Bona has 10 guys in the portal. They ain’t all seniors. Facts really get in the way sometimes. 

But let’s go with this seniors don’t count thing. So then TDM, Weathers, and Hughes leaving, isn’t on Dambrot. 

Not sure what Boeheim’s resume has to do with the transfer issue. Boeheim is one of the most successful coaches in NCAA history. But guess what, he had 2 sophomores and 2 freshmen transfer last year and 2 more freshmen and a junior this year. So, has he lost he ability to relate to players, is he too hard on them, or just too stubborn? I mean he always plays that zone and never adapts to his players. Or maybe he can’t judge talent and either recruited guys who weren’t good enough or didn’t see how good guys were and let them leave. 

Or maybe guys transfer for lots of reasons and will keep doing it until the NCAA changes the rules or kids realize the grass isn’t always greener and stick it out. 

Maybe these are not mutually exclusive arguments. Certainly both can be true. What makes Duquesne different...a losing record for most of the past 40 years sure doesn't help. If I'm another coach, the easy line is, "They haven't won regularly there forever, they're never going to. Come play for a winner. It's more fun." How do you counter that?

Not sure of the reasons why but today's young people, and a lot of older ones, feel very little loyalty to schools or coaches and sometimes friends, family, or even faith. Everything is transactional. Retaining players, students, employees, congregants, etc. is extremely difficult in 2022 and ideas on how to do it, I'm afraid, miss more often than they hit. If anyone has a magic bullet for retention, don't share it here. Market it and retire.

Lots of good points in this discussion.  z duke, here is my view on a way of reducing turnover.

1) Recognize that like it or not that the Portal has fundamentally changed basketball forever.  Coaches that can adapt and effectively use the portal in building the core of their team will be successful, those who build their teams on mostly freshmen will get poached and see high turnover (which now is considered more than 3-4 players)

2) Build your team around mostly sophomore and junior transfers, as these kids will most likely stay two to three years. This should be your core and account for 7-8 scholarships.  The key is to get good recruits that fit your system and still gives room for coaches to develop them.  Mistakes and holes should be plugged with grad transfers and maybe account for 1-2 players.  The balance of the team maybe three to 4 prep or HS players.  This is where the turnover will occur as you may get a gem who decides to transfer up, or a kid may be sacrificed to recruit over an existing player.

I recognize that this may be an overly simplistic view, so I wave any royalty rights. 

Last edited by CLK (5/13/2022 12:39 pm)

According to NCAA numbers 4+players per team have transferred over the past few years. Quick count, since 2018 Duquesne had 27. So, higher than average. But that 27 includes everyone, including Tarin Smith,  Kellon Taylor, Frankie Hughes, TDM, and Weathers. Whether you count those guys or not I would not say call DU’s numbers atrocious. 

Also according to NCAA, 40% of D1 mens players transfer by end of sophomore year. So, it’s a younger player problem.   Bad fit, don’t like the coach, who knows. Whatever the reasons, young players are not sticking with their first program.

My only point with these stats is that IMO blaming Dambrot or even the program is ignoring what is going on everywhere. 

I would guess mid-majors, lower budget, and struggling programs have it tougher and probably drive up the numbers.  Whether due to a miss on a kid who the coach tells he should move on,  a kid not wanting to wait his turn for PT, or a kid being able to move up, my guess is these happen more at the Duquesnes than the Dukes. 

I didn’t check for stats to back this up, but I don’t think Dambrot had a huge transfer problem at Akron. What I remember hearing when he was hired was that he had a lot of 3, 4, and 5 year guys. Another reason I’m not jumping to the conclusion he can’t form relationships, etc. If coaching guys hard is a problem and coaches can’t do that any longer without players quitting on them, IMO we have deeper problems than Duquesne or college basketball. 

But I agree, if the transfers rules, NIL, and current culture don’t change, coaches and programs better change. 

The record in year 5 was 6-24. Many coaches are relieved of their coaching duties after such a season. I have never advocated for that. EVER! But I did post that the coming season is the most significant one of the two seasons, this past one and the next, for me. We really need to see major progress and more than a .500  season IMHO. We went from 9-9 to 6-24 in one season. Lets at least see 16 or 17 wins this next season. Am I being too demanding or unrealistic with this? I really don't think so. I'd really like to see 20 wins but not certain that is a possibility with the roster as it now stands. I don't believe , as one poster suggested, that we will see a similar season coming up, but on the outside chance that we do, then the university has a serious decision to make. Let's get it turned around and Let's go Dukes!

https://bustingbrackets.com/2022/05/13/syracuse-basketball-mounir-hima-pickup-represents-high-risk-high-reward/

luckymcd wrote:

I’m not going to pretend I saw this kind of jump for him, but  changing the situation only slightly would make it much less surprising. St. Bonaventure offered him out of high school. Let’s say he went there instead.

He redshirted his freshman year and played the exact minutes and put up the exact stats he did last year for us for the Bonnies. He’d be seen as a raw, but talented player that couldn’t get time because he was buried behind an all-league player. He showed his ability in his limited opportunities though.

The label would be the same, high risk/high reward. Hima is definitely still raw. I feel that shortcoming is being accentuated because his limited action was for such a bad team though.

 


I like your comparison of Hima at the Bonnies as compared to Duquesne.  The only sentence that caught my eye is "He’d be seen as a raw, but talented player that couldn’t get time because he was buried behind an all-league player."
We had no one that Hima should have been buried behind at Duquesne but I feel the raw and talented tags would still have applied unless changes were made. Personally, I feel remorse at the loss of Hima. I strongly suspect that had Dambrot given him appropriate playing time throughout the full season, Hima would have had a talented tag but less-raw description. It is what it is. Nice article Luckymcd.