Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I mean, more (and just as talented) players have entered the portal this year than last year. The number has increased almost every year since the portal was developed. So I'm not sure why we would assume it's going to get less crazy, especially with the "one free transfer" rule being implemented.
    The number of players eligible to play college ball has expanded due to the extra COVID year. There are more super seniors.

    That being said, the portal will probably be "crazy" for a long time.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    The number of players eligible to play college ball has expanded due to the extra COVID year. There are more super seniors.
    Yes, but that's not a distinction between last summer (when we first had seniors eligible to return as super-seniors) and this summer (the second such season). So the growth of players entering the transfer portal from last summer to this summer is evidence against the notion that last summer was some sort of outlier crazy summer. This spring/summer (and thus next season) is going to be even more crazy than the portal this past year.

    Eventually (in about 2 more years) there will be 20% fewer players eligible to transfer once the "COVID year" has run its course. But, as you said below...

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidBenAkiva View Post
    That being said, the portal will probably be "crazy" for a long time.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by CasualObserver View Post
    As alluded to in the portal thread, the best guards in the transfer portal may also be likely staying in the draft space awhile for the same reason as Keels. Why not at least get yourself a combine score before recommitting to college ball.
    Exactly, plus it gives Keels a chance to see the NBA up close and personal (and vice verse).

    And I don’t think it should be Keels or another elite player.

    For us to make another run at the Final Four, we could use a 6th starter, akin to Mike Dunleavy, Brian Davis, Corey Maggette, David Henderson, and Jon Scheyer, all of whom had excellent seasons as 6th men….

    Maggette might be the best comparable for an elite backcourt player who wants to play on a dominating team: 3 total starts, 18 minutes/game, 3 triple doubles as a sub, 14 NBA years, total salary: $89 million (inflation adjusted total: $117 million).
    https://hoopshype.com/player/corey-maggette/salary/

    An exceptionally talented player will get plenty of opportunity at Duke, even if there are 5 or 6 other exceptionally talented players.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    Exactly, plus it gives Keels a chance to see the NBA up close and personal (and vice verse).

    And I don’t think it should be Keels or another elite player.

    For us to make another run at the Final Four, we could use a 6th starter, akin to Mike Dunleavy, Brian Davis, Corey Maggette, David Henderson, and Jon Scheyer, all of whom had excellent seasons as 6th men….

    An exceptionally talented player will get plenty of opportunity at Duke, even if there are 5 or 6 other exceptionally talented players.
    It's quite possible that Mark Mitchell is that "sixth starter." At least based on his recruiting profile, he should be a pretty decent contributor. But no reason we could have seven starters!

  5. #25
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    It's quite possible that Mark Mitchell is that "sixth starter." At least based on his recruiting profile, he should be a pretty decent contributor. But no reason we could have seven starters!
    Great point, I think we're all so enamored with the top of the class (and rightfully so!) we forget that Mitchell is a guy who would likely be an immediate starter for 95% of high-major teams. To have him likely coming off the bench and able to develop into his role is a major luxury we will have (or rather "likely" have, as we could conceivably see him in the starting lineup if we completely strike out in our search for a true 2 guard and have to shift Whitehead to that spot).

    This could be one of our deeper teams in a while, which we say every year. But it's not a moot point now since we don't know how Jon is going to craft his rotation!
    Scott Rich on the front page

    Trinity BS 2012; University of Michigan PhD 2018
    Duke Chronicle, Sports Online Editor: 2010-2012
    K-Ville Blue Tenting 2009-2012

    Unofficial Brian Zoubek Biographer
    If you have questions about Michigan Basketball/Football, I'm your man!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Yes, but that's not a distinction between last summer (when we first had seniors eligible to return as super-seniors) and this summer (the second such season). So the growth of players entering the transfer portal from last summer to this summer is evidence against the notion that last summer was some sort of outlier crazy summer. This spring/summer (and thus next season) is going to be even more crazy than the portal this past year.

    Eventually (in about 2 more years) there will be 20% fewer players eligible to transfer once the "COVID year" has run its course.
    I've seen a good bit of talk that the "super senior" concept is something the NCAA may look to make permanent. I've heard some folks think it should be tied to graduation so that extra year of eligibility would serve as a reward to kids who graduate and then pursue grad-level education.

