Potential Big Impact on OAD - New NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement

[UrinalCake]

Woj is reporting that the OAD rule would still be in place after lowering the age limit. I don't understand that at all. I guess if you graduated early from high school and then finished a year of college at 18 then you could be drafted?

link

Adrian Wojnarowski
@wojespn
While lowering the 19-and-over draft age will be a significant part of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining discussions, sources tell ESPN nothing has advanced on elimination of the “One-and-Done” rule.

[Steven43]

Woj is reporting that the OAD rule would still be in place after lowering the age limit. I don't understand that at all. I guess if you graduated early from high school and then finished a year of college at 18 then you could be drafted?

link

We had already discussed this issue ad nauseam months ago. At least it seems like it was months ago. We came to the same conclusion then as now. And the issue is just as perplexing now as it was then. 😜

[johnb]

This entire cluster of changes is disruptive, but I’d be more worried if I were a fan of almost any other team.

There are advantages to having the best basketball program in the country. We’ve got the best coaches, recruiters, support & medical infrastructure, brand, media presence, and the broadest array of recent alumni in the NBA.

If somebody is going to thrive in this new environment, I’d go with Scheyer & Co.

The trick is likely going to be the same as before: to identify and successfully recruit 5-6 guys a year. Instead of cherry picking from the McDonald’s All American game, Scheyer will have to identify which ultra-elite (ranked 1-10) talent wants that year or two of college, and also identify more next level guys (especially key transfers).

It’d be hard to actually improve our annual national recruiting ranking (the burden of being #1), but I’m guessing that Duke will appeal to those top 25 recruits and top 15 transfers who are unusually interested in school and in their own professional development.

And while they don’t talk about it publicly, I’m confident our coaches will be unusually accurate at identifying and then appealing to that elite subset.

[CDu]

I think it would affect Duke more than folks realize. It may or may not have an impact on our success, but I think it will require a substantial change to how we coach and/or recruit for it not to have a big impact on our success.

Right now, our recruiting model has been fairly straightforward: land the #1 recruiting class each year, loading the roster with guys who are lottery pick talent to be on campus for one year; fill around them with next-tier guys and grad transfers as needed. If we take away those top-end guys, our roster doesn't look so good. Now, you might say "but we can still target the best of the guys who come to college...". And you're right. But the reason this system works is because we get the uber-elite talent, and that difference in talent helps make up for the lack of continuity and experience. If you take away that top-end talent, it puts a much greater emphasis on not missing with the next-tier guys. You can afford to have a Steward/Keels leave after a decent but not overwhelming freshman year when you are replacing them with Banchero/Whitehead. But when you are replacing them with another freshman Keels/Steward? Things get more dicey.

Now, again, I don't think it is a death knell for the program by any means. But it's going to be a lot trickier to navigate for Duke than it will be for, say, UVa, or for any other school who hasn't been getting one-and-done talent.

Basically, the rule will negatively impact the programs that rely on the most one-and-done talent. That's Duke. Either we will keep the same model but will have less talented players coming in, or we'll completely change our recruiting model. The former will likely mean the program suffers. The latter is a substantial change that could go either way.

[Phredd3]

Basically, the rule will negatively impact the programs that rely on the most one-and-done talent. That's Duke. Either we will keep the same model but will have less talented players coming in, or we'll completely change our recruiting model. The former will likely mean the program suffers. The latter is a substantial change that could go either way.

Again, let's be clear about what the proposed change is: It lowers the age requirement by one year, but it does NOT change the OAD rule (i.e. to be drafted, the player would still have to be one year removed from his high-school graduating cohort). The impact of that is completely minimal. We'll just get guys reclassing more often and coming for their one year of college a year sooner than they otherwise would have. Our coaches would have to identify talent at a younger age, but at the level Duke typically recruits, we're already kind of doing that. If this rule is adopted at all (and it well might not be), we'll just see the Boozer twins (knock on wood) a year earlier than expected.

