Carter gone...

[gunslingerdick]

I may be bias, but I'd hate being a Duke or UK fan right now. It must suck having to cheer for a new group of kids every season and you don't get the chance to watch kids develop over 3-4 years.

Couple that with the fact that these OAD's very rarely win titles and it's just a frustrating end to a season with bloated expectations only to have them all leave.

Nah, not for me.

Great poast. If those ridiculously talented, OAD, freshman laden teams were consistently getting to the Final Four, it would be one thing. But duke and UK fans are getting robbed of watching players grow and develop and they have nothing to show for it. That’s the kicker.

 

[carolinablue34]

? you a in the closet dook fan that I have pissed off ?

If that’s your response, then you’re just as big an idiot as the rest of them who have accused me of the same thing.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

Duke may be the most talented team in the country again next season but that talent mix IMO may not be as difficult to handle as the one that is now gone and unless they can get Carey to reclassify and gain eligibility for them next season they do not have a solution for their mix problem, IMO.

Word down here says kay is on his knees begging as we speak.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

? you a in the closet dook fan that I have pissed off ?

Yeah he was exposed long ago.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

Nobody did less with more than dook. Anything less than a FF appearance with all that future 1st round talent is a huge underachievement.

kay leads all-time in this category as well.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

And Bolden might do this and be eligible this fall. Talking about payback! Check this out!

Also, if Roy Sign SKJ he may be eligible this fall. Game changer folks!


From NCAA website:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...tee-academics-considers-transfer-rule-changes


The Division I Transfer Working Group will meet later this month to discuss much-needed updates to the NCAA transfer policy.

Two big changes are up for consideration, per the NCAA:

• Allow students who meet specific, high-achieving academic benchmarks to play immediately after the first time they transfer during their college experience.
• Allow prospective student-athletes who have signed a National Letter of Intent to transfer and play immediately if a head coach leaves the school of the student’s choice, as well as under other exceptions already in the rulebook. Because the Collegiate Commissioners Association manages the NLI, this idea would be referred to the CCA for consideration.

The goal is for the group to finalize a proposal by May, so conferences can discuss it at their annual spring meetings. According to Ralph Russo of the AP, the hope is for the NCAA to have to transfer policy rules in place by July.

From the NCAA:

The working group is aiming for a Division I Council vote on its final proposal in June, so it could be considered as a package with the notification-of-transfer legislation already in the Division I legislative cycle.

This could lead to an impact on the 2018 football season, and the 2018-19 basketball season. A lot of that depends on timing and moving quickly, though.

Great find, thanks

 

[2DDIMOND]

If that’s your response, then you’re just as big an idiot as the rest of them who have accused me of the same thing.

First of all, there's not much in that post that's not articulate, second, I've never seen you attack someone's vernacular in a post that wasn't anti dook, so there is that. Plus your posting history does lead one to believe that you are at least a defender of the dookies, even if you're not a fan. You can convince yourself that you're not a dook defender, but if the case was sent to a jury of your THI peers, I'm guessing at best you'ld get a hung jury.

 

[carolinablue34]

Yeah he was exposed long ago.

Not really, moron.

 

[pittsburghheel]

All 5 will prob go first rd. So wenwill get to revel in the fact that a dook team with 5 first rd nba picks couldnt make the final four. Has any other school started 5 first rd picks?

Didn't the 2007 Tar Heels start Lawson, Ellington, Green, Hansbrough, and Brandon Wright and not make the final 4?
I just noted Green was a 2nd round pick.

 

[carolinablue34]

First of all, there's not much in that post that's not articulate, second, I've never seen you attack someone's vernacular in a post that wasn't anti dook, so there is that. Plus your posting history does lead one to believe that you are at least a defender of the dookies, even if you're not a fan. You can convince yourself that you're not a dook defender, but if the case was sent to a jury of your THI peers, I'm guessing at best you'ld get a hung jury.

This is so idiotic, it's not even funny. I wouldn't trust a jury of THR peers to be objective about anything. None of you can think for yourselves enough to know the difference.

I'm a defender of rational thought, not of dook. I've criticized them and hated them plenty of times. You can go back through my posting history if you want. But I'm not a blind homer either. And I won't be for the sake of you or anyone else.

