players were being recruited). Or last season, for that matter (which had two OADs but again only one could have been predicted during the recruiting process).

If they played today, do you think guys like Johnny Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Hurley, Laettner, Grant Hill, Jason Williams, Boozer, Battier, Redick, Shelden Williams, or Singler would have played in college for three or four years? Because what I think the anti-OAD crowd are really pining for are top 10 recruits who stay in school. But that's not going to happen, so this is what you get. Either hope for more one-and-done players, or get used to maintaining enthusiasm for having a top 10 team only once every few years.

I think it's a tad more complicated than this. There are several programs, for example, that have maintained a top-10 caliber team with consistency for more than once every few years. Those teams generally fall into one or more of a few categories:
1. Really heavy into the ex-US recruiting market (e.g., Gonzaga)
2. Really heavy into the grad transfer and regular transfer market (Louisville fits this, among others)
3. A "system" program, which recruits on a lower tier but identifies the right guys for the system (e.g., UVa, to a lesser degree MSU)
4. Keep landing top-tier recruiting classes every year (e.g., Duke).
5. Be the unicorn that manages to recruit top talent and keep them for 3-4 years fairly consistently (UNC prior to the last few years)

We don't have the recruiting network in place to make option 1 work. And option 5 is not realistic (even UNC is starting to lose their grasp on this option).
That leaves options 2-4.

Duke has embraced option 4, which means get the best players you can and figure it out once they're on campus. This has, by necessity, eliminated option 3. It's hard to be beholden to a system when the best recruits aren't cookie-cutter from year to year. So Coach K has had to make each team a project in chemistry and identity. There are some cons to this approach. First and foremost, it requires landing top talent year in and year out for it to work. We've seen the last two years what happens when you only get one guy at the top of the pyramid. The other issue is that, because the identity of the team changes from year to year, it's harder on the role players to really find a niche. At UVa, for example, they can groom players for VERY specific roles because they run the same system every year. So a lesser talent can develop over 2-3 years into a productive role player in a very specific niche. At Duke, if you aren't a stud, you will have to fill a role. But that role may change from year to year. Take Jack White for example. In 2019, he was in the near-perfect fit as a fifth man who simply had to do the dirty work because we had ball-dominant stars in Barrett and Williamson. But in 2020, we needed him to be a shooting threat, and he struggled. This is a bit less of an issue than the talent acquisition piece, but it's still relevant.

I am fully on board with the "get the best players you can every year" model. Mainly because, at Coach K's age, he only has so many years left. And to reprogram the process would likely take a few years. UNLESS the team started to implement option 2 for a few years. For whatever reason, Coach K has been loathe to bring in transfers of any kind, and especially so for grad transfers. But this would be an avenue to better navigate the recruiting challenges at the high school level. In fact, I feel like it should be a bigger part of the puzzle even WITH the heavy one-and-done model.

I think maintaining a top-tier program perennially can be done even without the heavy one-and-done model. But it would require a more comprehensive and/or creative recruiting approach involving more transfers. For whatever reason, that hasn't been Coach K's strategy. His first foray into the grad transfer market has appeared to be a bust, which makes me skeptical that he'll go back to the well again. But, really, that's the game that you need to be willing to play if you want to navigate the system in years when you don't have several top recruits.

[Natty_B]

Except this isn't a "1 and done team." There is probably just one guy (Jalen Johnson) who is one-and-done on this team. For those who turn up their nose at the OAD culture, this should be a team you celebrate, no different from freshman-dominated teams in 1998 or 2000 or 2003 or 2007 or 2015 (which ended with 3 OAD, but nobody thought that would happen when the players were being recruited). Or last season, for that matter (which had two OADs but again only one could have been predicted during the recruiting process).

If they played today, do you think guys like Johnny Dawkins, Alarie, Ferry, Hurley, Laettner, Grant Hill, Jason Williams, Boozer, Battier, Redick, Shelden Williams, or Singler would have played in college for three or four years? Because what I think the anti-OAD crowd are really pining for are top 10 recruits who stay in school. But that's not going to happen, so this is what you get. Either hope for more one-and-done players, or get used to maintaining enthusiasm for having a top 10 team only once every few years.

