Potential Big Impact on OAD - New NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement

[Bluedog]

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?

Yes. (Not picking on Paolo, just stating facts for 95% of top recruits. Paolo certainly gained great value from his Duke experience, but hard to turn down an extra year of millions and kick-starting your NBA career earlier.)

[FastBreak]

Brendan Marks has an article up today discussing how big an impact to Duke this is. The discussion is implicit that high schoolers will be able to go straight to NBA.

He echoes point made earlier in this thread. Starting four freshman ranked #1, 2, 5 and 15 is very different than starting four that are ranked #6, 12, 29, 37.

I think logically hard to escape this is bad for Duke. Our massive edge in talent will be reduced. Not having a Zion or a Paolo on our team will significantly level the playing field. We will still get the best talent, but the talent just won't be so dramatically superior to the rest of the field anymore...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Brendan Marks has an article up today discussing how big an impact to Duke this is. The discussion is implicit that high schoolers will be able to go straight to NBA.

He echoes point made earlier in this thread. Starting four freshman ranked #1, 2, 5 and 15 is very different than starting four that are ranked #6, 12, 29, 37.

I think logically hard to escape this is bad for Duke. Our massive edge in talent will be reduced. Not having a Zion or a Paolo on our team will significantly level the playing field. We will still get the best talent, but the talent just won't be so dramatically superior to the rest of the field anymore...

Unless that next tier of talent is more likely to stay for 2 or 3 years.

[FastBreak]

Unless that next tier of talent is more likely to stay for 2 or 3 years.

By definition as we have seen, the talent has a major itch to get to the NBA and so any player that performs really well is unlikely to be around for another year.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Besides affecting enjoyment -- one way or the other, depending on your perspective -- of the college game, the rule change could affect enjoyment of the NBA. I become much more invested in watching our players in the NBA and even players form other colleges than when many of the top players never played in college, like it was in the prior era.

[CDu]

Brendan Marks has an article up today discussing how big an impact to Duke this is. The discussion is implicit that high schoolers will be able to go straight to NBA.

He echoes point made earlier in this thread. Starting four freshman ranked #1, 2, 5 and 15 is very different than starting four that are ranked #6, 12, 29, 37.

I think logically hard to escape this is bad for Duke. Our massive edge in talent will be reduced. Not having a Zion or a Paolo on our team will significantly level the playing field. We will still get the best talent, but the talent just won't be so dramatically superior to the rest of the field anymore...

Yep, this.

That isn't to say that it is necessarily the end of Duke as an elite program. Just that it will likely have a substantive impact either on our win total (if we stick with the same formula of branding as a one-and-done destination) or our coaching and recruiting strategy.

There is certainly a chance that Scheyer navigates this successfully (should the rule change happen). But if the rule does change, it will make Scheyer's job much more difficult. He would then not be able to rely on Duke's one-and-done brand supplying him with a massive talent advantage like we've done in the last ~decade. Those otherworldly talents are largely going to skip college again, meaning that getting the best available players provides a smaller talent benefit. Maybe this will lead to Duke finding enough 2-3 year guys to offset the loss of the elite talent. Maybe we'll hit the transfer market harder. But I don't think the strategy of recruiting the best available talent using the one-and-done branding will be a good approach to college success moving forward.

And to be clear: I think the proposed rule change is a good thing, as it gives players more choices. It just isn't a good thing for Duke, at least not in the short term. And possibly not in the long term either if the team can't figure out the right recruiting strategy shift.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

By definition as we have seen, the talent has a major itch to get to the NBA and so any player that performs really well is unlikely to be around for another year.

But the top tier talent will have already gone pro. I don't see how it doesn't portend greater longevity for Duke players if we are getting a lower caliber talent.

[CDu]

But the top tier talent will have already gone pro. I don't see how it doesn't portend greater longevity for Duke players if we are getting a lower caliber talent.

