Henry Coleman to Texas A&M

[wsb3]

Each year that goes by, I feel more and more grateful to have experienced watching college basketball in the early 90s. The Golden Years. Four years of Christian Laettner is something I'll never forget. Grant Hill. Bobby Hurley. Role players developing around stars. Young fans today just don't know. Okay, I feel really old now.

And the eighties for me as well. Players stayed, for the most part, we only had 8 teams in the conference, a player like Danny Ferry is a role player as a freshman and wins ACC POY as a junior and a senior. I also enjoyed watching other players from other teams grow-with the exception of those cheaters in CH.

Right when I think many of us thought the roster was set this was a big blow. Hated to see this young man leave.

[CameronDuke]

What are you even arguing at this point?

Your idea that players should "b[e] patient and wai[t] for opportunities that typically present themselves" is historically inaccurate; the number of Duke players in the last 20+ seasons who played less than 10 mpg as freshmen and sophomores but then went on to play 20+ mpg (or whatever other measure you want) as juniors and/or seniors is a very short one.

But even if it were true, apparently Henry Coleman didn't want to take that risk. You seem to me to be saying that represents some sort of character flaw on Henry's part (though of course that could just be another failure in my "reading comprehension skills"). To the extent that you are saying that, I find it offensive. If that's not what you're saying, then what?

I don't think anybody can blame Henry for transferring after the coaching staff decided to bring in Theo John. I can't believe people were surprised by this, and I don't understand how this could be the basis for anyone's fandom to be less. And while I'm venting about things I don't understand, I don't get how anybody can be anti-OAD and also in favor of bringing Theo John in as a grad-transfer. I don't understand how people think that bringing in recruits solely in the #20 to #60 range could possibly get better results (on a consistent basis) than what we've been doing. I don't understand how people can be against bringing in the best possible players but then get upset when we don't bring in top 10 players and the team isn't as good. I'm flabbergasted that anybody believes players like Nolan Smith, Kyle Singler, Mason Plumlee, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, JJ Redick, Shelden Williams, Shane Battier, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, Danny Ferry, Johnny Dawkins, etc, etc, etc, would stay around to be seniors (or in most cases, juniors) if they played today. I believe that almost every complaint in almost every DBR thread is really a thinly veiled dissatisfaction that Duke isn't in the Final Four every year like we were in the late 80s/early 90s.

So there.

I hear you, if I offended you it was not my intention and I apologize. I agree with some of the points you make and I consider you among the most knowledgeable posters here. I do not agree with Henry’s decision and some of the reasons behind it that we have discussed. I have different ideas of what a college experience and competing for/earning your keep than others. Once again, if I offended you, that’s my bad. Go Duke.

[CDu]

So not to open another can of worms, but I am wondering: How have certain schools (at least so far) been able to largely or entirely avoid the transfer-out virus? I don't think the 247 transfer portal is 100% up to date, but according to it, Villanova has lost nobody. Gonzaga has lost nobody. Michigan State has lost nobody (they're missing Rocket Watts there). Virginia has lost one guy. Michigan has lost nobody. UCLA has lost nobody. Those are some pretty major programs. Again, maybe that site is wrong but if not, it makes me wonder what those coaches are doing to not make their guys feel they're being recruited over, or overestimate their NBA chances, or whatever other reasons have caused us to hemorrhage players this year.

Virginia has lost more than one. They've lost 3 by my count (Morsell to NC State, McKoy to Carolina, Abdur-Rahim to Georgia). And Trey Murphy is testing the draft.

Gonzaga has lost more than none. (Ballo and Zakharov are both in the portal). Suggs has declared for the draft.

Michigan State has lost 4 (Watts, Hoiberg, Kithier, Watts). And Aaron Henry has declared for the draft.

Juzang from UCLA is testing the draft. Michigan lost 2 transfers last year in Bajema and Castleton.

In this current landscape, no one is immune.

Yep. And Villanova has Cole Swider this year and Jahvon Quinerly last year. As bschrader said, nobody is immune.

In the cases of those programs though, the guys who have stayed were generally either already starters or so low on the recruiting rankings that they had probably already made the mental hurdle of accepting a lesser role on a top-flight program vs being a starter on a mid-major.

I would venture that most all of the top-75 recruits who weren't starters/key contributors by their sophomore years will have entered the transfer portal.

