IF a new coach brings in the highest ranked players, McDonald AA's...

[Paterfamilias]

A lot of those one and dones like Kentucky has had haven't been projected one and dones. A lot of the two and dones haven't been projected to ever play in the NBA. I think he has an excellent eye for talent as well as having all of the marketing done for him.

Cal, I think, is outstanding at getting strong team play from his young teams. I wonder though how often he will be able to develop the "chemistry" (for lack of a better word) that championship teams typically have.

I think the super youthful teams have to close to impossible to score on in March, because they have to win on the defensive end. It's too difficult to develop that offensive chemistry in such a short time together.

 

[IU Scott]

In my opinion, your flaw is simply looking to see if a title was won. In my opinion, a program can only be based and the position that they put themselves most years. And of course, "one and done" teams win only make up about 2 percent of the ncaa and win title as roughly 10 percent while non one and teams have a .33 percent chance. What some of you guys are doing is grouping all non one and done teams together and saying that giant group of 300 teams has cumulatively done better and wins it more than the other 2 percent of one and dones so one and done doesn't work when actuall the stats prove that one and done has bee amazingly dominant.

No what we are saying is that IU fans prefer having players come n and develop over the years and get to know them. Most years you will not win a championship so I would prefer a team that I enjoy watching and I like watching experience teams.

 

[Paterfamilias]

In my opinion, your flaw is simply looking to see if a title was won. In my opinion, a program can only be based and the position that they put themselves most years. And of course, "one and done" teams win only make up about 2 percent of the ncaa and win title as roughly 10 percent while non one and teams have a .33 percent chance. What some of you guys are doing is grouping all non one and done teams together and saying that giant group of 300 teams has cumulatively done better and wins it more than the other 2 percent of one and dones so one and done doesn't work when actuall the stats prove that one and done has bee amazingly dominant.

I see what you're saying... but that is not what we are saying I consider U-Conn, UNC, KU and Louisville as recent elite's of the hoops world. They have won 6 National Titles in the 1-and-done era with only Marvin Williams as a 1-and done.

 

[IU Scott]

I see what you're saying... but that is not what we are saying I consider U-Conn, UNC, KU and Louisville as recent elite's of the hoops world. They have won 6 National Titles in the 1-and-done era with only Marvin Williams as a 1-and done.

and he only averaged around 9pts a game coming off the bench

 

[T.M.P.]

In my opinion, your flaw is simply looking to see if a title was won. In my opinion, a program can only be based and the position that they put themselves most years. And of course, "one and done" teams win only make up about 2 percent of the ncaa and win title as roughly 10 percent while non one and teams have a .33 percent chance. What some of you guys are doing is grouping all non one and done teams together and saying that giant group of 300 teams has cumulatively done better and wins it more than the other 2 percent of one and dones so one and done doesn't work when actuall the stats prove that one and done has bee amazingly dominant.

I'd say the more prevailing trait is the coach - most of whom have been successful with and without one and dones. Your's being the exception.

And,fwiw though there is 351 teams in NCAA d1, using all of them to compare anything is highly flawed and will skew any stat. 250 of those teams do not matter and never will.

Example: Using 351 coaches probably puts Crean in the top 20%. So it looks as if he's a "good" coach compared to the average of 176. This is flawed. The real perspective any basketball fan has only looks at 40 to 60 teams per season, with those teams in the 40's and 60's being considered "poor" teams. So the average team in fan perspective is actually closer to 30th and that view is probably more accurate overall because those teams ranked 100 and below are truly disadvantaged when compared.

There's just too many teams in D1.

 

[Hoosier01]

actuall the stats prove that one and done has bee amazingly dominant.

I agree that the one and done teams more regularly compete but to say they're more dominant when 11 of the last 13 champs were not one and dones is bs. You are over complicating this. 11 of 13 tells the story. Good info provided by Scott and pater btw. Didn't know that stat

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

This whole conversation is warped. Coaches are going to try and get the best players they can in each class. It's not as if Wisconsin or Villanova are deliberately going after players they know will stay four years.

You think Bill Self and Roy Williams are deliberately recruiting lower ranked players so they can be more experienced when they run up against Duke and UK? Those schools are all competing for the same guys, it's just UK and Duke come out on top more often.

Those 2012 UK and 2015 Duke teams were undoubtedly lead by Freshman, to suggest it was upperclassmen leadership that got them over the hump is disingenuous.

