2012 Basketball Recruiting Thread

[MCFinARL]

If both Austin and Mason stay, it is very possible that Shabazz will have to look elsewhere, especially if Amile takes the remaining scholly sooner rather than later, as there is no way coach K will remove a scholarship from a player that is already at Duke. However, I think that if only one of Austin or Mason heads to the NBA, I see no reason for playing time to be an issue for Shabazz. As much promise as Alex and Mike have, Shabazz is the type of talent who could start at the three over those two guys. He would easily slot in alongside Austin at shooting guard if Austin stays. If Austin leaves and Mason stays, he would still slot in nicely at small forward with Mike backing him up, Andre, Seth, Quinn and Tyler filling the guard spots, and Alex, Marshall, Amile (who would have committed in this scenario), and Ryan holding down the forward spots. Obviously if Austin and Mason leave, there's even more court time to go around. However, I suspect that Shabazz would be more likely to take playing time away from players currently on the roster rather than be restricted, himself.

I agree that playing time, while no doubt something Shabazz is thinking about a lot, would probably not be in short supply at Duke--it's more the question of whether there would be a scholarship.

This doesn't address the rest of your post, but I believe that, at the moment, the most fashionable rhetoric is as follows: winning is utterly impossible with a team full of super-froshes, yet essentially guaranteed on a team that balances them with experienced upper-classmen.

I'm not sure I'd go with this extreme a statement (and I recognize that your use of "fashionable" suggests you may not fully buy into it), but I do think that, in the current climate, the strategy that gives a team the best chance of success is a stable four-year core with a highly talented one- or two-year player thrown in. Teams made up entirely of transients can have trouble meshing when it counts (see Kentucky 2010), and teams with solid, but not superstar, upperclassmen can struggle if they lack a star to pick up the slack when things go wrong. Obviously, there are exceptions (Butler last year comes to mind or, in a more talented version, Duke 2010; at least so far, Kentucky 2012 is looking like a mostly freshman/sophomore team that might be able to go the distance), but I think the balanced approach makes sense.

[JNort]

It seems strange to me how many people on this board have had negative things to say about how Kentucky has been running their program the past few years and how these very same people have often used the argument that the Wildcats would never win anything because of the supposed lack of experience come tournament time. Now a number of these same people seem to be so infatuated with Shabazz and his talent.

As I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread we will have a very top heavy team, especially should Mason return, but at the conclusion of next season we will be hit extremely hard by graduation. Where do our quality, experienced players come from for the 2013 season? If Bazz is that talented and takes time from Alex and Silent G, when do those players get to develop? Do those players already on our roster have the right to feel they’ve been recruited over and if so could anyone blame them for leaving? Do any of the kids currently on the roster, Tyler, Josh, Quinn, Alex, Michael, Marshall, or Rasheed scream out at you and say, “I’m your leader and go to guy for 2013?” Quinn maybe, but are you willing to gamble the 2013 season on his knee? Rasheed and Alex? Again maybe, but not likely if they aren’t getting much PT during 2012?

So the question comes down to this. Are you so willing to gamble on this one extremely talented kid for next year at the expense of the 2013 team?

As I posted earlier (not sure if it was this thread) the best strategy to winning in the "one and done" era is to have one of them on the roster every year. Duke is now doing this: Kyrie last year, Austin this year, Bazz next year, and Parker after that. You just have to be careful about who you offer for that type of player or as you say other guys will not get to develop. Look at who we have offered in order: PG, SG, SF, SF/PF doing this insures that Cook would not get buried behind another Kyrie or Curry behind another Austin or Murphy/Gbiniji behind another Bazz. You just alternate the positions around every year or get guys who play more than one position (Parker).

[JNort]

I think that is right. Sulaimon will have Miles' scholarship. Zafirovski's is the other one that could be available if needed I believe.

Zafirovski is a walk-on and in the past Duke has provided one year scholarships to certain walk-ons when there were scholarships available. I am almost possible that he was told that the scholarship is his only if an extra scholarship is available.

These question have been cleared up already earlier:

Todd doesn't count. Any time a non-recruited player is awarded a scholarship, it is for one year, with the understanding that it can and will be pulled if needed for a recruited player.

Duke has 12 recruited players. Take away Miles. That leaves 11. Add Sulaimon. That leaves 12.

So, one schollie for Jefferson and Muhammad. But it's not really a problem. Muhammad has made it clear that he will wait until pretty deep in the spring, the better to determine who's leaving and who's staying. If Austin were to leave for the NBA, that would almost certainly be known to Muhammad prior to his decision. Should Austin come back, that also would be known. In the case of the latter, I cannot imagine Muhammad wanting to come to Duke.