So to avoid that, we'd probably need to be recruiting in the ranks outside the top-100 to fill in the reserves to cut down on the transfer rate.

[Bluedog]

I would venture that most all of the top-75 recruits who weren't starters/key contributors by their sophomore years will have entered the transfer portal.

I would agree. The challenge is that Duke has more top 75 reserves than almost any other school every year. So, the solution is to not be as good at recruiting.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Virginia has lost more than one. They've lost 3 by my count (Morsell to NC State, McKoy to Carolina, Abdur-Rahim to Georgia). And Trey Murphy is testing the draft.

Gonzaga has lost more than none. (Ballo and Zakharov are both in the portal). Suggs has declared for the draft.

Michigan State has lost 4 (Watts, Hoiberg, Kithier, Watts). And Aaron Henry has declared for the draft.

Juzang from UCLA is testing the draft. Michigan lost 2 transfers last year in Bajema and Castleton.

In this current landscape, no one is immune.

Also, Villanova lost former Duke target Cole Swider to Syracuse. Ballo is following the assistant from Gonzaga to Arizona.

Interestingly, I saw somewhere that Rutgers center Myles Johnson is transferring to UCLA. Other than possibly Juzang, I don't think UCLA is losing anyone so they should be good next year. Johnson graduated from Rutgers and is going to UCLA to start his grad degree in engineering after studying electrical and computer engineering at Rutgers - sounds like a bright guy.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I hear you, if I offended you it was not my intention and I apologize. I agree with some of the points you make and I consider you among the most knowledgeable posters here. I do not agree with Henry’s decision and some of the reasons behind it that we have discussed. I have different ideas of what a college experience and competing for/earning your keep than others. Once again, if I offended you, that’s my bad. Go Duke.

I mean, what's there to agree with? Regardless of how you feel about it, the choice belongs to the player. You can't disagree with his reasoning, because he hasn't stated as such.

Would you disagree with his choice if you learned the Duke staff went after Theo because they knew Coleman was transferring? The end result is the same.

What if he wants to go to a smaller scho and dominate? Or play with a friend? Or near home?

This board spends so much time projecting characteristics and value judgements onto 18 year old kids

We don't know the process that went into Coleman's decision. That means we can be disappointed, but I don't see what there is to disagree with.

[jv001]

Yep. And Villanova has Cole Swider this year and Jahvon Quinerly last year. As bschrader said, nobody is immune.

In the cases of those programs though, the guys who have stayed were generally either already starters or so low on the recruiting rankings that they had probably already made the mental hurdle of accepting a lesser role on a top-flight program vs being a starter on a mid-major.

I would venture that most all of the top-75 recruits who weren't starters/key contributors by their sophomore years will have entered the transfer portal.

So to avoid that, we'd probably need to be recruiting in the ranks outside the top-100 to fill in the reserves to cut down on the transfer rate.

It would be great if Coach K could read a players mind or see into the future. Then he would know who to recruit and who not to recruit. Most high school players that are good enough to get offers from top college programs think they will have a chance of playing professionally. I don't think most Duke fans want to see our coaching staff go after players outside of the top-100. Unless of course the landscape of college basketball changes drastically and the NBA doesn't seem willing to go that route(drafted out of high school). I'd be lying if I said that I enjoy college basketball like I once did. I still route hard for Duke but pay less attention to other teams and if it weren't for DBR, it would be even less.

GoDuke!

[CameronDuke]

I mean, what's there to agree with? Regardless of how you feel about it, the choice belongs to the player. You can't disagree with his reasoning, because he hasn't stated as such.

Would you disagree with his choice if you learned the Duke staff went after Theo because they knew Coleman was transferring? The end result is the same.

What if he wants to go to a smaller scho and dominate? Or play with a friend? Or near home?

This board spends so much time projecting characteristics and value judgements onto 18 year old kids

We don't know the process that went into Coleman's decision. That means we can be disappointed, but I don't see what there is to disagree with.

The reasons we were discussing (Kedsy and I) were Henry likely felt jaded towards the coaching staff in essence for recruiting John and he could get more immediate minutes elsewhere. Not sure if you missed that part of our discussion. If you don’t see what there is to disagree with I see no point for either of us in discussing the matter further with you.

