Other ways to do it

[CDu]

The Final 2021 RSCI has arrived and here's how it looks for Duke:

Paolo Banchero: #2 (tied)
AJ Griffin: #18
Trevor Keels: #19
Jaylen Blakes: unranked

others of interest: Patrick Baldwin #5, TyTy Washington #14.


So, we have three top 20 guys (including one top 5 guy) to go with our three returning top 25 guys. How does that match up with past Duke teams of the past 25 years?

AT LEAST THREE TOP 20 RECRUITS INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE TOP 5
2022
2019 (#1 in final AP poll)(Elite Eight)
2018 (#9 in final AP poll)(Elite Eight)
2017 (#7 in final AP poll)(Rd of 32)
2016 (#19 in final AP poll)(Sweet 16)
2015 (#4 in final AP poll)(Champs)
2000 (#1 in final AP poll)(Sweet 16)
1998 (#3 in final AP poll)(Elite Eight)

If you make it "Multiple Top 20 including at least one top 5," we can add 2020 (#11; no tourney) and 2006 (#1; Sweet 16).

AT LEAST THREE TOP 20 RECRUITS AND AT LEAST THREE TOP 25 RETURNEES
2022
2017 (#7 in final AP poll)(Rd of 32)
1998 (#3 in final AP poll)(Elite Eight)

AT LEAST THREE TOP 25 RETURNEES AND AT LEAST ONE TOP 5 RECRUIT
2022
2017 (#7 in final AP poll)(Rd of 32)
2011 (#3 in final AP poll)(Sweet 16)
2006 (#1 in final AP poll)(Sweet 16)
2004 (#6 in final AP poll)(Final Four)
1998 (#3 in final AP poll)(Elite Eight)


The 2016 and 2017 team were derailed by injuries, but even so, looking at the above comparisons we should be in for a fun ride in 2022.

Great reference points for anticipation for next year. One minor quibble, but this past year's team didn't have a top-5 recruit (Johnson was our best recruit at #11). So it wouldn't qualify on the "multiple top-20 including at least one top-5" criteria.

But, again, awesome dive into the history books and excellent perspective for how significant it is that we are returning multiple top-25 guys AND gaining multiple top-25 guys including a top-5 guy. I agree: it seems quite promising for next year.

[Kedsy]

Great reference points for anticipation for next year. One minor quibble, but this past year's team didn't have a top-5 recruit (Johnson was our best recruit at #11). So it wouldn't qualify on the "multiple top-20 including at least one top-5" criteria.

Yeah, I apologize for the ambiguous reference. When I said "2020," I meant the 2019-20 team, which had Vernon Carey as a top 5 recruit.

[CDu]

Yeah, I apologize for the ambiguous reference. When I said "2020," I meant the 2019-20 team, which had Vernon Carey as a top 5 recruit.

Oh right, my bad. That makes way more sense and in hindsight was actually quite clear. So, consider my minor quibble repealed and my full endorsement .

[du_bb1]

Kedsy that was really impressive research and analysis. I have the time but not near enough patience to do anything similar.

Hats off to you !

[Kedsy]

The 2022 final RSCI has been released. Duke's recruits are as follows:

Dariq Whitehead #1
Derek Lively #2
Kyle Filipowski #4
Mark Mitchell #22
Jaden Schutt #61
Tyrese Proctor #97*
Christian Reeves unranked

* due to his late reclassification, Tyrese was only ranked by on3, which ranked him #35; it's totally unclear what his actual ranking would have been if everyone had updated their rankings in time.

Having the #1, #2, and #4 players matches the 2018-19 class (RJ Barrett; Cam Reddish; Zion Williamson), which also had #13 Tre Jones and #37 Joey Baker. In fact, the 2018-19 Duke team and the 2022-23 teams are the ONLY teams in the RSCI era (since 1998-99) to have three top 5 players in the same class.

Duke this season will be the 6th team in the RSCI era to have three top 8 players in the same class**, after:

2018-19 Duke (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Duke (Elite Eight)
2013-14 Kentucky (Final Four)
2011-12 Kentucky (Champs)
2006-07 UNC (Elite Eight)

** I chose top 8 because people are downplaying this class due to three top five players reclassifying out of the 2022 high school class, but if they were still in, our guys would be no worse than top 8 (actually top 7, but whatever).

