- Messages
- 15,702
I literally don't give a ****.
What I care about is that a sanctimonious cheater got sent the **** out.
**** him & **** dook.
ACC Discussion 2021-22
- Thread starter slugboy
- Start date
What I care about is that a sanctimonious cheater got sent the **** out.
**** him & **** dook.
- Messages
- 9,874
- Location
- Oriental, NC
- Messages
- 9,874
- Location
- Oriental, NC
It will be intereesting to see who jumps ship at Duke. Banchero is certain to be a lottery pick. I will not be surprised if Keels, Griffin, and Williams also leave for the draft. Moore will be a senior next year with two years to play. Roach is more of a question mark.
But, it is possible all of those guys will be gone.
But, it is possible all of those guys will be gone.
g0lftime
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,892
Three 5* already committed for next season. Scheyer seems to be doing okay. The one and done model can only take a team so far even with all that talent. Missed FT's are tournament killers.
MtnWasp
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 978
Duke Was a legit National Championship Contender this season. They had tremendous individual talent across the board and had great size and strength across their lineup. But they were one on one players. They had great individual talent, enough to win the whole deal, but they did not play great team basketball. It was all about match-up exploitation on offense (an NBA approach). They were not the inspired defenders of Duke teams of days gone by.
I wonder what the future is of this one and done model being perpetrated most purely by Duke and Kentucky, but also Auburn, Arizona, et. al.?
On one hand, it seems to be the most efficient model to maintain and perpetuate recruiting success. Get the talent that would have been drafted anyway if it were not for the NBA one-and-done rule, then establish your program as the surest way to a high draft status (which was high anyway). For the player, it is the fun and safe way to spend a year before being draft eligible.
But the on the court results seem riddled with inconsistency from year to year. The one-and-done model seems to have demonstrated that it is a less efficient and consistent way to build a winning team as the players are immature and have their minds on their own draft status. There are lots of examples of the teams simply not meshing very well.
Do we continue to see the top programs trying to horde the one-and-dones and ride individual physical talent to a championship or do we see the likes of Duke and Kentucky back-off and try mix-in and balance the draftable talent with mature and team oriented players?
I wonder what the future is of this one and done model being perpetrated most purely by Duke and Kentucky, but also Auburn, Arizona, et. al.?
On one hand, it seems to be the most efficient model to maintain and perpetuate recruiting success. Get the talent that would have been drafted anyway if it were not for the NBA one-and-done rule, then establish your program as the surest way to a high draft status (which was high anyway). For the player, it is the fun and safe way to spend a year before being draft eligible.
But the on the court results seem riddled with inconsistency from year to year. The one-and-done model seems to have demonstrated that it is a less efficient and consistent way to build a winning team as the players are immature and have their minds on their own draft status. There are lots of examples of the teams simply not meshing very well.
Do we continue to see the top programs trying to horde the one-and-dones and ride individual physical talent to a championship or do we see the likes of Duke and Kentucky back-off and try mix-in and balance the draftable talent with mature and team oriented players?
- Messages
- 9,874
- Location
- Oriental, NC
Neither UNC or Kansas seem to have any one & done players. Kansas has several 4* recruits, but none got much playing time.
YlJacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,254
You can throw Villanova in there too
I am sure all of those programs would have taken Bancerro but they were not dependent on him
lauraee
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,464
Except for Nova the rest of the final four are all egregious perennial cheaters....
That said, my most wished for outcome was to see Ratface lose to uncheats. I'm quite happy.
Wrecked
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 580
Very good analysis! I loved last night because K sold his principals regarding one and dones awhile back for his own personal glory. Im not going to go rehash all they hypocrisy and sanctimonis crap that leaks out of that pit of Satan known as Cameron, but it was glorious to watch. That loss will eat at him forever. If you look at the UNC and Duke programs over the 41 years that K has been at Duke , UNC has matched them in every category but ACC titles, so you could argue K still didn't build the dominant program in the state. It would have been interesting if K had stuck to his principals the way Gary Williams did and compare the results.