 

[mebeblue2]

I would guess you are a younger generation IU fan because we value more than just having the best talent. We want to have a coach who will build a team and see those players develop over the years. Having one is alright but not a roster full of one and done players because sometimes those players agenda is for themselves and not the team. How did LSU do last year with Simmons or how is Washington doing with their one and done player.

your post runs in circles
you asked how LSU and Washington has done with their one OAD player in a negative way
you stated that having one OAD player is fine in a positive way

 

[jaypay23]

I will never want IU to be a farm system for the NBA with all one and done players. It has been proven that teams like UW and Villanova can win with 4 year players and that is how I want us to build a program.

I enjoy watching some of our players continue to the NBA.. So I would like to sprinkle in some blue chips on top of our four star recruits.

 

[sobecat]

I agree that the one and done teams more regularly compete but to say they're more dominant when 11 of the last 13 champs were not one and dones is bs. You are over complicating this. 11 of 13 tells the story. Good info provided by Scott and pater btw. Didn't know that stat

11 of 13 does not tell the story and it's not that complicated to understand why. A RANDOM 1 OF 300 IS GENERALLY GOING TO BEAT OUT THE TOP 10. BUT ANY GIVEN TEAM IN THAT 300, NOT THE 300 AS A FIELD, IS EXPONENTIALLY AT A DISADVANTAGE TO ANY GIVEN OF THE TOP 10.

 

[sobecat]

No what we are saying is that IU fans prefer having players come n and develop over the years and get to know them. Most years you will not win a championship so I would prefer a team that I enjoy watching and I like watching experience teams.

That's not what has been said at all. In any event, I can appreciate that concept, but for good or bad, as long as the rule is there that team won't win.

 

[sobecat]

I agree that the one and done teams more regularly compete but to say they're more dominant when 11 of the last 13 champs were not one and dones is bs. You are over complicating this. 11 of 13 tells the story. Good info provided by Scott and pater btw. Didn't know that stat

What I mean as "dominant" is that having one-and-done talent as proven to be more important than I think most would have imagined. That 2 percent of teams has made up about 50 percent of teams in the final 4's.

 

[sobecat]

Cal, I think, is outstanding at getting strong team play from his young teams. I wonder though how often he will be able to develop the "chemistry" (for lack of a better word) that championship teams typically have.

I think the super youthful teams have to close to impossible to score on in March, because they have to win on the defensive end. It's too difficult to develop that offensive chemistry in such a short time together.

Where I disagree is I think any team that makes the final four has a champion's mentality. In a 6-game one-and-out tourney, things still have to go your way.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Where I disagree is I think any team that makes the final four has a champion's mentality. In a 6-game one-and-out tourney, things still have to go your way.

Here's the issue as I see it...

Since 2007, when the 1-and-done floodgates first opened, there have been 100 One-and-Dones that were drafted. There have been 18 of them appear in the Final Four and those 18 breakdown like this...

10 played for Calipari (plays them in bunches all the time)
3 played for Coach K (all on the same team)
3 played for Thad Matta (all on the same team)
1 played for Ben Howland
1 played for Jim Boeheim

In reality, all we're doing is talking about Kentucky and Coach Cal. Thad Matta had himself a once in a lifetime bonanza class and almost won it all. Coach K won a title with a bonanza class and another one with vets, but is pursuing the Cal method lately.

Other than Cal and K the One-and-Done player isn't really having that big of an impact.

There are a lot of great college basketball schools that don't appear in that list above... and they are doing fine.

 

[TR32]

I'm not flaming, but that's how every team was at the time IU was competing for titles. It doesn't work that way anymore. If you think you are going to be competitive on a regular basis starting 3 seniors and 2 juniors then just stick with Crean.

This is the opposite of true. Crean's problem is that he can't keep anyone and "Creans" half his roster every year. Look, there is absolutely (and I mean absolutely) no point in taking one-and-doners unless you win with them immediately. If you can't do it you hurt your program by constantly creating an experience vacuum. Noah Vonleh, for example, hurt the program more than he helped it despite being a good player. He helped Crean keep his job, but he didn't help a bad team get better for the FOLLOWING season.

You recruit players so that they help the team. Some of them are ready their first year, others are not. MOST are not- including "one and doners". So it comes down to winning and whether you win with who you recruit. One and doners are not guaranteed winners just because they have talent. Making the NBA doesn't mean you were tough as nails in the clutch in a close game in late March.

