Ok, we can use @dukedevilz stat...
Duke/UK played in 10 of the 16 regional finals....Thats impressive.
Well, Kansas and UConn played in 12 of the 16 regional finals, in that same span.
Maybe there's someting different we could use?
IU and UK fans. It's time.
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
Duke/UK played in 10 of the 16 regional finals....Thats impressive.
Well, Kansas and UConn played in 12 of the 16 regional finals, in that same span.
Maybe there's someting different we could use?
Devilz said there have been 16 OAD-heavy teams between Kentucky and Duke. Two won it all. 13%. The percentage of NCAA titles that UCLA’s won is 13%. They win it all at the same rate as the program with by far the most titles. That’s rare?
And don’t forget that some of these OAD teams were a few bad bounces away from winning it all or going to the final four. Something tells me you wouldn’t have been excited to see the Zion Duke team in your bracket. IIRC, 2014 Kentucky was a few plays away from a title. Etc…
Like devilz said, no coach in the world is taking five promising lower-rated recruits over five surefire first rounders. That’s all that needs to be said.
So now we wanna use (small)sample size as our argument? Ok.
Winning 2 of 16 NCAAT's, or 13%, is reasoning to be compared to UCLA? What about the other 14 ltournamnets? OAD failed in 87% of the tournaments, but we wanna call it more successful----and then compare that to UCLA?
And the entirity of this argument is based on----"because it was two teams, and when you count yp their 2 titles in 16 seasons, its comparable to UCLA winning 11 titles"---Or some dumb shit like that?
I could agree the OAD , WORKED. That it was successful. No doubt., But more successful that those who didn't go the OAD route?
No. The OAD experiment resulted in 2 titles in 16 tournaments. One apiece. I'd be willing to bet Duke and UK fans would trade that success for UCionns failures....
12 of 16? How are you coming about your numbers? 10 of those 16 OAD teams are coming from Kentucky, FWIW. The earliest Ketnucky OAD team was in 2010, while the earliest Duke OAD team was in 2015.
UConn made their first regional final this year since 2014, so I can only assume you meant UNC. And while UNC has had much success over the years, they have missed the regional finals 7 of the past 10 years. Kansas has missed the regional finals 6 out of the past 10 tournaments. Combined, UNC and KU have only made the regional finals 7 of the last 20 times (35%).
The point you might be overlooking is the fact that there's only 2 OAD factories. There are 50+ quality programs in college basketball. Naturally, I'd expect the combined effort of all the other schools to outweigh Duke/Kentucky because the odds are statistically in their favor by a wide margin.
Definitely a few bad bounces along the way.
I don't remember the Kentucky/WVU Elite 8 matchup very well, but Kentucky had John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins. Talent-wise, they were the far superior team, probably the most talented team in college basketball.
I think the '2019 Duke team was the most talented team in CBB that year. They had 2 1st Team All-Americans, just like '10 Kentucky, and were 3-0 against the 2 teams in the title game. They were beating MSU with 40 seconds to play in the game. Lost by a point.
The 2014 Kentucky team just as easily could have won the title. The 2015 Kentucky team had KAT and Devin Booker and WCS; they were arguably the best team this century. The 2018 Duke team barely, barely missed the Final Four. Duke-KU were tied in the final seconds of regulation and Grayson Allen had a shot at the buzzer that went around the rim twice before popping out. '2017 Kentucky did get some rough calls in the UNC matchup; and they lost the game at the buzzer to the eventual national champ. The 2019 Kentucky team lost to Auburn in OT.
Duke-Kentucky classes haven't been as impressive lately, IMO. The hs classes overall are weaker - and the 2 schools aren't brinigng in as many top 10 recruits as they were in prior years.
My basic point is this: Talent more often than not will trump player development
Maxey, Quickley, Richards, Juzang, Brooks, and Hagans won the SEC by 3 games before the tournament was canceled.
UK would have won. Zero doubt.
We started 0 for 30 from 3. Not hyperbole, and not exact, but pretty close.
Dude, I usually like your takes but this is ridiculous.
You can't judge both sides by a different standard. If a team built with 4 star vets won one out of every 8 national titles, no one in their right mind would call that failure.
And we all know how unpredictable basketball and especially the tourney can be. Two 1 seeds losing to 16 seeds in the last three tourneys? Look at the NBA. A playoff team will murder their opponent by 35, then lose to the same team by 40 a few nights later. Reverse a few unlucky bounces and the rate of OAD titles might be closer to 50%.
You're also not taking into account coaching. What would Roy, Wright, Self, Izzo, Few, Hurley, etc have done with Cal's OAD teams? One title? Who knows, but I doubt it.
Again, it comes down to this: are you taking five 4 star projects over five surefire first rounders? No, you're not.
Last edited:
99% of college coaches don't even want to attempt to try one-and-done, if they can't win big with juniors and seniors, they damn sure won't win anything with freshmen.
Bill Self, as good as he is, gave one-and-done a shot and eventually moved on from it.