 

[imajericho]

My three areas of concern for next year are 1) shooting 2) experience 3) post depth

We have Bolden, DeLaurier, and Vrank, and let's face it Vrank ain't playing much. He is our "Huffman" so to speak. Zion will get a ton of minutes at the 4 and I expect Bolden/DeLaurier to split the minutes at the 5 but both are foul prone and Bolden's conditioning does not allow him to play 30-40 minutes per game. We are one injury or foul trouble away from a disaster in the post.

Duke is still looking at options through grad transfer means......a shooter or big man would be a welcomed addition.

The question is why would anyone want to grad transfer to duke for their last year of eligibility just to play if someone in Duke's starting rotation gets hurt? Not a really good sell there.

 

[2DDIMOND]

Didn't the 2007 Tar Heels start Lawson, Ellington, Green, Hansbrough, and Brandon Wright and not make the final 4?
I just noted Green was a 2nd round pick.

I also think he meant in the same year, didn't state it but I think that's what he meant.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Give Roy the same talent K had and we hang another banner. And that's a FACT Jack!

 

[2DDIMOND]

Give Roy the same talent K had and we hang another banner. And that's a FACT Jack!

I think it would be hard to argue this.

 

[truetarheelraider0806]

Didn't the 2007 Tar Heels start Lawson, Ellington, Green, Hansbrough, and Brandon Wright and not make the final 4?
I just noted Green was a 2nd round pick.

No they made the elite 8 and lost to Georgetown in overtime

 

[pln2013]

Great poast. If those ridiculously talented, OAD, freshman laden teams were consistently getting to the Final Four, it would be one thing. But duke and UK fans are getting robbed of watching players grow and develop and they have nothing to show for it. That’s the kicker.

That's not really true, though, at least for UK. They have 4 Final Fours in 9 years under Calipari. They've had more tournament success than basically anyone since he took over.

 

[gunslingerdick]

That's not really true, though, at least for UK. They have 4 Final Fours in 9 years under Calipari. They've had more tournament success than basically anyone since he took over.

The bottom line is that you cannot rationally argue that it's as enjoyable to watch the revolving door of freshman win as it is for guys that grow up in the program over the course of 3 or 4 years. Or I should say that if you find freshman winning as satisfying as upperclassmen, then I believe you to be a shallow person that only cares about winning.

It's not about the destination. It's the journey that counts.

 

[MWHeels]

That's not really true, though, at least for UK. They have 4 Final Fours in 9 years under Calipari. They've had more tournament success than basically anyone since he took over.

With all of the elite level OAD talent he's had, he only has one national title.

 

[MWHeels]

The bottom line is that you cannot rationally argue that it's as enjoyable to watch the revolving door of freshman win as it is for guys that grow up in the program over the course of 3 or 4 years. Or I should say that if you find freshman winning as satisfying as upperclassmen, then I believe you to be a shallow person that only cares about winning.

It's not about the destination. It's the journey that counts.

I'll take the Joel Berry's and Luke Maye's any day of the week. And it's not just UNC players. I enjoyed the UNC / Duke rivalry a lot more when they had players who stayed long term. I couldn't stand Gerald Henderson. I have no feelings for the players they bring in now, because I know they will be gone in 4 months.

 

[pln2013]

The bottom line is that you cannot rationally argue that it's as enjoyable to watch the revolving door of freshman win as it is for guys that grow up in the program over the course of 3 or 4 years. Or I should say that if you find freshman winning as satisfying as upperclassmen, then I believe you to be a shallow person that only cares about winning.

It's not about the destination. It's the journey that counts.

Sure, but that's a different argument. Perhaps it's a less satisfying approach for fans, but to say that "they have nothing to show for it" is simply not accurate.

 

[pln2013]

With all of the elite level OAD talent he's had, he only has one national title.

You can only pick one of the following:
1) The OAD approach is a less effective approach than developing players over 4 years.
2) If teams following the OAD approach don't dominate, they are underperforming.

It can't be both. Everyone agrees that experience is extremely important in college basketball right up until they want to argue that K and Cal should dominate with their talented teams that lack experience. It's not intellectually consistent.