It doesn't seem to me like a huge change at all. What am I missing?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Again, let's be clear about what the proposed change is: It lowers the age requirement by one year, but it does NOT change the OAD rule (i.e. to be drafted, the player would still have to be one year removed from his high-school graduating cohort). The impact of that is completely minimal. We'll just get guys reclassing more often and coming for their one year of college a year sooner than they otherwise would have. Our coaches would have to identify talent at a younger age, but at the level Duke typically recruits, we're already kind of doing that. If this rule is adopted at all (and it well might not be), we'll just see the Boozer twins (knock on wood) a year earlier than expected.

It doesn't seem to me like a huge change at all. What am I missing?

This continues to be a question - what is the conceivable point of lowering the age AND keeping the "one year out of high school" rule? It seems to do, well, nothing. Unless it encourages high school juniors to reclassify and go to college for their OAD season a year early..?

[CDu]

Again, let's be clear about what the proposed change is: It lowers the age requirement by one year, but it does NOT change the OAD rule (i.e. to be drafted, the player would still have to be one year removed from his high-school graduating cohort). The impact of that is completely minimal. We'll just get guys reclassing more often and coming for their one year of college a year sooner than they otherwise would have. Our coaches would have to identify talent at a younger age, but at the level Duke typically recruits, we're already kind of doing that. If this rule is adopted at all (and it well might not be), we'll just see the Boozer twins (knock on wood) a year earlier than expected.

It doesn't seem to me like a huge change at all. What am I missing?

From what I've read, the "one year removed from high school" would be going away as well. Hence the reason folks are talking about the potential for the 2024 draft to be a "double draft" with twice the number of elite prospects in it (the top college prospects plus the top high school prospects).

[Phredd3]

From what I've read, the "one year removed from high school" would be going away as well. Hence the reason folks are talking about the potential for the 2024 draft to be a "double draft" with twice the number of elite prospects in it (the top college prospects plus the top high school prospects).

OK, yes, then that would indeed be a sea change. Last time this proposal came up and was ultimately bargained away, it did not include removal of the OAD part of the rule. I had not seen anything indicating this was different from that.

I do still think that, even if that change were implemented, Duke remains in excellent position to adjust relatively quickly. We are so fully into the OAD mode right now, that I would expect a year or two to fully recalibrate, but not much longer than that, honestly. Some kids will still be potential OADs, and I would expect Duke to land a lot of those.

[CDu]

I do still think that, even if that change were implemented, Duke remains in excellent position to adjust relatively quickly. We are so fully into the OAD mode right now, that I would expect a year or two to fully recalibrate, but not much longer than that, honestly. Some kids will still be potential OADs, and I would expect Duke to land a lot of those.

Yes, but those one and dones will likely not be as obvious as the current one and dones (meaning more risk of miss), and probably not as good as the current one and dones. Not all one and done talent is the same. See Banchero vs Keels for example. Losing the guys like Banchero but getting guys like Keels would seem to be the worst of both worlds: you miss out on both the high-impact freshman and you also don't get the continuity of that next-tier guy staying multiple years.

I also don't agree with Duke being in an excellent position to adjust quickly. Mainly because we'd be in, by definition, the WORST position to adjust to the new rule. Because virtually every other program in the country would be largely unaffected by it (so they don't really have to adjust at all). We're the ones landing multiple no-doubt one-and-done guys each year. So we're the ones losing our top talent in that situation.

Can we adjust? Sure. But it will be a big adjustment, and likely a multi-year adjustment period unless we get REALLY lucky with recruiting. Because we'll no longer be able to rely on having a massive talent advantage to offset our inexperience and lack of continuity. We may still be landing the best available players if we keep the same basic recruiting model, but the talent margin between, say, the 10th best recruit each year and a top-5 recruit is pretty massive on average. So if our best player is the #10 recruit (someone more like Jalen Johnson, Matthew Hurt, Frank Jackson) rather than a top-5 recruit (someone like Banchero, Zion, Tatum), we aren't going to be able to just out-talent opponents the way we have done in the one-and-done era.