MtnWasp
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 978
The thinking behind the one-and-done philosophy is pretty simple to figure: Getting the biggest, most athletic and skilled players available means that they can score at a good percentage even when guarded. Having players that can go out and get buckets even when they are well guarded would seem to trump all other considerations. It makes up for a lot for uncertainties. It makes it easy on the coach, especially on the offensive end.
But there are two problems with this:
1. There is another way to shoot a good percentage. The other way to achieve a good shooting percentage is via team concepts to get guys open shots, which is enhanced by mature and savvy players.
2. Because the dominating talents are quick to move on to the pros, there is no time to develop team concepts, to make up for the inevitability of youthful mistakes and the limitations presented by immaturity. There seems to be a threshold over which too many one-and-dones on one squad implodes any ability to achieve continuity. Every year is another rebuild. Recent Kentucky teams are an example of this. Calipari likes dominating defensive teams, but defense is not only physical, it is mental too and his young teams have had trouble getting it together on a consistent basis.
Lack of continuity and chronically counting on young players (even talented ones) runs enhanced risk for team implosion.
The end result is that experience and scheme have been shown to be effective counters to dominating but young talent. Of course, having both dominating talent AND experience would be best, but that has proven to be problematic in this day and age.
The institution of the one and done rule for the NBA draft may have come about for the same reasons. NBA teams were getting burned by taking the top high school talent and those children were not ready to handle the money and the NBA grind. The NBA teams were out the substantial guaranteed contract money when the kids didn't pan out, despite their physical tools.
At what point do the likes of Duke and Kentucky learn the same lesson as the NBA and learn that the likes of Zion Williamson may not be worth all the mess and that they can win games without all the B.S. involved in getting such players on campus for one season? Or do such programs have such a well established network that it would be difficult to shut it down?
But there are two problems with this:
1. There is another way to shoot a good percentage. The other way to achieve a good shooting percentage is via team concepts to get guys open shots, which is enhanced by mature and savvy players.
2. Because the dominating talents are quick to move on to the pros, there is no time to develop team concepts, to make up for the inevitability of youthful mistakes and the limitations presented by immaturity. There seems to be a threshold over which too many one-and-dones on one squad implodes any ability to achieve continuity. Every year is another rebuild. Recent Kentucky teams are an example of this. Calipari likes dominating defensive teams, but defense is not only physical, it is mental too and his young teams have had trouble getting it together on a consistent basis.
Lack of continuity and chronically counting on young players (even talented ones) runs enhanced risk for team implosion.
The end result is that experience and scheme have been shown to be effective counters to dominating but young talent. Of course, having both dominating talent AND experience would be best, but that has proven to be problematic in this day and age.
The institution of the one and done rule for the NBA draft may have come about for the same reasons. NBA teams were getting burned by taking the top high school talent and those children were not ready to handle the money and the NBA grind. The NBA teams were out the substantial guaranteed contract money when the kids didn't pan out, despite their physical tools.
At what point do the likes of Duke and Kentucky learn the same lesson as the NBA and learn that the likes of Zion Williamson may not be worth all the mess and that they can win games without all the B.S. involved in getting such players on campus for one season? Or do such programs have such a well established network that it would be difficult to shut it down?
lv20gt
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,580
Well Williams went out going 8 straight years not advancing past the first weekend of the NCAAT and missing the NCAAT entirely half those years.
I would consider the switch to a one and done model to start in the 2013 year with Jabari Parker who I think they viewed as the first for sure one and done that had come there.
In those 9 years, Duke went to the NCAAT 7/8 times, had one championship, one other final four, two other elite eights. Finished T-2 in conference the year there was no NCAAT.
I know which I consider to be the better result.
