ADVERTISEMENT

How did Duke NOT win the NC with 'the greatest' coach and 5 guys drafted (3 in top 16, 4th at #26)?

Now, I am going to conveniently ignore that Travis Ford exacted revenge for that act by leg locking a Duke player on the floor a couple of years later in the tourney (and got away with it!)...... but he had it coming, right?
Yeah … this is a memory of something that definitely did not happen lol
 
I am pretty sure UK was up 5-7 points and in the game all the first half. I agree it is a bigger failure, but that team, like this year's Duke team, was flawed and relied to much on freshmen. We were one good shooter away from a better shot at 40-0 IMO and Meeks was that missing piece.

On the overall theme of this thread, this season again shows that having to rely on super frosh will often result in a devastating close loss in the Elite 8 or Final Four as at some point they will fold under the pressure. You need a good mix. I do think the 2014 UK team was the best example of what an almost all freshmen team can do, but they needed SOPH WCS to finish the deal IMO.

The success and failures of Super Freshmen teams

I got into a 2 day dustup with Mike DeCourcey of Sporting News on twitter over this subject a couple of weeks ago based on a biased article he wrote with cherry picked facts claiming that the OaD model had proven superior! I had recently made a semi deep dive into the makeup of NC teams and assembling "Super Frosh" teams as a means to National Championships was one of the fallacies that was exposed. His ability to ignore facts and common sense was impressive really!

So, here is the short version of a writeup I did for my Facebook fan page, then I will post a longer history as a reply if anyone cares to read more:

Everyone knows that the teams of yesteryear did not depend on freshmen to lead their teams to Championships. Freshmen weren't even allowed to play on the varsity team until the early 70's. Contrary to what some sportswriters (with agendas to protect their fav coach) will try to tell you today, most modern successful coaches do not depend on freshmen or OaD players for success either.

First, I need to try to define a Super Freshmen team or an OaD model. For the most part, I consider those two terms virtually interchangeable. Logically, just about everyone not named Mike DeCourcey knows what I mean by those terms, but any coach who is recruiting multiple 5 star or top 30 to top 35 talent for his main rotation, year in and year out, is attempting to win with super freshmen and arguably OaD's. If half (or more) of your top 6 rotation players are freshmen, (or perhaps, 4 out of your top 8 scorers), you have a highly freshmen biased team. If that is an intentional strategy with the nation's top talent every year, you are, by my definition chasing a One and Done or Super Freshmen model, even if you are very bad at evaluating top 10 talent and they turn out to be 3 and done's instead! The key here is intent - you are "attempting" to build freshmen led teams every year with "supposed" or "presumed" One and Dones, even if they are actually flops or you lose them due to injury (or they sit to protect their draft stock and become none and dones).

With that out of the way, let's proceed!

There have been 2 National Champion teams led by OaD players. Cal finally succeeded in 2012, then Duke copied the model and succeeded in 2015. Both of those teams were led by 3 OaD freshmen alongside some important experienced players.

Some facts to consider outside of those two freshmen led NC teams:
In the coined "OaD" era since 2006, (although rare, there were OaD's and at least one Super Frosh team before then, but I will keep it modern for now), if you look at all of the other 14 National Championship teams, there has been a grand total of 2 (That is TWO) OaD players to participate on a NC team. THAT IS TWO PLAYERS, NOT TWO TEAMS! Let me state that another way just to make sure: out of 14 NC's (that weren't '12 UK or '15 Duke), only 2 of those teams had ONE OaD player!
Those players were Spellman on the 2018 Villanova team and Bradley on the '17 UNC team. So, looking at NC teams other than the two outliers (the Duke and Ky teams), you probably shouldn't fill out your bracket with a NC team that has a bunch of OaD's!

If, you go back another 16 seasons prior to 2006, you will see a similar lack of dependence on super freshmen with one OaD player occasionally sprinkled on a NC team every now and then. Love it or hate it, Cal and Duke are really the only ones to embrace the OaD philosophy in the history of CBB, and two aging NC's do not do much to support the model (yet?), especially considering the lack of success compared to the amount of talent that has gone through those programs.