I'm pretty over OAD myself and lots of programs are thriving without embracing the Duke/Kentucky model but instead of going down that rabbit hole again I'll just focus on this: I don't think 1998 was a "freshman dominated team" - Wojo and McLeod were seniors, Trajan was a junior, Carrawell was a sophomore and Brand (the best freshman) missed two months. Edit: I don't think you can call 2000 or 2003 "freshman lead" either senior Carrawell and junior Battier were huge in 2000 and senior Dahntay Jones was in 2003.

I also disagree with the front page when it said K chewing out a student asking his first question was a 1 on the rudeness scale and not as bad as Roy using a curse word. When Roy cusses reporters out they are usually adults and well paid right?

[Kedsy]

I think it's a tad more complicated than this. There are several programs, for example, that have maintained a top-10 caliber team with consistency for more than once every few years. Those teams generally fall into one or more of a few categories:
1. Really heavy into the ex-US recruiting market (e.g., Gonzaga)
2. Really heavy into the grad transfer and regular transfer market (Louisville fits this, among others)
3. A "system" program, which recruits on a lower tier but identifies the right guys for the system (e.g., UVa, to a lesser degree MSU)
4. Keep landing top-tier recruiting classes every year (e.g., Duke).
5. Be the unicorn that manages to recruit top talent and keep them for 3-4 years fairly consistently (UNC prior to the last few years)

We don't have the recruiting network in place to make option 1 work. And option 5 is not realistic (even UNC is starting to lose their grasp on this option).
That leaves options 2-4.

Duke has embraced option 4, which means get the best players you can and figure it out once they're on campus. This has, by necessity, eliminated option 3. It's hard to be beholden to a system when the best recruits aren't cookie-cutter from year to year. So Coach K has had to make each team a project in chemistry and identity. There are some cons to this approach. First and foremost, it requires landing top talent year in and year out for it to work. We've seen the last two years what happens when you only get one guy at the top of the pyramid. The other issue is that, because the identity of the team changes from year to year, it's harder on the role players to really find a niche. At UVa, for example, they can groom players for VERY specific roles because they run the same system every year. So a lesser talent can develop over 2-3 years into a productive role player in a very specific niche. At Duke, if you aren't a stud, you will have to fill a role. But that role may change from year to year. Take Jack White for example. In 2019, he was in the near-perfect fit as a fifth man who simply had to do the dirty work because we had ball-dominant stars in Barrett and Williamson. But in 2020, we needed him to be a shooting threat, and he struggled. This is a bit less of an issue than the talent acquisition piece, but it's still relevant.

I am fully on board with the "get the best players you can every year" model. Mainly because, at Coach K's age, he only has so many years left. And to reprogram the process would likely take a few years. UNLESS the team started to implement option 2 for a few years. For whatever reason, Coach K has been loathe to bring in transfers of any kind, and especially so for grad transfers. But this would be an avenue to better navigate the recruiting challenges at the high school level. In fact, I feel like it should be a bigger part of the puzzle even WITH the heavy one-and-done model.

I think maintaining a top-tier program perennially can be done even without the heavy one-and-done model. But it would require a more comprehensive and/or creative recruiting approach involving more transfers. For whatever reason, that hasn't been Coach K's strategy. His first foray into the grad transfer market has appeared to be a bust, which makes me skeptical that he'll go back to the well again. But, really, that's the game that you need to be willing to play if you want to navigate the system in years when you don't have several top recruits.

Aren't grad-transfers just another kind of one-and-done?

I agree that a "system" program has a stronger chance to be competitive more than once every few years, but even Virginia, if it drops this season from #8 to lower in the top 25 (which is probably not much worse than a 50/50 proposition), will only have been top 10 in two out of five seasons. Syracuse, another example of a system program, hasn't finished a regular season in the top 10 since 2012.

