One and done heavy vs 3-4 year heavy teams historically

RockChalk82

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2019
871
681
93
Who’s done best since this started in the 90’s?

I look at Michigan 92 and 93 up through current Kentucky, Memphis and Duke squads. Even some KU teams.

then compare that with your Michigan State’s, your Villanova, etc teams.

then you have your “ tweeners” like 2015 Kentucky, 2012 Kentucky and 2015 Duke.

be curious breakdown of natties vs league titles vs wins, etc. in comparing heavy freshman blue chip teams vs more veteran laden. And in between.
 

JimboBBN

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2016
10,374
12,963
113
The Bluegrass State
Team
Kentucky
I think the "tweeners" so to speak will always have the best results. Most talent, at least elite talent, as well as experience and upperclassman. That has been the formula for success for quite some time now.

You will always have your teams like 22 KU or 14 Kentucky that are extremes on both sides (lots of experience, no top talent or vice versa) and have success, but it is regularly not the case.
 

Kevin Bryan

Moderator
Moderator
Apr 30, 2011
17,146
19,005
113
Difficult to make a comparison overall, imo, simply because there have been so few freshman dominated teams historically. I bet @dukedevilz has some stats stashed away somewhere on this though. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84

RockChalk82

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2019
871
681
93
I think the "tweeners" so to speak will always have the best results. Most talent, at least elite talent, as well as experience and upperclassman. That has been the formula for success for quite some time now.

You will always have your teams like 22 KU or 14 Kentucky that are extremes on both sides (lots of experience, no top talent or vice versa) and have success, but it is regularly not the case.

I just look at

2005 UNC
2008 kansas
2009 UNC
2016 nova
2017 unc
2018 nova
2019 uva
2021 Baylor
2022 ku

And see so much experience on those teams. And am harder pressed to even find as many tweezers in those times.

The uconn teams had their share of one and domes but always had a lot of upper classmen too

2015 duke is your ultimate tweener natty team.

2012 Kentucky is your one and done natty team.
 

ExitFlagger

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
10,801
7,236
113
Team
Kansas
Seems clear that it’s the teams with 1-2 elite freshmen surrounded by grown men experience who know their roles.
Yep. All you need is a couple of the top 5 or so freshmen in the country (preferably at least one generational talent) and a bunch of top 30-100 juniors and seniors who are just shy of NBA material (and they know it).

Simple!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
8,962
11,606
113
Difficult to make a comparison overall, imo, simply because there have been so few freshman dominated teams historically. I bet @dukedevilz has some stats stashed away somewhere on this though. 😂

I just look at

2005 UNC
2008 kansas
2009 UNC
2016 nova
2017 unc
2018 nova
2019 uva
2021 Baylor
2022 ku

And see so much experience on those teams. And am harder pressed to even find as many tweezers in those times.

The uconn teams had their share of one and domes but always had a lot of upper classmen too

2015 duke is your ultimate tweener natty team.

2012 Kentucky is your one and done natty team.

OAD laden teams are better. It's a silly comparison. It's not even close.

10 of the 14 Duke/Kentucky OAD teams made the regional finals. Two of those fourteen squads won a national title. I don't have to run the numbers to know that it's not close. I can know without looking that 71% of junior-senior led teams (even if you only take top 50 programs) aren't making the regional finals. 14% of those junior-senior laden teams aren't winning national titles.

People take a very backwards, myopic approach to compare the two. A lot of people will say, "Freshmen teams don't do well. 2012 and 2015 are the only years where a OAD team won it all." There are essentially two OAD factories. So, we're comparing Duke and Kentucky every year to the #1 and #2 teams led by upperclassmen. It's a bad comparison because just about EVERYBODY ELSE is more often than not relying on upperclassmen. Take Villanova, for example. Yes, Villanova had two wonderful seasons in 2016 and 2018. But, you know what else? They also failed to make it out of the first weekend 8 times between 2010-2019.

Of course the #1 junior-senior led team in your average year is going to be better than Kentucky or Duke. There are some 50+ decent programs that are led by juniors and seniors. And only two that are led by freshmen. When you have 50+ options, your odds are obviously exceptionally higher.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
30,106
13,955
113
OAD laden teams are better. It's a silly comparison. It's not even close.

10 of the 14 Duke/Kentucky OAD teams made the regional finals. Two of those fourteen squads won a national title. I don't have to run the numbers to know that it's not close. I can know without looking that 71% of junior-senior led teams (even if you only take top 50 programs) aren't making the regional finals. 14% of those junior-senior laden teams aren't winning national titles.

