Time For Duke Fans To Show Who They Are

[johnb]

My complaint about OAD has little to nothing to do with Final Fours or, as in the Year of Zion, Awesomosity.

I am also not trying to assert that K should care about my opinion. I do think he’s the GOAT, and as I get a little older myself, I realize that when you get into your 70’s, you’re always on a year to year contract. Even more than when he was younger, the future is now. Plus, I’m sure it may be more fun, or at least differently fun, to coach future NBA starters than yet another 5 star player who’s fringe NBA.

My concern is my own enthusiasm for the team/players. I, personally, am very happy to watch a game involving a 20th ranked Duke team populated with players in which I’ve had a few years in which to learn about their families, woes, successes, etc. It’s fine if there’s a player or two who’s a freshman projected as a lottery pick—I’ve become a firm proponent that for most Really Elite freshmen, it would be misguided to delay the NBA. I’m okay with close/losing games if I care about the players. But, to me, it becomes problematic if the success of the team is—year after year—based on a core of guys who have no intention of staying in Durham more than 9 months, including a guy or two—every year— who goes pro while being counseled they’re going to be drafted in the 2nd round. Obviously, the team needs 10 or 12 players, and half or more will be around for 4 years, but, by and large, almost none of these non-core guys is developing into strong starters.

I say all this to explain why I have declining interest in watching Duke on tv.

Covid exacerbates this relative disinterest, especially when I read that Rick Pitino recently contracted covid. He petitioned for delaying the season, apparently lived like a monk all season, but still got sick during a massive program breakout. Our women’s team did the brave thing, but the rest of our administration has been basically mute during the major crisis of their professional careers. Now’s the time for transformative leadership, and I’m not seeing it. It’s disappointing.

Hey, I still have my Duke t shirts. I watch now and again. I’ve been a fan since I showed up on campus along with Gene Banks and Kenny Denmark, but that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of getting disenchanted.

[johnb]

Last sentence:
Denmark=Dennard, but don’t tell the Danes.

[tommy]

Obviously, the team needs 10 or 12 players, and half or more will be around for 4 years, but, by and large, almost none of these non-core guys is developing into strong starters.

You mean other than Amile Jefferson, Quinn Cook, Grayson Allen, Matt Jones, Ryan Kelly, all three Plumlees, and even Jordan Goldwire? Plus while not consistent starters, regular contributors Tyler Thornton, Javin DeLaurier, Jack White, Marquis Bolden, and Andre Dawkins? Those kinds of guys?

[Kedsy]

You mean other than Amile Jefferson, Quinn Cook, Grayson Allen, Matt Jones, Ryan Kelly, all three Plumlees, and even Jordan Goldwire? Plus while not consistent starters, regular contributors Tyler Thornton, Javin DeLaurier, Jack White, Marquis Bolden, and Andre Dawkins? Those kinds of guys?

You don't understand, Tommy. We don't mind when the kids do what's best for themselves, we only mind when they leave Duke before they graduate. And we love watching our players develop, but only when they develop into superstars. When we don't win every championship, it's because of OAD. If we don't recruit obvious OADs and don't win, it's still because of OAD.

By gum, Christian Laettner and Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill and Shane Battier all stayed four years, so what's the matter with these selfish young whippersnappers?

[Steven43]

You don't understand, Tommy. We don't mind when the kids do what's best for themselves, we only mind when they leave Duke before they graduate. And we love watching our players develop, but only when they develop into superstars. When we don't win every championship, it's because of OAD. If we don't recruit obvious OADs and don't win, it's still because of OAD.

By gum, Christian Laettner and Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill and Shane Battier all stayed four years, so what's the matter with these selfish young whippersnappers?

I think, though I obviously don’t know for certain, that the vast majority of fans of college sports are selfish in the sense that they want whatever they perceive will provide the best results for their teams (within the rules, of course) while also providing the most enjoyable possible experience (like getting to know the players over four years) for themselves as a fan.

