How should the one-and-dones be handled?

[OhioBrownFan]

Seems to be a very hot topic at the moment.

Personally, I like the baseball approach. Have the opportunity to jump out of high school or go after 3 years of college. I dislike the fact that with 3 years of college, it will cut down the parity of college basketball imo. I think having seniors on teams like Wichita State is what allows them to compete with the KUs of the world that are led by freshman and sophomores. KU would still get the best of the best but there wouldn't be the experience and age disparity there is today that allows mid-majors to really play with the big boys.

[East Coast Mustang]

I don't think 17-18 year olds are ready for the NBA on a mental level, by and large- there shouldn't be that option straight out of HS. I'd like to see the requirement upped to 2 years out of HS, personally. But I think 3, as the NFL does now, would be too much and cut down on parity as you mentioned.

[sbsmith]

Leave it the way it is. Better to see these kids in CBB one year than to have all the good ones declare straight out of HS to avoid being trapped 3 years in college or some other non-NBA league. Might end up with the same problems as the old system.

[Stallion]

starting in 2016 a projected 42% or so of freshman basketball recruits (based on past statistics) will be (1) non-qualifiers or (2) mandatory academic redshirts during their first year in school -so any discussion about 1 and Done needs to realize for a great many kids 1 and Done is just about over.

[hoopmanx]

Seems to be a very hot topic at the moment.

Personally, I like the baseball approach. Have the opportunity to jump out of high school or go after 3 years of college. I dislike the fact that with 3 years of college, it will cut down the parity of college basketball imo. I think having seniors on teams like Wichita State is what allows them to compete with the KUs of the world that are led by freshman and sophomores. KU would still get the best of the best but there wouldn't be the experience and age disparity there is today that allows mid-majors to really play with the big boys.

I like the baseball approach as well, but don't think the 3 yrs would mess up parity. I've talked to a few coaches about bobby knights premise that summer ball has created parity for the mids. They seem to agree, and I'm coming around.

Basically, he states that big budget blue bloods and basketball first schools used to be the only ones that would recruit nationally bc of budgets. Now, b/c you can catch all the players at one time, at various national/regional tourneys, mids that used to only be able to recruit regionally, can now find a system fit on the national level. In essence, mid major coaches are every bit th x & o guys as the high majors, but rely on system ball as opposed to stacked rosters. By virtue of being able to scout everywhere now, they can find better system fits and not be relegated to a 200 mile radius.

[SMU 86]

starting in 2016 a projected 42% or so of freshman basketball recruits (based on past statistics) will be (1) non-qualifiers or (2) mandatory academic redshirts during their first year in school -so any discussion about 1 and Done needs to realize for a great many kids 1 and Done is just about over.

If 42% would be non qualifiers then they should not be forced to go to college. If kid comes to college and can't make the grades and you may never hear from him again. Do like soccer and allow them to sign whenever they want if someone drafts them.

[OhioBrownFan]

Seems to be a very hot topic at the moment.

Personally, I like the baseball approach. Have the opportunity to jump out of high school or go after 3 years of college. I dislike the fact that with 3 years of college, it will cut down the parity of college basketball imo. I think having seniors on teams like Wichita State is what allows them to compete with the KUs of the world that are led by freshman and sophomores. KU would still get the best of the best but there wouldn't be the experience and age disparity there is today that allows mid-majors to really play with the big boys.

I like the baseball approach as well, but don't think the 3 yrs would mess up parity. I've talked to a few coaches about bobby knights premise that summer ball has created parity for the mids. They seem to agree, and I'm coming around.

Basically, he states that big budget blue bloods and basketball first schools used to be the only ones that would recruit nationally bc of budgets. Now, b/c you can catch all the players at one time, at various national/regional tourneys, mids that used to only be able to recruit regionally, can now find a system fit on the national level. In essence, mid major coaches are every bit th x & o guys as the high majors, but rely on system ball as opposed to stacked rosters. By virtue of being able to scout everywhere now, they can find better system fits and not be relegated to a 200 mile radius.