    It is rare that I think the NCAA truly has the best interests of the players at heart, but I would very much welcome a rule change like that.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I've seen a good bit of talk that the "super senior" concept is something the NCAA may look to make permanent. I've heard some folks think it should be tied to graduation so that extra year of eligibility would serve as a reward to kids who graduate and then pursue grad-level education.

    It is rare that I think the NCAA truly has the best interests of the players at heart, but I would very much welcome a rule change like that.
    I'd be in favor of that from the standpoint of encouraging and incentivizing young people to further their educations. Purely in terms of on-the-court for Duke, though, it would not be great. It would mean a lot of other teams having more older, more mature players on their rosters. Our best players are rarely anything but frosh and sophs these days. We'll likely be getting knocked back more than we would like . . .

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I'd be in favor of that from the standpoint of encouraging and incentivizing young people to further their educations. Purely in terms of on-the-court for Duke, though, it would not be great. It would mean a lot of other teams having more older, more mature players on their rosters. Our best players are rarely anything but frosh and sophs these days. We'll likely be getting knocked back more than we would like . . .
    This rule would also hurt the not top college recruits as it relates to getting scholarships. There are not increasing the # of scholarships, so if they're being taken up by 5th year players, there's ~20% fewer to go around to other years. It has a downstream effect -- i.e. if a top P5 doesn't need 2 freshman recruits because they have permanent 5th year ones (via transfer or current enrolles), then those now "not needed" recruits sign with a bottom P5 school, the current prospects for bottom P5 schools then have to sign with lowel level leagues, and you get the idea...Of course, it's not a total dramatic shift like I've described, but certainly some impact on certain recruiting levels just purely based on numbers.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I'd be in favor of that from the standpoint of encouraging and incentivizing young people to further their educations. Purely in terms of on-the-court for Duke, though, it would not be great. It would mean a lot of other teams having more older, more mature players on their rosters. Our best players are rarely anything but frosh and sophs these days. We'll likely be getting knocked back more than we would like . . .
    Agreed. The super-senior thing is certainly good for the players in school, but very likely bad for Duke. Unless we completely shift our recruiting model, which could happen but seems unlikely right now. It might also put a crimp on the incoming freshmen getting scholarships. Maybe not as much in bball (where not everyone uses them all) but likely in football.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Agreed. The super-senior thing is certainly good for the players in school, but very likely bad for Duke. Unless we completely shift our recruiting model, which could happen but seems unlikely right now. It might also put a crimp on the incoming freshmen getting scholarships. Maybe not as much in bball (where not everyone uses them all) but likely in football.
    Not disagreeing with you, but presumably any extension of eligibility time would give the schools the right to offer or not offer a scholarship. That way. A school could assure places for freshmen.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Not disagreeing with you, but presumably any extension of eligibility time would give the schools the right to offer or not offer a scholarship. That way. A school could assure places for freshmen.
    Sure. But if the schools are all at their scholarship limit (whether NCAA or self-imposed) then more super-seniors taking scholarships mean fewer scholarships for others.

    Either way, unless more scholarships are offered/allowed, somebody is getting hosed out of scholarship.

    I think somebody mentioned that their local high school saw a huge drop in scholarships offered to this year’s (or last year’s?) senior class. Which would make sense: if there are 50-100% more seniors on scholarship, those are coming out of some other class.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    Exactly, plus it gives Keels a chance to see the NBA up close and personal (and vice verse).

    And I don’t think it should be Keels or another elite player.

    For us to make another run at the Final Four, we could use a 6th starter, akin to Mike Dunleavy, Brian Davis, Corey Maggette, David Henderson, and Jon Scheyer, all of whom had excellent seasons as 6th men….

    Maggette might be the best comparable for an elite backcourt player who wants to play on a dominating team: 3 total starts, 18 minutes/game, 3 triple doubles as a sub, 14 NBA years, total salary: $89 million (inflation adjusted total: $117 million).
    https://hoopshype.com/player/corey-maggette/salary/

    An exceptionally talented player will get plenty of opportunity at Duke, even if there are 5 or 6 other exceptionally talented players.
    While I agree having more talented players is better than fewer talented players, it's worth noting that in the four seasons in which Mike Dunleavy, David Henderson (twice), and Jon Scheyer were "sixth starters," we didn't really make a convincing run at a Final Four. Dunleavy started two of his three years and the other (2000) we lost in the Sweet 16. Henderson started as a freshman and senior and in the other two years we lost in the round of 32. Scheyer started three of his four seasons and in the other (2008) we lost in the 2nd round. Brian Davis started in 1992; in 1989 and 1990 he came off the bench but wasn't really the 6th man; though in 1991 it's fair to say he was a 6th starter (11 starts, 23+ mpg) and obviously we won the championship. In Maggette's only year we made the championship game, but that team was so talented that its 7th, 8th, and 9th men would have started on most teams.