[CDu]

It would be great if Coach K could read a players mind or see into the future. Then he would know who to recruit and who not to recruit. Most high school players that are good enough to get offers from top college programs think they will have a chance of playing professionally. I don't think most Duke fans want to see our coaching staff go after players outside of the top-100. Unless of course the landscape of college basketball changes drastically and the NBA doesn't seem willing to go that route(drafted out of high school). I'd be lying if I said that I enjoy college basketball like I once did. I still route hard for Duke but pay less attention to other teams and if it weren't for DBR, it would be even less.

GoDuke!

Yep, developing mindreading skills would be a good trait as well . And I agree; I don't think most folks here actually want us to start recruiting outside the top-100. Heck, even a fringe top-100 guy like Blakes got mixed reviews on his commitment. It's just that that appears to be the only way to try to avoid the heavy exodus. And even then, it's not a foolproof strategy to avoid transfers, as some of them will probably transfer as well. Presumably fewer though.

It is definitely a harder time to be a fan. The landscape of college basketball has changed dramatically over the last 15 years or so. That's a good thing for players' rights, but a bad thing for fans' investment in the players. Much like the coaches, it requires adaptation by the fans or an exit. Sort of like Coach K vs Roy Williams; Coach K has worked hard to adapt to the changing landscape, whereas Roy Williams decided he didn't want to adapt and moved on. Neither is wrong, it's just what is best for what they want. Same will be true for the fans; we either adapt to find joy in other aspects of college bball or we simply enjoy college bball less.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The reasons we were discussing (Kedsy and I) were Henry likely felt jaded towards the coaching staff in essence for recruiting John and he could get more immediate minutes elsewhere. Not sure if you missed that part of our discussion. If you don’t see what there is to disagree with I see no point for either of us in discussing the matter further with you.

My point is you are disagreeing about hypothetical reasons someone might have decided to make a decision. It's a fruitless exercise.

If Coleman comes out and says "wow, I left because I felt jobbed by the staff when they recruited over me," you would have something to work with.

Also, I'm confused - do you disagree that Coleman can get more minutes elsewhere? Or disagree that he should take that into consideration?

I'll drop it now, I just can't muster up much more emotion regarding these players leaving. They certainly have every right and obligation to do what's best for themselves, and I don't fault them in the slightest, but it sure makes it a lot less fun to watch and follow.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Yep, developing mindreading skills would be a good trait as well . And I agree; I don't think most folks here actually want us to start recruiting outside the top-100. Heck, even a fringe top-100 guy like Blakes got mixed reviews on his commitment. It's just that that appears to be the only way to try to avoid the heavy exodus. And even then, it's not a foolproof strategy to avoid transfers, as some of them will probably transfer as well. Presumably fewer though.

It is definitely a harder time to be a fan. The landscape of college basketball has changed dramatically over the last 15 years or so. That's a good thing for players' rights, but a bad thing for fans' investment in the players. Much like the coaches, it requires adaptation by the fans or an exit. Sort of like Coach K vs Roy Williams; Coach K has worked hard to adapt to the changing landscape, whereas Roy Williams decided he didn't want to adapt and moved on. Neither is wrong, it's just what is best for what they want. Same will be true for the fans; we either adapt to find joy in other aspects of college bball or we simply enjoy college bball less.

No school nor coach understands how to handle the craziness that is the transfer portal this year (and every year moving forward).

Like Calipari (and then Coach K) with OADs, someone will "crack" how best to navigate this new field. It just don't be this year.

The vast majority of programs - especially the blue bloods - are reeling right now. Hell, that blue blood down the road retired because of this madness (and honestly, I am understanding his rationale more and more).

Whatever the situation, we have a wonderful looking frontcourt next year.

I had never, ever wanted to talk about minutes more than this offseason.

[SkyBrickey]

Except I don't think that's what we would have. Players who don't play big minutes as a freshman/sophomore would still transfer. Players who blew up into stardom would still leave for the NBA.

I would have thought the lesson of 2021 (5 recruits ranked from #20 to #60, with a good chance that none of them will get as far as being a junior at Duke) would sufficiently illustrate the fallacy of your suggested approach.

Come on. First of all, you can’t compare a freshman-centric 2020-21 COVID season to anything - way too many disruptions.

Second of all, and most importantly, we would need 4 consecutive years of classes with the profile of last year’s class to prove or disprove this approach.