There are 360+ schools in Division 1 basketball, but only a handful of them are truly chasing a National Championship every year. There are a few newcomers that pop up every season, but there are not 360 universities actually competing for the title. I will let you define a "handful" - is it 8 -10 programs with a couple of them moving in and out of the conversation from year to year? Are there 25 programs will NC aspirations year in and year out? 32? 64? You decide, but when you look back over Final Fours and National Champioships, you will see the same names popping up over and over again. For those few that are competing for a title, there would definitely appear to be value in analyzing the makeup of the teams that won in the past, or, at least the somewhat recent past.

There are certainly coaches and Universities that carry the clout to land multiple 5 star players every year if they chose that philosophy, but the facts say that most past and modern coaches do not target OaD talent every year in a perpetual state of rebuilding as a means to winning National Championships. The National Title is the pinnacle of the sport that we love and it is the ultimate measuring stick, but the overwhelming majority of NC teams have no OaD freshmen, and that is by intentional design - it is not a failure to recruit as many Top 25 players as possible.

If you want to read more about freshman teams, I will post a reply to this post below.....
 
Last edited:
Love it or hate it, Cal and Duke are really the only ones to embrace the OaD philosphy - 2 NC's in the history of CBB does not do much to support the model, especially considering the lack of success compared to the amount of talent.

Now, if you want to read some more on the history of Super Freshmen (or OaD) teams, here is a little longer read.

The 1992 Michigan Fab 5 experiment proved what most coaches already believed - no matter how great their talent, any team led mostly by freshmen would eventually let you down against more experienced teams. That 1992 Michigan team did come close (falling short in the NC game), but when they fell short again the next year in the 1993 NC game (as sophomores), again due to inexperience (and a costly turnover by taking a timeout that they did not have) we thought the issue was settled.
And it was, for a while - few coaches intentionally loaded up with freshmen talent - no matter how good they were, a team made up primarily of freshmen was considered a rebuilding year... that is, until Ohio State in 2007. That team had the #1, #13, #21, and #31 freshmen prospects with 3 of them in the starting lineup and the leading scorer, #1 freshman Greg Oden. But, like Michigan over a decade earlier, that team also fell short in the NC game. Thad Matta continued to dabble in super freshmen off and on at Ohio St. over the next decade or so, but he never had more than two super frosh on his teams after that. I don't know him or Oh St basketball well enough to say whether it was by intent or if he just couldn't attract that much elite talent again, but they never posed a NC threat after 2007. Ohio St did make it to the 2012 Final Four, but that team didn't have any freshmen in the regular rotation.

Perhaps it was that freshmen led 2007 Ohio St. team that inspired John Calipari's vision to build OaD teams when Thad Matta beat his Memphis Tigers by 16 points in the Elite 8. The next year, Calipari would bring in the #3 prospect Derrick Rose and the #48 Jeff Robinson (who didn't turn out to be that good), but Cal fell short in the 2008 NC game (are you noticing a trend yet?). Undeterred, he brought in the #3, #38, and #78 freshmen the next year, but fell in the sweet 16. If only he had a bigger platform than Memphis to draw in more super frosh, maybe his vision would succeed - he just needed more top 5 prospects.

As chance would have it, Kentucky was not satisfied with their recent hire and Cal would get the chance he had been waiting for. He left Memphis with a top class of freshmen and OaD's who followed him to start his new career at UK for the 2009/2010 season. The super frosh experiment was now truly reborn. But, that first class, combined with quite a few experienced players, fell in the Elite 8.
The next year, 2011, another top class of freshmen with a light mix of experience would fall in the Final Four. Now it was clear, all he needed was more freshman NBA talent and fewer experienced 4 year CBB players.

Then, 2012 happened - Cal's best class of freshmen so far with a light mix of experience finally broke through the National Championship ceiling for Freshman led teams! 3 freshmen started and in a tight 7 man rotation, 4 of the main players were freshmen.