Crean's best teams at IU had seniors. There is no argument there. A handful of seniors are going to be better than a handful of freshmen 4 out of 5 times. It's just how it is. Experience matters and playing for a good coach in a good system matters. That is exactly why Northwestern is succeeding this year and why Wisconsin has been so good for the past 17 years.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Where I disagree is I think any team that makes the final four has a champion's mentality. In a 6-game one-and-out tourney, things still have to go your way.

One last thing about this. In the last 10 Final Four weekends, there have 30 games played. In those 30 games, 7 times the victorious team had a One-and-Done player.

Cal coached 4 winners, K coached 2 winners and Matta coached 1. The other 23 victors did so without a One-and-Done, and 8 of those were for the National Title.

I'm not saying that recruiting those guys is a bad strategy, but there's plenty of evidence suggesting that you can get by just fine without them.

 

[sobecat]

You are still grouping grouping 340 teams together against 10 teams without factoring this in with your conclusions. I can't stress this enough. It's like saying well, teams a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I. j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s,t, u, v, w, x and y........have two titles in the last 5 year without having one and dones while team z, which has one and dones only has one. Therefore teams without one and dones are better than teams with them.

Only a very small percentage of teams a through y have won and none of them are consistently in the chase, which what you want.

 

[T.M.P.]

You are still grouping grouping 340 teams together against 10 teams without factoring this in with your conclusions. I can't stress this enough. It's like saying well, teams a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I. j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s,t, u, v, w, x and y........have two titles in the last 5 year without having one and dones while team z, which has one and dones only has one. Therefore teams without one and dones are better than teams with them.

No, that's not what he's saying. He even stated "I'm not saying that recruiting those guys is a bad strategy, but there's plenty of evidence suggesting that you can get by just fine without them" ..

And you really need to get away from the 351 team thing. He set the comparative as teams that made a final four. It's a far more accurate and better perspective than comparing UK to incarnate Word and noting that Incarnate Word has never had a one and done.

 

[Paterfamilias]

You are still grouping grouping 340 teams together against 10 teams without factoring this in with your conclusions. I can't stress this enough. It's like saying well, teams a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I. j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s,t, u, v, w, x and y........have two titles in the last 5 year without having one and dones while team z, which has one and dones only has one. Therefore teams without one and dones are better than teams with them.

Only a very small percentage of teams a through y have won and none of them are consistently in the chase, which what you want.

I think that you think that I don't get the point you're making... I do get it. I'm taking the field against the One and Done teams and that's unfair because there is only one team (coach) that has really had sustained One and Done success. The field against one is unfair, but that is also the point. If One and Done'e are dominating college basketball and ultimately your only chance for success, then why can't I find the dominance outside of Cal?

 

[T.M.P.]

I think that you think that I don't get the point you're making... I do get it. I'm taking the field against the One and Done teams and that's unfair because there is only one team (coach) that has really had sustained One and Done success. The field against one is unfair, but that is also the point. If One and Done'e are dominating college basketball and ultimately your only chance for success, then why can't I find the dominance outside of Cal?

Cal does have a 50% success rate as far as going to final fours during this era. Five Final Fours in ten years. Which is pretty damn good but the view that it was done with one and dones is what's flawed. Of course he had one and dones, and that gave them notoriety for media but every team also had key juniors and multiple key sophs except 2014. The championship team may have featured a frosh, but where would they be without the 2 sophomores and especially Darius Miller. If the argument was recruiting five star talent or eventual pro picks - instead of one and done - I think we would both say duh..and drop it. It wasn't the one and done that led his teams to final fours, is was the accumulated overall talent, and the veteran talent, that did.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Cal does have a 50% success rate as far as going to final fours during this era. Five Final Fours in ten years. Which is pretty damn good but the view that it was done with one and dones is what's flawed. Of course he had one and dones, and that gave them notoriety for media but every team also had key juniors and multiple key sophs except 2014. The championship team may have featured a frosh, but where would they be without the 2 sophomores and especially Darius Miller. If the argument was recruiting five star talent or eventual pro picks - instead of one and done - I think we would both say duh..and drop it. It wasn't the one and done that led his teams to final fours, is was the overall talent and the veteran talent, that did.

Absolutely! With ya 100%! It's like my UCLA deal this year. Obviously, I don't hate One and Done talent or I wouldn't have bet them. The first thing I look for when I see a great incoming class is who are they joining. The right mixture of talent and experience and I'm a believer.

