Is there any Duke class in the K era that comes close to what the most recent National Champions have accomplished? Thoughts?
Last edited:
Greatest Recruiting Class Ever!!!
- Thread starter John Caraway
- Start date
I think the Kentucky 2011 class has a pretty strong argument for being just as good if not better. I am partial, however, to our boys.
Well historically this Duke class's accomplishments probably stack up with anyone. As far as Duke alone, I think they have to be the best if the question is what they accomplished in their freshman season, not the four-year body of work. To me it's a no-brainer.
At Duke the other candidates probably start with the freshmen of 1982-83 (Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Henderson). Those guys turned the program around and eventually took K to his first Final Four, but as freshmen they were 11-17 and 3-11 in conference.
The 1997-98 freshmen were solid (Battier, Brand, Avery, Burgess). They went 32-4 and made the Elite Eight. Brand was the third leading scorer on the team and Avery was fifth.
The 1999-2000 group (Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Sanders) won the ACC Championship and made the Sweet Sixteen. Williams was the third leading scorer and Boozer was fifth.
Those are the most likely ones in the conversation, and this group way outdistances them in overall statistical impact, and the National Championship puts them way over the top. There were three freshmen starters, and three of the team's top four scorers were freshmen.
At Duke the other candidates probably start with the freshmen of 1982-83 (Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Henderson). Those guys turned the program around and eventually took K to his first Final Four, but as freshmen they were 11-17 and 3-11 in conference.
The 1997-98 freshmen were solid (Battier, Brand, Avery, Burgess). They went 32-4 and made the Elite Eight. Brand was the third leading scorer on the team and Avery was fifth.
The 1999-2000 group (Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Sanders) won the ACC Championship and made the Sweet Sixteen. Williams was the third leading scorer and Boozer was fifth.
Those are the most likely ones in the conversation, and this group way outdistances them in overall statistical impact, and the National Championship puts them way over the top. There were three freshmen starters, and three of the team's top four scorers were freshmen.
Nationally, let me start with the Fab Five, because I think they are among the most overrated groups in the history of college basketball. Their myth is a lot of their own making, predominantly Jalen Rose. This year's Duke group easily passes them in my opinion. The Fab Five has an edge in the sense that they were all five starters. Their group of five had three double-figure scorers. Duke's group of four had three double figure scorers. The trump card is that Duke's guys actually won the national championship, with freshmen accounting for 60 of the 68 points, which is the freshmen record for a national championship game. That is a pretty big trump card.
The Fab Five averaged 58.7 ppg, 26.8 rpg, and 12 apg with 5 guys.
Duke's Fab Four averaged 45.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, and 10.1 apg with four guys.
UM has a one-man advantage, so here are the per player averages for each group (UM's totals divided by 5, DU's totals divided by four):
UM - 11.7 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 2.4 apg
DU - 11.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 2.5 apg
The Fab Five averaged 58.7 ppg, 26.8 rpg, and 12 apg with 5 guys.
Duke's Fab Four averaged 45.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, and 10.1 apg with four guys.
UM has a one-man advantage, so here are the per player averages for each group (UM's totals divided by 5, DU's totals divided by four):
UM - 11.7 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 2.4 apg
DU - 11.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 2.5 apg
Those were the first 2 that came to mind for me as well.
I also think the Dawkins class could be right up there even though they didn't get the NT to show for it. In a way they were even more important and accomplished more by getting Duke back at the top after a rough few years. They were tremendous for Duke basketball.
Probably a platoon system. That way everyone gets the same amount of playing time to audition for the NBA.
The 2011-12 UK group (Davis, MKG, Teague, Wiltjer) can be in the conversation because they won a championship, but Duke's group outdoes them statistically as well. UK's group averaged 31.1 ppg, 22.1 rpg, and 8.4 apg, behind Duke is every category but rebounding. And in the championship game, their freshmen accounted for just 31 of their 67 points (46%) vs. Duke's 60 of 68 (88%).
Duke's 2015 freshmen are very much in the conversation as to having the best freshmen season in the history of college basketball.
Duke's 2015 freshmen are very much in the conversation as to having the best freshmen season in the history of college basketball.
The h.s. class of 1997 that went to Duke produced two consensus national players-of-the-year. I don't think that's ever been done before.
That class contributed to a national title, an NCAA runner-up, an Elite Eight, a Sweet Sixteen, four ACC regular-season championships and three ACC Tournament championships.
Two years after that class came in, it was augmented with another top-ranked class that produced another consensus NPOY and the first time three players from the same school made first-team All-ACC in the same season.
Think about that for awhile. The consensus national player of the year in 1999, 2001 and 2002.
Good times.
That class contributed to a national title, an NCAA runner-up, an Elite Eight, a Sweet Sixteen, four ACC regular-season championships and three ACC Tournament championships.
