For anyone tired of arguing about internet rumors regarding the future of VT's basketball coach, here's something else to consider as the NCAA tournament winds down.
Is the use of "one and done" players on route to the NBA an effective NCAA tournament strategy? The attached article article provides a fairly thorough treatment of the subject, and provides data on the teams who use that strategy, and the teams who don't.
Duke and Kentucky have both made use of this strategy, and Duke went "all in" on it this year, according to the author. Is it a good long-term strategy for a team, or does it disrupt the momentum? Is it a core strategy, or a gap filler?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
That's the beauty of sports and having different teams. Everyone can choose what they believe will work best for them. If it's Kaintuck using one-and-down to make a run, so be it. If it's Zaga using guys for 4-5 years with red-shirts, so be it. It's not a one-size-fits-all, and that's the beauty of the tournament.
I agree with this. Clearly works for Kentucky.
FYI The article is paywalled, for me at least. Maybe it's because I use adblockers.
As far as the discussion around one and done teams in March goes the only one and done heavy team I can recall winning it all was Kentucky in 2012. You could make an argument for the 2015 Duke team as well, but they had more upperclassmen contributing.
It's probably because you use adblockers. Maybe that's why someone gave me a negative vote?
Another way to get to the article might be to google "do one and dones succeed in March". That might get you past it.
Sorry, I forgot they did that.
1 - IMHO there shouldn't be a 1 and done. Let them go pro if they are ready.
2 - I'm all for bringing any player to VT if he makes us better and increases our chances of winning a Natty
I don't like one and dones. It's pretty damn special to have 4+ year guys like 5, Med, and Ty.
Plus recycling one and dones every year can only be done for the very top programs, whose goal is to win the national title (Duke and Kentucky) because smaller schools can't attract multiple one and dones. And the track record of those schools is not that great. I think guys like Coach K and Calipari have just reached the point where they don't even want to actively coach that much so they just get stars and let them play. If you want 4 year players, it takes a lot of work to develop them.
I bet they just roll a couple basketball balls on to the practice court as tell the guys to hoop it up.
I bet they don't recruit either. Just send a check yes or no note to Zion.
/s
YOU!
FTFY
Back-to-back-to-back Gold medals in the last 3 Olympics for Coach K shows he doesn't actively coach...
/s
Don't get me wrong, Coach K is one of the best ever coaches in any sport. But it's less work to coach one and dones. This is because (a) you don't have to find lesser known recruits to stay for 4 years because guys like Zion will go to Duke. And (b) you don't have to do all the work to develop them over 4 years. When you're older and have an amazing job that you're beloved at, that could be more appealing. Maybe i'm thinking backwards, but it's just my opinion
One and done's only consider two types of schools 1. Blue Bloods (Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc.) and 2. Schools that will pay them 6 figures to go there for a year (Arizona, Louisville, Auburn, Maryland, etc.) so with that in mind, if you are not on that list I would prefer a mid-major approach.. good, veteran 3 point shooters that can stick around and make a deep run every once in a while and get in the dance regularly (Gonzaga, UVA, Michigan, Purdue, etc.) Actually Gonzaga and UVA have it figured out- they are in the top 5 every year without one and dones... that is the best way to do it unless you are a blue blood, IMO. I also think the age to enter the NFL and NBA should be lowered to 15. That way I don't have to hear Jay Bilas and others talk about college sports being "slavery".. let these AAU stars go to the NBA at 15 and get "paid" because that is what its all about. Let Leonard Fornette or Maurice Clarrett or Honey Badger go to the NFL at 15 years old to get "paid" and make money signing autographs. Would not bother me in the least.
Entering the NFL or NBA right after your freshman year of HS would be a deathwish.
Sure, but they don't have to do that... just make it so they "can" do that. Wouldn't want these kids to be slaves to the NCAA- If you lower the age to 15, and some idiot GM wants to draft you, more power to you. That way we can enjoy college hoops ad football without the slave talk.
And if you enter the draft at 15 and no one picks you up, congratulations, you've just killed the rest of your athletic career.
Perhaps, perhaps not. And they can then go to college like a regular student and pursue something outside of athletics. A very very select few make it a career anyway.
