In this throwback to the old site, Will, Chris, and Gavin take turns re-living their memories of the most unsatisfying basketball seasons in recent Tennessee history.
Subscribe!


A community of reasonable fanatics.
From a recruiting rankings standpoint, Tennessee’s 2021 basketball team might be the most talented in program history. It’s the only Vol squad of the recruiting rankings era to feature three five-stars (Keon Johnson, Jaden Springer, and Josiah-Jordan James), and now two of them have departed for the NBA Draft as one-and-done players. And on the back end, the draft itself should validate that talent: Keon Johnson is routinely projected as a lottery pick, with Jaden Springer sprinkled throughout the first round. If that unfolds, it’ll be only the second time in school history the Vols had two players taken in the first round of the same draft, following Ernie & Bernie. And Bernard King (7th) is one of just three Vols to ever be drafted in the Top 10, along with Tom Boerwinkle (4th) and Dale Ellis (9th). There’s a lot of history to be made in a few months.
So when we take all that and try to figure out how this team lost as a five seed in the first round of the NCAA Tournament…you get the frustration. But when I started researching how far one-and-dones typically advance in the dance, it turns out the 2021 Vols are a more common tale than you might think.
The one-and-done rule has been in place for 15 seasons now, requiring high school seniors to play at least one year before becoming eligible for the draft. That first year in 2006 was a transitional time: Shawne Williams from Memphis was taken 17th overall, the only true freshman one-and-done of the draft. But the floodgates opened the following season: Greg Oden and Kevin Durant became the poster children for one-and-dones at the top of the NBA Draft, as eight of the first 21 players selected in the 2007 draft were college freshmen. And it’s gone about that way ever since.
Durant is sometimes used in protest against Rick Barnes: the 2007 Longhorns were 24-9 on Selection Sunday, earned a four seed, and were emphatically bounced in the second round by five-seed USC. “Couldn’t make the Final Four with Kevin Durant!”, etc.
Turns out, making the Final Four with one-and-dones is really hard to do, unless you’ve got a bunch of them.
In the last 15 tournaments played under the one-and-done rule, 60 teams made the Final Four. It’s important to note right away: 36 of those 60 Final Four teams had a player selected in the first round the same year (including projected first-round picks from Baylor and Gonzaga this year). That’s 60%. Talent is good!
But only 12 of those 60 Final Four teams had a one-and-done player selected in the first round. That’s only 20%. Only 10 of those 60 had a one-and-done player selected in the lottery, the top 14 picks. That’s 16.7%.
The idea that one-and-dones = tournament success built momentum early: Greg Oden’s 2007 Ohio State team, which we know plenty about, made the title game. Oden went on to be the first pick in the draft, with fellow one-and-dones Mike Conley (fourth) and Daequan Cook (21st) also going in the first round. The following year UCLA rode freshman Kevin Love (and sophomore Russell Westbrook) to the Final Four, while Derrick Rose was free throws away from winning a national title at Memphis. Oden’s NBA career didn’t work out, but the rest of this group – Conley, Love, Rose, plus Durant – has had tremendous NBA success.
Two years later, John Calipari walked through that door to Lexington and immediately brought the model to blue-blood Kentucky. John Wall and Demarcus Cousins fell in the Elite Eight, but went first and fifth in the draft. Brandon Knight went eighth as the Cats made the Final Four in 2011. And then in 2012, the breakthrough: Kentucky won the title with Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist going 1-2 in the NBA Draft as one-and-dones, plus Marquis Teague at 29th (and sophomore Terrence Jones at 18th – again, talent helps!).
Kentucky’s success got Duke in the one-and-done business. The Cats were back in the Final Four in 2014 with James Young and Julius Randle in the lottery. And then in 2015, you had superteams of freshmen: Kentucky’s Karl-Anthony Towns went first, with Trey Lyles (12th) and Devin Booker (13th) also in the lottery, along with sophomore Willie Cauley-Stein (sixth). Thanks to Gonzaga’s defeat in this year’s title game, this is still the best team of the KenPom era, though they lost to Wisconsin in the Final Four. And the Badgers were then vanquished by a Duke squad with three one-and-done first rounders: Jahlil Okafor (third), Justise Winslow (10th), and Tyus Jones (24th).
After the 2015 season, it seemed there was no turning back. But instead, the opposite has happened.
In the last five Final Fours, only Zach Collins (Gonzaga 2017, 10th pick) and, we assume, Jalen Suggs have been one-and-done lottery picks. Tony Bradley, a reserve on North Carolina’s 2017 title team, was taken 28th overall. Malachi Richardson from Syracuse went 22nd in 2016. So in the last five Final Fours, only 10% of participants have featured a one-and-done lottery pick, and only 20% a one-and-done first round pick.
Tennessee needs to make the Final Four before it can worry about winning it all. But when you look at the title teams over the last 15 tournaments, only those 2012 Kentucky and 2015 Duke squads featured one-and-done lottery picks…and again, they both had two of them, plus a third freshman taken later in the first round. If you’re going to go that route, sure, you can win it all with freshmen…but only Duke and Kentucky have been able to recruit at that level, and they’ve only got one title to show for it that way each.
Again: talent is good. Twelve of the last 15 national champions had a player drafted in the first round that same year, and two of the three that didn’t were 2006 Florida and 2016 Villanova, who repeated and won two-in-three years, respectively. Talent is good. But the idea that one-and-done talent should automatically lead to NCAA Tournament success is far more flawed than it was six years ago.
One-and-dones still transition straight to the lottery: in the 2018 and 2019 NBA Drafts, 17 of the 28 lottery picks were freshmen. But when you look at what those 17 freshmen did in the NCAA Tournament:
| Year | Player | School | Pick | Result |
| 2019 | Zion Williamson | Duke | 1 | Elite Eight |
| 2019 | RJ Barrett | Duke | 3 | Elite Eight |
| 2019 | Darius Garland | Vanderbilt | 5 | n/a |
| 2019 | Coby White | North Carolina | 7 | Sweet 16 |
| 2019 | Jaxson Hayes | Texas | 8 | n/a |
| 2019 | Cam Reddish | Duke | 10 | Elite Eight |
| 2019 | Tyler Herro | Kentucky | 13 | Elite Eight |
| 2019 | Romeo Landford | Indiana | 14 | n/a |
| 2018 | Deandre Ayton | Arizona | 1 | First Round |
| 2018 | Marvin Bagley III | Duke | 2 | Elite Eight |
| 2018 | Jaren Jackson Jr. | Michigan State | 4 | Second Round |
| 2018 | Trae Young | Oklahoma | 5 | First Round |
| 2018 | Mo Bamba | Texas | 6 | First Round |
| 2018 | Wendell Carter Jr. | Duke | 7 | Elite Eight |
| 2018 | Collin Sexton | Alabama | 8 | Second Round |
| 2018 | Kevin Knox | Kentucky | 9 | Sweet 16 |
| 2018 | Shai Gilgeous-Alexander | Kentucky | 11 | Sweet 16 |
If you played for Duke and Kentucky, alongside multiple one-and-dones, you made an Elite Eight. If not, you didn’t. Almost half of these guys didn’t get out of the first weekend.
So yes, Tennessee should continue to recruit talented players. But, as Rick Barnes already knows, the idea that you can find breakthrough success on the shoulders of one-and-dones is a struggling one these days. The Vols still need first-round talent, no doubt. But they appear more likely to have tournament success when that talent is developed over multiple years, not recruited and soon-to-be gone.
In case you missed it last Friday, we’re inviting our readers behind the curtain to participate in the production of this year’s annual preseason football content. For the next week or two, we’ll be giving you an opportunity to weigh in on the projected records and standings for the SEC.
The end goal here is projected standings for each division of the SEC, but we don’t want to just jump to the finish line on the question. Instead, we’ll walk through the schedule for each team and make an educated guess as to the outcome of each game. That gives us each team’s projected record (and also any necessary head-to-head tiebreakers) from which we then determine projected division standings.
Regular readers will recognize the Expected Win Total Machine below. It doesn’t ask for wins and losses, but instead your level of confidence for a win in the form of some number out of 100. Think of it as a percentage (but don’t include a percentage symbol in your answer or the machine will complain). For instance, if you feel really good about Tennessee beating Bowling Green in the season opener, you’ll put something like 90 or 95 in the Bowling Green input field. If you feel really bad about Tennessee’s chances against Alabama, you’ll put something like 5 or 10 next to that game. When you’re finished, hit the submit button, and the machine will spit your projected win total back at you. It will also log your game-by-game entries into our system so we can come up with community numbers we’ll use for the preseason content.