[jv001]

I want to see us get another true stud at the #3. Both for defense and offense. That is one big weakness this year. I hoped that Alex or Michael would fill that role but it has not played out that way. GoDuke!

[lotusland]

I want to see us get another true stud at the #3. Both for defense and offense. That is one big weakness this year. I hoped that Alex or Michael would fill that role but it has not played out that way. GoDuke!

I think either Alex or SG could end up being a stud at Duke

[flyingdutchdevil]

I want to see us get another true stud at the #3. Both for defense and offense. That is one big weakness this year. I hoped that Alex or Michael would fill that role but it has not played out that way. GoDuke!

I would have to disagree. Next year, as you pointed out, we'll have Michael & Alex. Michael is a perfect 3 and Alex is a Singler-esque 3/4. For the next 3-4 years, I am not at all worried about the 3. It's the 4 and 5 that I am more concerned about because we only have the following options set in stone moving forward:

2012-13:
4: Josh Hairston (4), Ryan Kelly (4/5), Alex Murphy (3/4)
5: Mason Plumlee (5), Marshall Plumlee (5)

2013-2014:
4: Josh Hairston (4), Alex Murphy (3/4)
5: Marshall Plumlee (5)

If Mason stays, 2012-2013 will look bright, although another banger won't hurt. The following year, we look to in serious trouble with only one true 5 and one true 4.

[NSDukeFan]

It seems strange to me how many people on this board have had negative things to say about how Kentucky has been running their program the past few years and how these very same people have often used the argument that the Wildcats would never win anything because of the supposed lack of experience come tournament time. Now a number of these same people seem to be so infatuated with Shabazz and his talent.

As I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread we will have a very top heavy team, especially should Mason return, but at the conclusion of next season we will be hit extremely hard by graduation. Where do our quality, experienced players come from for the 2013 season? If Bazz is that talented and takes time from Alex and Silent G, when do those players get to develop? Do those players already on our roster have the right to feel they’ve been recruited over and if so could anyone blame them for leaving? Do any of the kids currently on the roster, Tyler, Josh, Quinn, Alex, Michael, Marshall, or Rasheed scream out at you and say, “I’m your leader and go to guy for 2013?” Quinn maybe, but are you willing to gamble the 2013 season on his knee? Rasheed and Alex? Again maybe, but not likely if they aren’t getting much PT during 2012?

So the question comes down to this. Are you so willing to gamble on this one extremely talented kid for next year at the expense of the 2013 team?

As Allen Iverson would say: "Practice...Man, you're talking about practice."

[JNort]

I would have to disagree. Next year, as you pointed out, we'll have Michael & Alex. Michael is a perfect 3 and Alex is a Singler-esque 3/4. For the next 3-4 years, I am not at all worried about the 3. It's the 4 and 5 that I am more concerned about because we only have the following options set in stone moving forward:

2012-13:
4: Josh Hairston (4), Ryan Kelly (4/5), Alex Murphy (3/4)
5: Mason Plumlee (5), Marshall Plumlee (5)

2013-2014:
4: Josh Hairston (4), Alex Murphy (3/4)
5: Marshall Plumlee (5)

If Mason stays, 2012-2013 will look bright, although another banger won't hurt. The following year, we look to in serious trouble with only one true 5 and one true 4.

But the 2013 and 14 situation just in all likelihood would not happen because someone will commit whether it be through recruiting or transfer before that could ever occur. Not saying it 100% could not happen just saying that it is really such a long shot especially with K's exposure with the Olympics, a recent championship in 2010, a number 1 draft pick in Kyrie, producing what should be the rookie of the year in Kyrie, and the way current recruiting is going (Austin now, Bazz, Parker, Randle, etc..) I highly doubt we get nobody.

[jv001]

I would have to disagree. Next year, as you pointed out, we'll have Michael & Alex. Michael is a perfect 3 and Alex is a Singler-esque 3/4. For the next 3-4 years, I am not at all worried about the 3. It's the 4 and 5 that I am more concerned about because we only have the following options set in stone moving forward:

2012-13:
4: Josh Hairston (4), Ryan Kelly (4/5), Alex Murphy (3/4)
5: Mason Plumlee (5), Marshall Plumlee (5)

2013-2014:
4: Josh Hairston (4), Alex Murphy (3/4)
5: Marshall Plumlee (5)

If Mason stays, 2012-2013 will look bright, although another banger won't hurt. The following year, we look to in serious trouble with only one true 5 and one true 4.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I mean it hasn't worked out this year.