Two years after that class came in, it was augmented with another top-ranked class that produced another consensus NPOY and the first time three players from the same school made first-team All-ACC in the same season.
Think about that for awhile. The consensus national player of the year in 1999, 2001 and 2002.
Good times.
At Duke, I think you clearly have to give the edge to the '14-15 group if you're looking at instant impact. While it's tough to compare to different eras, if you just look up the 97-98 stats, 3 of Duke's top 4 scorers on a PPG basis were not freshman -- McLeon (Sr.), Langon (Jr.), and Carrawell (Soph.) -- and Duke also started Wojo at the point. Clearly a really special group in terms of talent, but only Brand (who was hurt for a large part of ACC play) really emerged as a star player that freshman year.
Nationally, while I agree the Fab 5 hype may be a bit overdone, I do think what they did in year 1 was pretty remarkable in the context of the times. As great as our group was this year (or the UK group from 11-12), they largely only faced players who were either less naturally talented or just as young. That's completely different from 91-92, where nearly all of the top players still stayed in college for at least 3 seasons -- and many 4. I loved this group and think you could argue it was just as naturally gifted as the Duke 91-92 squad. However, if our 14-15 squad (at their current state of development) played that Duke 91-92 team, doubt the 14-15 group would have done much better than UM's 91-92 squad -- and, i'd note, that while the final score in that 91-92 title game was very lopsided, it was mostly a competitive game with UM holding a lead at half. Just as an example, if Okafor couldn't defend a Sr. Kaminsky, not sure how he'd handle a Sr. Laettner.
Nationally, while I agree the Fab 5 hype may be a bit overdone, I do think what they did in year 1 was pretty remarkable in the context of the times. As great as our group was this year (or the UK group from 11-12), they largely only faced players who were either less naturally talented or just as young. That's completely different from 91-92, where nearly all of the top players still stayed in college for at least 3 seasons -- and many 4. I loved this group and think you could argue it was just as naturally gifted as the Duke 91-92 squad. However, if our 14-15 squad (at their current state of development) played that Duke 91-92 team, doubt the 14-15 group would have done much better than UM's 91-92 squad -- and, i'd note, that while the final score in that 91-92 title game was very lopsided, it was mostly a competitive game with UM holding a lead at half. Just as an example, if Okafor couldn't defend a Sr. Kaminsky, not sure how he'd handle a Sr. Laettner.
Last edited:
Yeah Jim, if it's full body of work, this year's freshmen won't stand up because 75% are leaving. But if it's a questions on freshman year specific impact, no group beats the 2014-15 Blue Devils.
And yeah, 3 different NPOYs in 4 years from two classes is remarkable. Amazing really.
One significant stat I do think that is missing... blocks. Their squad through out had a far better defense than ours (ours only came on during the NCAAT). Davis had probably the greatest freshman season in college basketball history. They also won both regular season as well as their Conference tournament, neither of which Duke could do. Numbers are nice, but what did they accomplish matters most.
It's all fun and speculative. If I wanted a game winning shot I would go with Duke. If I really needed a big time stop, I'd go Kentucky.
It's definitely close, but I'd give our group the edge over UK 11-12 b/c (i) Winslow is MKG with a non-broken jumper; (ii) Jones, as a collegiate player, was clearly better (particularly against good teams) than Teague; and (iii) as great as Davis was (and is), not sure he had the physical strength to handle Okafor as a freshman.
Is it amazing that this has been accomplished by a coach in his fourth decade with national championships in three of them(so far)!
I have always wondered what Duke would have done IF Burgess (and Dad) weren't a little whacked....
Wow. This is one of the most informative, BY FAR, threads ive ever read on here. Im learning quite a few things i didn't even know.
Yeah, there are a lot of knowledgeable posters on here, DiehardDukie. I'm always learning something myself.
OFC
Last edited:
I know what you mean, but it's relative, a sliding scale. Other classes have volume; this year's was a concentrate. It's also in the context of the time. Being able to go lottery after one year in college is one of the more distinguished things a player can do nowadays. Trusting an unknown young coach and rebuilding a program is a pretty awesome thing even w/o a national championship and just 1 FF.
One I may have missed mention of is the 6-man hs class of '02. Not as much to brag about for banners, but 2 retired #s.
And while Laettner is the one all-time great, his class went to 4 FFs, won 2 titles.
Burgess would have been nice in the 2000 Sweet 16 against Florida. Boozer was in foul trouble the whole second half and probably only played 3 of the final 15 minutes. The Duke teams from 1998-2002 were stacked. It's shocking, really, that we only won one national title during that period.
completely agree...u gotta have won a national championship to be considered the best freshman class like our group just did (definitely my choice as the best freshman class ever)
IMO getting close or having good seasons without actually winning the most important game of the year shows a lack of mental toughness and inability to execute
Similar threads