--------------

Arkansas also has three top 20 players (#3, #14, and #17), and thus Duke and Arkansas will be the 15th and 16th teams since the OAD rule went into effect to have three top 20 freshmen. Here are the other 14 teams:

2021-22 Duke (Final Four)
2018-19 Duke (Elite Eight)
2018-19 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Duke (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Kentucky (Sweet 16)
2016-17 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2014-15 Duke (Champion)
2014-15 Kentucky (Final Four)
2013-14 Kentucky (Final Four)
2013-14 Kansas (round of 32)
2012-13 Kentucky (missed tournament)
2011-12 Kentucky (Champion)
2009-10 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2006-07 UNC (Elite Eight)

Of the 14 teams, 11 of them (79%) made at least the Elite Eight. Five (36%) made the Final Four, including two champions (14%). Of the three that didn't get as far as the Elite Eight, two had season-ending injuries before the tournament to top 6 NBA draft picks (Nerlens Noel in 2013 and Joel Embiid in 2014). The other team lost by 3 points in the Sweet 16. (For people who don't like round numbers, there were also two teams in the period that had three top 21 freshmen who played more than 300 minutes, 2016-17 Duke (lost in round of 32) and 2006-07 Ohio State (Final Four), but I don't think that changes the overall story.)

For those lamenting Duke's lack of experience, eleven of the above 14 teams did NOT have multiple upperclassmen playing 15+ mpg. Of those, 73% made the Elite Eight (8 of 11), 36% made the Final Four (4 of 11), and 9% won the championship (1 of 11). If you go down to upperclassmen playing 10 mpg, seven of the 14 teams still did not have multiple upperclassmen playing 400+ minutes (the 2022 Duke team had three such players, counting Baker and John). Of those seven teams, 86% made the Elite Eight (6 of 7), 43% made the Final Four (3 of 7), and 14% won the natty (1 of 7).

Of course, with this definition, if Ryan Young plays 400 minutes, the 2023 Duke team will meet the requirement. If we somehow land Jacob Grandison, then depending on the definition we'll probably have the same or more upperclassmen with meaningful rotation minutes as Duke's 2015 team (which had two such players, by either definition) and Duke's 2022 team (which had one such player or three such players, depending on the definition).

[scottdude8]

The 2022 final RSCI has been released. Duke's recruits are as follows:

Dariq Whitehead #1
Derek Lively #2
Kyle Filipowski #4
Mark Mitchell #22
Jaden Schutt #61
Tyrese Proctor #97*
Christian Reeves unranked

* due to his late reclassification, Tyrese was only ranked by on3, which ranked him #35; it's totally unclear what his actual ranking would have been if everyone had updated their rankings in time.

Having the #1, #2, and #4 players matches the 2018-19 class (RJ Barrett; Cam Reddish; Zion Williamson), which also had #13 Tre Jones and #37 Joey Baker. In fact, the 2018-19 Duke team and the 2022-23 teams are the ONLY teams in the RSCI era (since 1998-99) to have three top 5 players in the same class.

Duke this season will be the 6th team in the RSCI era to have three top 8 players in the same class**, after:

2018-19 Duke (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Duke (Elite Eight)
2013-14 Kentucky (Final Four)
2011-12 Kentucky (Champs)
2006-07 UNC (Elite Eight)

** I chose top 8 because people are downplaying this class due to three top five players reclassifying out of the 2022 high school class, but if they were still in, our guys would be no worse than top 8 (actually top 7, but whatever).

--------------

Arkansas also has three top 20 players (#3, #14, and #17), and thus Duke and Arkansas will be the 15th and 16th teams since the OAD rule went into effect to have three top 20 freshmen. Here are the other 14 teams:

2021-22 Duke (Final Four)
2018-19 Duke (Elite Eight)
2018-19 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Duke (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Kentucky (Sweet 16)
2016-17 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2014-15 Duke (Champion)
2014-15 Kentucky (Final Four)
2013-14 Kentucky (Final Four)
2013-14 Kansas (round of 32)
2012-13 Kentucky (missed tournament)
2011-12 Kentucky (Champion)
2009-10 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2006-07 UNC (Elite Eight)

Of the 14 teams, 11 of them (79%) made at least the Elite Eight. Five (36%) made the Final Four, including two champions (14%). Of the three that didn't get as far as the Elite Eight, two had season-ending injuries before the tournament to top 6 NBA draft picks (Nerlens Noel in 2013 and Joel Embiid in 2014). The other team lost by 3 points in the Sweet 16. (For people who don't like round numbers, there were also two teams in the period that had three top 21 freshmen who played more than 300 minutes, 2016-17 Duke (lost in round of 32) and 2006-07 Ohio State (Final Four), but I don't think that changes the overall story.)