Makes complete sense to me. It really is crazy how much has changed since Sonny and the Roundball Classic started.

As for the above poster that said kids out of high school are not ready, I agree, by and large this is the case. But there is absolutely no reason for Jabari Parker, Wiggins, Lebron James, ect to spend any time in college. I'd rather see those kids that are on that level the opportunity to go otherwise go to college and grow up, mature, work towards the degree, and refine the skill-set so that they are "NBA ready" when their time comes.

[SMU Section F]

I prefer the baseball model as well, but there is a reason college baseball isn't a revenue sport. The existence of a true minor league system makes big difference as well. The onus is also mostly on the professional sport to make these changes; despite its posturing the NCAA is on the low end of the totem pole for a lot of these decisions.

[CoxMustangFan]

Put me in the baseball camp, too. That said I don't really care. If you go after OAD's it's your nut sack over an open fire. So few equate to year one production worth a damn. Our brains haven't transitioned from the days when you would get a top recruit and he would stay for a number of years to pay dividends.

What the OAD's have done (by consequence) is created a market for the old guys (the grad transfer rule throwing gas on the fire). Teams can build an experienced roster and be very effective (men vs. boys...see SDSU).

All that said, you still have to play the game and chase them for a number of reasons.

1) Recruiting is a sport in itself. There are winners and losers. Fans derive pride (and shame). It's a discrete element.

2) Pipeline to the NBA matters. Alumni/fans want box scores.

3) The Pied Piper effect.

4) Production. Most don't bring numbers worth a damn, but some do. Those that do often bring a big pile of warts to boot. Using Turner as an example, not one team recruiting him becomes a NC contender with him. He may end up on a team that is a contender, but they were before.

[hoopmanx]

Put me in the baseball camp, too. That said I don't really care. If you go after OAD's it's your nut sack over an open fire. So few equate to year one production worth a damn. Our brains haven't transitioned from the days when you would get a top recruit and he would stay for a number of years to pay dividends.

What the OAD's have done (by consequence) is created a market for the old guys (the grad transfer rule throwing gas on the fire). Teams can build an experienced roster and be very effective (men vs. boys...see SDSU).

All that said, you still have to play the game and chase them for a number of reasons.

1) Recruiting is a sport in itself. There are winners and losers. Fans derive pride (and shame). It's a discrete element.

2) Pipeline to the NBA matters. Alumni/fans want box scores.

3) The Pied Piper effect.

4) Production. Most don't bring numbers worth a damn, but some do. Those that do often bring a big pile of warts to boot. Using Turner as an example, not one team recruiting him becomes a NC contender with him. He may end up on a team that is a contender, but they were before.

Great post, and one of the reasons I advocate smu recruiting mostly 25-150 types

[ojaipony]

I advocate smu recruiting mostly 25-150 types

I'm coming around to this now. Looks like that's what happening for 2015 (of course there are so many ships it just might that way). But other than Elijah Thomas, most of the guys we're targeting seem to be in that range.

[CoxMustangFan]

Put me in the baseball camp, too. That said I don't really care. If you go after OAD's it's your nut sack over an open fire. So few equate to year one production worth a damn. Our brains haven't transitioned from the days when you would get a top recruit and he would stay for a number of years to pay dividends.

What the OAD's have done (by consequence) is created a market for the old guys (the grad transfer rule throwing gas on the fire). Teams can build an experienced roster and be very effective (men vs. boys...see SDSU).

All that said, you still have to play the game and chase them for a number of reasons.

1) Recruiting is a sport in itself. There are winners and losers. Fans derive pride (and shame). It's a discrete element.

2) Pipeline to the NBA matters. Alumni/fans want box scores.

3) The Pied Piper effect.

4) Production. Most don't bring numbers worth a damn, but some do. Those that do often bring a big pile of warts to boot. Using Turner as an example, not one team recruiting him becomes a NC contender with him. He may end up on a team that is a contender, but they were before.

I advocate smu recruiting mostly 25-150 types

Crazy talk. Who cares about NCs?!?