I think what FastBreak was saying is that it isn't just the top talent that goes one-and-done. Yes, the top talent will have already gone pro. But guys like Stanley, Steward, Keels, Jackson, Griffin, etc. have also gone pro after just one year. And they were definitely not "top talent." Moreover, a guy like Hurt went pro at the soonest reasonable possibility, even though he didn't realistically have a path to the NBA. Same with Wendell Moore; it just took him a third year to get there. Even Roach was, according to some Duke insiders, seriously considering going after this year.

Will there be a higher percentage of 2-3 year guys? Most likely. But that is more a function of those guys just not being nearly good enough to go as freshmen. So in terms of providing value to Duke, I'm not sure that's a meaningful gain.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think what FastBreak was saying is that it isn't just the top talent that goes one-and-done. Yes, the top talent will have already gone pro. But guys like Stanley, Steward, Keels, Jackson, Griffin, etc. have also gone pro after just one year. And they were definitely not "top talent." Moreover, a guy like Hurt went pro at the soonest reasonable possibility, even though he didn't realistically have a path to the NBA. Same with Wendell Moore; it just took him a third year to get there. Even Roach was, according to some Duke insiders, seriously considering going after this year.

Will there be a higher percentage of 2-3 year guys? Most likely. But that is more a function of those guys just not being nearly good enough to go as freshmen. So in terms of providing value to Duke, I'm not sure that's a meaningful gain.

But... Isn't that what many vocal people here have been advocating for? Finding the slightly lower level talent that will stay and provide continuity to the program?

[MChambers]

If the age limit is moved to 18 and there is no requirement to wait a year after high school, it will change recruiting, obviously. But in general I don't understand why that would hurt Duke. Guys like Mark Williams, Wendell Moore, and Trevor Keels came to Duke in recent years. They probably could not have gone directly to the NBA even under the proposed requirements. Duke will still get those kind of players.

The one thing that could be a problem is recruiting a player who does not appear to be likely to go to the NBA, only to discover that they have a great senior season and declare for the draft. Of course, that is the way recruiting used to be. Anyone remember that great freshman year Sean Livingston had at Duke? I didn't think so.

Of course, this problem will affect all the top programs.

[CDu]

But... Isn't that what many vocal people here have been advocating for? Finding the slightly lower level talent that will stay and provide continuity to the program?

Yes. But many other vocal people here have pointed out in response to those vocal people that they should be careful what they wish for. Because it's not a "slight" drop in talent that we are talking about. And that that drop in talent will either result in a less successful Duke (either because they don't change their strategy or they are not successful with their changed strategy) or a very different Duke.

Folks are perhaps thinking that only the "very different but still wildly successful Duke" is the exceedingly most likely outcome. And I don't think that's a safe assumption at all. There is a lot of risk that Duke will be facing if that rule change happens, moreso than any other program in the country.

[CDu]

If the age limit is moved to 18 and there is no requirement to wait a year after high school, it will change recruiting, obviously. But in general I don't understand why that would hurt Duke. Guys like Mark Williams, Wendell Moore, and Trevor Keels came to Duke in recent years. They probably could not have gone directly to the NBA even under the proposed requirements. Duke will still get those kind of players.

Yes, but those guys without the elite NBA talent next to them look a lot more like... well... 2020. Which wasn't as bad a team as the results suggest, but also wasn't what we like to see.

Of course, this problem will affect all the top programs.

It will inherently affect other top programs less than Duke. By virtue of the fact that Duke gets by far the most top-10 recruits of any program in the country.

[superdave]

Yes. But many other vocal people here have pointed out in response to those vocal people that they should be careful what they wish for. Because it's not a "slight" drop in talent that we are talking about. And that that drop in talent will either result in a less successful Duke (either because they don't change their strategy or they are not successful with their changed strategy) or a very different Duke.

Folks are perhaps thinking that only the "very different but still wildly successful Duke" is the exceedingly most likely outcome. And I don't think that's a safe assumption at all. There is a lot of risk that Duke will be facing if that rule change happens, moreso than any other program in the country.

Looking back at some old NBA Drafts at the high school kids:

1997, TMac went 9th.
1996 Kobe went 13 and Jermain O'Neal went 17.
1995, Kevin Garnett went 5th.

It looks like NBA scouts were largely getting things right.