[Kedsy]

I'm pretty over OAD myself and lots of programs are thriving without embracing the Duke/Kentucky model but instead of going down that rabbit hole again I'll just focus on this: I don't think 1998 was a "freshman dominated team" - Wojo and McLeod were seniors, Trajan was a junior, Carrawell was a sophomore and Brand (the best freshman) missed two months. Edit: I don't think you can call 2000 or 2003 "freshman lead" either senior Carrawell and junior Battier were huge in 2000 and senior Dahntay Jones was in 2003.

On this year's team, freshmen have played 49.5% of the team's minutes. That's certainly a lot, but in 2000, freshmen played 45.9% of the minutes, so almost as much. In 2003, freshmen played 37.3% of the team's minutes and in 1998, freshmen played 35.2% of the team's minutes (and that one would have been higher if, as you noted, Elton Brand hadn't gotten hurt). All those numbers are higher than, for example, 2017 (33.5%) and are not that much different than 2020 (44.5%) or 2016 (46.8%) or 2015 (50.0%). Certainly if the issue is how well you know the players (which was a primary complaint of the poster to whom I was responding), all these numbers seem similar enough.

Also, I don't know why you put "freshman lead" in quotes, because it's certainly not quoting anything I wrote.

[tommy]

I think it's a tad more complicated than this. There are several programs, for example, that have maintained a top-10 caliber team with consistency for more than once every few years. Those teams generally fall into one or more of a few categories:
1. Really heavy into the ex-US recruiting market (e.g., Gonzaga)
2. Really heavy into the grad transfer and regular transfer market (Louisville fits this, among others)
3. A "system" program, which recruits on a lower tier but identifies the right guys for the system (e.g., UVa, to a lesser degree MSU)
4. Keep landing top-tier recruiting classes every year (e.g., Duke).
5. Be the unicorn that manages to recruit top talent and keep them for 3-4 years fairly consistently (UNC prior to the last few years)

We don't have the recruiting network in place to make option 1 work. And option 5 is not realistic (even UNC is starting to lose their grasp on this option).
That leaves options 2-4.

Duke has embraced option 4, which means get the best players you can and figure it out once they're on campus. This has, by necessity, eliminated option 3. It's hard to be beholden to a system when the best recruits aren't cookie-cutter from year to year. So Coach K has had to make each team a project in chemistry and identity. There are some cons to this approach. First and foremost, it requires landing top talent year in and year out for it to work. We've seen the last two years what happens when you only get one guy at the top of the pyramid. The other issue is that, because the identity of the team changes from year to year, it's harder on the role players to really find a niche. At UVa, for example, they can groom players for VERY specific roles because they run the same system every year. So a lesser talent can develop over 2-3 years into a productive role player in a very specific niche. At Duke, if you aren't a stud, you will have to fill a role. But that role may change from year to year. Take Jack White for example. In 2019, he was in the near-perfect fit as a fifth man who simply had to do the dirty work because we had ball-dominant stars in Barrett and Williamson. But in 2020, we needed him to be a shooting threat, and he struggled. This is a bit less of an issue than the talent acquisition piece, but it's still relevant.

I am fully on board with the "get the best players you can every year" model. Mainly because, at Coach K's age, he only has so many years left. And to reprogram the process would likely take a few years. UNLESS the team started to implement option 2 for a few years. For whatever reason, Coach K has been loathe to bring in transfers of any kind, and especially so for grad transfers. But this would be an avenue to better navigate the recruiting challenges at the high school level. In fact, I feel like it should be a bigger part of the puzzle even WITH the heavy one-and-done model.

I think maintaining a top-tier program perennially can be done even without the heavy one-and-done model. But it would require a more comprehensive and/or creative recruiting approach involving more transfers. For whatever reason, that hasn't been Coach K's strategy. His first foray into the grad transfer market has appeared to be a bust, which makes me skeptical that he'll go back to the well again. But, really, that's the game that you need to be willing to play if you want to navigate the system in years when you don't have several top recruits.