But, I don't think coaches are holding kids back. Getting to the NBA is extremely hard and unless you're a first round pick, which is only 30 guys, you are really rolling the dice on your career. The Harrison Twins know this all too well.
You might as well stay in college and develop into a first rounder. That’s what those kids at Baylor, UVA, KU and 'Nova did.
Huh? 99% of college basketball coaches are literally taking lower rated recruits every year. What am I missing?
If your goal was to get kids to the NBA after 1 season, yeah, you would go out and try to get all top 25 recruits, but only one coach has that goal every year (Calipari). Coach K/Scheyer both went/go after one-and-done kids, but they still try to keep players in the program. Heck, they got Proctor and Filipowski back. That doesn't typically happen at UK.
Buuut, 99% of the programs out there don't care about feeding the NBA, so they bring in lower rated kids and develop them into great college players that might eventually make it to the NBA.
Villanova, uNC, UConn, Baylor, UVA and your very own KU, won titles doing it this way and until something changes, that’s the model that is going to keep winning titles.
Sure, talented one-and-done teams can out talent lesser teams a couple games in the NCAAT, but eventually they run into a team that is better at college basketball and they lose. That’s why duke and UK (and KU when they were doing it) are getting upset almost every year in the NCAAT.
I mean, I don't get how you can say what I quoted above, the opposite is what literally has been happening every year at every school not named UK or Duke. Most programs don't even recruit one-and-done kids, look it up. You can see who offered scholarships to every kid in every class very easily. Your statement can't be more wrong.
The reason duke and UK haven’t been as successful lately, is because the game changed in 2016. Since then, the teams that reached the FF and won titles, have all been veteran teams.
UK has really struggled and minus the FF a couple years ago, duke has struggled too.
Today's better 'teams' play more structured offenses, they spread the court and they are very disciplined. Young teams will never be sound enough to beat the better veteran teams when it counts.
Yeah, UK had a shot in '17 and '19 to reach the FF, but both of those teams had juniors and seniors.
That '17 team comes close to disproving my point, because the 3 best players were freshmen, but, just like so many times before and after, they lost to a veteran team that executed more when it counted. Heck, uNC even out executed UK when it came to paying off the refs 😜.
I'm taking the 4* kids. If I can sprinkle in a 5* or two, sure, but if I'm running a college basketball program, I want stability and you know what, 360 D1 coaches agree with me.
When you take 5 one-and-dones, you need to do it again the next year and guess what, most of those 5* kids are ranked that high only because they have 'future potential'. They have height, length and athletesism, but most aren't polished. Oh yeah, eventually they'll be good, but they'll be long gone from your program by that time.
Look at the teams that are winning titles and getting to the FF since 2016, see any one-and-dones? I don't.
KU used to play that game, Self changed course. Now he has two titles and a couple more FF's.
If you're going to be young, you better have at least one transcendent, or generational player, if not, you're just a farm team for the NBA.
I don't think you're thinking this one through. That's like saying a trailer rat chose his 300 lb wife over Megan Fox. 🤣
Gotta admit...I loved seeing Grayson Allen's career end like that. 😆
lol that meme for this response is pretty funny, actually.
One aspect of that game that sometimes gnaws at me, is we were up by 3 points with 40 seconds left and Wendell Carter (see link) air-balled a 5 foot hook shot. I mean, how is that even possible lol.
"Sprinkling in" a few 5 stars is no minor detail, because obviously you're referring to the best of the best like Zion, Davis, Durant, or guys just below that level. Like I said earlier, the ideal mix would be a bunch of vets that are great in college but not quite first round material (yet anyway), with a few elite freshmen. So you're agreeing with me.
The numbers speak for themselves with OAD teams. They succeed at a far higher rate on average than teams with lower-rated vets. Plus, it's silly to assume that because Calipari didn't win it all with a certain crew, that no one else could have. Or that Calipari himself couldn't have beaten the same team if they'd played again two days later.
As for no OAD-heavy teams winning in recent years, that's a combo of Duke/Kentucky bringing in lesser classes, the classes themselves being less talented at the top, and the unpredictability of the tourney. Plenty of those teams came up just short.
UK and Duke both would have had decent chances at a Final Four run in 2020. But, I didn't count either of those years as a OAD team as I would need an end result. Otherwise, we don't know really know if that OAD team was successful or not.
But, yes, a lot of bad breaks over the years.
Yeah...KU caught a few breaks at the end. It was like God wouldn't allow Allen to have the glory. 😆
That was a loaded Duke roster. Not sure how they weren't a 1 seed.
Trust me, Self didn't choose to move away from recruiting elite freshmen. If you followed his recruiting, you'd realize how far off the mark this is. He's whiffed on his top targets time and time again. Even before the FBI probe. But he's always gone after OADs.
The FBI probe pretty much killed any chance he had of landing big fish. He was lucky to land a top 75 player there for awhile. He's just now starting to hit on top targets at a decent rate again (Bidunga, Dickinson, etc).
