sheyduke said:

What do you think is going on with Duke right now ? They got to see who they can get to return from this roster .

Click to expand...

Duke's players aren't sitting out practices to force a new deal.

Watched this kid a couple times last year, tremendous physical ability but needs all the reps he can get. He's hurting himself and his team by making this an issue now and handling it this way.

Th0r said:

And in my opinion, the best counterbalance to all of this isn’t a news outlet or a fact-checking site—it’s real life.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Th0r said:

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

Click to expand...

How do we do all this? I’m seriously asking. Isn’t it Congress that would be the ones voting on term limits? Again, we’re basically asking the foxes to guard the hen house.
How do we stop this revolving door between Congress and lobbyists? We can’t depend on the media. And how can a truly good person win a seat when it requires millions of dollars just to have a chance? And years ago they redrew a lot of congressional districts, which is how some of these people dumber than a bag of hammers got elected.

You want to change the system too, which is great. But these people don’t fight fair. They told you knives only, but they brought assault rifles and grenades.

Mac9192 said:

Who can we trust? Folks on the left think the right's news is one sided, and the folks on the right think the left's news is one sided.

There's a saying that if we don't watch the news, we are uninformed. If we watch the news, we're misinformed. And fact checkers? Who checks the fact checkers?

Click to expand...

Fair questions—and I think a lot of people feel exactly the same way. But if the answer is “we can’t trust anyone,” then the people manipulating the narrative have already won.

Every news source has a slant, but that doesn’t mean all information is equally worthless. The goal shouldn’t be to find a perfectly neutral outlet—it’s to learn how to spot the spin, cross-reference facts, and think critically. That takes effort, but in a media hellscape designed to confuse us, being passive is what really leaves us vulnerable.

As for fact-checkers—sure, they should be held to standards too. But “who checks the fact-checkers” shouldn’t be a rhetorical dead end. It should be a challenge to us to stay engaged, verify things ourselves, and resist the urge to tune out entirely. Accountability starts with paying attention, not giving up.

And in my opinion, the best counterbalance to all of this isn’t a news outlet or a fact-checking site—it’s real life. Personal experience with real people, especially those who don’t think like we do, is where perspective actually grows. Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had were in places that felt completely foreign, with people who challenged my views in ways no headline ever could.

Honestly, even this thread is a great example. You’ve disagreed and pushed back, I’ve disagreed and pushed back—but we’re still talking. That’s the point. At the end of the day, we’re all just people sharing the same planet. We’d get a lot further if we acted like it more often.

Willcampbell said:

I kind of wish I hadn't lived long enough to see "contract negotiations" applied to a college football player.
Also saw one of my favorites today: "decommitment."
OFC

Click to expand...

What do you think is going on with Duke right now ? They got to see who they can get to return from this roster .

NCirishman said:

He will have the ball in his hands the majority of not all the time at Duke.

Click to expand...

We will see .

GhostOf301 said:

I don't take issue with a single thing you have said. The problem, though, is that you have a better chance at trusting one person to create change than a group of politicians who view their roles in Congress as a career more than a public service. Their interests, as in the vast majority of them, are to remain office. The problem with trusting one person over the group is if you are wrong about that person, you're pretty fvcked.

Veering ahead.


Personally, I don’t have a problem with Trump stirring things up. Though I wish the wishy washy nature of it wasn’t prevalent. It's a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. If in two years, markets are stable, trade is more fair (equal is not a reasonable expectation) and we are less reliant on China while excelling in manufacturing, industrial, agriculture and tech jobs here at home, he will have a pretty big victory. I think if there aren't signs of that by the one year mark. The midterms will be a blow for him. If those things don't happen, then he will have single handedly ruined the economy, IMO.

Click to expand...

I hear that—and I actually agree with a lot of what you said. You’re absolutely right that Congress has become more about job security than public service, and that’s a huge part of why trust in the system is so low. The frustration there is valid.

But you also nailed the risk with placing faith in one person: if you’re wrong, you’re screwed. And that kind of gamble doesn’t just affect the person rolling the dice—it affects all of us.