In other words, top-5 talent offsets experience/continuity/maturity in ways that talent in the 11-20 range simply doesn't on average. So losing out on that top-5 talent means we'd need to make changes to how things are done to continue to succeed. Can the program do it? Sure. But it's a change that will affect our program more than any other program in the country, and thus our program would be the one facing the greatest risk.

[johnb]

Yes, but those one and dones will likely not be as obvious as the current one and dones (meaning more risk of miss), and probably not as good as the current one and dones. Not all one and done talent is the same. See Banchero vs Keels for example. Losing the guys like Banchero but getting guys like Keels would seem to be the worst of both worlds: you miss out on both the high-impact freshman and you also don't get the continuity of that next-tier guy staying multiple years.

I also don't agree with Duke being in an excellent position to adjust quickly. Mainly because we'd be in, by definition, the WORST position to adjust to the new rule. Because virtually every other program in the country would be largely unaffected by it (so they don't really have to adjust at all). We're the ones landing multiple no-doubt one-and-done guys each year. So we're the ones losing our top talent in that situation.

Can we adjust? Sure. But it will be a big adjustment, and likely a multi-year adjustment period unless we get REALLY lucky with recruiting. Because we'll no longer be able to rely on having a massive talent advantage to offset our inexperience and lack of continuity. We may still be landing the best available players if we keep the same basic recruiting model, but the talent margin between, say, the 10th best recruit each year and a top-5 recruit is pretty massive on average. So if our best player is the #10 recruit (someone more like Jalen Johnson, Matthew Hurt, Frank Jackson) rather than a top-5 recruit (someone like Banchero, Zion, Tatum), we aren't going to be able to just out-talent opponents the way we have done in the one-and-done era.

In other words, top-5 talent offsets experience/continuity/maturity in ways that talent in the 11-20 range simply doesn't on average. So losing out on that top-5 talent means we'd need to make changes to how things are done to continue to succeed. Can the program do it? Sure. But it's a change that will affect our program more than any other program in the country, and thus our program would be the one facing the greatest risk.

I guess we’ll see, but my hunch is that the coaching staff has been strategizing how to best take advantage of the changes. For at least a while, we’ll still be at the top of the recruiting food chain, and so we should still be able recruit a team as talented as anybody else.

Looking at it a different way, as it has stood, 23/25 top players go to college, and we get about 3 of those guys. If that drops to 10/25, we stand a reasonable chance of still getting 3 of those guys.

[CDu]

I guess we’ll see, but my hunch is that the coaching staff has been strategizing how to best take advantage of the changes. For at least a while, we’ll still be at the top of the recruiting food chain, and so we should still be able recruit a team as talented as anybody else.

I don't think there is any "taking advantage" of the rules changes. They would be, inherently, a blow to the college talent pool. And they would be a blow mainly to the talent pool at Duke.

Looking at it a different way, as it has stood, 23/25 top players go to college, and we get about 3 of those guys. If that drops to 10/25, we stand a reasonable chance of still getting 3 of those guys.

Yes, we would still stand a reasonable (I'd argue a very good) chance at getting 3 of those guys. But currently, ~1-2 of those 3 guys are high lottery picks each year. Now, we'd be talking about fringe 1st rounders. That's a huge reduction in our talent advantage. So unless those guys are now all staying multiple years, it's a net negative for us. Relying on top-5 freshmen is a functional strategy. Relying on freshmen in the 10-20 range is not.

So, again, if it comes to pass, we'll have to change our approach in ways other programs won't have to change. That doesn't mean we can't still succeed. But this rule would affect Duke much more than it would any other program.

[uh_no]

I don't think there is any "taking advantage" of the rules changes. They would be, inherently, a blow to the college talent pool. And they would be a blow mainly to the talent pool at Duke.

I'm not sure I'm convinced of this, at least relative to the rest of the country. The talent pool for a given recruiting class is what it is. There will always be a top 10 or 25 or whatever, and Duke will always target folks among those buckets. I don't see any reason why Duke shouldn't be able to recruit them as successfully as they do the top 10 or 25 or whatever today. The overall quality of the pool going up, down, or sideways should be orthogonal.