But if 2012 was the peak of the freshmen party, then 2013 was a hangover season. Even when the #1 recruit (Noel) went down with injury, there was still a very good class of freshmen on that team, but there just wasn't enough experience leftover to make the NCAA tournament in 2013 (or, there wasn't enough freshman NBA talent in reserve, depending on which lens you are looking through).
In an attempt to never be caught short of great talent again, Cal brought in the greatest class of freshmen ever assembled for the 2013/2104 season with #2, #5, #6, #9, #10, and #18 ranked prospects along with two more very good unranked freshmen. That is SIX top 20 freshmen and 2 more good ones to boot! After struggling all season with freshmen mistakes, they eventually put things together for a NCAAT run, but lost in the final game (still seeing that NC game trend?).
Similar to the Fab 5, the core of that group returned for their sophomore year, and added another haul of OaD type talent (#5, #12, #18, #23 freshmen combined with 4 top 20 sophomores, a top 40 junior, and two very good backup roll players just in case); this is arguably the best CBB team ever assembled, but this talented 2015 class of freshmen and sophomores fell short again, this time in the Final Four with a pile of inexplicable mistakes and shot clock violations at the end of the game (and, perhaps, a few bad calls). In a year that should have been a coronation, a mere formality, crowning UK with their 9th Title, Duke walked away the new king of OaD's and the National Championship in 2015.
The OaD model of Duke and UK has only one Final Four appearance since then.

Duke joins the party:
After witnessing Calipari's "success", Coach K decided to adopt the Calipari model for the 2014/2015 season and he won it all! With that kind of immediate success, Duke has been all in on OaD's since then with no signs of letting up, arguably outdoing Cal and Ky in the super freshmen race, but, like Ky, Duke has had similar lackluster results with their OaD approach since 2015 (with a lone Final Four run in 2022).
Sweet 16's and a couple of Elite 8's with an occasional early 1st or 2nd round exit, and missing the NCAA tournament altogether now and then might be accepatable and even considered a winning stretch for most Power 5 teams, but it is underwhelming for bluebloods that can usually sleep walk their way to an Elite 8. If you aren't in the Final Four regularly, you aren't really in the hunt for a National Title every year.

Since 2016 (perhaps excluding the 2021/2022 season), Cal continued to chase super freshmen and has fielded mostly freshmen dominated teams, but for whatever reason (FBI investigation, the loss of World Wide Wes, bad luck, poor prospect evaluation, poor development,injuries, busts,...?....you choose), Cal has not quite been able to get the same class of top OaD's every year like he did in his first few years.
Meanwhile, other teams with more experience and less OaD talent, have continued to win Championships the traditional way. Why did the OaD model work so well for a few short years? Was it a fluke? Maybe in the future, we can gain some perspective on what elements came together to result in the perfect storm. Or, maybe things will turn around and start favoring super freshmen laden teams again?
In the meantime, we know that in 2021/2022 Cal had his most experienced team at UK with a lot of transfers, only one OaD, and a couple of highly ranked freshmen that did not play up to their billing. But, that didn't end well either.....

The 2022/2023 Ky team will also be experienced with several of the core players returning, including the NPOY, a high profile transfer, and a couple of top freshmen likely playing the biggest roles, so we will see if this is a new winning formula.
But watch out for the 2023 class and even the 2024 class - Calipari seems to be going all in on freshmen once again! Since that is the only approach that has ever led to much tourney success for him, maybe we should embrace it while he is here - it might be the best way for Cal to win.
 
Last edited:
Because relying on a bunch of young, hired-gun freshmen with one foot out the door of your program is not a good strategy for national championships. It can work very occasionally, but it's extremely flawed and unreliable.
You might like the posts I made about this just above this post on PG 3
 
The 2010 team losing to WVU and never really being in the game, is way bigger of a failure.

We had five first round picks and three lottery picks and lost to a WVU team that had no one get drafted and I think only one dude played in the NBA for a year.
I’ll never forget that game screaming, “why are we shooting the ball?!” Just throw it to Cousins and Orton! Let Him and Patterson rebound everything and Wall should have been driving the entire game. He was unstoppable in the fast break and getting by his man.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Cowtown Cat
I don’t know, but I can tell you this, if Cal was coaching that team and lost, he would have been hanged. Coach K of course, didn’t take any heat at all. That’s the difference between Duke fans and Kentucky fans. Duke has loyal fans, Kentucky has mostly pessimistic, ungrateful, unrealistic fans. Duke is now the gold standard in college basketball.
Keep in mind Rat Face also whipped Cal's butt again, won the ACC regular season and made a F4. We shouldn't be throwing stones.

Not to mention K has 5 titles. Part of fans frustration with Cal is that he only has as many titles as Kevin Ollie.
 
While nothing is certain, I firmly believe that given all the circumstances, with K retiring and the talent level, Duke wins the final game. UNC was very inconsistent all the while blowing big leads and losing late in the season to a team like Pitt.

