ESPN: Schools at Producing Best and Worst NBA Draft Picks

[MUDPT]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10749028/nba-draft-which-schools-best-worst-producing-nba-draft-picks

1. Wake
2. MU
3. Georgetown
4. Florida
5. Cal

Basically best schools at producing players that outperform their draft position.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10749028/nba-draft-which-schools-best-worst-producing-nba-draft-picks

1. Wake
2. MU
3. Georgetown
4. Florida
5. Cal

Basically best schools at producing players that outperform their draft position.

Give it a few years, but Indiana has a good chance to creep into that list.

[Shark]

Woah...They have JaJuan Johnson on the watch list. Holy crap that is pre-mature but also puts into perspective on how crazy Buzz was this year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How is this at all about the schools would be my question.  This should be 100% on the GMs.  If they are picking players too early, that is their fault, not the school's.  If they are picking them too late, that is also the GM's fault, not the school's. 

Maybe they are trying to say that schools produce players that are under the radar, but that also means a bunch of GMs didn't do their damn homework. 

[WadeATKBurton]

Woah...They have JaJuan Johnson on the watch list. Holy crap that is pre-mature but also puts into perspective on how crazy Buzz was this year.

Brent sucks. .he will fail at VA Tech...FAIL!!

[WadeATKBurton]

Woah...They have JaJuan Johnson on the watch list. Holy crap that is pre-mature but also puts into perspective on how crazy Buzz was this year.

We had flat out BALLERS sitting on the bench but Brent refused to play them..Wojo or any other coach would of gotten us in the tournament this year!

[Tums Festival]

Give it a few years, but Indiana has a good chance to creep into that list.

They are on the list, the bad part.

[AverageJoe]

You wonder how it would change with undrafteds - Wes, Buycks, maybe Vander

[Eldon]

You wonder how it would change with undrafteds - Wes, Buycks, maybe Vander

Speaking of Vander, he dropped 34 pts yesterday and went 4-8 from 3pt

[T-Bone]

Anyone care to share the whole article?

[Shark]

The Top 5

1. Wake Forest

Picks: 10 | Actual EWA: 51.6 | Expected EWA: 23.5 | Net EWA: +2.8 per pick (+28.1 total)


As a Demon Deacon myself, I promise I didn't rig this one. Promise! Really, the results speak for themselves. The smallest school in the ACC has produced some of the biggest names of our generation. After four years in Winston-Salem, Tim Duncan may go down as the best power forward of all time. No surprise, he has yielded 13.0 wins more per year than we'd expect from a No. 1 overall pick. Chris Paul, who spent two years at Wake Forest, remains the gold standard at the position and ranks as the best No. 4 pick in the 24-year study (plus-13.8 Net EWA).

But of course, there's more to it than Duncan and Paul. In 2003, 28 teams passed on All-Star Josh Howard (plus-3.4 Net EWA) before the Dallas Mavericks plucked him at No. 29. Elsewhere, Jeff Teague (plus-2.7 Net EWA) fell outside the lottery in 2009 and Darius Songaila (plus-1.3 Net EWA) dropped all the way to No. 49 before carving out a solid NBA career. Throw Rodney Rogers (No. 9 in 1993) and James Johnson (No. 16 in 2009) into the mix and you'll see a long line of hits and few misses (Al-Farouq Aminu at No. 8 in 2010 and Randolph Childress at No. 19 in 1995). Don't sleep on the Deacs.

Prospects to watch: Travis McKie and Devin Thomas.

2. Marquette

Picks: 11 | Actual EWA: 20.5 | Expected EWA: 8.3 | Net EWA: +1.1 per pick (+12.1 total)


Getting a Hall of Famer like Dwyane Wade at No. 5 is obviously the headliner here, but the real Marquette story is about finding diamonds in the rough. Guess how many Marquette players have been drafted inside the top 25? One: Wade. But plenty of NBA players have honed their craft at Marquette.

Jimmy Butler (No. 30 in 2011), Jae Crowder (No. 34 in 2012) and Steve Novak (No. 32 in 2006) were all picked way outside the lottery, but have made contributions to winning teams at the next level when history tells us guys in the 30s shouldn't. Chris Crawford (No. 50 in 1997) and Tony Smith (No. 51) also enjoyed solid NBA careers despite getting picked in the back of the second round. Bottom line: If you're looking for a flier, Marquette players should be on your short list.

Prospects to watch: Davante Gardner, JaJuan Johnson and Jamil Wilson.

3. Georgetown

Picks: 15 | Actual EWA: 49.7 | Expected EWA: 36.4 | Net EWA: +0.9 per pick (+13.3 total)


As you can see by the ranking, Georgetown's reputation as a big man factory is well deserved. And this doesn't even count Patrick Ewing, who was drafted before this study's 1989 cutoff. Alonzo Mourning (No. 2 in 1992), Dikembe Mutombo (No. 4 in 1991), Greg Monroe (No. 7 in 2010) and Roy Hibbert (No. 17 in 2008) are all Hoyas who have bludgeoned the NBA with their size and skill. And that's before we get to Allen Iverson, a future Hall of Famer who changed the game. But the Hoyas don't have a spotless record. Mike Sweetney (No. 9 in 2003) lasted four years before weight problems forced him out of the league. EWA doesn't like the Jeff Green pick at No. 5 since he has yet to put up an above-average PER in seven seasons. And it's early, but Otto Porter Jr. (No. 3 in 2013) has registered one of the worst rookie seasons ever by a top-3 pick, thanks to his battles with injury. All in all, Georgetown has a ridiculously strong track record, but Porter has a ways to go to live up to his school's standing.

Prospects to watch: Josh Smith.

4. Florida

Picks: 19 | Actual EWA: 44.0 | Expected EWA: 30.6 | Net EWA: +0.7 per pick (+13.4 total)


Of all the teams in the tournament this year, no one can top the Gators in exceeding expectations at the next level. Just a ton of hits inside and outside the lottery. We remember the juggernaut Class of 2007 that produced Al Horford (No. 3), Corey Brewer (No. 7), Joakim Noah (No. 9), Chris Richard (No. 41) and Taurean Green (No. 52) but the best Gators pick from a value standpoint is David Lee (plus-8.7 Net EWA), whom Isiah Thomas scooped up at No. 30 in the 2005 draft. Brewer actually ranks as the least profitable pick of all Gators (minus-2.6 EWA), but that tells you more about Florida's outstanding track record than anything.

Chandler Parsons (No. 38 in 2011), Matt Bonner (No. 45 in 2003) and Andrew DeClercq (No. 34 in 1995) have made the rest of the NBA look foolish for passing them up in the first round. Udonis Haslem wasn't even drafted at all. Elsewhere, Mike Miller (No. 5 in 2000) and Jason Williams (No. 7 in 1998) produced just about what we'd expect at their slots, and Bradley Beal (No. 3 in 2012) looks destined for an All-Star career as long as he strengthens those wheels.

Prospects to watch: Patric Young, Scottie Wilbekin, Chris Walker, Casey Prather, Kasey Hill, Michael Frazier II and Dorian Finney-Smith.

5. California

Picks: 12 | Actual EWA: 27.3 | Expected EWA: 18.4 | Net EWA: +0.7 per pick (+8.9 total)


Jason Kidd at No. 2 and Shareef Abdur-Rahim at No. 3 certainly helps boost the Golden Bears' standing, but it's outside the lottery where California makes its mark. Leon Powe was a late second-round pick in 2006 and the sweet-shooting Ryan Anderson fell all the way to No. 21 before the Nets picked him up. Also contributing to the Golden Bears' bottom line is two NBA journeyman, Sean Marks and NBA champion Francisco Elson, who were both draft-day afterthoughts, getting selected No. 44 and No. 41, respectively.

The latest California product, Allen Crabbe, hasn't lived up to expectations as the top pick in the second round of last year's draft, but the former All-American is just getting started on his NBA career. The University of California may not boast the big names of its UCLA brethren, but when Lamond Murray at No. 7 is considered your biggest bust, that's a darn impressive résumé.

Prospects to watch: Jabari Bird, Justin Cobbs and Richard Solomon.

Rounding out the top 10

6. Xavier | 10 picks | Net EWA per pick: +0.7

Hits: David West (No. 18), Jordan Crawford (27), Brian Grant (8)
Whiffs: None

Prospects to watch: Semaj Christon.

7. LSU | 15 picks | Net EWA per pick: +0.6

Hits: Shaquille O'Neal (1), Marcus Thornton (43), Brandon Bass (33), Glen Davis (35)
Whiffs: Stromile Swift (2), Tyrus Thomas (4), Anthony Randolph (14)

Prospects to watch: Jarell Martin, Jordan Mickey and Johnny O'Bryant.

8. Washington | 12 picks | Net EWA per pick: +0.6

Hits: Isaiah Thomas (60), Brandon Roy (6), Nate Robinson (21), Todd MacCulloch (47), Spencer Hawes (10)
Whiffs: None

Prospects to watch: C.J. Wilcox and Nigel Williams-Goss.

9. UConn | 27 picks | Net EWA per pick: +0.5

Hits: Ray Allen (5), Andre Drummond (9), Kemba Walker (9), Clifford Robinson (36)
Whiffs: Hasheem Thabeet (2), Hilton Armstrong (12)

Prospects to watch: Shabazz Napier, DeAndre Daniels, Rodney Purvis, Omar Calhoun and Ryan Boatright.

10. UCLA | Actual EWA: 55.6 | Expected EWA: 40.1 | +0.5 Net EWA per pick (+15.5 total)

Hits: Kevin Love (5), Russell Westbrook (4), Darren Collison (21), Trevor Ariza (43)
Whiffs: Ed O'Bannon (9), Jerome Moiso (11), Shabazz Muhammad (14), George Zidek (22)

The Bottom 5

1. Louisville

Picks: 15 | Actual EWA: 4.2 | Expected EWA: 29.4 | Net EWA: -1.7 per pick (-25.1 total)


Here's your pick-me-up, Kentucky fans! The rival Cardinals have been horrible bets in the draft ever since Pervis Ellison (minus-5.1 Net EWA) was picked No. 1 overall in 1989 only to never make an All-Star team. But then there's Felton Spencer at No. 6, Earl Clark at No. 14, Terrence Williams at No. 11 and Samaki Walker at No. 9 -- all lottery busts hailing from U of L.

Not only do the Cards have a long line of duds, none of their 15 picks have ever outperformed expectations by even as much as half a win per season. By comparison, Kentucky boasts 10 such players. Timberwolves rookie Gorgui Dieng (No. 21) is Louisville's best hope at salvaging the Cardinals' NBA reputation, but there's only so much he can do. Put it this way, Louisville and Florida each were expected to produce about 30 EWA according to their draft slots, so pretty much equal ground. And Louisville has ended up spitting out 4.2 EWA while Florida has yielded 44 EWA. Yikes.

Prospects to watch: Chris Jones, Russ Smith, Terry Rozier, Montrezl Harrell, Luke Hancock, Wayne Blackshear and Chane Behanan.

2. Indiana

Picks: 15 | Actual EWA: 10.7 | Expected EWA: 29.2 | Net EWA: -1.2 per pick (-18.5 total)


Victor Oladipo has his hands full. Not only does he have to help rescue the Orlando Magic franchise, but the Hoosiers' NBA reputation is on life support, as well. No doubt Bob Knight and the Hoosiers have some of the most storied and successful seasons in NCAA history, but that's usually where the success ends. Calbert Cheaney (No. 6 in 1993) and Jared Jeffries (No. 11 in 2002) both failed to live up to expectations and you can throw Kirk Haston (No. 16 in 2001) and Greg Graham (No. 17 in 1993) into that pile, as well.

Cody Zeller (No. 4) has come on strong lately, but he did shoot 38 percent as a big man until March. Oladipo has also fallen short of the preseason hype after called the overwhelming favorite for Rookie of the Year. No pressure or anything, Noah Vonleh.

Prospects to watch: Vonleh, Will Sheehey, Hanner Mosquera-Perea, Yogi Ferrell and Troy Williams.

3. UNLV

Picks: 10 | Actual EWA: 21.0 | Expected EWA: 32.4 | Net EWA: -1.1 per pick (-11.3 total)


So far, Anthony Bennett (minus-7.9 Net EWA) is the biggest bust in DRAFT Initiative history, beating out 1998 No. 1 overall pick Michael Olowokandi (minus-6.8 Net EWA) for that dishonor. But it's far too early to write off Bennett's career. Still, a dreadful rookie season doesn't help UNLV's rank here.

But it's not all Bennett. Larry Johnson ranks eighth worst among 25 No. 1 overall picks (minus-2.1 Net EWA) and was out of the league by age 31 due to back problems. Marcus Banks (No. 13 in 2003), Isaiah Rider (No. 5 in 1993), Keon Clark (No. 13 in 1998) and Stacey Augmon (No. 9 in 1991) were all lottery picks who struggled to sustain successful NBA careers for various reasons. In fact, Shawn Marion (No. 9 in 1999) is the only UNLV product in the DRAFT Initiative study to outperform draft expectations. Funny, Vegas products are one of the worst bets on the big board.

Prospects to watch: Roscoe Smith, Katin Reinhardt and Khem Birch.

4. Iowa State

Picks: 11 | Actual EWA: 4.0 | Expected EWA: 14.4 | Net EWA: -0.9 per pick (-10.3 total)


Fred Hoiberg can't do everything. Hoiberg is not only the current Iowa State coach, but he also ranks as the most rewarding pick on Iowa State's résumé, delivering an annual 0.9 EWA as the 52nd pick in the 1995 draft. Jamaal Tinsley enjoyed a lengthy career from the No. 27 slot in the 2001 draft, but his inefficient game never reflected well in advanced metrics. And those are the bright spots.

The rest is a mess. Marcus Fizer (No. 4 in 2000), Royce White (No. 16 in 2012), Craig Brackins (No. 21 in 2010), Victor Alexander (No. 17 in 1991) and Kelvin Cato (No. 15) all underperformed to varying degrees at the next level. Fizer (minus-5.2 Net EWA) goes down as the worst No. 4 pick in the non-Wesley Johnson division.

Prospects to watch: DeAndre Kane, Melvin Ejim and Georges Niang.

5. Georgia

Picks: 12 | Actual EWA: -0.6 | Expected EWA: 10.0 | Net EWA: -0.9 per pick (-10.7 total)


Don't worry, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope; you're not the only one. If the Piston, who was selected No. 8 overall last year, doesn't bounce back from a disappointing rookie season, he would join a fairly long line of Bulldogs busts in the league. Jarvis Hayes (No. 10 in 2003) and Alec Kessler (No. 12 in 1990) never did much of anything in the league.

All told, the 12 Bulldogs picked have somehow managed to produce negative wins in the NBA as a group. Yes, negative. That seems impossible. When Jumaine Jones (No. 27 in 1999) and Shandon Anderson (No. 54 in 1996) are your most profitable picks in the past 25 years, you've got a problem.

Prospects to watch: None.

Rounding out the bottom 10

6. Missouri | 13 picks | Net EWA per pick: -0.9

Hits: DeMarre Carroll (27)
Whiffs: Doug Smith (6), Keyon Dooling (10), Kareem Rush (20), Anthony Peeler (15).

Prospects to watch: Jabari Brown and Jordan Clarkson.

7. Oklahoma State | 10 picks | Net EWA per pick: -0.9

Hits: Tony Allen (25)
Whiffs: Bryant Reeves (6), Joey Graham (16), James Anderson (20)

Prospects to watch: Marcus Smart, Markel Brown and Le'Bryan Nash.

8. Maryland | 19 picks | Net EWA per pick: -0.8

Hits: Greivis Vasquez (28), Tony Massenburg (43), Steve Blake (38)
Whiffs: Joe Smith (1), Chris Wilcox (8), Juan Dixon (17), Jerrod Mustaf (17).

Prospects to watch: Shaquille Cleare and Dezmine Wells.

9. Minnesota | 10 picks | Net EWA per pick: -0.8

Hits: Voshon Leonard (46), Bobby Jackson (23)
Whiffs: Willie Burton (9), Joel Przybilla (9), Quincy Lewis (19)

Prospects to watch: Andre Hollins and Austin Hollins.

10. Kansas | 31 picks | Net EWA per pick: -0.7

Hits: Mario Chalmers (34), Paul Pierce (10), Markieff Morris (13)
Whiffs: Ben McLemore (7), Thomas Robinson (5), Raef LaFrentz (3), Xavier Henry (12).

Prospects to watch: Andrew Wiggins, Joel Embiid, Wayne Selden, Perry Ellis, Tarik Black, Jamari Traylor and Andrew White.

Where the other 24 teams rank
Since 1989 NBA draft; minimum 10 picks.

RANK   SCHOOLS   PICKS   AEWA   EEWA   NETEWA   NET EWA/PICK
11th   Alabama   13   22.6   17   5.7   0.4
12th   Oklahoma   13   20.1   15.1   5   0.39
13th   Texas   22   41.9   37.6   4.4   0.2
14th   Kentucky   32   70   63.8   6.2   0.19
15th   Michigan State   18   22.3   20.5   1.8   0.1
16th   Georgia Tech   22   40.6   40.7   -0.2   -0.01
17th   Michigan   19   38.4   39.3   -0.8   -0.04
18th   North Carolina   32   70.2   72   -1.8   -0.05
19th   USC (Calif.)   12   18.5   19.4   -0.9   -0.07
20th   Arizona   33   52.9   55.3   -2.4   -0.07
21st   Villanova   10   14.7   15.5   -0.8   -0.08
22nd   Illinois   14   19.2   21.7   -2.5   -0.18
23rd   Florida State   15   13.5   16.5   -3   -0.2
24th   Ohio State   14   22.8   26.3   -3.4   -0.25
25th   Fresno State   10   7.8   10.5   -2.7   -0.27
26th   Cincinnati   14   15.2   19   -3.8   -0.27
27th   Providence   13   7.2   11.4   -4.2   -0.32
28th   Duke   36   71.5   84.2   -12.8   -0.35
29th   Iowa   10   4.6   8.4   -3.8   -0.38
30th   St. John's   10   7.8   11.7   -3.8   -0.38
31st   Stanford   13   15.6   21.3   -5.7   -0.44
32nd   Syracuse   22   34.5   45   -10.5   -0.48
33rd   NC State   10   8   13.3   -5.2   -0.52
34th   Memphis   16   20.8   31.8   -10.9   -0.68

[Spotcheck Billy]

no mention of Wes Matthews?

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

no mention of Wes Matthews?

Matthews might be have been the most underrated player ever, not being drafted.  I can't think of too many other players that weren't drafted and had success at the NBA level besides Ben Wallace, I believe.  Does anyone know of anyone else?

[Galway Eagle]

Matthews might be have been the most underrated player ever, not being drafted.  I can't think of too many other players that weren't drafted and had success at the NBA level besides Ben Wallace, I believe.  Does anyone know of anyone else?

Jon Starks, Udonis Haslem, Jeremy Lin

[TSmith34, Inc.]

no mention of Wes Matthews?

Since Wes wasn't drafted, they'd need to come up with an expected value for non-drafted players on rosters, which would probably be a large number of players with very short careers, including a lot of 10-day ocntract types.  Statistically it is doable if someone wants to take that on for their PhD study in Sports Relations, but kinda toough for this analysis.

But yeah, Wes would have add a ginormous numbers of wins above expected.

[ttheisen]

Jon Starks, Udonis Haslem, Jeremy Lin

Bruce Bowen, Brad Miller, Avery Johnson

[TheBurrEffect]

How is this at all about the schools would be my question.  This should be 100% on the GMs.  If they are picking players too early, that is their fault, not the school's.  If they are picking them too late, that is also the GM's fault, not the school's. 

Maybe they are trying to say that schools produce players that are under the radar, but that also means a bunch of GMs didn't do their damn homework. 

I don't think you understand the list. It's not about a diamond in the rough. It's about the schools who are churning out the best talent in respect to the draft picks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't think you understand the list. It's not about a diamond in the rough. It's about the schools who are churning out the best talent in respect to the draft picks.

I think I understand it, but let me explain how I view it and correct me if I am wrong.   

The draft pick position is the baseline for this analysis and who determines the pick position?  The GM \ NBA team.  If they pick a player later in the draft that does well, then you get a better score on this evaluation...correct. If they over pick a player too high that doesn't pan out, the score is lowered?  That's the way I'm reading it, but if that is incorrect then I apologize.

If I am reading it correctly, since the baseline is entirely measured against where they (the players) were picked to determine if they have over achieved or underachieved, the NBA team \ GM is the ultimately the one responsible....right?  They place the value on the player, not the school.  Or another way to put it, if a school produced a bunch of players with a B grade and they were taking in the second round and had good careers, that school is somehow rewarded.  If that school produced a bunch of B grade players but they were taking in the first 10 picks (even though the same graded players), they would be scored worse because the value of the pick used was too high for that level of player.  That seems to me to be an indictment on those drafting and nothing to do with the schools...the players are the players, the NBA clubs put a value on them based on their draft position.