[-bdbd]

"As happened with I think Lee Melchionni 7 (?) years ago, a current player, whose family can easily afford it, could offer to simply go "off" scholarship for a year, while still being fully on the team."

How about Austin Rivers?

A guy can dream anyway.

Yep, that's certainly one family that could afford it (volunteering to give up their scholarship for a year to bring in another high recruit) without it putting a crimp in their Christmas budget...
Another might be the Plumlees, who I think have attorneys for parents.
The Curry family is doing pretty well too.

But given that AR has, according to SM, been pushing for him to come to Duke, I think that might be a very possible volunteer.

Just to be clear, though, this is not something I can see K ever demanding, or even requesting, but simply given the 'family' atmosphere I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one or two players' families proactively make the offer.

As I said, I am CERTAIN that K and staff have a plan and know what they will do if we get 2 more kids needing scholarships, or three even.

[tommy]

It seems strange to me how many people on this board have had negative things to say about how Kentucky has been running their program the past few years and how these very same people have often used the argument that the Wildcats would never win anything because of the supposed lack of experience come tournament time. Now a number of these same people seem to be so infatuated with Shabazz and his talent.

As I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread we will have a very top heavy team, especially should Mason return, but at the conclusion of next season we will be hit extremely hard by graduation. Where do our quality, experienced players come from for the 2013 season? If Bazz is that talented and takes time from Alex and Silent G, when do those players get to develop? Do those players already on our roster have the right to feel they’ve been recruited over and if so could anyone blame them for leaving? Do any of the kids currently on the roster, Tyler, Josh, Quinn, Alex, Michael, Marshall, or Rasheed scream out at you and say, “I’m your leader and go to guy for 2013?” Quinn maybe, but are you willing to gamble the 2013 season on his knee? Rasheed and Alex? Again maybe, but not likely if they aren’t getting much PT during 2012?

So the question comes down to this. Are you so willing to gamble on this one extremely talented kid for next year at the expense of the 2013 team?

And the answer -- my answer anyway -- is yes. You have to create the team for, and play, the season that is directly in front of you first and foremost. That's not to say you don't try to plan for the future and structure a team the way you'd like, but with so many variables in recruiting, player development, and a million other issues, if you have a chance to get a transcendent talent like Shabazz on your squad, there is absolutely zero question that you want him.

[Greg_Newton]

Yep, that's certainly one family that could afford it (volunteering to give up their scholarship for a year to bring in another high recruit) without it putting a crimp in their Christmas budget...
Another might be the Plumlees, who I think have attorneys for parents.
The Curry family is doing pretty well too.

But given that AR has, according to SM, been pushing for him to come to Duke, I think that might be a very possible volunteer.

Just to be clear, though, this is not something I can see K ever demanding, or even requesting, but simply given the 'family' atmosphere I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one or two players' families proactively make the offer.

I'm almost certain you can't do that; recruited players can't go off scholarship to duck the schollie limit. I'm not sure how Melchionni got around it, but he must have qualified as "non-recruited" as a freshman or something since he hadn't ever received scholarship money.

For us to take Amile + one more in 2012, we'd have to lose a player to something besides graduation. Which is probably likely, but still makes for some interesting hypothetical situations.

[Bluedog]

I'm almost certain you can't do that; recruited players can't go off scholarship to duck the schollie limit. I'm not sure how Melchionni got around it, but he must have qualified as "non-recruited" as a freshman or something since he hadn't ever received scholarship money

Drummond did that just this year at UConn. And another player offered to give up his schollie so they could get Drummond to commit. As for Lee, we weren't at the scholarship limit of 13 but they were enforcing the now defunct 5/8 rule, where you can only have 5 players on scholarship in a given class year and 8 over the course of two years. There were six freshmen that year so they couldn't all be covered.

[loran16]

I'm almost certain you can't do that; recruited players can't go off scholarship to duck the schollie limit. I'm not sure how Melchionni got around it, but he must have qualified as "non-recruited" as a freshman or something since he hadn't ever received scholarship money.

For us to take Amile + one more in 2012, we'd have to lose a player to something besides graduation. Which is probably likely, but still makes for some interesting hypothetical situations.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here. There is no limit to the number of recruited players you can have (barring the roster limit). There IS a limit to the # of scholarships.

Thus Andre Drummond can play off scholarship since UConn is out of those.

Functionally however, this amounts to a limit on recruited players, since 99.9% of recruited players will NOT accept walking on. Even if they're well off.