I'm fully on board with the "get the best players you can every year model" as well. There are many factors that can play into the composition of an excellent team. Only a few are indispensable, and talent is one of them. So I am not saying that any program or coach has an approach that I would prefer we have, or that there is anything wrong with what we are doing, or trying to do in terms of our approach to recruiting (other than being more receptive to transfers, perhaps) but I am curious: Where would you place Kansas and Villanova on your 1-5 list? Those two programs have established a level of consistent excellence (especially Kansas) but I'm not sure which of your categories they'd fall into. Maybe Kansas is a 2, because they do take a fair number of transfers, but I wouldn't say they are "really heavy" into it. So what say you on these two programs?

[jv001]

In every Championship year Duke had an interior present;.

1991... Christian Laettner
1992....Christian Laettner
2001....Carlos Boozer
2011....Brian Zoubek
2015....Jahlil Oakfor

Is this a coincidence, luck or something Duke needs to be Championship material? I'm not talking NBA here just college basketball.

GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In every Championship year Duke had an interior present;.

1991... Christian Laettner
1992...Christian Laettner
2001...Carlos Boozer
2011...Brian Zoubek
2015...Jahlil Oakfor

Is this a coincidence, luck or something Duke needs to be Championship material? I'm not talking NBA here just college basketball.

GoDuke!

One of those things is not like the other...

[jv001]

One of those things is not like the other...

That Laettner was in a tier of his own? If so, I agree whole heartedly.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That Laettner was in a tier of his own? If so, I agree whole heartedly.

Love Zoub. And yes, he was technically an interior presence. But he is not the same level as those other cats.

[jv001]

Love Zoub. And yes, he was technically an interior presence. But he is not the same level as those other cats.

But without his improved play at the end of the season, we don't make it to the FF much less win the Championship. His defense and rebounding was instrumental in winning the championship. And yes, he is not the caliber player as the others.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But without his improved play at the end of the season, we don't make it to the FF much less win the Championship. His defense and rebounding was instrumental in winning the championship. And yes, he is not the caliber player as the others.

Without a doubt he was the missing piece. Just seeing them listed... it's rather stark.

Also reminds me how weird it is that Okafor hasn't found more success in the NBA.

[CDu]

I'm fully on board with the "get the best players you can every year model" as well. There are many factors that can play into the composition of an excellent team. Only a few are indispensable, and talent is one of them. So I am not saying that any program or coach has an approach that I would prefer we have, or that there is anything wrong with what we are doing, or trying to do in terms of our approach to recruiting (other than being more receptive to transfers, perhaps) but I am curious: Where would you place Kansas and Villanova on your 1-5 list? Those two programs have established a level of consistent excellence (especially Kansas) but I'm not sure which of your categories they'd fall into. Maybe Kansas is a 2, because they do take a fair number of transfers, but I wouldn't say they are "really heavy" into it. So what say you on these two programs?

Villanova would fall more into column 3 than the others. They have generally recruited lesser rated talent, had them develop into stars within Wright's system (which has been predicated on switchable defenders and a perimeter-heavy offense).

Kansas is a combination of a few of them. They have largely run a system, so would fit into option 3. But they have also landed plenty of one-and-done talent and have also hit the transfer market when needed.

Kansas's recruiting model is kind of what I was describing, actually. If we augmented our superior high-school recruiting prowess (we've fared better than Kansas fairly consistently in that regard) but also expand our presence in the transfer market, that seems like the right way to do it. Two things Kansas has generally done better than Duke is develop lesser-rated recruits and (more recently at least) play the transfer market well. We've mostly hammered them on the high school recruiting trail, and they've made up at lesat some of the ground in these other areas.

[dukelifer]

I think it's a tad more complicated than this. There are several programs, for example, that have maintained a top-10 caliber team with consistency for more than once every few years. Those teams generally fall into one or more of a few categories:
1. Really heavy into the ex-US recruiting market (e.g., Gonzaga)
2. Really heavy into the grad transfer and regular transfer market (Louisville fits this, among others)
3. A "system" program, which recruits on a lower tier but identifies the right guys for the system (e.g., UVa, to a lesser degree MSU)
4. Keep landing top-tier recruiting classes every year (e.g., Duke).
5. Be the unicorn that manages to recruit top talent and keep them for 3-4 years fairly consistently (UNC prior to the last few years)

We don't have the recruiting network in place to make option 1 work. And option 5 is not realistic (even UNC is starting to lose their grasp on this option).
That leaves options 2-4.