Also, as for the final game, UNC blew a 15 point halftime lead and had horrific execution and coaching inside of 1 minute left with the game hanging in the balance. While far from certain, I think KU was lucky to be facing UNC in those situations and not Duke.

Having said all that, all that ultimately matters is the end result. The rest is for chat board discussion.

Dook wasn’t a good defensive team. In their last 9 they gave up 77 on avg. Their avg margin was only +2 in that span so they weren’t exactly on a hot streak. They lost both games to Miami who Kansas obliterated in the E8

obv we will never know and it’s not valuable debating things we cannot know, but there’s just no statistic evidence they were a “bad matchup” for the team that won it all and was a 1-seed, neither of which applies to Dook
 
Right on cue for a Duke fan lol. Sure sound like one.
If I didn’t work from home I’d invite you to come visit me in my office sometime. Sure have a lot of UK history and memorabilia all over my office for a Duke fan.

See the avatar? Through the Years. It’s a print on my office wall. %#?! Duke, man. Straight to hell. But I’m more from the perspective of our own house needs to get in order before we make fun of programs that are performing BETTER than ours. Even programs I hate. I hate that they’re outperforming us in recent years. We need to be better.

Zero introspection to sit here and talk about K choking when his resume both recent and past is 10x better than our guy’s.
 
If I didn’t work from home I’d invite you to come visit me in my office sometime. Sure have a lot of UK history and memorabilia all over my office for a Duke fan.

See the avatar? Through the Years. It’s a print on my office wall. %#?! Duke, man. Straight to hell. But I’m more from the perspective of our own house needs to get in order before we make fun of programs that are performing BETTER than ours. Even programs I hate. I hate that they’re outperforming us in recent years. We need to be better.

Zero introspection to sit here and talk about K choking when his resume both recent and past is 10x better than our guy’s.
You’ve been on this site since 2011 . Only an idiot would call you a Duke fan .
 
Pretty simple really.

1) kids with NBA potential, are long, athletic and skilled, but their skills are based on the NBA's style of game. Kids that win in college, aren't traditionally good NBA players. The games are just different.

2) I used the word "potential" in my first point and if you understand what that word means, you should understand that those draft picks merely have potential, it means they aren't NBA all star caliber right now.

Using NBA potential kids to try to win in college, is just plain stupid. The only reasons you would bring in NBA potential, is if you want to brag about all the kids 'you' put into the draft and feel better about yourself.

Carmello Anthony and AD are the only ones that had all star NBA potential and won a collegiate title in the modern era (one-and-done kids).

That’s it, end of thread.
 
Maybe only Dean Smith and Cal managed to avoid winning with a huge talent advantage over every other team in the country like Coach K did. Yes, they did make the Final 4 but, dang, the NBA certainly thinks a lot of their roster from last year. In retrospect, you'd almost have to view last year as a disappointment, much like UK in 2015.
Why do Kentucky fans always have to say “well Duke didn’t, blah blah”

1) you all claim to be the best program ever, which means you shouldn’t worry about what other programs do

2) which leads to your coach Cow. He was the dude bragging Kentucky is the “golf standard”. Ok, tell him to walk the walk
 
And 2003-2011 posted here under a different user name. Feez13. Only 2 usernames I’ve had here. Going on 20 years posting here now.

Yeah i remember you from the ESPN boards wayyyy back. used to also post on a general board that i can’t remember the name of, that some of the espn posters made. A guy with the screen name “fuqmizzou” or something like that.
 
Yeah i remember you from the ESPN boards wayyyy back. used to also post on a general board that i can’t remember the name of, that some of the espn posters made. A guy with the screen name “fuqmizzou” or something like that.
Yes sir that is me!

Oh boy ... you just took me wayyyy wayyyyyyyy back for sure. And that is correct, Fuqmizzou made the board that broke away from the ESPN boards. Those were the days of message boards prior to social media, wild.
 
Why do Kentucky fans always have to say “well Duke didn’t, blah blah”

1) you all claim to be the best program ever, which means you shouldn’t worry about what other programs do

2) which leads to your coach Cow. He was the dude bragging Kentucky is the “golf standard”. Ok, tell him to walk the walk
Is it possible that you posted from the wrong account?
 