The NBA is likely going to reverse its position on age-eligibility soon, so I think the one-and-done era is going to go away with it.
Not entirely, as some guys will break out after one year and leave, but the top recruits who are surefire pro prospects are likely never going to step foot in college.
That being said, I think it could strengthen the college game in a lot of ways. We'll miss out on the awesome fun of seeing a guy like Zion in college, but getting back to established college stars you can recognize year to year is only a positive in my opinion.
1. Get rid of the one and done. 2. Let kids come back to school if they don't hire an agent. If you do come back to school, you have to stay 3 years. Encourage those that don't want to be "slaves" to go to the G league instead of college. That seems like it would help the NBA- they get Zion right away and college- If NAW doesn't hire an agent and doesn't like his draft position he can come back to VT. Win/Win
Or do it like MLB. Come out and get drafted, and if you don't like where you're drafted, go to college. But if you go to college, you have to stay three years.
Or the NHL where teams draft your rights but the player chooses when they become a pro.
the player can also basically opt out of signing with the NHL team and enter free agency, which is what is likely going to happen with Adam Fox when he sticks it out with Harvard in lieu of signing with the Hurricanes.
I'm against any rule that limits a player from turning pro whenever they want. Such a restriction would arguably be worse for the college game in my opinion.
Not only would you lose the surefire one-and-done type players, such a restriction would likely speed up the process of guys becoming pros and playing in the G-League. Instead of the top 3 or 5 players declaring for the draft, I think you'd get most of the top 25 prospects in each class electing to turn pro and make some money (even if it's not a huge salary).
The best & most recent example I'd point to is Trae Young. He was well-regarded as a prospect (#23 in the 2017 class), but he wasn't thought to be a one-and-done type of player. Then he balled out as a freshman and raised his draft stock considerably to become a lottery pick. It might be better for the college game if Trae Young had been at Oklahoma for three years, but it certainly would not have been better for Trae Young to miss out on the chance to be a top 3 draft pick.
With a rule that requires players to play for 3 years, we might have missed out on special talents that just weren't NBA-ready right out of high school.
In reality, There are not that many spots in the NBA that make it worthwhile for a non sure fire prospect to declare. Only 30 first round spots with guaranteed money. Most second round guys end up in the G league anyway. So in the rare case that a kid would declare, not get drafted, come back to college and improve his stock so much in one season that he become a first round pick, I don't think is enough to "impact" college basketball as a whole. You are talking about 2-4 players tops. Under the stay 3 years rule, they could go back to college or go to the G league- they have a legit choice to make. I think it would help both the kids and college basketball. AAU runners and twitter rags are not NBA GMs at the end of the day. Many of these projected first round kids don't even get drafted. The Melo Trimbles of the world. Give those kids an opportunity to go back to college but stay long enough to develop.
I wasn't referring to your proposal, but this one:
That's different from yours, where you're talking about kids already in college. This particular one is forcing high schoolers to go pro or stay three years.
Getting rid of the one and done would alter the makeup of the blue bloods but potentially make them better college teams.
Duke has signed 5 players in '18, 7 in '17, 6 in '16, & 6 in '15 for a total of 24 players in the last 4 recruiting classes.
VT has signed 3 players in '18, 3 in '17, 2 in '16, & 4 in '15 for a total of 12 players in the last 4 recruiting classes.
Without one and dones, Duke would not be able to sign that many players but, I think they will be losing their recruits to the NBA, not to lower level schools due to roster limits.
Right now the VT level programs can compete with the likes of Duke because of the balancing of talent vs experience advantages.
Without the one and dones, Duke would likely still have more talent (with a lower ceiling than right now) but gain the benefit of experience? Will that make it harder for the VT level programs to compete?
Duke did just fine without one and dones for 25 years or so.
I think we agree???
I think a healthy and sustainable strategy would be a mix of 4-5 year guys with a sprinkle of "one and dones" every year. Experience and maturity still seem to matter in the Tournament (looking at you Duke and Kentucky), but having NBA talent on the floor is equally important.
Having senior players to provide leadership and be a steadying force on the team to the freshman phenom(s) seems like an ideal scenario. By all rights, VT should have been a shining example of this if not for attrition and the #FreeNolley debacle.