[OhioBrownFan]

Put me in the baseball camp, too. That said I don't really care. If you go after OAD's it's your nut sack over an open fire. So few equate to year one production worth a damn. Our brains haven't transitioned from the days when you would get a top recruit and he would stay for a number of years to pay dividends.

What the OAD's have done (by consequence) is created a market for the old guys (the grad transfer rule throwing gas on the fire). Teams can build an experienced roster and be very effective (men vs. boys...see SDSU).

All that said, you still have to play the game and chase them for a number of reasons.

1) Recruiting is a sport in itself. There are winners and losers. Fans derive pride (and shame). It's a discrete element.

2) Pipeline to the NBA matters. Alumni/fans want box scores.

3) The Pied Piper effect.

4) Production. Most don't bring numbers worth a damn, but some do. Those that do often bring a big pile of warts to boot. Using Turner as an example, not one team recruiting him becomes a NC contender with him. He may end up on a team that is a contender, but they were before.

Great post, and one of the reasons I advocate smu recruiting mostly 25-150 types

I understand why you say what you are but you don't turn down top 10 players if it's clean, you know this. They change teams. Duke isn't a national title contender without Jabari Parker this year, they probably aren't even a good team without him. Kentucky definitely wouldn't have won a NC without Davis, Ohio State wouldn't have sniffed the Final Four without Sullinger. Arizona isn't top 5 without Gordon. UK isn't the team they are this year without Randle, and Kansas definitely isn't what they are without Seldon and Wiggins. I realize each of those teams are good, but they're much better than what they'd be without them. I'd take a top 10-15 player any day of the week and twice on Sunday if I'm trying to win it all.

[CoxMustangFan]

Put me in the baseball camp, too. That said I don't really care. If you go after OAD's it's your nut sack over an open fire. So few equate to year one production worth a damn. Our brains haven't transitioned from the days when you would get a top recruit and he would stay for a number of years to pay dividends.

What the OAD's have done (by consequence) is created a market for the old guys (the grad transfer rule throwing gas on the fire). Teams can build an experienced roster and be very effective (men vs. boys...see SDSU).

All that said, you still have to play the game and chase them for a number of reasons.

1) Recruiting is a sport in itself. There are winners and losers. Fans derive pride (and shame). It's a discrete element.

2) Pipeline to the NBA matters. Alumni/fans want box scores.

3) The Pied Piper effect.

4) Production. Most don't bring numbers worth a damn, but some do. Those that do often bring a big pile of warts to boot. Using Turner as an example, not one team recruiting him becomes a NC contender with him. He may end up on a team that is a contender, but they were before.

Great post, and one of the reasons I advocate smu recruiting mostly 25-150 types

I understand why you say what you are but you don't turn down top 10 players if it's clean, you know this. They change teams. Duke isn't a national title contender without Jabari Parker this year, they probably aren't even a good team without him. Kentucky definitely wouldn't have won a NC without Davis, Ohio State wouldn't have sniffed the Final Four without Sullinger. Arizona isn't top 5 without Gordon. UK isn't the team they are this year without Randle, and Kansas definitely isn't what they are without Seldon and Wiggins. I realize each of those teams are good, but they're much better than what they'd be without them. I'd take a top 10-15 player any day of the week and twice on Sunday if I'm trying to win it all.

SeldEn would be addition by subtraction. Think you meant JoJo? Regardless, you just named the small handful of key guys. Let's add in Durant, too. Only problem with Durant is he didn't have enough help, and Davis doesn't do [deleted] without a deep bench around him. In terms of production, I'll take a 3/4-year #42 over a 10 ppg #9 OAD any day of the week. In terms of the other factors listed, you have to play the game.

[OhioBrownFan]

I'm not disagreeing. Rarely has a team won the NC without a top 20 player though. I can't even name one recently. #42 player in the nation that stays for 4 years gets you SDSU or Zaga. Top 20 gets you the last 13 national champions. I don't think MSU had a top 20 recruit on it in 2000. Obviously a lot of luck is involved but you need to have big time NBA talent on the roster to win it all 95% of the time. I think I read where the last like 20 NCs have had a McDs All-American on the roster