[tommy]

You don't understand, Tommy. We don't mind when the kids do what's best for themselves, we only mind when they leave Duke before they graduate. And we love watching our players develop, but only when they develop into superstars. When we don't win every championship, it's because of OAD. If we don't recruit obvious OADs and don't win, it's still because of OAD.

By gum, Christian Laettner and Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill and Shane Battier all stayed four years, so what's the matter with these selfish young whippersnappers?

No, no, YOU don't understand. We don't mind when the kids do what's best for themselves, so long as it doesn't negatively impact the performance of the next year's team, and our enjoyment of that team. (read: winning). And we love watching our players develop, but not so much that they leave early, and therefore negatively impact the performance of the next year's team. (read: winning)

When we have a team with multiple OAD's and don't win, it's because the model is flawed, and you can't form a winning team with too many freshmen with one foot out the door. When we have only OAD and the rest of the team is made up of multi-year guys, and we don't win, it's because we don't have enough talent, and we're not developing our other players well enough.

[Kedsy]

I think, though I obviously don’t know for certain, that the vast majority of fans of college sports are selfish in the sense that they want whatever they perceive will provide the best results for their teams (within the rules, of course) while also providing the most enjoyable possible experience (like getting to know the players over four years) for themselves as a fan.

All that is fine by me. What bothers me is when fans expect something that is never going to happen (like superstars staying three or four years) and then complain and assign blame when it doesn't happen.

It also bothers me when some fans (not all, of course) demand something (e.g., recruit a bunch of multi-year players, with maybe one OAD-caliber player per year) and then complain and assign blame when they get what they demanded but it doesn't yield instant fabulous results.

[Steven43]

No, no, YOU don't understand. We don't mind when the kids do what's best for themselves, so long as it doesn't negatively impact the performance of the next year's team, and our enjoyment of that team. (read: winning). And we love watching our players develop, but not so much that they leave early, and therefore negatively impact the performance of the next year's team. (read: winning)

When we have a team with multiple OAD's and don't win, it's because the model is flawed, and you can't form a winning team with too many freshmen with one foot out the door. When we have only OAD and the rest of the team is made up of multi-year guys, and we don't win, it's because we don't have enough talent, and we're not developing our other players well enough.

Would it have been more appropriate and accurate for you to have put “I” in place of “we” in the first paragraph? No judgment, Tommy; we’re all friends here. 😉

[tommy]

Would it have been more appropriate and accurate for you to have put “I” in place of “we” in the first paragraph? No judgment, Tommy; we’re all friends here. 😉

Yes we are!

And no, because I don't actually feel that way. Sarcasm meter adjustment and all of that . . .

[gep]

Is there anything to the thought that I have that the OAD model encourages those 3-4 year players who "think" they are being recruited over to transfer (but it's these 3-4 year players who will be good upperclassmen)... thereby leaving the "lesser" 3-4 year guys to carry the upperclassmen load. In that respect, I really like that Grayson stayed all 4 years. I think on the JJ Redick podcast, they were talking about the sheer number of OAD players that Grayson played with (sorry, can't recall the number)... which seemed a lot.

[Kedsy]

Is there anything to the thought that I have that the OAD model encourages those 3-4 year players who "think" they are being recruited over to transfer (but it's these 3-4 year players who will be good upperclassmen)... thereby leaving the "lesser" 3-4 year guys to carry the upperclassmen load. In that respect, I really like that Grayson stayed all 4 years. I think on the JJ Redick podcast, they were talking about the sheer number of OAD players that Grayson played with (sorry, can't recall the number)... which seemed a lot.

There might be something to your idea. It might not be that they "think" they're being recruited over, either. They may actually be being recruited over (depends on your definition; see my clarification below).