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

Setting the bar at “the economy didn’t collapse” just isn’t good enough. Trade reform, domestic growth, less reliance on China—those are all worth pursuing. But the method matters as much as the outcome. If we get short-term wins at the cost of long-term damage to democratic institutions, it’s not really a win at all.

This shouldn’t be about hoping the gamble pays off. It should be about demanding better from everyone who holds power—whether they sit in Congress or behind the Resolute Desk.

Th0r said:

But only if we stop letting media, traditional or social, tell us who to fear, who to blame, and what to believe. That’s where the fight actually starts.

Click to expand...

Who can we trust? Folks on the left think the right's news is one sided, and the folks on the right think the left's news is one sided.

There's a saying that if we don't watch the news, we are uninformed. If we watch the news, we're misinformed. And fact checkers? Who checks the fact checkers?

Mac9192 said:

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying @Th0r. I just think you're more optimistic in the system than I am. I see it corrupt to the core, with their lust for power through money being the root of the problem. The tentacles up there reach so far. Too many outsiders have more influence than our own leaders have had. The media, with their help, have controlled us by what they tell us on tv. In return, what they've been able to do is divide us by 3 categories: race, sex, and wealth. A very cunning move. It keeps us distracted. Social media has helped combat that a lot. Which is a huge reason Trump got back into office.

Sadly, I do have more faith in one man than I do the system. Because it's the crooked system that's been in place for a long time that helped put a man who'd never held any political office, there. @Dattier laughs at this, but I fully believe it.

Click to expand...

I see where you’re coming from, and I can tell you’re being genuine. We just see the roots of the problem a little differently.

You’re right that the system has been warped by power and money—but I don’t think social media is the antidote. If anything, it’s poured gas on the fire. These platforms don’t unite us—they profit off outrage, division, and confusion. The algorithms aren’t designed to inform—they’re designed to provoke. And that happens on all sides, every day.

Same goes for legacy media. The for-profit model has completely rotted the core. Whether it’s cable news or clickbait headlines, the business isn’t truth—it’s attention. And if fear, anger, or identity politics get more clicks, that’s what gets amplified.

So yeah, people feel divided by race, sex, and wealth. But that division didn’t start with media—it got monetized by it. And now we’re all stuck reacting to narratives crafted by companies whose only goal is to keep us watching or scrolling.

I know it can feel easier to believe one person can cut through all the dysfunction, but real change doesn’t come from one figure at the top. No matter how bold or well-meaning they seem, concentrated power without checks does not lead to lasting solutions. It’s the people—when we stay informed, engaged, and grounded—who still have the ability to steer this thing. But only if we stop letting media, traditional or social, tell us who to fear, who to blame, and what to believe. That’s where the fight actually starts.

Th0r said:

Checks and balances aren’t a feel-good theory—they’re the only thing standing between power and abuse of it. When we give that up and throw it all behind one guy just because he seems tough enough to take on the system, we’re not fixing anything—we’re just hoping he doesn’t turn the system on us.

You mentioned foxes guarding the henhouse. Fair. But the answer isn’t handing the biggest, loudest fox the master key and hoping he eats fewer chickens. Just because someone doesn’t need the money doesn’t mean they don’t want the power. And history’s pretty clear on how that story usually ends.

Real change isn’t about trusting one person—it’s about building pressure from the ground up. That means pushing back on decisions like Citizens United that flooded our politics with unchecked money. It means enforcing term limits, banning stock trading by elected officials, and demanding transparency in lobbying and campaign finance. It means rebuilding civic education so people understand how this system works—and showing up locally, where change actually moves faster.

That’s not idealism. That’s how you box power back in and force it to answer to the public.

Because at the end of the day, the system reflects what the public tolerates. We can blame politicians, lobbyists, corporations—but if voters keep rewarding dysfunction with loyalty, outrage, or apathy, the system keeps breaking. Corruption doesn’t survive without permission. The rot starts at the top, but it’s the bottom that lets it grow.

