An Evolving Atlantic 10 and Duquesne’s Place In It — Part II

Sometimes, you squeak by on your desired word count for a TPOP post. Sometimes, you write three times that amount and you’re not even finished yet. That’s how a single piece becomes an unexpected two parter. Yesterday, I had a look team by team at the state of the Atlantic 10 and forecasted how they might fare over the next few years. Today, I’ll put a bow on that piece and as promised, look at how Duquesne fits in.

The best part about two parters is, of course, copying and pasting the methodology section.

For me, there are four phases that a basketball program can be in from one year to the next: building, reload, transition, and rebuild. Building programs have all the important pieces in place from a previous year’s team and look to make significant gains over the previous season. Reloads are teams that had significant contributors leave but have pieces in waiting to replace them. Overall these teams will be about the same or improve slightly. Transition years are for teams that lost significant contributors, have the replacements in place, but they are a year or so from really taking over. Often these teams do worse than the previous season. Finally there are teams in rebuilds which have significant holes and no way to fix them internally. I’ll look at each team in the league, explain what phase they’re in now and give a best guess three year outlook, as difficult as that can be with the churn of today’s NCAA. Here ,I’ll lean negative, positive or about the same.

Just to sum yesterday’s piece since most of you, like @Masonfanatic, probably just skipped to your favorite team’s section. In 2017-18, I think two teams are heading for rebuilds, Fordham and George Washington, while five teams Dayton, George Mason, UMass, Richmond and VCU will transition. Meanwhile, St. Joes, Saint Louis, and La Salle will likely build to fill in some of the void near the top as Davidson, Rhode Island, and St Bonaventure reload. In the best guess three year outlook department, I’d sort the them out like this.

Postive Direction

George Mason
UMass
Saint Louis
St. Joe’s

Negative Direction

Davidson
Dayton
Fordham
George Washington
La Salle

About the Same

Rhode Island
Richmond
St Joe’s
VCU

I could’ve easily slotted Duquesne into one of those three categories but nope! You’ve waited a day you can wait a little longer. If you think objectively about where the Dukes are now and apply to the context of yesterday’s piece, I’m sure it won’t be too difficult to figure it out though.

I really like Keith Dambrot. He was my top choice to replace Ron Everhart during the last hire and I left him off my list this time around because I didn’t see him as a realistic option having turned the Dukes down once already. It’s great to be wrong sometimes.

I approve of his hiring but I also approve of the way he built his roster this first offseason. It’s not easy to fill seven scholarships and a mystery slot in the spring and come out with a squad that could look even marginally competitive. Here’s how he did it:

1. He recruited guys he already had ties to. Tavion Dunn-Martin and Michael Hughes played for Dambrot at Akron and both are transferring in. Dambrot also brought in a number of four year prospects for visits who he already built a relationship with at his previous position. He didn’t land any of the more well discussed 2017’s, but he nabbed an early committed from 2018 thumper Dylan Swingle.
2. He brought in transfers with multiple years of eligibility remaining. I already noted TDM and Hughes, but he also nabbed Craig Randal, Jr, Marcus Weathers, and most recently Frankie Hughes. Sure, that’s a burden on next year’s squad to have that many scholarships tied up on five ineligible players, but if you want to swim in the the deepest and most exploitable talent pool during spring recruitment, you need to at least dip a toe into the NCAA transfer market. Dambrot dove in. Much of the four year talent pool comes off the board thanks to the fall signing period and as Power 5 schools get desperate to fill roster spots, suddenly Atlantic 10 prospects look better to the Atlantic Coast. On top of that, not every school shops at the transfer market so the competition for top talent gets naturally thinned. Some coaches don’t use it at all on sheer philosophy, and the ones on the hot seat don’t have a year to waste on a scholarship that could help the team win immediately. Sadly, that’s almost a quarter of the jobs in any given year.
3. If you couldn’t tell from my endorsement of Travis Ford yesterday, not only do I believe a first year head coach is entitled to a punt year his first season, I endorse them taking full advantage of it. They should be focused on the long run and truthfully, sacrifices in year one makes year two much easier. This means bringing in a lot of transfers with multiple year of eligibility remaining over grad transfers. I’m also not huge on JUCOs in year one, but if that’s the biggest talent you can get to say yes, I don’t have an issue with taking them in year one or year ten.Here’s the thing. It takes the better part of a year for players to get used to a new coach and in many cases, you’re trying to fit the square peg returning players into round hole roles in the replacement’s system. One grad transfer probably won’t become a difference maker and they create a hole in year two. Dambrot didn’t take any short cuts.
4. Dambrot also nabbed a few late bloomers and four year prospects from winning programs with upside. If nothing else, his four year commits should turn into versatile role players and depth in a system for a coach who likes to use his bench.

Despite the hoopla by fans and the immediate impact a good coach can have, that coach needs talent. It’s difficult to look at Duquesne’s roster and think they aren’t worse off on paper in year one than they were last year. They lost the guy who should’ve been A-10 Freshman of the Year in Isiaha Mike, a solid contributor in Emile Blackmon to graduation, their best all-around center in Nakye Sanders and their best rebounder in Darius Lewis. That said, last year’s group underachieved and won ten games. The Dukes will transition this year no question, but the bar was set so low that it’s also difficult for me to see them doing much worse. Dambrot isn’t selling a punt year either, so maybe they could overachieve and actually build but I will believe that when I see it. I think the Dukes are reloading, but I think by not trying to do too much from the jump, the staff has them set up for much better things to come, maybe as soon as next year. Barring any major shocks or personnel flops the Dukes are looking at two consecutive building years after this one. That generally ends pretty well.

The Dukes are likely to struggle next season, but overall the league seems like it will hit a one or two year bump in the road. A couple of programs like Fordham and GW could flop. Meanwhile, some programs I’ve placed on a pedestal appear to be wavering on their perch at the top of conference. The Dukes will have room to weasel their way up the standings a little next year, but they might project to have the steepest positive projection over the next few years save for maybe Saint Louis.

This isn’t the homer in me talking either. This is an objective response by a person who has objectively watched the pieces fall into place for other programs. I’m watching them drop in a similar way for Duquesne at the moment. Dambrot is a major upgrade and he’s implementing a plan that can have short and longer term benefits. I fully expect the Dukes’ place in the conference to change after next year. I know I’m setting the bar high, but I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t think it were reasonable. Of course, don’t get ahead of yourself in year one and schedule vacation in March. If you think they’re dancing this year or even competing for a bye in the A-10 tournament, you might want to dial it back a little. It won’t do you or the program any good.