Program strategies have trade-offs. Talent and experience are both very important. In the modern era, you can't have best-of-the-best talent as seniors. It just doesn't happen. So you can either sacrifice talent or experience. Cal has elected to sacrifice experience, and by any reasonable measure he's been very successful. To argue he hasn't been sufficiently successful is to ignore the talent/experience trade-off.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Sure, but that's a different argument. Perhaps it's a less satisfying approach for fans, but to say that "they have nothing to show for it" is simply not accurate.

Sigh.

Ok dude. I'm not sure why I entertain you with debate. You're very matter-of-fact and literal when I'm trying to make a larger point. I bet you frequently argue semantics as well. It's annoying. People like that annoy me.

And then you also repeatedly misunderstand that sometimes - when discussing something as meaningless as basketball on a meaningless message board - that fans are going to fan. We're going to say things that make us look good and make rivals look bad. You don't always need to come rain on parades. You don't need to be the beacon of logic and rationality. It's tiresome and no fun.

 

[gunslingerdick]

You can only pick one of the following:
1) The OAD approach is a less effective approach than developing players over 4 years.
2) If teams following the OAD approach don't dominate, they are underperforming.

It can't be both. Everyone agrees that experience is extremely important in college basketball right up until they want to argue that K and Cal should dominate with their talented teams that lack experience. It's not intellectually consistent.

Program strategies have trade-offs. Talent and experience are both very important. In the modern era, you can't have best-of-the-best talent as seniors. It just doesn't happen. So you can either sacrifice talent or experience. Cal has elected to sacrifice experience, and by any reasonable measure he's been very successful. To argue he hasn't been sufficiently successful is to ignore the talent/experience trade-off.

You don't always need to come rain on parades. You don't need to be the beacon of logic and rationality. It's tiresome and no fun.

 

[MWHeels]

You can only pick one of the following:
1) The OAD approach is a less effective approach than developing players over 4 years.
2) If teams following the OAD approach don't dominate, they are underperforming.

It can't be both. Everyone agrees that experience is extremely important in college basketball right up until they want to argue that K and Cal should dominate with their talented teams that lack experience. It's not intellectually consistent.

Program strategies have trade-offs. Talent and experience are both very important. In the modern era, you can't have best-of-the-best talent as seniors. It just doesn't happen. So you can either sacrifice talent or experience. Cal has elected to sacrifice experience, and by any reasonable measure he's been very successful. To argue he hasn't been sufficiently successful is to ignore the talent/experience trade-off.

My argument has always been number 1, and I only brought up Cal's one championship as proof of that. I think the approach that K and Cal have regarding OAD can produce a high level of success in the regular season and in the tournamnet to a certain point. And that's fine. I just don't think it's a sustainable model for winning National Championships, which is really the only thing that matters to programs like UNC, Duke and Kentucky. Go on the RR board and see if their fans are happy with all the final four appearances. Most are not, and are actually asking for at least some long term players.

 

[Green C14]

Keep him arguing Slinger. If you keep him distracted till the sun shines on him he will turn to stone.

 

[Coach325]

The question is why would anyone want to grad transfer to duke for their last year of eligibility just to play if someone in Duke's starting rotation gets hurt? Not a really good sell there.

Great point and that's what makes the grad thing tricky for Duke this year. Starting rotation is pretty much set at this point so you are trying to recruit someone to come off the bench their final year and not many are going to be open to that. Duke reached out to Joe Cremo and his lists consisted of the likes of Creighton, Penn State, etc. where he would actually start. I'm not sure Duke will be able to find the right fit honestly and most of these guys know that Coach K is pretty set on only playing 7-8 guys and with O'Connell & DeLaurier coming off the bench already it doesn't leave much room for many others.

 

[Coach325]

Word down here says kay is on his knees begging as we speak.

This is incorrect. Duke would certainly take him if he chooses to go that route, but they are not the ones pushing for this.

 

[MWHeels]

The transfer thing is getting out of control, and I don't mean just at Duke. It's becoming like a free agent system throughout college basketball in addition to the recruitment of high school players. It really needs to be changed. And yes, I say this knowing UNC benefited from the transfer rule with Cam coming here.

 

[Coach325]

The transfer thing is getting out of control, and I don't mean just at Duke. It's becoming like a free agent system throughout college basketball in addition to the recruitment of high school players. It really needs to be changed. And yes, I say this knowing UNC benefited from the transfer rule with Cam coming here.