One thing that goes against your theory is that we haven't really had a lot more transfers since we went all in with OAD in 2015:

2015 to 2020 (6 years, not counting Rasheed Sulaimon or Sean Obi because they were special cases that had nothing to do with being recruited over)
---------------
2020: Alex O'Connell
2018: Jordan Tucker
2017: Chase Jeter
2016: Derryck Thornton
2015: Semi Ojeleye

2009 to 2014 (6 years before we went all in with OAD)
---------------
2014: Alex Murphy
2012: Michael Gbinije
2010: Olek Czyz
2009: Elliot Williams (and please don't say he's a special case; it's debatable but it's not worth dredging up the old debate)

2003 to 2008 (6 years before that)
---------------
2008: Taylor King
2007: Jamal Boykin
2006: Eric Boateng
2004: Michael Thompson

We also had plenty of transfers in the years before 2003, going all the way back to Bill Jackman in 1983. And I've seen data in the past (though I haven't re-looked at it recently) that having four or five transfers in six years isn't all that many when compared to most other schools in the NCAA.

So, yeah (assuming you don't count Sulaimon or Obi), we had 5 transfers in the six years since we've been a OAD program, 4 transfers in the six years before that, and 4 transfers in the six years before that (we also had 3 transfers in the six years before that and 4 transfers in the six years before that; meaning that in the past 30 years we've averaged exactly 4 transfers per six years with one segment of 5 and one segment of 3). But one extra transfer isn't enough to conclude that using the OAD model is causing more transfers, especially since you could argue whether Ojeleye belongs in the OAD segment or not (since he transferred before we knew Jones and Winslow were OAD).

I guess my final answer is Coach K has been "recruiting over" players for a long time. Although it would probably be more accurate to say these players knew they'd have to compete against the best and they came up short so they moved on. It's hard to conclude that the OAD model has been causing more transfers, though it's also hard to say that continually bringing in star freshmen isn't a contributing factor (because it probably is).

[gep]

There might be something to your idea. It might not be that they "think" they're being recruited over, either. They may actually be being recruited over (depends on your definition; see my clarification below).

One thing that goes against your theory is that we haven't really had a lot more transfers since we went all in with OAD in 2015:

2015 to 2020 (6 years, not counting Rasheed Sulaimon or Sean Obi because they were special cases that had nothing to do with being recruited over)
---------------
2020: Alex O'Connell
2018: Jordan Tucker
2017: Chase Jeter
2016: Derryck Thornton
2015: Semi Ojeleye

2009 to 2014 (6 years before we went all in with OAD)
---------------
2014: Alex Murphy
2012: Michael Gbinije
2010: Olek Czyz
2009: Elliot Williams (and please don't say he's a special case; it's debatable but it's not worth dredging up the old debate)

2003 to 2008 (6 years before that)
---------------
2008: Taylor King
2007: Jamal Boykin
2006: Eric Boateng
2004: Michael Thompson

We also had plenty of transfers in the years before 2003, going all the way back to Bill Jackman in 1983. And I've seen data in the past (though I haven't re-looked at it recently) that having four or five transfers in six years isn't all that many when compared to most other schools in the NCAA.

So, yeah (assuming you don't count Sulaimon or Obi), we had 5 transfers in the six years since we've been a OAD program, 4 transfers in the six years before that, and 4 transfers in the six years before that (we also had 3 transfers in the six years before that and 4 transfers in the six years before that; meaning that in the past 30 years we've averaged exactly 4 transfers per six years with one segment of 5 and one segment of 3). But one extra transfer isn't enough to conclude that using the OAD model is causing more transfers, especially since you could argue whether Ojeleye belongs in the OAD segment or not (since he transferred before we knew Jones and Winslow were OAD).

I guess my final answer is Coach K has been "recruiting over" players for a long time. Although it would probably be more accurate to say these players knew they'd have to compete against the best and they came up short so they moved on. It's hard to conclude that the OAD model has been causing more transfers, though it's also hard to say that continually bringing in star freshmen isn't a contributing factor (because it probably is).

Wow, Kedsy... can always count on you for in-depth factual information.

But my thought was not that only the OAD model causes more transfers, but that the OAD model causes more transfers that would be very good players in 3-4 years. If only 1 or 2 of these future very good players transfer, then the subsequent years would be very lean with respect to "seasoned" very good 3-4 year players. I hope I'm clear with my thoughts...

Thanks...