    Also, Corey Maggette didn't have 3 triple doubles at Duke. He didn't have any. He had three double-doubles, in the only three games he got double-figure rebounds, but he only topped three assists in five games, only topped four assists twice, and never topped 6 assists.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    While I agree having more talented players is better than fewer talented players, it's worth noting that in the four seasons in which Mike Dunleavy, David Henderson (twice), and Jon Scheyer were "sixth starters," we didn't really make a convincing run at a Final Four. Dunleavy started two of his three years and the other (2000) we lost in the Sweet 16. Henderson started as a freshman and senior and in the other two years we lost in the round of 32. Scheyer started three of his four seasons and in the other (2008) we lost in the 2nd round. Brian Davis started in 1992; in 1989 and 1990 he came off the bench but wasn't really the 6th man; though in 1991 it's fair to say he was a 6th starter (11 starts, 23+ mpg) and obviously we won the championship. In Maggette's only year we made the championship game, but that team was so talented that its 7th, 8th, and 9th men would have started on most teams.

    Also, Corey Maggette didn't have 3 triple doubles at Duke. He didn't have any. He had three double-doubles, in the only three games he got double-figure rebounds, but he only topped three assists in five games, only topped four assists twice, and never topped 6 assists.
    It's true. Our "6th starter" in 2001 was Chris Duhon/Nate James. Our 6th starter in 1991 was Davis. Our 6th starter in 1992 was Lang, but that's probably a bit misleading because Hurley and Hill both missed time that year (inflating the bench players' minutes). 1989 didn't have one, 1994 didn't really have one (Marty Clark would have been the closest thing), 1988 had Laettner/Abdelnaby, 1986 had Bilas/Ferry. 1999 didn't have one, though Maggette was certainly talented enough to have been a starter (he played just 18 mpg). 2004 didn't have one. 2010 didn't have one (especially not come tourney time, where we rode our starters into the ground). 2015 had Jones/Jefferson, 2021 had Griffin/Keels/Roach.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    It's true. Our "6th starter" in 2001 was Chris Duhon/Nate James. Our 6th starter in 1991 was Davis. Our 6th starter in 1992 was Lang, but that's probably a bit misleading because Hurley and Hill both missed time that year (inflating the bench players' minutes). 1989 didn't have one, 1994 didn't really have one (Marty Clark would have been the closest thing), 1988 had Laettner/Abdelnaby, 1986 had Bilas/Ferry. 1999 didn't have one, though Maggette was certainly talented enough to have been a starter (he played just 18 mpg). 2004 didn't have one. 2010 didn't have one (especially not come tourney time, where we rode our starters into the ground). 2015 had Jones/Jefferson, 2021 had Griffin/Keels/Roach.
    You mean 1988 didn't have one and 1989 had Laettner/Abdelnaby (though each played fewer than 17 mpg). Also, you missed 1990, which didn't have one.

    Anyway, like I said it's always better to have more talent. But depending on how and who you count approximately half of our Final Four teams had a "sixth starter" and half didn't. Hardly sounds like a requirement.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    You mean 1988 didn't have one and 1989 had Laettner/Abdelnaby (though each played fewer than 17 mpg). Also, you missed 1990, which didn't have one.
    Yeah, I goofed. I actually meant 1990 didn't have one and 1989 had Laettner/Abdelnaby. I didn't actually check 1988; it was just a reading typo of BBRef for me that I called 1989-90 1989 and 1988-89 1988.

Similar Threads

  1. Keels?
    By gofurman in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 01-29-2022, 07:45 AM
  2. Keels ?
    By gofurman in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-15-2022, 09:04 AM
  3. Welcome to Duke, Trevor Keels!
    By MCFinARL in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 04-06-2021, 11:47 PM
  4. Keels is a Blue Devil
    By b4man72 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2021, 05:10 PM
  5. Tell me who to pull for
    By gofurman in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 06:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •