There is a statement in one of the articles linked on the front page that I hate, but it rings very true...
Unlike Leslie, Plumlee is much closer to reaching his ceiling. As he proved by going 9 for 9 from the floor while scoring 19 points with 12 rebounds and three blocks in the Blue Devils’ NCAA tournament loss to Lehigh last month, he has the skills to be a dominant low post presence. He’s just never been able to do it on a consistent basis.
Returning to Duke for his senior season would give the 6-11 center an opportunity to change that perception. Then again, as former teammate Kyle Singler learned, draft stock can drop just as easily as it can rise.
If Plumlee is projected to be safely entrenched in the middle of the first round, where many mock drafts have him, then it wouldn’t make sense for him to leave millions of dollars on the table to return to Duke and play for free.
http://acc.blogs.starnewsonline.com/29781/29781/
There is another thought in there that I wonder about..
The fact is that the decision to stay or go is a highly personal one that has little or nothing to do with whether the player is physically ready to handle the rigors of NBA competition. Two-thirds of those who enter the draft as underclassmen, including the three newest former Tar Heels, still have holes in their game that can only be filled by another season or two in college.
Well is that really true? I mean if you have holes in your game now, and you decide to go make the money, who's to say you can't improve just as well by playing tough in practice in the NBA? Or elect to go to the D-League AFTER being drafted? Hell, then you'd be making your money and be getting lots of minutes, as opposed to either making your money and sitting on the bench or making no money and playing lots of minutes. And then of course there is the Europe option. The thought that a player can only improve by being in college is so common it's cliche, but is it actually true?
Duke born, Duke bred, cooking on a grill so I'm tailgate fed.