For those lamenting Duke's lack of experience, eleven of the above 14 teams did NOT have multiple upperclassmen playing 15+ mpg. Of those, 73% made the Elite Eight (8 of 11), 36% made the Final Four (4 of 11), and 9% won the championship (1 of 11). If you go down to upperclassmen playing 10 mpg, seven of the 14 teams still did not have multiple upperclassmen playing 400+ minutes (the 2022 Duke team had three such players, counting Baker and John). Of those seven teams, 86% made the Elite Eight (6 of 7), 43% made the Final Four (3 of 7), and 14% won the natty (1 of 7).

Of course, with this definition, if Ryan Young plays 400 minutes, the 2023 Duke team will meet the requirement. If we somehow land Jacob Grandison, then depending on the definition we'll probably have the same or more upperclassmen with meaningful rotation minutes as Duke's 2015 team (which had two such players, by either definition) and Duke's 2022 team (which had one such player or three such players, depending on the definition).

Thank you for the fantastic and thorough analysis. Just one of many reasons why the "sky is falling" narrative that permeated this board after the Keels departure and before Proctor's decision was WAY premature. Now, with Proctor, and potentially an additional piece via the portal... ohhh boy.

[SkyBrickey]

Great analysis. Love that playmaker Whitehead has made the leap to consensus #1. We’ve got a virtually unprecedented group of recruits coming in. Lots of reason for optimism next year….

[lotusland]

The above post was just Duke. SkyBrickey has pointed out that championship teams over the past 15 tournaments have not followed the same OAD model that Duke has. So I looked at those 15 championship team rosters to see what those teams did do.

Let's start with 2006 and 2007 Florida. They had an amazing 2004 recruiting class (Noah (#72), Brewer (#25), Horford (#47), and Taurean Green (unranked)), who weren't super-highly rated, but all seemed to be top players nonetheless. I'm going to call this the "lightning in a bottle" method of building a championship team. There's no real way to predict which players in the 25 to 75 range are going to be 1st round draft picks, and also stay three years in school, on top of that.

Another recent team that followed this "model" were the 2019 UVa team (Guy (#32), Jerome (#46), Diakite (unranked), and Huff (#61) all came in the 2016 recruiting class and all far outperformed their recruiting ranking, Again, all stayed at least three years. Another was 2013 Louisville, with Gorgui Dieng (#69), Russ Smith (unranked), and Luke Hancock (unranked) in the 2010 recruiting class, and all stayed at least three years.

2016 and 2018 Villanova had several classes like this in a row. The 2016 team had six NBA players but only one inside the top 40 (Brunson, #19); the 2018 team had five future NBA players, with only two inside the top 20 (Brunson and Spellman, #17). The top players on these Nova teams (Brunson and #96 Mikal Bridges) both stayed three years, though they probably didn't have to. These teams are probably the closest to SkyBrickey's fantasy, though again, I'd say it's nearly impossible to identify which, e.g., #96 player is going to be Mikal Bridges and which is going to be Nate Britt (who was actually #93, but I like picking on Heels, so...).

The two Duke champions (2010 and 2015) in this timeframe, we discussed in the previous post. Kentucky's 2012 championship team used the multiple top ten freshman model. The two UNC champions (2009 and 2017) used the multiple top 30 seniors model, though they both did it in a way that is basically impossible to replicate today (2009 UNC team had seniors with recruiting ranks of #4, #15, and #29; juniors ranked #5 and #8; and freshmen ranked #9 and #18; 2017 UNC team had seniors ranked #14 and #25, juniors ranked #9 and #15, as well as a freshman rated #19, and a lightning-in-a-bottle Luke Maye). Kansas in 2008 had three top 15 players (#8 junior, #11 soph, #14 soph) plus two other top 25 (#22 frosh, #25 junior) and three other top 45 seniors (#31, #36, and #43). It's basically the OAD model except the players stuck around in a way they wouldn't today.