Every coach in the country would take a top 10 kid if they could get him. Not every coach in the country can get top 10 kids. If coaches aren't recruiting top 10 kids it's because they know they can't get them. But to say that a coach prefers a kid ranked 60 over a kid ranked 5 is asinine to me.
Our starting 5 was legit. Bench was atrocious, though. I don't think we would have beaten Villanova, but it have been nice to have another Final Four banner.
Maybe God does hate Grayson and was like, "You know son, I think one title for you is enough."
Also, what gets left out of these arguments is that these OAD teams usually have plenty of 4 star vets on the bench. They just don't play over elite freshmen.
And look at all the experience Calipari had the last few years. He even had a NPOY. Compare his results to his teams full of OADs.
And look at all the experience Calipari had the last few years. He even had a NPOY. Compare his results to his teams full of OADs.
Yes. He plays to the strengths of his players. If he needs to adjust, he will.
I want to say he's made a change in the starting lineup sometime during ACC play every year we won a national title (i.e. Zoubek, Matt Jones, Chris Duhon). The 2014 Duke class was the first OAD class we brought in with Okafor, Tyus Jones, and Justise Winslow, (Grayson Allen was in that group, too). Seemed to stick after that. Think he may have patterned the need for perimeter shooting after he saw how much success Pitino had with it. There's always a need to evolve; if you don't evolve, you'll get left behind.
Not really. I think many would argue that you'd like to have a blend of talented youth and experience. And that's a fair point. Maybe if we only went after 2 OADs a year, instead of 4, we'd yield better results? There likely would have been fewer transfers. But, it's hard to complain when you've had 6 groups of OADs, 4 have made the Regional Finals, and 2 have made the Final Four.
The stat of the game from that matchup: Duke had 0 fast break points. None. That was our biggest strength. We didn't have particularly great half-court sets that year, but man, could we run. So, credit to Michigan State for completely derailing our transition game.
In 2020/21, Brandon Boston perfected the cinder block shot from 5'. I've never seen a guy miss so badly from such a short distance. He either airballed it, or he about shattered the backboard.
That guy was a projected lottery pick.
That team was never the same after the Zion injury.
They should have lost the 2 games prior to the MSU game too. They just weren't as explosive as they were earlier in the year.
Boston has been disappointing. Thought he would have been a top 5/10 pick (before his freshmen season started), but he fell to late in the 2nd round. Some of the basketball talents don't quite materialize.
Lucky with UCF, yes. But, we had a semi-comfortable lead against VT late in the game. We missed a few free throws, making it closer than it should have been. Reddish was out that game, too.
But yes, the Zion injury set us back. We had other injuries, as well. I think we only played 1 game after that injury where our full compliment of players were healthy.
WTF? Durant, Davis and Zion were generational players. You think all 5* rated kids are at that level??? Add Carmello Anthony to the list and that’s 4 total generational talents in the last 20 years.
Truth is, most 5* kids are rated that high because they have the potential to be good nba players, but not ready to star in college.
A prime example is Villanova's 2016 title team. Brunson and Bridges were 5* kids, but they stayed in college for 3 years. So did Divincenzo. They weren't good enough to go pro until they developed.
When is the last time you saw a one-and-done player in the FF? Here, I'll answer it for you… .2015.
There is a difference between a 5* one-and-done and a lower rated 5* kid. That’s what you aren't understanding.
You can go look at who offered each kid in each class, you rarely see KU listed with the 5* kids.
Self does recruit the top shelf 5* kids that are can't miss prospects, but those kids that aren't polished, haven't been getting offers from KU very often and I believe that is the right way to do it.
Taking one-and-done kids that are not polished, is a bad investment in my opinion. You only get them for one year, but by the time they are good enough to actually contribute, you already have 10 losses on the season.
Most coaches want kids they can develop. Why take a kid that is only going to be there one year and isn't polished enough to play in your system?
It has to be incredibly disruptive to your program when you have to replace most of your roster each year.
Look what’s happening to UK. Cal has been flying by the seat of his pants since he got here and without WWW and Antigua, he stunk up the recruiting trail.
Top 10 kids are usually very good, but they are still HS kids with nothing more than potential.
I'll avatar bet you that UK doesn't make it past the sweet 16 this season. Cal has more raw talent than everyone, but the team is too young and Cal stinks as a bench coach.
You up for the bet?
Agreed.
Cal is being exposed for what most already knew he was, which is a D- level bench coach that runs a 1980's offense.
He needs elite talent to overcome his awful coaching.
What if Cal were an elite Xs and Os coach? What would your expectation be for this team? I'd say it should be pretty high. I think expectations should be high anyway.
I don't have time to dig into it now, but he doesn't just go after the can't-miss guys. He casts a pretty wide net. And when he has landed a 5 star over the last several years, it's generally been one of the least polished ones (Cheick Diallo, MJ Rice, Bryce Thompson). Basically the leftovers after K, Calipari and others took their pick of the litter.
Also, a lot of the lower-rated guys who turned into great vets were discovered accidentally while the staff was recruiting higher-rated guys. They stumbled upon Frank Mason while recruiting one of his teammates.