[tommy]

Is there anything to the thought that I have that the OAD model encourages those 3-4 year players who "think" they are being recruited over to transfer (but it's these 3-4 year players who will be good upperclassmen)... thereby leaving the "lesser" 3-4 year guys to carry the upperclassmen load. In that respect, I really like that Grayson stayed all 4 years. I think on the JJ Redick podcast, they were talking about the sheer number of OAD players that Grayson played with (sorry, can't recall the number)... which seemed a lot.

A few posts ago I threw out the names of a whole bunch of Duke players of recent vintage who stayed all four years and developed into solid players at Duke, including a few who became stars at Duke. Kedsy's list of guys who transferred contains only one name of a player -- Semi -- who blossomed into a star elsewhere. (Williams and Boykin were solid players, though, at their new homes too.). So I think one could make the case that the non-OAD types who STAY with us are many times actually the stronger players -- or at least they develop into stronger players -- than the ones who allow the feelings of being "recruited over" to cause them to transfer. Maybe the ones that transfer are the weaker players, contrary to your supposition.

On your other note, yes Grayson played with 11 OAD's. That is really an amazing number. I wondered whether it is the most of any player. I assume it's the most of any Duke player, though I didn't research it. I did look at Kentucky, though, and this would be a great trivia question, albeit with a trick answer.

Which college basketball player has played with/been on the same roster with the most OAD teammates?

Depending on how you count it, the answer could be Grayson Allen with 11. But who is the other possibly correct answer?

It's Jon Hood of Kentucky. He played with 4 his freshman year of 2009-10 and two the following year. The next year, 2011-12, Kentucky had 3 OAD's. But Hood tore his ACL and missed that year! He redshirted and got two more years of eligibility. In those last two years he played with two more OADs each season.

So: if you count all FIVE of his years, he "played" with 13 OAD's. However if you don't count the year that he himself didn't play due to injury, then he had only 10 OAD teammates, so the answer to the trivia question would be Grayson Allen! Good question though for college basketball junkies to test themselves with . . .

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There might be something to your idea. It might not be that they "think" they're being recruited over, either. They may actually be being recruited over (depends on your definition; see my clarification below).

One thing that goes against your theory is that we haven't really had a lot more transfers since we went all in with OAD in 2015:

2015 to 2020 (6 years, not counting Rasheed Sulaimon or Sean Obi because they were special cases that had nothing to do with being recruited over)
---------------
2020: Alex O'Connell
2018: Jordan Tucker
2017: Chase Jeter
2016: Derryck Thornton
2015: Semi Ojeleye

2009 to 2014 (6 years before we went all in with OAD)
---------------
2014: Alex Murphy
2012: Michael Gbinije
2010: Olek Czyz
2009: Elliot Williams (and please don't say he's a special case; it's debatable but it's not worth dredging up the old debate)

2003 to 2008 (6 years before that)
---------------
2008: Taylor King
2007: Jamal Boykin
2006: Eric Boateng
2004: Michael Thompson

We also had plenty of transfers in the years before 2003, going all the way back to Bill Jackman in 1983. And I've seen data in the past (though I haven't re-looked at it recently) that having four or five transfers in six years isn't all that many when compared to most other schools in the NCAA.

So, yeah (assuming you don't count Sulaimon or Obi), we had 5 transfers in the six years since we've been a OAD program, 4 transfers in the six years before that, and 4 transfers in the six years before that (we also had 3 transfers in the six years before that and 4 transfers in the six years before that; meaning that in the past 30 years we've averaged exactly 4 transfers per six years with one segment of 5 and one segment of 3). But one extra transfer isn't enough to conclude that using the OAD model is causing more transfers, especially since you could argue whether Ojeleye belongs in the OAD segment or not (since he transferred before we knew Jones and Winslow were OAD).

I guess my final answer is Coach K has been "recruiting over" players for a long time. Although it would probably be more accurate to say these players knew they'd have to compete against the best and they came up short so they moved on. It's hard to conclude that the OAD model has been causing more transfers, though it's also hard to say that continually bringing in star freshmen isn't a contributing factor (because it probably is).

Kedsy - I like your posts, but it feel like the facts don't really match your story here.