Duke has embraced option 4, which means get the best players you can and figure it out once they're on campus. This has, by necessity, eliminated option 3. It's hard to be beholden to a system when the best recruits aren't cookie-cutter from year to year. So Coach K has had to make each team a project in chemistry and identity. There are some cons to this approach. First and foremost, it requires landing top talent year in and year out for it to work. We've seen the last two years what happens when you only get one guy at the top of the pyramid. The other issue is that, because the identity of the team changes from year to year, it's harder on the role players to really find a niche. At UVa, for example, they can groom players for VERY specific roles because they run the same system every year. So a lesser talent can develop over 2-3 years into a productive role player in a very specific niche. At Duke, if you aren't a stud, you will have to fill a role. But that role may change from year to year. Take Jack White for example. In 2019, he was in the near-perfect fit as a fifth man who simply had to do the dirty work because we had ball-dominant stars in Barrett and Williamson. But in 2020, we needed him to be a shooting threat, and he struggled. This is a bit less of an issue than the talent acquisition piece, but it's still relevant.

I am fully on board with the "get the best players you can every year" model. Mainly because, at Coach K's age, he only has so many years left. And to reprogram the process would likely take a few years. UNLESS the team started to implement option 2 for a few years. For whatever reason, Coach K has been loathe to bring in transfers of any kind, and especially so for grad transfers. But this would be an avenue to better navigate the recruiting challenges at the high school level. In fact, I feel like it should be a bigger part of the puzzle even WITH the heavy one-and-done model.

I think maintaining a top-tier program perennially can be done even without the heavy one-and-done model. But it would require a more comprehensive and/or creative recruiting approach involving more transfers. For whatever reason, that hasn't been Coach K's strategy. His first foray into the grad transfer market has appeared to be a bust, which makes me skeptical that he'll go back to the well again. But, really, that's the game that you need to be willing to play if you want to navigate the system in years when you don't have several top recruits.

I guess it depends on the program goals. Duke has been relevant for most years since 1986. For some schools relevancy is enough. This does not appear to be a great year for Duke, but there are too many factors to simply blame it on recruiting philosophy. Clearly- getting the best player available model can generate a good team for a year but winning it all - Duke’s goal-
is unlikely or at least no more likely than any other model. This is not football and Alabama. But when you have a young team AND a pandemic that takes away fans (which at times help push a young team to win) and you have underperforming upperclassmen - well - you will probably struggle. But until I see this absent a pandemic- I am not sure what to think. This team and the players will get better but it does not mean they will win and that we will enjoy watching them play. The 82 team was like this and that team got much better - but of course they stayed together. For me, I think Duke is better when they have multiple players that shoot better from deep. Baker should be that guy and for some reason he is a horrible shooting funk.

[Kedsy]

In every Championship year Duke had an interior present;.

1991... Christian Laettner
1992...Christian Laettner
2001...Carlos Boozer
2011...Brian Zoubek
2015...Jahlil Oakfor

Is this a coincidence, luck or something Duke needs to be Championship material? I'm not talking NBA here just college basketball.

GoDuke!

Let's look at the interior presence of some of Duke's non-championship teams:

1986, 1987, 1988, 1989: Danny Ferry
1990: Christian Laettner
1993, 1994, 1995: Cherokee Parks
1998, 1999: Elton Brand
2000, 2002: Carlos Boozer
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006: Shelden Williams
2007: Josh McRoberts
2011, 2012, 2013: Mason Plumlee
2014: Jabari Parker (not a center, but he played inside)
2018: Marvin Bagley, Wendell Carter
2019: Zion Williamson (not a center, but certainly an "interior presence")
2020: Vernon Carey

Plus a lot of guys like Marshall Plumlee and Amile Jefferson, who were as much an "interior presence" as Brian Zoubek and who you probably would have identified as such if their teams had won championships.

Frankly, in almost every year we didn't win, we had a strong interior presence. I strongly suspect (a) you need more than that to be championship material; and (b) interior presence is not the main thing keeping the 2021 team back from being "Championship material."