I want to go to battle in the NCAA tourney with seniors Roach, Brakefield and Coleman - not these kids as freshmen. And, yes, recruiting strictly 20-60 ranked kids, you’d still have an occasional transfer and an occasional OAD. You’d probably need to bring in 4 per class on average to compensate.

Would these teams cut down banners? Not sure. But they would be starting 3-4 juniors and seniors each year which would essentially be the goal of the approach.

[CDu]

Come on. First of all, you can’t compare a freshman-centric 2020-21 COVID season to anything - way too many disruptions.

Second of all, and most importantly, we would need 4 consecutive years of classes with the profile of last year’s class to prove or disprove this approach.

I want to go to battle in the NCAA tourney with seniors Roach, Brakefield and Coleman - not these kids as freshmen. And, yes, recruiting strictly 20-60 ranked kids, you’d still have an occasional transfer and an occasional OAD. You’d probably need to bring in 4 per class on average to compensate.

Would these teams cut down banners? Not sure. But they would be starting 3-4 juniors and seniors each year which would essentially be the goal of the approach.

I think you continue to underestimate how much transfer attrition you'd see there. If you have a team full of juniors and seniors starting, those freshmen and sophomores are still probably going to get antsy. Just because it isn't one-and-done talent in front of them, if they aren't in position to start by their sophomore year they are likely to heavily consider moving on. And the ones that DO start are a risk to go pro early (see Stanley and Steward). And if you mix in a one-and-done in as well (as you suggested was your ideal) to boost the talent, that would only further compound the issue.

Look at Virginia. They haven't recruited a single one-and-done, yet they have had trouble keeping their top-50 guys happy the last couple of years. Basically, their success as a program was built on the backs of a few sub-100 guys blowing up and then getting one amazing class to stay 3-5 years. Beyond that, they've had a bunch of transfers out and have had to fill in with transfers of their own to keep up.

It's just not a sustainable model, especially now that there isn't a penalty for a player's first transfer. If we have a team loaded with junior/senior talent in front of those freshmen, they aren't likely to stick around to their junior year.

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it will work in reality.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Complicating the whole wild west situation is the potential addition of NIL (which I am not a big fan of, but that is a discussion for another day). Based on the limited sample size of the posters here, all of this transferring is making people less interested in college basketball. Admittedly, the posts here are somewhat knee-jerk reactions to recent events, but at the same time I think this overall sentiment has been building for a while. I have been obsessed with college basketball for 35+ years but I am now less likely to turn on a random game, even if it is two top 20 teams, as I can't keep track of who is going where.

So will this diminished interest by fans result in less NIL money, or is it just marginal? Also, will players decide to stay in one place so that they can build a "brand" at one school, or will they shop themselves to the place where they can maximize their earnings, which aligns with the current obsession with transferring? Will someone decide to stay at a top school because they can potentially make more money playing 5-10 minutes a game there, with the upside of more minutes in the future, vs. how much they will make being the star at a lower profile school?

I'm not sure how this will all play out. I'm not a fan of the transferring and not a fan of NIL, so neither development is great to me, but they seem inevitable and none of the decision makers really care what I think so I either have to accept it or find a new passion.

[CameronDuke]

My point is you are disagreeing about hypothetical reasons someone might have decided to make a decision. It's a fruitless exercise.

If Coleman comes out and says "wow, I left because I felt jobbed by the staff when they recruited over me," you would have something to work with.

Also, I'm confused - do you disagree that Coleman can get more minutes elsewhere? Or disagree that he should take that into consideration?

I'll drop it now, I just can't muster up much more emotion regarding these players leaving. They certainly have every right and obligation to do what's best for themselves, and I don't fault them in the slightest, but it sure makes it a lot less fun to watch and follow.

Lol is a huge component of the content on these boards not speculation for why things happen or decisions are made? Is it against the rules to voice your thoughts regarding these two areas? A majority of posters agreed that Henry likely left because they alluded to him essentially feeling jaded and that he could play immediately elsewhere. That’s fine for him but I don’t agree with that decision. Am I allowed to say that? If not let me know and I’ll stop. My goodness, some folks get up in arms over minutia ... fruitless exercise? I disagree. Posting one’s thoughts to me isn’t a fruitless exercise. That’s a stretch ...

