Despite the fact their situation has only slightly improved and the meme hinges on not yet realized commitments from two high school players..
Jeff Goodman earlier this week and now Gary Parrish have written online projecting a return to Final Fours and national title contention if the Blue Devils land Harrison Barnes and Kylie Irving. Needless to say both declarations strike me as somewhat premature.
First of all, Goodman(no link):
If Coach K can get a commitment from Irving – one of the nation’s elite point guards – and then secure Harrison Barnes, arguably the nation’s top player, the Blue Devils could be back in business and competing for national titles once again.
And if Mike Krzyzewski also lands Harrison Barnes — Duke is widely considered the leader for Barnes, too — then we won’t be talking about the Blue Devils’ Final Four drought much longer, because a core of Irving and Barnes is the type of core that would return Duke to its rightful place among the nation’s truly elite basketball schools.
I do not disagree much with the analysis. Certainly Barnes and Irving would give Duke the type of athletic players, especially on the interior, they they have missed on in recent years. But could someone please explain to me why we have to national writers basically saying the same thing about Duke within two days of each other? Did these guys put money on Duke for the 2011 NCAA Tournament or something? Jeff Goodman, for his part, is probably glad Parrish jumped on the bandwagon so if it all backfires he can say “I wasn’t the only one who thought that!” Parrish actually goes much further discussing how Duke’s recruiting has been substandard(relatively speaking) but at the same time how great Mike Krzyzewski was to even have Duke finishing 2nd in the ACC during that span. Amid all that Parrish then makes a curious argument:
It’s a direct result, I think, of putting too much emphasis on character and intangibles — i.e., so-called “good and smart kids” — in recruiting and not enough emphasis on just getting badass ballers who can run and jump at an elite level. Beyond that, Duke hasn’t always operated with a clear backup plan, and so when the Blue Devils missed on guys like Greg Monroe (signed with Georgetown) and Kenny Boynton (signed with Florida), there was nowhere to turn and recover.
In other words, while somebody like John Calipari will cast a wide net — Kentucky has offered each of the top four point guards in the Class of 2010; Calipari will be thrilled to get any two of them — Krzyzewski has a history of isolating targets and focusing almost exclusively on a handful of guys. Throughout most of the 1990s, it worked. But at some point over the past decade kids stopped automatically accepting scholarship offers from Duke over places like Georgetown and Florida, and that has clearly played a role in the slip.
But the slip is over.
Or at least it’s about to be over.
–
Bottom line, the recruiting troubles that have plagued Duke recently seem to be a thing of the past.
That means those on-the-court troubles will soon be disappearing, too.
Holy cart before the horse Batman! Right now no one knows what Barnes is going to do. Based on what I have read is Barnes is not a sure thing for Duke and calling them a leader for his services might be a tad strong. Duke has had the longest relationship with Barnes and that does factor in heavily where recruiting is concerned. However, Roy has made a strong play for the #1 player in 2010 and the speculation is UNC is as much a player for Barnes as Duke is at this point.
Secondary to that, Parrish is flat wrong about why Duke’s recruiting has fallen off. It has nothing to do with pursuing “good and smart kids” for the sake of it. It has everything to do with the fact Mike Krzyzewski swore off recruiting players who might jump to the NBA after one season following the departure of Luol Deng following freshman season. There was also the decommitment of Shaun Livingston to enter the NBA Draft around that same time frame. These two incidents is what I think led to perceptible shift in how Duke recruited opting to pursue fewer one and doners in favor of kids with longer term college plans. At the same time UNC continued to recruit both and built incredibly successful teams despite having early departures for the NBA.
The one and done angle is only part of it however. Another aspect of the equation is the fact Roy Williams returned to North Carolina and within two years began cleaning Duke’s clock on a regular basis. Check the records, the last time Duke had a legitimate center was also the last time they beat UNC in their own building and even then Duke lost the last game Shelden Williams played there to UNC. Roy’s recruiting prowess is also part of Duke’s slide as witnessed by Brandan Wright ending up at UNC following heavy speculation he would end up at Duke. Roy’s recent run at UNC also has diminished the Duke brand to the point the Blue Devils are releasing videos in an effort to market their on the court product because the actual on the court product is underwhelming. UNC on the other hand has been playing an uptempo style of basketball that mimics the NBA game and is darn exciting to watch. Looking at the two side by side produces a startling contrast which does impact player recruiting. And it’s not just UNC either. Parrish is correct to point out that programs like Florida and Georgetown to name two have been effective in stealing players from Duke just as UNC does.
Of course Parrish does not see the NBA angle and instead offers up a fairly asinine theory that Duke’s slump is a result of targeting smart/character kids versus ones who can actually play. Guess what? Roy Williams keeps recruiting character kids who are smart and athletic all at the same time. Danny Green, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Tyler Hansbrough, Ed Davis, Deon Thompson, John Henson and potentially others are all “ballers who can run and jump at an elite level” and you know what else they are? All student athletes with great character and of the ones who have moved on Roy has gushed that they were a joy to have on his team. In fact the more I read that particular paragraph the more shocked I am that Parrish actually wrote it. Not because it is necessarily wrong(which it is) but because it is entirely