[Greg_Newton]

UConn's case is unique; the NCAA sanctions reduced their scholarships to 10, but did not affect their allowed recruited players. So, Drummond is allowed to pay his own way as the 11th recruited player on the team.

I couldn't find anything official to back this up with a quick search, but I'm 99.99% sure none of our current recruited, scholarship players could hypothetically pay their own tuition next year to make room for a 14th recruited player. I THINK this is due to a 13-player limit on recruited athletes (which Curry does count towards), but maybe Jim, OF, or someone else smarter than me can explain better.

[MCFinARL]

UConn's case is unique; the NCAA sanctions reduced their scholarships to 10, but did not affect their allowed recruited players. So, Drummond is allowed to pay his own way as the 11th recruited player on the team.

Wait--that actually makes sense. And it seems to take the interest of current students into account, by letting them stay and play if they can afford to, in crafting sanctions for past infractions. Can it possibly be an NCAA policy?

[CDu]

UConn's case is unique; the NCAA sanctions reduced their scholarships to 10, but did not affect their allowed recruited players. So, Drummond is allowed to pay his own way as the 11th recruited player on the team.

I couldn't find anything official to back this up with a quick search, but I'm 99.99% sure none of our current recruited, scholarship players could hypothetically pay their own tuition next year to make room for a 14th recruited player. I THINK this is due to a 13-player limit on recruited athletes (which Curry does count towards), but maybe Jim, OF, or someone else smarter than me can explain better.

Everything I've ever read online about this talks about the number of scholarships - not number of recruited players. I'm not sure why the NCAA would institute a rule on the number of recruited athletes on the roster. Not saying you're wrong - just that I haven't seen anything to suggest you're right. And it doesn't seem to make sense. But then again, the NCAA often doesn't make sense.

[Bluedog]

I've tried to do some digging around and it looks like the NCAA's scholarship limit rules do (as expected) parlay information regarding whether the players were recruited or not, but I couldn't find anything regarding a separate limit for scholarships and recruited players. The only place I could find that was via another message board post, so don't know how reliable that is. The limit for scholarships simply is dictated by various factors, including if a player was recruited. For men's basketball, NCAA rules allow a team to have thirteen "counters" on a roster. A "non-counter" is a player who either is not receiving any type of financial aid (including need-based) OR who was not recruited and is not receiving athletic-based aid. So, if you're not recruited, you are eligible to receive need-based aid from the institution/federal sources and not count towards the limit - pretty neat.

For a player to receive need-based aid only and be considered a "non-counter" by the NCAA, he must not have been recruited. For an athlete to be considered a "recruited student-athlete" one or more of the following must occur: (a) an official visit; (b) an arranged in-person off-campus meeting; (c) more than one telephone contact with the athlete/parents; and/or (d) issuing a letter of intent or an offer of athletically related financial aid.

I don't know if the clarifies everything, but that's what I could find.

[CDu]

I've tried to do some digging around and it looks like the NCAA's scholarship limit rules do (as expected) parlay information regarding whether the players were recruited or not, but I couldn't find anything regarding a separate limit for scholarships and recruited players. The limit for scholarships simply is dictated by various factors, including if a player was recruited. For men's basketball, NCAA rules allow a team to have thirteen "counters" on a roster. A "non-counter" is a player who either is not receiving any type of financial aid (including need-based) OR who was not recruited and is not receiving athletic-based aid. So, if you're not recruited, you are eligible to receive need-based aid from the institution/federal sources and not count towards the limit - pretty neat.

For a player to receive need-based aid only and be considered a "non-counter" by the NCAA, he must not have been recruited. For an athlete to be considered a "recruited student-athlete" one or more of the following must occur: (a) an official visit; (b) an arranged in-person off-campus meeting; (c) more than one telephone contact with the athlete/parents; and/or (d) issuing a letter of intent or an offer of athletically related financial aid.

I don't know if the clarifies everything, but that's what I could find.

Assuming what you posted is exactly right, it seems pretty clear. That would suggest that a recruited player who receives no aid would not count against the total. So if a recruited scholarship player was willing to waive any financial aid, he wouldn't count against the total. This would actually make complete sense. You're welcome to have as many recruited players as you like. You just can't give more than 13 of them money. And if they weren't recruited, they can get need-based or academic-based aid, but not athletically-related aid. It allows non-recruited walk-ons to earn financial aid through other means while limiting the athletic scholarships available.

According to this, it would appear that a scenario with Rivers or Curry waiving their scholarship would be legal.

[Devilsfan]

Sounds nice on paper but in the real world $56,000 is not something even an NBA player or coaches son would easily give back to an institution after it was offered.