I don’t know if Henry can get more minutes elsewhere because we don’t know where he’s going yet. Some folks think he lands at VCU. I personally don’t think their style of play would fit him since they press and run Mike Rhoades’s watered down version of Shaka Smart’s havoc with lots of pressing and trapping. Think he’s more of a banger down low and his game is in the half court. So maybe he’ll get more minutes elsewhere maybe not, but I wish him luck. Of course minutes should be taken into consideration but I don’t think it is the only factor to consider especially thinking long term. It is a bit short sighted to me ... I’m sorry you’re confused but maybe this paints the picture a bit better for you and gets your brain out of a pretzel ...

[RepoMan]

It’s a bummer to lose Coleman. And it’s a bummer to have to much turnover each year. And I think for most people it decreases interest and enjoyment when you only get to watch a player evolve over a year or two.

But, the rules and governing landscape have changed, meaning greater player movement is possible.

And, for most people, not making the tournament is an even bigger bummer.

So, while I get the disappointment, I don’t understand all the theories about team building being advanced.

If your goal is to win as much as possible in the current environment, I don’t know how your strategy could be anything other than recruit the best players possible, play the season, and hope for the best. Then try again.

The problem with the team this season wasn’t that we had too many young players. It’s that they weren’t good enough on a consistent basis.

Now, if you have a different goal — say fielding a team of players with lower talent who won’t play in the NBA but who, for better or worse, you will have watched for 4 years — then sure, a different strategy would be in order. But I don’t think your could realistically think that strategy would yield competitively superior results.

[lotusland]

What are you even arguing at this point?

Your idea that players should "b[e] patient and wai[t] for opportunities that typically present themselves" is historically inaccurate; the number of Duke players in the last 20+ seasons who played less than 10 mpg as freshmen and sophomores but then went on to play 20+ mpg (or whatever other measure you want) as juniors and/or seniors is a very short one.

But even if it were true, apparently Henry Coleman didn't want to take that risk. You seem to me to be saying that represents some sort of character flaw on Henry's part (though of course that could just be another failure in my "reading comprehension skills"). To the extent that you are saying that, I find it offensive. If that's not what you're saying, then what?

I don't think anybody can blame Henry for transferring after the coaching staff decided to bring in Theo John. I can't believe people were surprised by this, and I don't understand how this could be the basis for anyone's fandom to be less. And while I'm venting about things I don't understand, I don't get how anybody can be anti-OAD and also in favor of bringing Theo John in as a grad-transfer. I don't understand how people think that bringing in recruits solely in the #20 to #60 range could possibly get better results (on a consistent basis) than what we've been doing. I don't understand how people can be against bringing in the best possible players but then get upset when we don't bring in top 10 players and the team isn't as good. I'm flabbergasted that anybody believes players like Nolan Smith, Kyle Singler, Mason Plumlee, Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, JJ Redick, Shelden Williams, Shane Battier, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, Danny Ferry, Johnny Dawkins, etc, etc, etc, would stay around to be seniors (or in most cases, juniors) if they played today. I believe that almost every complaint in almost every DBR thread is really a thinly veiled dissatisfaction that Duke isn't in the Final Four every year like we were in the late 80s/early 90s.

So there.

Very true but isn’t it also a change of heart for you to prefer developing a less polished or physically gifted reserve player at the expense of a player who can help win more next season? Isn’t it just as likely that that signing Duval pushed Frank Jackson to the draft? If the preference is to take the best talent available right now at the expense of experience and skill down the road, then you have strayed from your intended route. Welcome to the scenic back roads my friend.

[DtrainBuckshot]

I wonder if coach James leaving played more of a role than any transfer? Henry always reminded me of a young Nate James and I would be curious who was his lead recruiter?

[roywhite]

Duke seems to be trending to a tier system:

Star players are one-and-done
Non-star Duke freshmen increasingly go elsewhere after 1 year
Upper classmen in the program are players who have started elsewhere and developed, arriving at Duke through the transfer portal

[CDu]

Duke seems to be trending to a tier system:

Star players are one-and-done
Non-star Duke freshmen increasingly go elsewhere after 1 year
Upper classmen in the program are players who have started elsewhere and developed, arriving at Duke through the transfer portal

Yep, I suspect that this will become the new normal: we continue to bring in the best recruiting classes we can, then fill in as needed from the transfer market. And there will continue to be a flow of players in and out.

At least until Coach K retires or there is some dramatic change in rules. After that? Who knows?