Players shouldn't be able to transfer after they've graduated? Or you mean BEFORE graduating? Even as a Duke fan, I was in favor of allowing Cam Johnson to transfer because he had graduated and fulfilled his obligation to Pitt. Why would we try and tell a graduate what they can/can't do?

 

[pln2013]

The transfer thing is getting out of control, and I don't mean just at Duke. It's becoming like a free agent system throughout college basketball in addition to the recruitment of high school players. It really needs to be changed. And yes, I say this knowing UNC benefited from the transfer rule with Cam coming here.

I can leave my job at will. Hell, coaches leave their jobs to find better opportunities. Why shouldn't kids be able to do the same thing, provided they fulfill their academic responsibilities? It's not ideal for smaller programs, but it's good for the kids themselves.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

This is incorrect. Duke would certainly take him if he chooses to go that route, but they are not the ones pushing for this.

Sure coach.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

Sigh.

Ok dude. I'm not sure why I entertain you with debate. You're very matter-of-fact and literal when I'm trying to make a larger point. I bet you frequently argue semantics as well. It's annoying. People like that annoy me.

 

[dadika13]

This board was so much better when FlaTarHeel went on his 3 month posting hiatus.

 

[tarheel0910]

This board was so much better when FlaTarHeel went on his 3 month posting hiatus.

At the risk of being shamed by some other posters on this board, I'll second that.

 

[Coach325]

Sure coach.

Gotcha. If you say it's true, it must be........I'll defer to your expertise.

 

[gary-7]

You can only pick one of the following:
1) The OAD approach is a less effective approach than developing players over 4 years.
2) If teams following the OAD approach don't dominate, they are underperforming.

It can't be both. Everyone agrees that experience is extremely important in college basketball right up until they want to argue that K and Cal should dominate with their talented teams that lack experience. It's not intellectually consistent.

Program strategies have trade-offs. Talent and experience are both very important. In the modern era, you can't have best-of-the-best talent as seniors. It just doesn't happen. So you can either sacrifice talent or experience. Cal has elected to sacrifice experience, and by any reasonable measure he's been very successful. To argue he hasn't been sufficiently successful is to ignore the talent/experience trade-off.

Fair enough to some degree, but that is a disingenuous misstatement of the anti-OAD part of the argument --- at least most of the ones I see being made. What you're missing is that K and Rat have sacrificed team-building and development to create self-fulfilling revolving doors. so no, you DON'T have to "pick one". There's nuance in between.

 

[pln2013]

Fair enough to some degree, but that is a disingenuous misstatement of the anti-OAD part of the argument --- at least most of the ones I see being made. What you're missing is that K and Rat have sacrificed team-building and development to create self-fulfilling revolving doors. so no, you DON'T have to "pick one". There's nuance in between.

Agreed - that was an oversimplification. K and Cal have chosen an edge case (take entire classes of OAD players), but you can certainly sign a mix of OAD talent and multi-year talent.

 

[dadika13]

Fair enough to some degree, but that is a disingenuous misstatement of the anti-OAD part of the argument --- at least most of the ones I see being made. What you're missing is that K and Rat have sacrificed team-building and development to create self-fulfilling revolving doors. so no, you DON'T have to "pick one". There's nuance in between.

Self-fulfilling to the players? Yes.

But I'd argue K and Cal aren't doing themselves any favors by having to coach a new group of OADs every year. That sounds brutal.

 

[MWHeels]

It's interesting to read some of the comments on Rupp Rafters now. The majority used to be totally in favor of the OAD revolving door system. There's a lot of them now who are growing tired of it and wish they had more long term players.

 

[gary-7]

Self-fulfilling to the players? Yes.

But I'd argue K and Cal aren't doing themselves any favors by having to coach a new group of OADs every year. That sounds brutal.

Self-fulfilling to themselves and their programs as well.

When you're constantly recruiting "over" good players, unless (like Roy) you aren't afraid to bring an OAD off the bench, you stunt the growth of the entire operation by becoming a revolving door for the next batch of shiny new toys --- but of course, Cal and K also create the built-in excuse of their teams constantly being "too young', so there's that...