The two UConn champions were basic chaos theory, coming from a #3 seed and a #7 seed to win the championship. Though it may be worth noting that the 2011 team had a top 15 junior and a top 16 sophomore, plus a lightning-in-a-bottle freshman class including #75 Shabazz Napier, #78 Jeremy Lamb, and #28 Rosco Smith. Still, anyone who thinks they can replicate what these UConn things did is probably not all there in the head.

The last champion in the time period used a new model, as Baylor had four of its top six players coming in via transfer. Moving forward, this might end up being a popular model, but after just one success, it's hard to evaluate now.

You may not agree with my characterization of some of the above teams, but I'm not sure whether that matters. I challenge anybody to look at any of the above champions, other than 2015 Duke and 2012 Kentucky (and possibly 2021 Baylor), and say with a straight face that the recruiting method used by that champion could be copied with a likelihood of similar success. They all got really lucky, either with overperforming recruits or top guys staying longer than normal.

And none of them really used the "only recruit in the 20 to 50 (or 30 to 70) range and have everybody stay four years" approach. Even if you say the teams I labeled "lightning in a bottle" used a similar approach, it didn't really work consistently (Florida won twice with the same group of players; Villanova won twice, also with basically the same group of players; none of the others won more than once).

Every championship team is “lucky”. You used a lot of words and stats to say Duke and UK won it once each with OAD dominated teams but everyone else won with more experienced teams and upper classmen.

[CDu]

Every championship team is “lucky”. You used a lot of words and stats to say Duke and UK won it once each with OAD dominated teams but everyone else won with more experienced teams and upper classmen.

And on average, that says the Duke and UK approach is the better approach. Because there are a LOT of teams every year with experience. And only 1-2 teams in any year loaded with one-and-dones.

[Kedsy]

Duke this season will be the 6th team in the RSCI era to have three top 8 players in the same class**, after:

2018-19 Duke (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Duke (Elite Eight)
2013-14 Kentucky (Final Four)
2011-12 Kentucky (Champs)
2006-07 UNC (Elite Eight)

** I chose top 8 because people are downplaying this class due to three top five players reclassifying out of the 2022 high school class, but if they were still in, our guys would be no worse than top 8 (actually top 7, but whatever).

FWIW, two of the three teams listed above that did not make the Final Four lost in the Elite Eight in OT and the third team lost by one point. In other words, just four total points separated all five teams with three top 8 players in the same class from making the Final Four.

Obviously those three teams didn't get those four points, and five teams is a very small sample. But it makes me think the 2022-23 Duke team has a decent chance to take us on a fun ride.

[House P]

And on average, that says the Duke and UK approach is the better approach. Because there are a LOT of teams every year with experience. And only 1-2 teams in any year loaded with one-and-dones.

Sometime shortly after Villanova won their second championship in three years, some folks were wondering if it might be a better idea to "recruit like Villanova" than to pursue one-and-dones. As a result, I tried to identify other teams who "recruit like Villanova".

At the time, Villanova's closest recruiting peers were

- NC State
- Indiana
- Marquette
- Georgetown
- Maryland

So, while Villanova's success may have been enviable in the mid-to-late teens, I don't think most Duke (or Kentucky) fans would trade rosters with any of the other programs for an extended period of time.

[sagegrouse]

FWIW, two of the three teams listed above that did not make the Final Four lost in the Elite Eight in OT and the third team lost by one point. In other words, just four total points separated all five teams with three top 8 players in the same class from making the Final Four.

Obviously those three teams didn't get those four points, and five teams is a very small sample. But it makes me think the 2022-23 Duke team has a decent chance to take us on a fun ride.

The broader question is, in modern college hoops, what is the chance of a truly dominant team -- the best by a significant margin -- actually winning the NCAA tournament with it's single-elimination format? Let me offer four teams in this category: UNLV in 1991, Duke in 1992 and 1999, and Kentucky in 2015. Only one of which won.

Now, I don't think the following NCAA champs with two losses belong in the above list as "truly dominant", but others may disagree: two losses -- UCLA 1995 (was final AP #1), Ky 1996 (UMass was #1) and 2012 (lost in SECs), Baylor 2021 (Gonzaga was unanimous #1 in this Covid year).

There are not enough examples to draw a statistical conclusion -- but a probability of 0.25 is not out of the question.