We’ll compile that data into a fan expected win total and include that number in the preseason content. We’ll also convert it into expected wins and losses and use it to come up with projected records for each SEC team and standings for each division.
This is a Vols community, so we’re going to start with Tennessee just to get our feet wet. Here’s how it’s going to work:
Let’s get started. Here’s the link to the first form. We will add the other teams periodically over the next week or so.
If you haven’t weighed in on the Power Rankings yet, you can do that here:
[UPDATE: 4.6.21] There’s a winner. You can see the complete standings here. Thanks for playing!
Man, what a year. COVID, quarantines, ruthless swabs wielded by kind-hearted but masochistic healthcare workers tickling the backs of your eyeballs, nagging injuries, vexing inconsistency, and literally getting your face broken just when you’re ready to roll. Let me say it again: Man, what a year.
But now it all comes down to this. March Madness. The Big Dance. Win or Go Home.
Our part as fans? Brackets. We have to fill them out. It’s imperative that we do our duty as Americans, as this act in service of our country will unite our people and save our nation.
Or something like that.
Now that the bracket has been announced, be sure to join the Gameday on Rocky Top 2020 Bracket Challenge. The reward for fulfilling your patriotic duty in our little corner of the internet? Bragging rights. Hey, smaller ponds don’t have sharks, you know what I mean? Besides, youโre not going to win that million dollars or that car or that trip to Patagonia anyway. No matter your level of skill or knowledge, those things go to clueless officemates still wondering what’s up with all the bouncing and jumping, all the while trying to figure out why their TV suddenly developed an incessant squeak. I don’t know, man, it doesn’t happen during the commercials. Weird.
So hereโs your to-do list:
Have fun, and Go Vols.
Yes, 2021 is a Season of Change for the Tennessee Volunteers football program, and we’re turning to face the strange ourselves with this year’s preseason publication. We’re inviting you along for the process, asking for input on several key pieces of content.
First up is our Preseason College Football Power Rankings. We don’t usually publish these in any form, but use them primarily as a building block for much of the rest of the publication. Previews, projected records and standings, the stock watch, and other content depend to some degree on the Power Rankings.
The Power Rankings are compiled first using a formula, and then subjected to human overrides, which is where we (and you) come in.
Here’s the first draft, the formula-only results. It’s a baseline, and now it’s up to us to tell it where it’s wrong.
| 1 | Alabama |
| 2 | Clemson |
| 3 | Oklahoma |
| 4 | Georgia |
| 5 | Ohio State |
| 6 | Texas A&M |
| 7 | Florida |
| 8 | Oregon |
| 9 | Wisconsin |
| 10 | North Carolina |
| 11 | Cincinnati |
| 12 | Notre Dame |
| 13 | Texas |
| 14 | USC |
| 15 | Iowa |
| 16 | Iowa State |
| 17 | Penn State |
| 18 | Washington |
| 19 | BYU |
| 20 | Miami (Florida) |
| 21 | Indiana |
| 22 | Arizona State |
| 23 | Utah |
| 24 | Auburn |
| 25 | Oklahoma State |
| 26 | Coastal Carolina |
| 27 | Northwestern |
| 28 | Virginia Tech |
| 29 | Michigan |
| 30 | Mississippi |
| 31 | Louisiana-Lafayette |
| 32 | Nebraska |
| 33 | Minnesota |
| 34 | UCF |
| 35 | Appalachian State |
| 36 | LSU |
| 37 | West Virginia |
| 38 | TCU |
| 39 | Louisville |
| 40 | Liberty |
| 41 | Pittsburgh |
| 42 | UCLA |
| 43 | Maryland |
| 44 | Purdue |
| 45 | SMU |
| 46 | Tennessee |
| 47 | Buffalo |
| 48 | Kentucky |
| 49 | North Carolina State |
| 50 | Arkansas |
| 51 | Memphis |
| 52 | Boise State |
| 53 | Mississippi State |
| 54 | UAB |
| 55 | Tulsa |
| 56 | Virginia |
| 57 | San Jose State |
| 58 | Tulane |
| 59 | Ball State |
| 60 | Baylor |
| 61 | Missouri |
| 62 | Stanford |
| 63 | Michigan State |
| 64 | San Diego State |
| 65 | Houston |
| 66 | Washington State |
| 67 | Colorado |
| 68 | Georgia Tech |
| 69 | Marshall |
| 70 | Kansas State |
| 71 | Western Michigan |
| 72 | Army |