The thing that I hate about people saying "hey, why don't we just do what Kentucky does" is that Cal and K are recruiting at a level never before seen in college hoops. Just deciding to do it the Kentucky way won't work... you actually need to join them in recruiting at a staggering success rate. It's just not a reasonable goal.

When you couple that with the fact that a revolving door of players isn't as rewarding as a fan, then I'm cool with scrapping the whole nutty idea altogether.

 

[IU Scott]

This whole conversation is warped. Coaches are going to try and get the best players they can in each class. It's not as if Wisconsin or Villanova are deliberately going after players they know will stay four years.

You think Bill Self and Roy Williams are deliberately recruiting lower ranked players so they can be more experienced when they run up against Duke and UK? Those schools are all competing for the same guys, it's just UK and Duke come out on top more often.

Those 2012 UK and 2015 Duke teams were undoubtedly lead by Freshman, to suggest it was upperclassmen leadership that got them over the hump is disingenuous.

Actually heard jay Wright the other day say that he does not even recruit kids who he thinks would be one and done playerss

 

[IU Scott]

I think that you think that I don't get the point you're making... I do get it. I'm taking the field against the One and Done teams and that's unfair because there is only one team (coach) that has really had sustained One and Done success. The field against one is unfair, but that is also the point. If One and Done'e are dominating college basketball and ultimately your only chance for success, then why can't I find the dominance outside of Cal?

it is obvious he is not going to listen to facts so don't waste your time. He must have listen to Cal's garbage long enough that he believes it. He probably also believes Cal when he said that the best day in UK history was when they had 5 first round draft picks.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

it is obvious he is not going to listen to facts so don't waste your time. He must have listen to Cal's garbage long enough that he believes it. He probably also believes Cal when he said that the best day in UK history was when they had 5 first round draft picks.

I know a few true UK grads and when they are being honest...the wins are intoxicatingly but they would pre fer to have a program with students in touch with the university.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

The right coach will probably be recruiting OADs as part of his overall recruiting strategy. I am OK with that. After all, not all OADs start out that way. Some arrive during their freshman year and change course as the success materializes.

At any rate, IU cannot and will not return to prominence without premier, solid recruiting and reloading. OADs and recruiting elite Indiana kids (even if it is limited cherry-picking) is necessary for success at Indiana.

One advantage of recruiting the right OAD is the influence on other targets whose recruitment is contingent upon or boosted by that OAD commitment. I want elite recruiting by the right coach. Right now, we have decent recruiting by the wrong coach.

 

[sobecat]

I think that you think that I don't get the point you're making... I do get it. I'm taking the field against the One and Done teams and that's unfair because there is only one team (coach) that has really had sustained One and Done success. The field against one is unfair, but that is also the point. If One and Done'e are dominating college basketball and ultimately your only chance for success, then why can't I find the dominance outside of Cal?

Fair enough, but I hope you do see why my point invalidates the argument that started this debate by IUScott and a couple of others, i.e, that since non one and dones have won most of the titles then you don't need them for sustained success. That conclusion may or may not be correct, but the title thing by different random teams, doesn't prove it at all. He's either ignoring this to be obtuse or he's just not capable of understanding it.

 

[sobecat]

I know a few true UK grads and when they are being honest...the wins are intoxicatingly but they would pre fer to have a program with students in touch with the university.

1. That hasn't been the discussion.

2. UK NBA grads are known for how much they come back to campus and how much the plug and support UK.

3. Let me get this straight. You know which fans are true and not true. All of them think this. And you know this because you can tell if they're being honest or not. Ok, got it.

Whatever you do or do not like one and dones, that has not been an issue.

 

[sobecat]

Actually heard jay Wright the other day say that he does not even recruit kids who he thinks would be one and done playerss

LOL, either he is lying or you are. You have a link? He's been strongly in the hunt for some of UK's.

 

[sobecat]

it is obvious he is not going to listen to facts so don't waste your time. He must have listen to Cal's garbage long enough that he believes it. He probably also believes Cal when he said that the best day in UK history was when they had 5 first round draft picks.

Your team built a shrine for beating UK in a regular season game. Look, I know you're trying. Spend some more time on went/gone, they're/there/their...etc.

 

[sobecat]

Absolutely! With ya 100%! It's like my UCLA deal this year. Obviously, I don't hate One and Done talent or I wouldn't have bet them. The first thing I look for when I see a great incoming class is who are they joining. The right mixture of talent and experience and I'm a believer.