[lotusland]

Sometime shortly after Villanova won their second championship in three years, some folks were wondering if it might be a better idea to "recruit like Villanova" than to pursue one-and-dones. As a result, I tried to identify other teams who "recruit like Villanova".

At the time, Villanova's closest recruiting peers were

- NC State
- Indiana
- Marquette
- Georgetown
- Maryland

So, while Villanova's success may have been enviable in the mid-to-late teens, I don't think most Duke (or Kentucky) fans would trade rosters with any of the other programs for an extended period of time.

I guess Villanova either coaches better or identifies talent, relative to recruit rankings, better than those other teams since since they won 2 championships and made the final four again this year (and would have been championship contenders except for an injury). It’s not like the results are comparable between those teams. Something going on a Villanova is way better than those programs.

[barjwr]

The broader question is, in modern college hoops, what is the chance of a truly dominant team -- the best by a significant margin -- actually winning the NCAA tournament with it's single-elimination format? Let me offer four teams in this category: UNLV in 1991, Duke in 1992 and 1999, and Kentucky in 2015. Only one of which won.

Now, I don't think the following NCAA champs with two losses belong in the above list as "truly dominant", but others may disagree: two losses -- UCLA 1995 (was final AP #1), Ky 1996 (UMass was #1) and 2012 (lost in SECs), Baylor 2021 (Gonzaga was unanimous #1 in this Covid year).

There are not enough examples to draw a statistical conclusion -- but a probability of 0.25 is not out of the question.

I would add another dominant team to your list of those that didn't win it all -- Kansas in 1997. They only lost two games: an OT game at Missouri and the Sweet 16 game against Arizona.

[House P]

I guess Villanova either coaches better or identifies talent, relative to recruit rankings, better than those other teams since since they won 2 championships and made the final four again this year (and would have been championship contenders except for an injury). It’s not like the results are comparable between those teams. Something going on a Villanova is way better than those programs.

There is no doubt that Villanova benefitted from superior coaching (Jay Wright) compared to their recruiting peers.

Villanova also benefitted from a bunch of guys who significantly outperformed their recruiting rankings. Hard to tell how much of this was superior talent identification/development vs luck, but take a look at this list of similarly ranked Villanova and NC State players from the 2010s.

Villanova Player	RSCI	NC State Player	RSCI
Mikal Bridges	96	Ralston Turner	100
Josh Hart	94	Kyle Washington	99
Phil Booth	84	Maverick Rowan	83
Kris Jenkins	78	Beejay Anya	64
Ryan Arcidiacono	55	Ted Kapita	59
Dante DiVincenzo	~150	Lavar Batts Jr	~150

If you are counting at home, that's four future NBA players (Bridges, Hart, Archidiacono, DiVincenzo), one 1st team all Big-East player (Booth), and one pre-season Wooden award candidate (Jenkins) for Villanova vs 6 guys who played basketball for NC State.

[JasonEvans]

vs 6 guys who allegedly played basketball for NC State.

FIFY

[Kedsy]

Arkansas also has three top 20 players (#3, #14, and #17), and thus Duke and Arkansas will be the 15th and 16th teams since the OAD rule went into effect to have three top 20 freshmen. Here are the other 14 teams:

2021-22 Duke (Final Four)
2018-19 Duke (Elite Eight)
2018-19 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Duke (Elite Eight)
2017-18 Kentucky (Sweet 16)
2016-17 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2014-15 Duke (Champion)
2014-15 Kentucky (Final Four)
2013-14 Kentucky (Final Four)
2013-14 Kansas (round of 32)
2012-13 Kentucky (missed tournament)
2011-12 Kentucky (Champion)
2009-10 Kentucky (Elite Eight)
2006-07 UNC (Elite Eight)

Of the 14 teams, 11 of them (79%) made at least the Elite Eight. Five (36%) made the Final Four, including two champions (14%). Of the three that didn't get as far as the Elite Eight, two had season-ending injuries before the tournament to top 6 NBA draft picks (Nerlens Noel in 2013 and Joel Embiid in 2014). The other team lost by 3 points in the Sweet 16. (For people who don't like round numbers, there were also two teams in the period that had three top 21 freshmen who played more than 300 minutes, 2016-17 Duke (lost in round of 32) and 2006-07 Ohio State (Final Four), but I don't think that changes the overall story.)