Click to expand...

I don't take issue with a single thing you have said. The problem, though, is that you have a better chance at trusting one person to create change than a group of politicians who view their roles in Congress as a career more than a public service. Their interests, as in the vast majority of them, are to remain office. The problem with trusting one person over the group is if you are wrong about that person, you're pretty fvcked.

Veering ahead.


Personally, I don’t have a problem with Trump stirring things up. Though I wish the wishy washy nature of it wasn’t prevalent. It's a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. If in two years, markets are stable, trade is more fair (equal is not a reasonable expectation) and we are less reliant on China while excelling in manufacturing, industrial, agriculture and tech jobs here at home, he will have a pretty big victory. I think if there aren't signs of that by the one year mark. The midterms will be a blow for him. If those things don't happen, then he will have single handedly ruined the economy, IMO.

BOOGIEMAN1914 said:

wilkerson from sam houston state?...he looks good

Click to expand...

That's the guard we should go hard after. 6' 5" and shot 44% from 3.

The_Only_Blue said:

Football related but this is what we're doing now? I saw he wasn't at practice today. Nil is out of control

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Tennessee knew who they were dealing with with him and his family when they bought him in the first place. This should be no surprise to them or anyone else.

Not always the best option to buy the top talent available. Culture matters.

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying @Th0r. I just think you're more optimistic in the system than I am. I see it corrupt to the core, with their lust for power through money being the root of the problem. The tentacles up there reach so far. Too many outsiders have more influence than our own leaders have had. The media, with their help, have controlled us by what they tell us on tv. In return, what they've been able to do is divide us by 3 categories: race, sex, and wealth. A very cunning move. It keeps us distracted. Social media has helped combat that a lot. Which is a huge reason Trump got back into office.

Sadly, I do have more faith in one man than I do the system. Because it's the crooked system that's been in place for a long time that helped put a man who'd never held any political office, there. @Dattier laughs at this, but I fully believe it.

The_Only_Blue said:

Football related but this is what we're doing now? I saw he wasn't at practice today. Nil is out of control

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

I kind of wish I hadn't lived long enough to see "contract negotiations" applied to a college football player.
Also saw one of my favorites today: "decommitment."
OFC

He will have the ball in his hands the majority of not all the time at Duke.

JimboSlice00 said:

Cayden is a true PG. below is a scouting report of him on 24/7. Also, he averaged 7 assist a game this past year. Plus, he’s 6’4 so he fits the mold of the bigger lead guard Jon seems to favor.

Boozer is a lead guard with terrific size and an extremely advanced ability to read and think the game. He has very advanced instincts and feel for the game. He sees the floor, feeds the post, dictates his own pace, and almost never gets sped-up. He’s as reliable as it gets in high school basketball with the ball in his hands, continuously posting better than 3:1 assist-to-turnover ratios. This year in the EYBL it was 6.6 assists against 2.1 turnovers. Earlier this summer it was 6.3 assists vs. 1.7 turnovers with the 17-and-under national team in FIBA play. Last year, it was 6.7 assists vs. 1.4 turnovers on the Nike E16 circuit.

Click to expand...

This is from NBA draft room;

Like his twin brother Cameron, Cayden is a high level prospect in the 2025 recruiting class.

He’s a strong, well-built combo guard with an advanced skill level. He’s a tough driver and creative finisher who uses his frame well and can finish through contact.

He’s also listed anywhere from 6’2-6’4 from 24/7, On3, ESPN . Both 24/7 and ESPN both say he plays off the ball just as well. Reminds me of both Proctor and Foster. Both played pg . Foster his senior year switched to sg which is now why both are considered combo guards and Proctor played off the ball some in Australia but also at Duke .

NCirishman said:

When you say that, do you mean all that’s returning declaring at once?

Or all no matter their decision?

I don’t think all at once would be fitting but that’s just me.

Click to expand...

Personally, I’d love to see it all happen at once—and make it a spectacle. Something you can easily share on social media that celebrates the guys moving on and reaffirms the ones coming back. You wish the departures well, welcome the returners with energy, and if any portal additions are locked in, you announce them too.