My two cents

[boyonthedock]

I think I understand it, but let me explain how I view it and correct me if I am wrong.   

The draft pick position is the baseline for this analysis and who determines the pick position?  The GM \ NBA team.  If they pick a player later in the draft that does well, then you get a better score on this evaluation...correct. If they over pick a player too high that doesn't pan out, the score is lowered?  That's the way I'm reading it, but if that is incorrect then I apologize.

If I am reading it correctly, since the baseline is entirely measured against where they (the players) were picked to determine if they have over achieved or underachieved, the NBA team \ GM is the ultimately the one responsible....right?  They place the value on the player, not the school.  Or another way to put it, if a school produced a bunch of players with a B grade and they were taking in the second round and had good careers, that school is somehow rewarded.  If that school produced a bunch of B grade players but they were taking in the first 10 picks (even though the same graded players), they would be scored worse because the value of the pick used was too high for that level of player.  That seems to me to be an indictment on those drafting and nothing to do with the schools...the players are the players, the NBA clubs put a value on them based on their draft position.

My two cents

Coaching/putting a player in a position to succeed also has a lot to do with it. I just wouldn't put it entirely on a GM for player development is all I'm saying.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Coaching/putting a player in a position to succeed also has a lot to do with it. I just wouldn't put it entirely on a GM for player development is all I'm saying.

I get it, but they are still ultimately judging the value of the player based on where they were picked.  Only one entity does the picking and assigning the value, that's the NBA team.  It isn't Kentucky's fault that Portland took Sam Bowie ahead of Michael Jordan or that Sam Bowie was valued that highly.  Nor is it Gonzaga's fault (or Mark Few) that Adam Morrison was taken where he was.  That's just where someone decided to put a value on the player and took him.  I made that argument with Cody Zeller last year.  No way is he a top 10 player in the draft, but all it takes is one team to take him there and bet on promise or whatever.  Now, if he was taken where he should have been, probably looks a lot better in terms of the value.  Wes Matthews, not taken at all...another example.  That's why this evaluation to me is more than a bit flawed, if I am understanding it correctly....that's an indictment on some poor General Managers or scouts.

It's practically begging for a player not to get drafted in the first round and overperform to get a great rating.  Unfortunately, the kid or school doesn't have much or any control on where he will get selected. 

[rocket surgeon]

no deonte burton as a future?  sorry if i missed it in someone elses post

[hoyasincebirth]

I get it, but they are still ultimately judging the value of the player based on where they were picked.  Only one entity does the picking and assigning the value, that's the NBA team.  It isn't Kentucky's fault that Portland took Sam Bowie ahead of Michael Jordan or that Sam Bowie was valued that highly.  Nor is it Gonzaga's fault (or Mark Few) that Adam Morrison was taken where he was.  That's just where someone decided to put a value on the player and took him.  I made that argument with Cody Zeller last year.  No way is he a top 10 player in the draft, but all it takes is one team to take him there and bet on promise or whatever.  Now, if he was taken where he should have been, probably looks a lot better in terms of the value.  Wes Matthews, not taken at all...another example.  That's why this evaluation to me is more than a bit flawed, if I am understanding it correctly....that's an indictment on some poor General Managers or scouts.

It's practically begging for a player not to get drafted in the first round and overperform to get a great rating.  Unfortunately, the kid or school doesn't have much or any control on where he will get selected. 

You're absolutely right. This Series:http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/path-to-the-draft-2013 they did last year does a better job IMO looking at which schools "produce the best pros". Which is more reflective on the schools since it doesn't punish or a reward a player based on where they were drafted. It just looks at which school had the best Pros using the same time frame. Of course this list was more subjective in terms of best.

Of course you guys won't like it since Marquette isn't on their list of the top 20 programs and that's as far as they went, but. I'm fine either way. 2nd or 3rd either way is good with me. 

[GB Warrior]

Surprised that Syracuse didn't crack the bottom 10 (though they're close). lots and lots of busts (Wesley Johnson ugh) without a lot of success stories outside of Melo. Think MCW will be a good one though.

[Newsdreams]

Guess how many Marquette players have been drafted inside the top 25? One: Wade.
This is wrong Butch Lee was #10 in the '78 draft

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Guess how many Marquette players have been drafted inside the top 25? One: Wade.
This is wrong Butch Lee was #10 in the '78 draft

The study only went back 24 years. The cutoff is 1990 I believe