People take a very backwards, myopic approach to compare the two. A lot of people will say, "Freshmen teams don't do well. 2012 and 2015 are the only years where a OAD team won it all." There are essentially two OAD factories. So, we're comparing Duke and Kentucky every year to the #1 and #2 teams led by upperclassmen. It's a bad comparison because just about EVERYBODY ELSE is more often than not relying on upperclassmen. Take Villanova, for example. Yes, Villanova had two wonderful seasons in 2016 and 2018. But, you know what else? They also failed to make it out of the first weekend 8 times between 2010-2019.

Of course the #1 junior-senior led team in your average year is going to be better than Kentucky or Duke. There are some 50+ decent programs that are led by juniors and seniors. And only two that are led by freshmen. When you have 50+ options, your odds are obviously exceptionally higher.

This is very well said.

It’s like when people talk about how there are 10 three stars or lower drafted in the NFL first round. Yeah, well there are thousands of high school recruits each year who are 3 stars or lower. And there are only 25-30 who are 5 stars and 10-15 of those 5 stars get drafted in a high round.

It’s not even close.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
8,962
11,606
113
This is very well said.

It’s like when people talk about how there are 10 three stars or lower drafted in the NFL first round. Yeah, well there are thousands of high school recruits each year who are 3 stars or lower. And there are only 25-30 who are 5 stars and 10-15 of those 5 stars get drafted in a high round.

It’s not even close.

Exactly. And I do like your NFL Draft comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84

RockChalk82

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2019
871
681
93
OAD laden teams are better. It's a silly comparison. It's not even close.

10 of the 14 Duke/Kentucky OAD teams made the regional finals. Two of those fourteen squads won a national title. I don't have to run the numbers to know that it's not close. I can know without looking that 71% of junior-senior led teams (even if you only take top 50 programs) aren't making the regional finals. 14% of those junior-senior laden teams aren't winning national titles.

People take a very backwards, myopic approach to compare the two. A lot of people will say, "Freshmen teams don't do well. 2012 and 2015 are the only years where a OAD team won it all." There are essentially two OAD factories. So, we're comparing Duke and Kentucky every year to the #1 and #2 teams led by upperclassmen. It's a bad comparison because just about EVERYBODY ELSE is more often than not relying on upperclassmen. Take Villanova, for example. Yes, Villanova had two wonderful seasons in 2016 and 2018. But, you know what else? They also failed to make it out of the first weekend 8 times between 2010-2019.

Of course the #1 junior-senior led team in your average year is going to be better than Kentucky or Duke. There are some 50+ decent programs that are led by juniors and seniors. And only two that are led by freshmen. When you have 50+ options, your odds are obviously exceptionally higher.

but look at all those national title teams I laid out above. Not OAD heavy teams at all.
 

boilerzz

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2002
7,539
8,415
113
Team
Purdue
but look at all those national title teams I laid out above. Not OAD heavy teams at all.
Because the pool of those teams is much larger.

That’s like saying if you walk into a party full of college girls and only 2 of the are full on sluts while all the others are looking for more but not total prudes (but you don’t know which is which), you will score with the latter much more often. Of course you will because you are much more likely to hit on one of them. But if you found that slut first……
 

FaithPlusOne

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 18, 2017
2,451
4,737
113
Because the pool of those teams is much larger.

That’s like saying if you walk into a party full of college girls and only 2 of the are full on sluts while all the others are looking for more but not total prudes (but you don’t know which is which), you will score with the latter much more often. Of course you will because you are much more likely to hit on one of them. But if you found that slut first……
You can reduce the pool by picking out the types of programs that get the “fringe NBA” players with the occasional one-and-done talent. It’s not fair to compare the Duke and Kentucky programs to a senior-led Ga Tech or Mississippi State because the talent gap is too big. I think it’s more fair to compare them to the UNC, Kansas, and Nova’s of the world who get a smattering of both. You could throw some others in there as well. The question isn’t whether 3* seniors are going to be better than one and done talent. It’s whether the one and some teams are better than the really strong 4* rosters with a few 5* guys thrown in. That’s the alternative argument.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
8,962
11,606
113
but look at all those national title teams I laid out above. Not OAD heavy teams at all.

Like I said, if the bulk of teams are relying on juniors and seniors, of course the best junior-senior laden team in your average year is going to be better than Duke and Kentucky. The odds are in your favor.