The 2016-2019 Final Fours had/has a total of 2 one-and-dones if I'm counting correctly. The would be 2017's Tony Bradley and Zach Collins who both came off the bench behind established upperclassmen. Neither was a guaranteed one-and-done player at any point during the season. All the teams had NBA talent, but none relied on one-and-done freshmen to carry the load. Establishing a team with experienced players, most of whom you developed, and maybe sprinkling in a one-and-done is the best way to succeed. Every elite team needs NBA level talent, but they don't have to be freshman.
There a true value to the schools for one-and-dones, says this Forbes article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/05/30/one-and-done-players-are-worth-millions-to-top-college-basketball-programs/#526a2142e983
By that standard, I suppose we can say that ALL starting basketball players in the P5 are worth millions to their college basketball teams, and that's yet a different angle on the whole thing.
Not all of them are, but they have a metric in there for valuation more or less...
And it's based on the sharing model from the NBA.
But not all college players provide wins for their team.
Without looking at their model, given that you have 5 starters, I was just surmising that they ALL have a monetary value to a team that makes tens of millions of dollars, even if they're not "one and done's"
Nah, it's based on the number of wins they "produce" for that specific team.
Think Audi player index in soccer. Not everyone is up there ranked highly, and some may actually hurt their team. And not all teams are flush with revenue.
I'm in favor of ending one-and-done. I think it was actually a firewall put up to help protect bad NBA executives from themselves. There are maybe 1-2 kids a year who are actually good enough to play and meaningfully contribute to an NBA team out of high school. Even the majority of players who are one and done still aren't ready to meaningfully contribute to an NBA roster. They are considered two-three year projects by the team that drafts them.
Looking at the latest mock draft there are no seniors in the first round and only 4 juniors. No junior is projected higher than 14th. You have the same bad teams drafting 18-19 year old projects that require a few years to develope. By the time that the few who actually do develop can contribute, they are near the end of their rookie contract and testing free agency. If it appears they cant be resigned or extended, they are traded for older players who can contribute or draft picks so the same incompetent team can repeat the cycle.
Lottery pick is such an appropriate term because GMs continually ignore rationality in favor of gambler's fallacy. The lure of a franchise changing player combined with the stigma of passing on a potential franchise player leads to decisions with unfavorable probability outcomes. If GMs valued juniors and seniors who can help the team today with picks 4-30, that would incentivize kids to stay in school and develope their game. This would reflexively improve the success rate on 1st round draft picks.
I agree that the current rule protects NBA executives from themselves. I think the salary cap risk is a bigger issue than wasted draft picks.
If the NBA allowed teams to draft player's rights (starting at age 16) for the first 4-5 years a player becomes a professional (at the players discretion); the risk would be wasted draft picks, not wasted cap space.
This would also allow NBA teams to loan, rent or sell player's contract to other NBA teams or to Europe after their amateur career to enhance development with additional in game experience.
We should not actively try to rely on a mostly one and done approach. For one thing, they won't come here. For another, it's much harder to get invested in a group of guys that changes every year. There's nothing wrong with that, but personally, I don't like it and will care less about the team.
The other side of the one-and-done recruiting strategy is that it pushes out guys who may need additional development.
The headline on this piece is pretty sensationalist, but the underlying theme comes down to how player development can be stifled at one-and-done factories. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but I quoted what I find to be the most intriguing passage of the piece:
Duke's Greatest Recruiting Class Is Coach K's Ultimate Failure
Yep.. there are many many many more Trevon Duval's than LeBron James's.. but AAU runners, Calipari's scum staff, and Twitter rags told Duval he was great. Oops.
Duval wasn't some scrub, he was the #6 player in his class.
The other thing to consider is that Bagley's reclassification and addition to that recruiting class really changed how that team would have played. Duval is the type of player who would have been much better off with a higher usage rate (a la Collin Sexton) because he isn't a great shooter, but excellent at getting to the rim. Since Duke played inside out, it negated a lot of Duval's best attributes as an offensive player. Duke, and the players surrounding him, weren't a good fit for his skillset.
He would have been much better off playing in a scheme where he could have been the offensive focal point and allowed to drive and kick.