It creates clarity, builds hype, and sets Duke apart—not just on the court, but in how the program connects with its community. It’s a branding moment, that kind of visibility and unity is vital.

Let’s see the flaming trident from all the recruiting visits!

christophero said:

I saw an article on CBS Sports about "Insiders share Duke portal news." So I read the entire article about stuff I already know. Then at the end it asks me to subscribe to Devil's Den. I hate leading **** like that. We must be the only team in the country who has released absolutely no NBA/portal news. I guess they are all coming back.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same thing. Minus the obvious Kon, Flagg, and Maluach. I ld say they all are returning... it's way too late to get impactful transfers, and getting really late for a player to find a future destination. Hopefully we are correct.

When you say that, do you mean all that’s returning declaring at once?

Or all no matter their decision?

I don’t think all at once would be fitting but that’s just me.

AlanInNJ said:

Maybe Jon does have some sort of special reveal planned for this year's departure announcements. Who knows? He is a young, progressive coach. Also, of all the Duke teams in the past 10 years, this one really seems to have an especially tight bond from Cooper right down thru Hubbert. Let's see it! One big presser to announce everyone's plans for next year.

Click to expand...

You brought up a great idea, and it really got me thinking. Making a unified announcement for all players would be a powerful move. It creates a “Brotherhood” moment that shows unity, brings closure to the season, and builds a bridge to the next one. It would also make things clearer for fans and establish a more consistent way to share roster news. And honestly, this approach would once again make Duke a trendsetter—not just in how we play, but in how we lead. I really hope the program considers it.

Was told shortly after I posted earlier that he’s not the size we prefer.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

NCirishman said:

It’s looking like Lee is not an option.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that?

Mac9192 said:

Agree with you. How do you combat something that is extremely big and wealthy? These are powerful people, with many hiding in plain sight. Checks and Balances sounds good in theory, but no offense, we are fooling ourselves with this thinking. You're asking the foxes to guard the hen house.

If you thought what I said above makes you feel hopeless, then I've got one better than that. This one is REALLY far fetched. A good old fashioned Citizen Revolt. Here's how it might go: Hey Bob, we are forming a group to take on this corruption. Would you like to join us? Bob says "I'd really like to, but I've got a mortgage, wife, and 2 kids at home, and I need my job. Good luck though."

For every one Fred that's out there that is willing to tackle the Establishment, there's a million Bob's that are too scared.

The best option we have right now is the half crazy man in office. He's got stones that have to be hauled around in a wheel barrow, and wealthy enough to not need their money.

Click to expand...

Checks and balances aren’t a feel-good theory—they’re the only thing standing between power and abuse of it. When we give that up and throw it all behind one guy just because he seems tough enough to take on the system, we’re not fixing anything—we’re just hoping he doesn’t turn the system on us.

You mentioned foxes guarding the henhouse. Fair. But the answer isn’t handing the biggest, loudest fox the master key and hoping he eats fewer chickens. Just because someone doesn’t need the money doesn’t mean they don’t want the power. And history’s pretty clear on how that story usually ends.

Real change isn’t about trusting one person—it’s about building pressure from the ground up. That means pushing back on decisions like Citizens United that flooded our politics with unchecked money. It means enforcing term limits, banning stock trading by elected officials, and demanding transparency in lobbying and campaign finance. It means rebuilding civic education so people understand how this system works—and showing up locally, where change actually moves faster.

That’s not idealism. That’s how you box power back in and force it to answer to the public.

Because at the end of the day, the system reflects what the public tolerates. We can blame politicians, lobbyists, corporations—but if voters keep rewarding dysfunction with loyalty, outrage, or apathy, the system keeps breaking. Corruption doesn’t survive without permission. The rot starts at the top, but it’s the bottom that lets it grow.

I would certainly prefer a group announcement to let us know who.is leaving. Duke likes to give each guy their own day, which seems a little coddling to me
But hey, no one asks me lol