Anyways, I don't think K wanted one and dones. I think he wanted top talent, and he wanted top talent long before one and dones became the norm. I think he knew the risks of having so much inexperience and you can point to times it showed, but there wasn't the option to get the top talent and get them to stay 3-4 years like there was before. We found that out first hand. I wouldn't say he sold his principals but rather adapted to the changing landscape. It's not like one and dones are morally wrong. They just come with downsides that a lot of coaches don't like. Kind of how Pastner preaches get old stay old, but he would have taken Jabari Smith instantly if he wanted to come here.
What K did was probably the surest way to guarantee year over year high levels of success, because he could reliably, as much as anyone can at least, replace the pieces year over year which is the downside of one and dones. And while one and dones have drawbacks, there any number of examples of non one and done players leaving early that brought those same downsides. I think ideally he'd go back to having guys like Reddick and Sheldon Williams staying 4 years, but in the landscape that college basketball has become I don't think you can rely on that.
MtnWasp
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 978
K was winning at a high level before turning to the one-and-dones. Did he project to really need them or did he, as you say, follow his nose to the best players and subordinate consideration of all the other garbage that went along with them (for instance, having photos Zion Williamson's house scattered all over the internet and having a first round pick last year leave the team in the middle of the season)?
Do we think Mark Few will do the same thing? Will he start turning to the one and dones now that he has the rep or will he continue to continue to do what he has been doing?
Do we think Mark Few will do the same thing? Will he start turning to the one and dones now that he has the rep or will he continue to continue to do what he has been doing?
- Messages
- 9,874
- Location
- Oriental, NC
Does he get drafted? Not even honorable mention for All-ACC.
- Messages
- 5,850
That is a big hit for Syracuse, I know they were really hoping to convince him to stay.
That means they are losing 2/3 of their scoring and over 70% of their made threes.
They return Edwards who should be one of the best bigs in the conference and Girard - who tends to be either really good or really bad, but I'm not sure where scoring comes from on that team.
Hopefully Benny Williams can make a big jump but he was largely a non-entity as a FR.
I'm guessing Judah Mintz will be given the ball in his hands. They have Torrence but he is not really a scorer.
Just like everyone else they are going to need to hit the portal pretty hard.
That means they are losing 2/3 of their scoring and over 70% of their made threes.
They return Edwards who should be one of the best bigs in the conference and Girard - who tends to be either really good or really bad, but I'm not sure where scoring comes from on that team.
Hopefully Benny Williams can make a big jump but he was largely a non-entity as a FR.
I'm guessing Judah Mintz will be given the ball in his hands. They have Torrence but he is not really a scorer.
Just like everyone else they are going to need to hit the portal pretty hard.
- Messages
- 9,874
- Location
- Oriental, NC
I wonder if this is a hint about Boeheim's status. Both his kids have graduated and Swider is leaving. As you pointed out, there is really no one left with scoring potential.
Edwards would get a lot of interest in the portal and could probably fit it nicely with any number of blue blood teams. But he is a rising senior. With Anselm in the portal and Sidibe graduating (could he get a waiver & come back?) Edwards is almost the entire frontcourt.
- Messages
- 19,528
This is as good of a summary as any. The only thing I'd add here is that Girard finally gets to move to the 2. He was a lot more effective when he didn't have to handle the ball exclusively.
It's not a hint. Boeheim has been profuse about his intent to coach the incoming class and said he's coming back next year. The idea of leaving after the only losing season of his career, an embarrassing one with his kids, is going to motivate him more to stay true to his word and come back.
Sidibe and Anselem should move on. No reason to stick around for 10 min. max per game collectively. Neither are ready to be ACC contributors. Sidibe's knees can't hold up. Edwards could in theory play 2 more years if he wants to take the Covid year.
Good rundown. I can't see him leaving on a losing note. He'll make sure they have a good foundation going forward before he bows out. He'll be able to gauge whether the roster's a good one or not.
If we know anything about Boeheim, we know he knows how to pick a winner.
- Messages
- 9,874
- Location
- Oriental, NC
In an interview this weekend Dawn Staley said the mindset for PG is entirely different from the SG.