Dook wasn’t a good defensive team. In their last 9 they gave up 77 on avg. Their avg margin was only +2 in that span so they weren’t exactly on a hot streak. They lost both games to Miami who Kansas obliterated in the E8

obv we will never know and it’s not valuable debating things we cannot know, but there’s just no statistic evidence they were a “bad matchup” for the team that won it all and was a 1-seed, neither of which applies to Dook

You need to read the ENTIRE post and not try to cherry pick. Duke wasn't going to blow a big lead or play like a junior high team in the final minute. If UK were playing in the final game, I would far rather have had UNC and not Duke in the final. UNC played short-handed all season and I knew they would choke in the final game because of their lack of depth. That Monday night game is brutal to play for a team dealing with fatigue.
 
You need to read the ENTIRE post and not try to cherry pick. Duke wasn't going to blow a big lead or play like a junior high team in the final minute. If UK were playing in the final game, I would far rather have had UNC and not Duke in the final. UNC played short-handed all season and I knew they would choke in the final game because of their lack of depth. That Monday night game is brutal to play for a team dealing with fatigue.
Cherry pick?

I have multiple data Points supporting my position. Kansas was favored in KenPom and Sagarin and as such, would’ve been a -2 fave vs Dook. That’s not subjective, it’s factual

who would’ve won? Who knows? I certainly don’t. But there’s literally zero evidence Kansas was at some type of schematic or talent disadvantage. Or it was a “bad matchup” given how mediocre Dook defense was. None.

I’d also add UNC was the best rebounding team in basketball last year and racked up a +20 advantage vs Kansas. Still couldn’t beat them. Dook wasn’t doing that
 
I don’t know, but I can tell you this, if Cal was coaching that team and lost, he would have been hanged. Coach K of course, didn’t take any heat at all. That’s the difference between Duke fans and Kentucky fans. Duke has loyal fans, Kentucky has mostly pessimistic, ungrateful, unrealistic fans. Duke is now the gold standard in college basketball.
Terrible post.
 
Pretty simple really.

1) kids with NBA potential, are long, athletic and skilled, but their skills are based on the NBA's style of game. Kids that win in college, aren't traditionally good NBA players. The games are just different.

2) I used the word "potential" in my first point and if you understand what that word means, you should understand that those draft picks merely have potential, it means they aren't NBA all star caliber right now.

Using NBA potential kids to try to win in college, is just plain stupid. The only reasons you would bring in NBA potential, is if you want to brag about all the kids 'you' put into the draft and feel better about yourself.

Carmello Anthony and AD are the only ones that had all star NBA potential and won a collegiate title in the modern era (one-and-done kids).

That’s it, end of thread.
Seems like a good time to repeat only the 2012 and 2015 NC's had multiple OaD's.
Other than those two, since 2006, there have been a grand total of two OaD's participate on a NC team: 1 (Spellman) on the 2018 Villanova team and 1 (Bradley) on the '17 UNC team.
If you go back further than 2006 (OaD's existed before the term was coined with the NBA rule prohibiting most HS kids from declaring), you will see very few OaD's participating on NC teams as well.
Love it or hate it, 2 OaD led NC's in the history of CBB does not do much to support the model (yet, anyways).

Bias disclaimer: I have never supported the super freshmen model since the days of the '92 Michigan team.
2012 and 2015 grabbed my attention when they broke through the NC game ceiling, and I started to accept the possibility that I could be wrong, but I still didn't think it would prove to be a sustainable philosophy.
It could make a comeback, and in a way, looking at the classes Cal is trying to assemble for '23 and '24, I hope that it does comeback and make me rethink it all again, but that will be one of the few times that I will celebrate being wrong!
 
Seems like a good time to repeat only the 2012 and 2015 NC's had multiple OaD's.
Other than those two, since 2006, there have been a grand total of two OaD's participate on a NC team: 1 (Spellman) on the 2018 Villanova team and 1 (Bradley) on the '17 UNC team.
If you go back further than 2006 (OaD's existed before the term was coined with the NBA rule prohibiting most HS kids from declaring), you will see very few OaD's participating on NC teams as well.
Love it or hate it, 2 OaD led NC's in the history of CBB does not do much to support the model (yet, anyways).