[Phredd3]

Because we'll no longer be able to rely on having a massive talent advantage to offset our inexperience and lack of continuity. We may still be landing the best available players if we keep the same basic recruiting model...

I guess I'm thinking that Scheyer and company are likely to be more flexible than you seem to be giving them credit for. Yes, we'd still likely be able to find the "near-miss" top talent. But I don't think the recruiting model would remain unchanged if the entire backdrop of college basketball changes. Scheyer himself comes from a background when OAD was not a thing (or at least was just getting started), and the championship team he captained as a player started two juniors and three seniors. He "grew up" (so to speak) in that system and helped morph it into what we have today. I don't think he's forgotten his roots, and I have every expectation that he knows how to develop less talent into a solid team concept.

Let me put it this way: I'd be happy to see him try.

[sagegrouse]

I don't think there is any "taking advantage" of the rules changes. They would be, inherently, a blow to the college talent pool. And they would be a blow mainly to the talent pool at Duke.



Yes, we would still stand a reasonable (I'd argue a very good) chance at getting 3 of those guys. But currently, ~1-2 of those 3 guys are high lottery picks each year. Now, we'd be talking about fringe 1st rounders. That's a huge reduction in our talent advantage. So unless those guys are now all staying multiple years, it's a net negative for us. Relying on top-5 freshmen is a functional strategy. Relying on freshmen in the 10-20 range is not.

So, again, if it comes to pass, we'll have to change our approach in ways other programs won't have to change. That doesn't mean we can't still succeed. But this rule would affect Duke much more than it would any other program.

I agree with CDu that this is a blow to our recruiting advantage. It took a few years, but we evolved an approach and rep that made us the #1 school for OAD athletes. It wasca somewhat mixed blessing because we were younger than other teams, but it truly was an advantage. Now we lose that advantage for the top 10-20 players in each age cohort. We have a lot of adjustment to make.

[CDu]

I guess I'm thinking that Scheyer and company are likely to be more flexible than you seem to be giving them credit for. Yes, we'd still likely be able to find the "near-miss" top talent. But I don't think the recruiting model would remain unchanged if the entire backdrop of college basketball changes. Scheyer himself comes from a background when OAD was not a thing (or at least was just getting started), and the championship team he captained as a player started two juniors and three seniors. He "grew up" (so to speak) in that system and helped morph it into what we have today. I don't think he's forgotten his roots, and I have every expectation that he knows how to develop less talent into a solid team concept.

Let me put it this way: I'd be happy to see him try.

To be clear, I'm not saying that we won't be able to adapt. I'm just saying that I don't think there is a reasonable argument that we are better positioned to handle this rules change than ANYONE else. Regardless of how good the staff is, we are inherently the worst-positioned program to handle this change, because we are largely the only ones whose recruiting will be heavily impacted by the change.

As for the end of your first paragraph, every current coach "grew up" in the non-one-and-done system. And most of them continue to coach/recruit in the non-one-and-done system. But Scheyer has basically zero coaching or recruiting experience of any sort in anything other than the one-and-done system. So while I admire your belief that he can excel in a non-one-and-done-heavy system, I think it's fair to say that it is blind faith to believe so.

Again, that doesn't mean we can't still succeed. It just means we'll need to adapt moreso than any other program will need to adapt. And we'll be doing it with a first-time coach who has only recruited in an era in which we were all-in on the one-and-done destination model. I certainly hope that Scheyer can adjust his recruiting strategy appropriately. But I think there's a lot more risk to Duke's success than some folks here realize (or are willing to admit).

[CDu]

I'm not sure I'm convinced of this, at least relative to the rest of the country. The talent pool for a given recruiting class is what it is. There will always be a top 10 or 25 or whatever, and Duke will always target folks among those buckets. I don't see any reason why Duke shouldn't be able to recruit them as successfully as they do the top 10 or 25 or whatever today. The overall quality of the pool going up, down, or sideways should be orthogonal.