Now that Jacob Grandison has opted to join the Blue Devils, Duke next season will have (in addition to three top 5 freshmen and two 20 to 30-ish freshmen (counting Tyrese Proctor)) four upperclassmen who played over 500 minutes last season: Jeremy Roach (1145); Jacob Grandison (751); Kale Catchings (582); and Ryan Young (530). That's more upperclassmen exceeding 400 minutes than any of the other 14 teams that have had three top 20 freshmen (who exceeded 300 minutes as freshmen) in the OAD era (since 2006-07):

NUMBER OF UPPERCLASSMEN WITH 400+ MINUTES THE PREVIOUS SEASON
Duke 2023: 4
Duke 2015 (Champs): 3 (though one of them got kicked off the team before the post-season)
Kentucky 2010 (Elite Eight): 3 (though two of them barely played in 2009-10)
Duke 2022 (Final Four): 2
Kentucky 2015 (Final Four): 2
Kansas 2014 (round of 32): 2
Kentucky 2012 (Champs): 1
Kentucky 2014 (Final Four): 1
Duke 2019 (Elite Eight): 1
Duke 2018 (Elite Eight): 1
Kentucky 2019 (Elite Eight): 1
Kentucky 2017 (Elite Eight): 1
UNC 2007 (Elite Eight): 1
Kentucky 2013 (missed tny): 1
Kentucky 2018 (Sweet 16): 0

Note that the above counts players with 400+ minutes the year before, even though 2023 Duke (with four players having 500+ minutes the year before, clears that bar handily). Also, I didn't evaluate 2023 Arkansas because I'm not sure is staying from that team.

While it's true that only one of the 2023 Duke players has experience at Duke, it's also true that (a) when you have a new coach, nobody has experience playing for him; and (b) of the 14 previous teams, only three had more than one upperclassman who played 400+ minutes at that school the year before (2015 Duke (which had three, though only two actually made it to the post-season); 2015 UK (which had two); and 2010 UK (which had three, but only one of the three exceeded 400 minutes in 2009-10).

In sum, believe it or not, compared to past teams with three top 20 freshmen, next year's Duke team actually has a lot of experience.

[jv001]

Now that Jacob Grandison has opted to join the Blue Devils, Duke next season will have (in addition to three top 5 freshmen and two 20 to 30-ish freshmen (counting Tyrese Proctor)) four upperclassmen who played over 500 minutes last season: Jeremy Roach (1145); Jacob Grandison (751); Kale Catchings (582); and Ryan Young (530). That's more upperclassmen exceeding 400 minutes than any of the other 14 teams that have had three top 20 freshmen (who exceeded 300 minutes as freshmen) in the OAD era (since 2006-07):

NUMBER OF UPPERCLASSMEN WITH 400+ MINUTES THE PREVIOUS SEASON
Duke 2023: 4
Duke 2015 (Champs): 3 (though one of them got kicked off the team before the post-season)
Kentucky 2010 (Elite Eight): 3 (though two of them barely played in 2009-10)
Duke 2022 (Final Four): 2
Kentucky 2015 (Final Four): 2
Kansas 2014 (round of 32): 2
Kentucky 2012 (Champs): 1
Kentucky 2014 (Final Four): 1
Duke 2019 (Elite Eight): 1
Duke 2018 (Elite Eight): 1
Kentucky 2019 (Elite Eight): 1
Kentucky 2017 (Elite Eight): 1
UNC 2007 (Elite Eight): 1
Kentucky 2013 (missed tny): 1
Kentucky 2018 (Sweet 16): 0

Note that the above counts players with 400+ minutes the year before, even though 2023 Duke (with four players having 500+ minutes the year before, clears that bar handily). Also, I didn't evaluate 2023 Arkansas because I'm not sure is staying from that team.

While it's true that only one of the 2023 Duke players has experience at Duke, it's also true that (a) when you have a new coach, nobody has experience playing for him; and (b) of the 14 previous teams, only three had more than one upperclassman who played 400+ minutes at that school the year before (2015 Duke (which had three, though only two actually made it to the post-season); 2015 UK (which had two); and 2010 UK (which had three, but only one of the three exceeded 400 minutes in 2009-10).

In sum, believe it or not, compared to past teams with three top 20 freshmen, next year's Duke team actually has a lot of experience.

I am totally amazed. How do you come up with these stats. I'm beginning to think you are a computer and not human. Some great stuff.

GoDuke!