Bias disclaimer: I have never supported the super freshmen model since the days of the '92 Michigan team.
2012 and 2015 grabbed my attention when they broke through the NC game ceiling, and I started to accept the possibility that I could be wrong, but I still didn't think it would prove to be a sustainable philosophy.
It could make a comeback, and in a way, looking at the classes Cal is trying to assemble for '23 and '24, I hope that it does comeback and make me rethink it all again, but that will be one of the few times that I will celebrate being wrong!
When you look at 2012 UK and 2015 duke, you see both teams had strong veteran leadership. Duke had juniors and seniors playing heavy minutes and UK had guys return that wouldn't hzve returned if there wasn’t an NBA lockout.
I certainly wouldn't look at duke 2015 as a one-and-done type team. They had 3 really good freshmen and Grayson Allen came out of nowhere in the title game, but they had 5 strong veterans that carried a lot of weight (Quinn Cook, Jefferson, Matt Jones, Plumlee and Sulaimon).
Duke went one-and-done heavy the year after.
 
When you look at 2012 UK and 2015 duke, you see both teams had strong veteran leadership. Duke had juniors and seniors playing heavy minutes and UK had guys return that wouldn't hzve returned if there wasn’t an NBA lockout.
I certainly wouldn't look at duke 2015 as a one-and-done type team. They had 3 really good freshmen and Grayson Allen came out of nowhere in the title game, but they had 5 strong veterans that carried a lot of weight (Quinn Cook, Jefferson, Matt Jones, Plumlee and Sulaimon).
Duke went one-and-done heavy the year after.
I agree that neither team wins without the experienced players, but both had 3 OaD's starting (plus an extra freshman in the rotation in both cases) and logging more minutes than all of the rotation veterans combined (of course, Sulaimon went out mid year though).
That's as freshman biased as it gets, or has ever gotten (and as close as I think an OaD model will ever get again). I just don't think a team with 4 or 5 OaD's in the starting lineup or 5 freshmen logging the majority minutes in a 7 or 8 man rotation can ever pull it off, but the way 2023 is shaping up, I sure hope I am wrong.
 
I agree that neither team wins without the experienced players, but both had 3 OaD's starting (plus an extra freshman in the rotation in both cases) and logging more minutes than all of the rotation veterans combined (of course, Sulaimon went out mid year though).
That's as freshman biased as it gets, or has ever gotten (and as close as I think an OaD model will ever get again). I just don't think a team with 4 or 5 OaD's in the starting lineup or 5 freshmen logging the majority minutes in a 7 or 8 man rotation can ever pull it off, but the way 2023 is shaping up, I sure hope I am wrong.
Yes, those two teams are as close as it gets. There won't be a team win the title with 4 or 5 freshmen in the starting lineup, that's just way too much inexperience to win 6 games in a row in the tournament.
The Zion team had some inbalance, but the guys they had were absolute studs that should have won it all. They ran into a team (MSU) that was senior laden, mentally tougher, more sound and more disciplined.
I keep hearing about this great class we have coming in and it also sounds like we're going to have another freshmen dominant team. It looks good on paper, but these kids have NBA potential, the college game is different, so a couple of these kids better be AD/Wall/Zion level.
 
Team would have been absolutely unreal. Even without Meeks that team still had the #1 pick in the draft, another top 5 pick, and 3 others picked in the 1st round. 4 in the top 20. 5 1st round picks. Can't think of another team that had that much talent and didn't make a Final Four. Maybe the Duke team with Zion, RJ Barrett and Cam Reddish. But still not quite.
That Zion team is the best comparison. Zion was the real deal in college, but that team was weak. They were getting challenged at every round. No one was afraid of them. There's no shame in losing to an Izzo team, but that talent difference was immense with a healthy Zion playing. They had no business just barely beating teams the way they were.
 
Yes, those two teams are as close as it gets. There won't be a team win the title with 4 or 5 freshmen in the starting lineup, that's just way too much inexperience to win 6 games in a row in the tournament.
The Zion team had some inbalance, but the guys they had were absolute studs that should have won it all. They ran into a team (MSU) that was senior laden, mentally tougher, more sound and more disciplined.
I keep hearing about this great class we have coming in and it also sounds like we're going to have another freshmen dominant team. It looks good on paper, but these kids have NBA potential, the college game is different, so a couple of these kids better be AD/Wall/Zion level.
That is my concern. Just as I thought Cal was adjusting his roster management to win more championships, 2023, and even 2024, is looking to be another NBA draft crop banner. It isn't a done deal yet, and he could end up with just a couple of them, but if he gets all of the guys he wants, there will be no room for an experienced transfer (or even for an existing role player to stay - I can't imagine CJ or Reeves staying here next year if we get all of the guards and wings he is trying to get).
I haven't seen a big man in the class yet that is college ready, but Dillingham just might be as good as Wall by next year though. History says that won't be enough to get us to the promised land.
 