That's not how talent is distributed though. If talent was linearly decreasing in recruiting ranking, your statement would hold. But marginal benefit of being one spot higher in the rankings is decreasing the further you go down the rankings list.

The talent dropoff from top-5 guys to the guys in the 10-20 range is much bigger on average than the dropoff from the top-10-20 to the top-20-30. This is true both in the player's overall talent level AND in probability of being good as freshmen. You take away the top-10, and the difference in talent between the new "top-5" (which is really #11-15) and the new "10-20" (really the #20-30) is much smaller.

To be clear: I have no doubt we'll be able to continue to recruit the most talented available players even after the rules change. But the marginal benefit of recruiting the most talented available players goes down dramatically when you remove the impact freshmen from the talent pool. Hence the need to adjust our strategy if that rule change occurs. Because if those impact freshmen are now going pro, it becomes more critical to stock your team with experienced talent. Because the impact freshmen are the ones who are able to offset the experience deficit, not the guys in the 10-20 range.

[Phredd3]

As for the end of your first paragraph, every current coach "grew up" in the non-one-and-done system. ... So while I admire your belief that he can excel in a non-one-and-done-heavy system, I think it's fair to say that it is blind faith to believe so.

Point taken overall that there is definitely risk. Heck, we haven't even seen Scheyer in a single game as head coach, yet, so any risk is probably inherently more risky. As for that particular conclusion, however, those other coaches were not playing for the GOAT and did not work for the GOAT as an assistant, with all his attendant philosophies from long before OAD was a glint in the NBA's eye.

I will admit to having faith. But I don't think this particular faith is entirely blind.

[UrinalCake]

It will certainly be a big shift in our recruiting strategy, and this change affects us more than any other program. But we're already going through a massive coaching shift and at this point we have no idea whether Jon is actually any good at coaching multiple elite OAD talents, or whether he would do better developing less talented multi-year guys. So it's too early to say whether this is a good or a bad thing. I agree that over the past several years we don't have a great track record with "next level" guys ranked below the elite OAD's. But we'll never know how those guys would have done without the OAD guys playing ahead of them, or how many of them would still have transfered away had they not been recruited over.

Duke has sold itself as a program to get guys to the NBA quickly, and the success of our OAD stars at the next level provides a feedback loop. That will change - we'll still be putting guys in the NBA and maintaining the Brotherhood but the recruiting pitch will adjust. As others have stated, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[johnb]

Just to continue the quibble.

I agree with the generalization that 2 top 10 (OAD)players are more immediately impactful than 4 players ranked 40-100, and that there is probably more of a talent difference between #5 and #15 than between #50 and #100. If most of the top 20 players don’t go to college, we lose a fractional edge.

Nevertheless, Duke is not simply the best at recruiting OAD’s (who aren’t actually a different species); Duke is the best at recruiting highly elite players whose academic record, personality, motivation, and expected basketball role fit our expectation. Given those parameters, my hunch is that we’ve gotten a large percentage of our ultimate targets over the last 20 years. Maybe half? More? No other school comes close, especially given the academic expectations for even the guys who are likely going pro after 1 year (we occasionally lose a terrific recruit to Kentucky, but they do have more overall recruiting latitude when it comes to academics). No reason to think we won’t still be able to do that, and no reason to think that, under the future framework, that an equivalent or larger percentage of our starters will stick around for a year or two.

We may not often see the individual brilliance of Kyrie or Zion or Jayson at Duke, but it’s useful to remember that the 3 of them combined to win a total of 6 NCAA games. I think we’ll be fine…

[roywhite]

What would/will a Paolo Banchero level prospect do if the proposed rule changes take effect?

Didn't Paolo get great value from his Duke experience -- great coaching, modern performance training, substantial NIL income, great TV exposure, connection to the Duke Basketball Brotherhood, high level competition and life/academic learning at a great University.

Or would he just take the quick path to the NBA and enter the Draft right out of high school?