The thing that I hate about people saying "hey, why don't we just do what Kentucky does" is that Cal and K are recruiting at a level never before seen in college hoops. Just deciding to do it the Kentucky way won't work... you actually need to join them in recruiting at a staggering success rate. It's just not a reasonable goal.

When you couple that with the fact that a revolving door of players isn't as rewarding as a fan, then I'm cool with scrapping the whole nutty idea altogether.

I enjoy it just as much. Unless a team is fortunate enough to win big, most fans usually just end upcriticizing the guys that aren't good enough leave. And yes, they all want to leave.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I enjoy it just as much. Unless a team is fortunate enough to win big, most fans usually just end upcriticizing the guys that aren't good enough leave. And yes, they all want to leave.

Hey sobe, you're a great poster who I've agreed with a lot on cat boards... I don't post there anymore for obvious reasons I just go there there for info that might help me in my gambling life.

Anyway, this debate has happened over and over again here. The reason that I did the research about OAD's in the Final Four and beyond in the first place, was to point out that my stance was not a stupid one as most believe. There is a basis for believing that a school can have even sustained success without OAD's (see UNC)

The problem for those in my camp is there is no argument good enough to convince those in your camp that our way is still viable.

We're not saying your way is bad... just that our way is viable.

 

[IU Scott]

Fair enough, but I hope you do see why my point invalidates the argument that started this debate by IUScott and a couple of others, i.e, that since non one and dones have won most of the titles then you don't need them for sustained success. That conclusion may or may not be correct, but the title thing by different random teams, doesn't prove it at all. He's either ignoring this to be obtuse or he's just not capable of understanding it.

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with your stance on this subject. You seem to have a problem with people who does not have the same opinion as yourself. You say that teams can't have sustain success without the one and done players and I disagree. Since UK and Duke are the only programs that rely a lot on one and done players does not help your argument. Are you saying that Duke and UK are the only programs that has had sustain success over the last 13 years.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with your stance on this subject. You seem to have a problem with people who does not have the same opinion as yourself. You say that teams can't have sustain success without the one and done players and I disagree. Since UK and Duke are the only programs that rely a lot on one and done players does not help your argument. Are you saying that Duke and UK are the only programs that has had sustain success over the last 13 years.

I'm even hesitant to include Duke as one of their championships in the OAD era had no OAD.

 

[IU Scott]

I'm even hesitant to include Duke as one of their championships in the OAD era had no OAD.

Duke really only started doing this in the last 4 years or so.

 

[sobecat]

Duke really only started doing this in the last 4 years or so.

Exactly

 

[Deli owl]

Yes you are because there has been 11 champions without a one and done so that proves you don't need them to win. Again if you like your program built that way it is fine but I don't want that here at IU. One every couple of classes then build it with high 4 or low 5 star players who will be around for awhile. UNC has gotten a lot of top recruits and kept them there for 3 or 4 years and has not ad a one and done since 2009.

All of this is a little crazy since less than one percent will be one and done. The chances of having one on the roster is very slim.

 

[Hooptdooz]

This whole conversation is warped. Coaches are going to try and get the best players they can in each class. It's not as if Wisconsin or Villanova are deliberately going after players they know will stay four years.

You think Bill Self and Roy Williams are deliberately recruiting lower ranked players so they can be more experienced when they run up against Duke and UK? Those schools are all competing for the same guys, it's just UK and Duke come out on top more often.

Those 2012 UK and 2015 Duke teams were undoubtedly lead by Freshman, to suggest it was upperclassmen leadership that got them over the hump is disingenuous.

This is the truth /\/\/\/\
The original question was: What will you do if the new coach goes the one and done route?

 

[Hooptdooz]

Exactly

Well take the One and Done's off of that team in 2015. Would they have won without MOP Tyus Jone and Kahlil Okafor????

 

[Hooptdooz]

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with your stance on this subject. You seem to have a problem with people who does not have the same opinion as yourself. You say that teams can't have sustain success without the one and done players and I disagree. Since UK and Duke are the only programs that rely a lot on one and done players does not help your argument. Are you saying that Duke and UK are the only programs that has had sustain success over the last 13 years.

Great if you want to be like Villanova and reach the Final Four twice in the last 32 years. That seems to be the standard that you guys are targeting. Maybe Butler would be a better target.

 

[IU Scott]

Great if you want to be like Villanova and reach the Final Four twice in the last 32 years. That seems to be the standard that you guys are targeting. Maybe Butler would be a better target.

They have made 2 in the last 9 years