| 73 | Toledo |
| 74 | Nevada |
| 75 | Troy |
| 76 | Boston College |
| 77 | California |
| 78 | Florida State |
| 79 | Georgia Southern |
| 80 | Wake Forest |
| 81 | Texas Tech |
| 82 | Oregon State |
| 83 | Air Force |
| 84 | South Carolina |
| 85 | Central Michigan |
| 86 | Ohio |
| 87 | Georgia State |
| 88 | Fresno State |
| 89 | Wyoming |
| 90 | UTSA |
| 91 | Illinois |
| 92 | Colorado State |
| 93 | Florida Atlantic |
| 94 | East Carolina |
| 95 | Western Kentucky |
| 96 | Rutgers |
| 97 | Navy |
| 98 | Arizona |
| 99 | Rice |
| 100 | Southern Mississippi |
| 101 | Duke |
| 102 | Kent State |
| 103 | Syracuse |
| 104 | Arkansas State |
| 105 | South Florida |
| 106 | Miami (Ohio) |
| 107 | Eastern Michigan |
| 108 | North Texas |
| 109 | Hawaii |
| 110 | Vanderbilt |
| 111 | Florida International |
| 112 | Temple |
| 113 | Northern Illinois |
| 114 | Kansas |
| 115 | Charlotte |
| 116 | Texas State |
| 117 | South Alabama |
| 118 | UNLV |
| 119 | Louisiana Tech |
| 120 | New Mexico |
| 121 | Middle Tennessee |
| 122 | Akron |
| 123 | Bowling Green |
| 124 | Louisiana-Monroe |
| 125 | Utah State |
| 126 | Massachusetts |
| 127 | UTEP |
| 128 | Old Dominion |
| 129 | New Mexico State |
| 130 | Connecticut |
Don’t let us over-influence you, but here are some of the teams we’re thinking may be ranked too high:
And here’s a list of teams that are currently looking too low to us:
If you have any opinions, leave them below.
Long-time readers know that our Tennessee football preseason publication has gone through many changes over the course of the 12 editions it’s been available. It’s had different names, different publishers, and different looks. It’s been on newsstands and not on newsstands. It’s been released in mid-July for the sake of accuracy and in mid-May for the sake of speed. It’s been packaged alone and with t-shirts or decals. It’s introduced four new head coaches and counting. Will Shelton and I have been involved in every edition, but that may be the lone constant (unless you’re one of those people who will point out that there are other constants, like the fact that every edition includes both words and pictures.)
It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where and when the train jumped the tracks for Tennessee Football, but this particular period — beginning with the sudden cessation of spring practice a year ago due to the pandemic, this offseason right here right now, and the prospect of a 2021 season with so many unknowns and unknowables — has to be one of the most difficult and weirdest periods of change in the storied history of a proud Tennessee football program.
As Inky Johnson says in that video up there, change is hard at first, messy in the middle, and beautiful in the end. We just didn’t know the process was going to take so long.
A 2021 fall already branded as a Season of Change seems like the perfect time to consider mixing things up a bit ourselves. Rather than just hitting repeat on the past, we’re going to look at everything with fresh eyes this year. The timing of the release date of the preseason publication may change. Publication format and distribution — whether we continue to pre-print for newsstands or go all-in on digital — will probably change. Some of the content may change. The constant will remain so: Will and I are still going to write and publish this thing this year. We and you will find out together what that looks like.
One thing we do already know is that we want to involve you — yes, you — in the creation of the content for the preseason publication. We want your input on our power rankings, predicted records and standings, stock watch, all-conference teams, Top 25, and whatever else makes sense. We’ll be the guide because we’ve been down this road many times before and we know the pitfalls. But we’ve never walked it with you, and this year, we’d like to invite you along. We wish we would have thought of it sooner.
It’s time to turn and face the strange. If you’d like to join us, get started by weighing in on the first rough draft of our 2021 College Football Power Rankings.
You must be logged in to post a comment.