But, if only two power schools relied on juniors-seniors, how many titles do you think they'd have? Not many. Simply put, the average team with 3+ OAD is significantly better than your average team with 4+ junior/seniors in the starting lineup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

Random UK Fan

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2018
9,042
17,472
113
Yep. All you need is a couple of the top 5 or so freshmen in the country (preferably at least one generational talent) and a bunch of top 30-100 juniors and seniors who are just shy of NBA material (and they know it).

Simple!
I think this is how UK is shaping up this off-season, with the exception of the generational talent being the senior Tshweibe. We’ve got two 5* freshman coming in that are very talented at their position, and a few returnees that are overseas quality in Collins, Toppin and Brooks. More-talented teams were put on the floor and ended up congratulating the eventual national champion too, so . . . we’ll see.
 

JimboBBN

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2016
10,374
12,963
113
The Bluegrass State
Team
Kentucky
I just look at

2005 UNC
2008 kansas
2009 UNC
2016 nova
2017 unc
2018 nova
2019 uva
2021 Baylor
2022 ku

And see so much experience on those teams. And am harder pressed to even find as many tweezers in those times.

The uconn teams had their share of one and domes but always had a lot of upper classmen too

2015 duke is your ultimate tweener natty team.

2012 Kentucky is your one and done natty team.
Didn't most of those teams have NBA players, though? Even if they weren't one and done, most of those teams were pretty talented.
 

ExitFlagger

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
10,801
7,236
113
Team
Kansas
OAD laden teams are better. It's a silly comparison. It's not even close.

10 of the 14 Duke/Kentucky OAD teams made the regional finals. Two of those fourteen squads won a national title. I don't have to run the numbers to know that it's not close. I can know without looking that 71% of junior-senior led teams (even if you only take top 50 programs) aren't making the regional finals. 14% of those junior-senior laden teams aren't winning national titles.

People take a very backwards, myopic approach to compare the two. A lot of people will say, "Freshmen teams don't do well. 2012 and 2015 are the only years where a OAD team won it all." There are essentially two OAD factories. So, we're comparing Duke and Kentucky every year to the #1 and #2 teams led by upperclassmen. It's a bad comparison because just about EVERYBODY ELSE is more often than not relying on upperclassmen. Take Villanova, for example. Yes, Villanova had two wonderful seasons in 2016 and 2018. But, you know what else? They also failed to make it out of the first weekend 8 times between 2010-2019.

Of course the #1 junior-senior led team in your average year is going to be better than Kentucky or Duke. There are some 50+ decent programs that are led by juniors and seniors. And only two that are led by freshmen. When you have 50+ options, your odds are obviously exceptionally higher.
One thing that IS true is that if Duke and Kentucky had a bit more continuity, by mixing in a few more of the top 3 and 4 year players, they'd have more final fours and championships in the OAD era. And that's something that would be easily accomplished. They've each had essentially their pick of the litter. And their strategy has been to load up with as many OADs as possible every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random UK Fan

RockChalk82

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2019
871
681
93
Didn't most of those teams have NBA players, though? Even if they weren't one and done, most of those teams were pretty talented.

These teams were not reliant on freshman leaving for nba the following year tho. By production, etc
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
8,962
11,606
113
One thing that IS true is that if Duke and Kentucky had a bit more continuity, by mixing in a few more of the top 3 and 4 year players, they'd have more final fours and championships in the OAD era. And that's something that would be easily accomplished. They've each had essentially their pick of the litter. And their strategy has been to load up with as many OADs as possible every year.

That is probably true. A lot of our classes have 4 OADs. So it's basically hit the reset button each year. And the 4-star recruits often get frustrated, always being recruited over, and transfer out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExitFlagger

lurkeraspect84

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2014
40,032
43,771
113
Memphis
Team
Kentucky
That is probably true. A lot of our classes have 4 OADs. So it's basically hit the reset button each year. And the 4-star recruits often get frustrated, always being recruited over, and transfer out.
Duke has clearly taken over the OAD title. However, your class coming in will be uber talented.

It does take a special kind of coach to handle that much turnover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random UK Fan

sdave

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2005
9,860
3,326
113
Goleta
Who’s done best since this started in the 90’s?

I look at Michigan 92 and 93 up through current Kentucky, Memphis and Duke squads. Even some KU teams.

then compare that with your Michigan State’s, your Villanova, etc teams.

then you have your “ tweeners” like 2015 Kentucky, 2012 Kentucky and 2015 Duke.

be curious breakdown of natties vs league titles vs wins, etc. in comparing heavy freshman blue chip teams vs more veteran laden. And in between.

Fab five, Webber stayed 2 years. Rose and Howard stayed 3 years. The rest 4 years. It is a stretch to call them 1and done teams.