First of all, clearly it's a small sample set (with fourish players per class over six year timelines). But even as you acknowledge that you are removing two transfers for "special cases," going from four transfers to five is an increase of 25%. That's a big leap. Of you argue it isn't a big leap because it is only a real difference of one player, then why are we bothering with the exercise?

If you just include all transfers - not allowing for special cases, then there's an increase of three players, or a 75% increase. If that isn't a significant difference, what would be?

I don't say these things to disagree with your point, but to point out that the sample size is so small, it's almost a useless exercise.

No, we haven't seen a mass exodus from the program as a result of the OAD committal. But there's been an increase, using your time frame of six year windows.

As to the bigger question of how it may or may not be effecting the program - that's a tougher one.

How many players have transferred out and made real contributions elsewhere that made you wonder if they might have been impact players at Duke?

(FWIW - I do agree that Sulaimon should be exempt from this discussion, as he was removed from the team and didn't transfer for more minutes)

[CDu]

A few posts ago I threw out the names of a whole bunch of Duke players of recent vintage who stayed all four years and developed into solid players at Duke, including a few who became stars at Duke. Kedsy's list of guys who transferred contains only one name of a player -- Semi -- who blossomed into a star elsewhere. (Williams and Boykin were solid players, though, at their new homes too.). So I think one could make the case that the non-OAD types who STAY with us are many times actually the stronger players -- or at least they develop into stronger players -- than the ones who allow the feelings of being "recruited over" to cause them to transfer. Maybe the ones that transfer are the weaker players, contrary to your supposition.

Gonna disagree with you a bit here.

Williams was every bit as much of a star at Memphis as Ojeleye was a SMU. And sooner. Both were drafted, but Williams went in the first round. Unfortunately injuries did him in as a pro.

Similarly, Gbinije was at the very least a solid player for Syracuse, as much so as Boykin. So much so as to be drafted.

Czyz was as much a solid player at Nevada (first-team All-WAC) as Boykin at Cal, too. I would argue that Jeter was as well at Arizona.

[Kedsy]

(FWIW - I do agree that Sulaimon should be exempt from this discussion, as he was removed from the team and didn't transfer for more minutes)

Well, if you agree on Sulaimon, we only disagree on Obi? He graduated from Duke, had an extra year of eligibility and chose the grad transfer route. That's hardly the same as any of the others. To me, it's more like Marty Pocius, who when he graduated had an extra year of eligibility but chose to play in Europe instead.

As far as the small sample size, which is potentially exacerbated by semi-arbitrary time periods chosen, I say this: in the past 30 years, we've had 20 transfers (again, not including Sulaimon or Obi) and the timing of those transfers has been fairly evenly distributed. There's no evidence that the "OAD era" has increased transfers by any appreciable amount.

With regard to gep's point, I totally agree that several of the players who left would have been important upperclassmen for Duke if they'd stayed. (Also that their leaving in combination with players leaving early for the NBA left the cupboard somewhat bare in subsequent years.) However, I also believe that the same could be said of many of the transfers before OAD (even going all the way back, remember Billy McCaffrey?). Again, I think the better way to frame the issue is what happens when Coach K brings in talented players every year, rather than calling it a consequence of OAD. Semantic, perhaps, but it fits in with history better, IMO.

[johnb]

Hey, I appreciate y’all’s concern about my short sightedness, and I always enjoy kedsy’s ability to break down a question.

I tried to make clear that my concern was very specific and admittedly selfish. I don’t care so much about Duke teams when I don’t know the players very well. And that’s gonna happen when we design the team around top 10 talent, who are basically gonna go pro ASAP. It’s simple and similar to why I don’t care about the nba, despite the fact that the games are played by the world’s greatest athletes.

As I’ve said multiple times, I am completely behind players doing what is right for them. For almost all lottery picks, and many/most 2nd round picks, it makes sense to go pro. And this recruiting strategy may work best for Duke, but, for me, the strategy is alienating. When added to Duke’s decision to play the season during a pandemic, I respond with a dissatisfied yawn.