getting to the FF is difficult....winning the chip WITH a bunch of NBA talent is still hard....
Here's the thing, what you are calling "NBA talent", isn't actual NBA talent, no, those kids haven’t played in the NBA and haven't been coached by NBA coaches. Most of these kids are just freshmen that are long and athletic, they are far from skilled players and also, very few of them have developed bodies.
If you bring in a 5* kid and he isn't the best player at his position, you're playing with fools gold, because you have to play the kid, you only have him for 1 year (that's how it is under Cal anyway) and eventually, they will BJ Boston you at the wrong time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carbonlib23
Is the intent to make us feel better by highlighting Duke's failures? If you don't have highlights of recent successes of your own to feel good about, you are left with spotlighting the failures of others as a distraction. A history lesson on others' failures isn't going to take the sting away of UK's poor outcomes of recent times.
 
Change the subject back to UK(cal) failures. You miserable guys are so predictable.
Not miserable, they are just not dumb enough to be distracted from UK's problem, Cal and fans who make excuses for his failures. Duke's issues are for them and their fans to resolve, not UK fans.
 
Last edited:
Here's the thing, what you are calling "NBA talent", isn't actual NBA talent, no, those kids haven’t played in the NBA and haven't been coached by NBA coaches. Most of these kids are just freshmen that are long and athletic, they are far from skilled players and also, very few of them have developed bodies.
If you bring in a 5* kid and he isn't the best player at his position, you're playing with fools gold, because you have to play the kid, you only have him for 1 year (that's how it is under Cal anyway) and eventually, they will BJ Boston you at the wrong time.
Where is BJ? Oh, that's right, he is playing musical chairs from team to team to fill-out an NBA team's roster. This kid who once had great promise will most likely continue bouncing from team to team just to fill-out an NBA team's roster instead fulfilling his potential.
 
Last edited:
Where is BJ? Oh, that's right, he is playing musical chairs from team to team to fill-out an NBA team's roster. This kid who once had great promise will most likely continue bouncing from team to team just to fill-out an NBA team's roster instead fulfilling his potential.
Hes actually still on the Clippers the same team that drafted him. And averaging 15 MPG which is outstanding for a 2nd round pick. Also signed the largest contract for a 2nd round pick in NBA history. I know you have no idea what you are talking about but at least do SOME research for something you are clearly uneducated on.
 
Hes actually still on the Clippers the same team that drafted him. And averaging 15 MPG which is outstanding for a 2nd round pick. Also signed the largest contract for a 2nd round pick in NBA history. I know you have no idea what you are talking about but at least do SOME research for something you are clearly uneducated on.
Maybe you should do a better job of comprehending your homework genius! You researched his status and still couldn't get it right. The Clippers didn't draft BJ. For the sake of accuracy, which I am sure means nothing to you, "Boston was selected in the second round of the 2021 NBA draft with the 51st pick by the Memphis Grizzlies, then traded to the Los Angeles Clippers via the New Orleans Pelicans." Since you know his minutes per game, I am sure you knew that his FG% = 38.5% and PPG = 6.7, but you chose to highlight his 14.9 minutes per game because it looks more impressive. The truth is that he couldn't shoot while at UK and he still can't shoot. He had a better chance to learn how to shoot in college than he does in the NBA.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should do a better job of comprehending your homework genius! You researched his status and still couldn't get it right. The Clippers didn't draft BJ. For the sake of accuracy, which I am sure means nothing to you, "Boston was selected in the second round of the 2021 NBA draft with the 51st pick by the Memphis Grizzlies, then traded to the Los Angeles Clippers via the New Orleans Pelicans." Since you know his minutes per game, I am sure you knew that his FG% = 38.5% and PPG = 6.7, but you chose to highlight his 14.9 minutes per game because it looks more impressive. The truth is that he couldn't shoot while at UK and he still can't shoot. He had a better chance to learn how to shoot in college than he does in the NBA.
So let me get this straight. Your idea of a guy "playing musical chairs from team to team to fill-out an NBA team's roster" is someone who simply gets drafted and then traded to a team on draft night. Is that right?
 
ADVERTISEMENT