Jonathan Bender went 4th in '99 and Kwame Brown went 1st in 2001. So there's some definite busts, but the consensus on both guys was good, although without a lot of data points. There's more summer leagues and travel, and high profile tournaments now, so my guess is NBA scouts will do better than they did with the Benders of the world.

As for college, you may be left with less talent, but more commitment, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If it led to Duke averaging 2.5 years on the team vs. 1.5 (or whatever it is now) would anyone object? If it led to more team ball than isolation play, would anyone object?

I guess you wont know until a few seasons in.

[FastBreak]

It will no doubt take some years for the dust to settle and figure out how we have adapted. It is absolutely conceivable that after a few years of seeing how they do in the NBA as 18 year olds, that the NBA doesn't draft them too highly and thus the value of getting the one year at Duke where they can train at a pro-level will make it worth it...

[UrinalCake]

...guys like Stanley, Steward, Keels, Jackson, Griffin, etc. have also gone pro after just one year. And they were definitely not "top talent." Moreover, a guy like Hurt went pro at the soonest reasonable possibility, even though he didn't realistically have a path to the NBA. Same with Wendell Moore; it just took him a third year to get there. Even Roach was, according to some Duke insiders, seriously considering going after this year.

The worst case scenario is that we continue to get guys like the above who aren't immediate impact players as freshmen but still have their sights set on leaving as soon as they see themselves on a second round draft board or get a verbal guarantee for an undrafted free agent contract. And those guys continue to be a revolving door while hindering the development of potential 2-4 year players. In that scenario we don't have experienced players but also don't have high-end talent which is the worst possible combination. I can live with building classes around guys like Hurt and Moore who at least give us a year or two as "upperclassmen" and put up all-ACC level performances, but the Steward and Keels type OAD's who would continue to exist after this proposed change could still burn us.

Make no mistake, every kid wants to go to the NBA, it's just that under the current system some seem to have their minds made up before they step foot on campus while others are willing to develop in college. Somehow Jon will need to identify more of the latter once the top 10 or so from every class are no longer in play. Just because we have lower ranked players doesn't necessarily mean they will stay multiple years. It's what we're all hoping for, but it's a big unknown.

[House P]

I don’t understand why so many in this thread are talking about the end of OAD. There would still be lots of OAD players after this change.

It probably depends on how willing NBA teams are to draft HS players ranked 15-25. If NBA teams are willing to use first round/high second round picks on HS players ranked in the 15-25 range, I suspect that few of these guys will end up in college. Therefore, most of the remaining OADs will be guys ranked outside the top 20-25 who had breakout Freshman years. Just glancing at the recent RSCI ranking, it seems that ~5 guys ranked 26-100 get drafted as OADs each year. If this is the case, then the number of OADs may drop from 20-30 per year to 5-10.

Of course, there are also OADs who don't get drafted, but I wonder how many of these will end up in college if they don't have to. If they are willing to go pro as undrafted players after their Freshman season, I suspect many of them would also be willing to go pro as undrafted players after their HS Senior year.

[camion]

Yes, but those guys without the elite NBA talent next to them look a lot more like... well... 2020. Which wasn't as bad a team as the results suggest, but also wasn't what we like to see.



It will inherently affect other top programs less than Duke. By virtue of the fact that Duke gets by far the most top-10 recruits of any program in the country.

I would think the Duke program would be affected more than others in two opposite ways.

1. Less of a talent gap (Duke assumed to be more talented).

2. Less of an experience gap (Duke assumed to be less experienced).

It will be interesting to see how these two effects play out from year to year.

[CDu]

As for college, you may be left with less talent, but more commitment, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If it led to Duke averaging 2.5 years on the team vs. 1.5 (or whatever it is now) would anyone object? If it led to more team ball than isolation play, would anyone object?

Ultimately, I suspect that it will come down to wins and losses as to how most view the change. If Duke adapts and keeps on winning, most everyone will be pleased. If Duke starts struggling more, the general tenor of the board will be one of lamenting the lack of talent. Sort of like how there was a growing level discontent cerca 2009, as Duke wasn't landing the best talent on the recruiting trails and wasn't making Final Fours with their veteran rosters.

Hopefully Scheyer and Duke can navigate the change well (if it even happens). And if they are successful, I suspect most will be pleased, as it will likely mean we have both a successful program AND one with more continuity. I just think there's more risk of it hurting Duke than folks have been acknowledging in this thread. Because trading off talent for continuity doesn't inherently mean similar success. Lots of teams have continuity, not a lot of teams have top-end talent.

[CDu]

I would think the Duke program would be affected more than others in two opposite ways.

1. Less of a talent gap (Duke assumed to be more talented).

2. Less of an experience gap (Duke assumed to be less experienced).

It will be interesting to see how these two effects play out from year to year.

Yes, these are the two tradeoffs. We will almost certainly see a substantial drop in talent. And we will most likely see an increase in continuity (probably not for a few years, but eventually).

Duke has been VERY reliant on having elite talent. Not just the best talent in the country, but literal NBA lottery pick talent at multiple spots. Game changing talent. That talent will be going away if the rule changes. And it is that talent that has defined our success (and the program's brand) over the last 7 years.

If that talent gap goes away, we hope that continuity will come. But with the transfer rules and the early entry still available, there is no guarantee that it will result in greater continuity in the short-term (or ever). Furthermore, there's no guarantee that continuity with less talent will still allow Duke to succeed. At that point, it will require a lot more of the coaching staff. And it remains to be seen how good Scheyer is in that regard.

The worst case scenario is that we continue to get guys like the above who aren't immediate impact players as freshmen but still have their sights set on leaving as soon as they see themselves on a second round draft board or get a verbal guarantee for an undrafted free agent contract. And those guys continue to be a revolving door while hindering the development of potential 2-4 year players. In that scenario we don't have experienced players but also don't have high-end talent which is the worst possible combination. I can live with building classes around guys like Hurt and Moore who at least give us a year or two as "upperclassmen" and put up all-ACC level performances, but the Steward and Keels type OAD's who would continue to exist after this proposed change could still burn us.

Make no mistake, every kid wants to go to the NBA, it's just that under the current system some seem to have their minds made up before they step foot on campus while others are willing to develop in college. Somehow Jon will need to identify more of the latter once the top 10 or so from every class are no longer in play. Just because we have lower ranked players doesn't necessarily mean they will stay multiple years. It's what we're all hoping for, but it's a big unknown.

This is well said. It essentially gets at the issue. And worth noting that Hurt and Moore occupied that space of "okay guys for a year or two" before becoming stars for their last year. It's a really tricky thread to needle to get enough of those guys to stay for 2-3 years while also having enough star-level players year to year. The 2020 team was great because Carey was a college superstar as a freshman. But he'd likely go pro without the one-and-done rule. The 2021 team was mediocre, and that was WITH Hurt as a superstar. When you can't fall back on recruiting to give you game-changing talent, it magnifies the impact of misses in that next tier of recruiting.

That's not to say that Scheyer can't manage it. Just that it is a real threat to the success of the program given that it will take away the thing that our program has built its entire brand on over the past decade or so.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Looking back at some old NBA Drafts at the high school kids:

1997, TMac went 9th.
1996 Kobe went 13 and Jermain O'Neal went 17.
1995, Kevin Garnett went 5th.

It looks like NBA scouts were largely getting things right.

Jonathan Bender went 4th in '99 and Kwame Brown went 1st in 2001. So there's some definite busts, but the consensus on both guys was good, although without a lot of data points. There's more summer leagues and travel, and high profile tournaments now, so my guess is NBA scouts will do better than they did with the Benders of the world.

As for college, you may be left with less talent, but more commitment, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If it led to Duke averaging 2.5 years on the team vs. 1.5 (or whatever it is now) would anyone object? If it led to more team ball than isolation play, would anyone object?

I guess you wont know until a few seasons in.

The impression I get is that scouting high schoolers is MUCH more accurate now than 25 years ago. There's such an abundance of availabile film on players, and everyone plays top tier competition in AAU and other select leagues. You aren't just stuck with a 3 minute highlight reel and stats from a tiny high school conference.