Duke Recruiting: Embracing Calipari?

[DavidBenAkiva]

Tonight, I'm watching the McDonald's All-American game. This year is unique in that some of the top players are still undecided. Duke, of course, is still "in the mix" with three of the players (SF Shabazz Muhammed, PC/C Tony Parker, and F Amile Jefferson). Given the changes in the roster, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Duke could add two of these players to their incoming class of G Rasheed Sulaimon (playing in the McD's game), C Marshall Plumlee (a McD's AA from last year), and Alex Murphy. I consider the last two part of the recruiting class as they will be freshmen next year.

For the past decade, more or less, John Calipari has seemingly based his ascent at Memphis and then Kentucky by recruiting many of the top players appearing in this annual spectacle of dunks, "oohs," and "aahs." The list of players joining Calipari at Memphis and now Kentucky is enough to make you blush. The general strategy is outlined by Chuck Klosterman in this article from Grantland. Klosterman wonders if Duke and a handful of other powerhouses will adopt the Calipari approach and dominate college basketball, thereby destroying the purity of the game. I more or less agree with Klosterman on nearly every point he makes (I even find it hard to dislike Calipari, even though I hope Kentucky doesn't win this weekend).

But I do disagree with Klosterman on one point. Duke has already adopted the Calipari approach to recruiting. Every year, Duke brings in several McDonald's All-Americans., which is not new. In the past, (the class with Scheyer, Henderson, and Lance Thomas comes to mind) we were targeting top talent, but not necessarily the top talent. These were guys that were highly regarded, but maybe not the top 5 players with a few exceptions (Luol Deng and Shaun Livingston come to mind). Lately, we've been targeting those top players: Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers have already worn a Duke Jersey for one year. Will Shabbazz Muhammed, Jabari Parker, Julius Randle, Theo Pinson, Jaquel Richmond, Tyus Jones, and Jahlil Okafor join them?

Seriously, the influx of talent that might play for the Blue Devils over the next two-to-three years would be stunning. If Duke were to get most of these players, it would completely reshape the way other recruits from future years think about Duke. Perhaps that is the point. In this new landscape where a team of underclassmen can ascend to the top of the college basketball world, it seems Duke - which has not had a problem attracting top players (although the recent stretch of big man misses is highly discussed on these board) - is trying to compete with Calipari by bringing in these players that are almost assuredly going to leave for the NBA after one or two years.

This is like an open jump shot with time on the clock with a lead at the end of the game: if it goes in, great. if not, have a seat on the bench. If we can get these players, Duke will be in great shape. Even if we get half of them and some second-tier type players, we could be in great shape so long as we build a more complete team. But what if we don't get these top players? Is the downside our long-term reputation with the top players? If so, I still think we can build great teams every few years (2010 will remain one of my favorite years of basketball for a long time). I just wonder if we will be able to compete every year.

[Kedsy]

Duke has always gone after the top players. We don't always get them. Without taking the time to tally it up, my guess is Duke has gotten more Mickie D players than anyone, over whatever timeframe you wish, or at least more than all but one or two other programs.

I don't agree with your premise, though. Calipari has made a living going after and nabbing almost exclusively one-and-done talent, assuming he can reload every year because he's making it cool to go to Kentucky. Of the three players in tonight's game who Duke is seeking, only one is a one-and-done talent (Shabazz). Parker and Jefferson (as well as Sulaimon) are likely four (or at least three) year players. There really isn't any reasonable comparison between Duke's recruiting and Kentucky's.

[airowe]

Duke's strategy in the one and done era is to target one per class and surround them with 3-4 year players. The last two years Duke has been successful in doing that.

As Kedsy points out, the only player Duke is recruiting in the Class of 2012 that is identified to leave after a year is Shabazz Muhammad. While Kentucky is similarly looking at the same situation, that has not been Calipari's m.o. over the last few years. His greatest year of success at Memphis was his last, when he surrounded later to be found ineligible Derrick Rose with 25 year old Joey Dorsey and five 23 year olds. That was one of, if not the oldest teams in the NCAA.

I don't see that strategy changing for Duke either, except for maybe in the Class of 2013 when both Jabari Parker and Julius Randle are targets. However, their decisions are far away at this point so no need to worry about that now.

[DrGonzo]

Duke's strategy in the one and done era is to target one per class and surround them with 3-4 year players. The last two years Duke has been successful in doing that.

I don't consider not winning the ACC tourney and going out in the first round to Lehigh very "succesful". Calipari has been very successful in landing top recruits. How many championships does he have? It all depends on the player. If Kyrie Irving had stayed healthy all year I think we would have been a force come tourney time that year. By the same token, Rivers was a flashy dribbling, one on one type of player and it just didn't work that well. I guess I'm a purist. I like watching players develop over 3 or 4 years and becoming great players, like Singler, Smith, Zoub, etc. They need to change the rule, either go straight out of high school or stay 3 years.

[airowe]

I don't consider not winning the ACC tourney and going out in the first round to Lehigh very "succesful".

Regardless of what happened during the season, the recruiting strategy worked like they set out to do it. Coach K and staff signed a one and done talent player (Austin Rivers) and surrounded him with multiple year talents (Marshall Plumlee, Quinn Cook, and Michael Gbinije.)

I don't include Alex Murphy in that scenario as he was not recruited to be a part of the Class of 2011.

[airowe]

I don't consider not winning the ACC tourney and going out in the first round to Lehigh very "succesful". Calipari has been very successful in landing top recruits. How many championships does he have? It all depends on the player. If Kyrie Irving had stayed healthy all year I think we would have been a force come tourney time that year. By the same token, Rivers was a flashy dribbling, one on one type of player and it just didn't work that well. I guess I'm a purist. I like watching players develop over 3 or 4 years and becoming great players, like Singler, Smith, Zoub, etc. They need to change the rule, either go straight out of high school or stay 3 years.

And I'm having trouble dealing with the duplicity in your post. On one hand, you want to judge the success or failure of a recruiting class after just one year. But in the same post, you say you like watching players develop over 3 or 4 years and becoming great players.

You can't really have it both ways can you?

[Olympic Fan]

Let's keep this in perspective.

Over the last two seasons, Calipari has had six one-and-dones at kentucky (counting Kanter, who never actually got to play for the Cats). He'll add at least two more this year (Davis and Gilchrist).

In his 32 years, K has had a total of four one-and-dones -- Maggette in 1999, Deng in 2004, Irving in 2011 and Rivers in 2012. I agree that one each in the last two years is more than we're used to, but nothing like the Calipari pace.

K has always gone for the top players -- Danny Ferry was the nation's No. 1 prospect in 1985 ... in 1997, he signed three guys that were rated No. 1 by one major service (Brand, Battier and Burgess). Sometimes he gets therm, sometimes he doesn't.

If he gets Muhammad, that would probably be his third straight one-and-done ... doubt that Sulaimon is one-and-done (although anything's possible). Neither Parker nor Jefferson is likely to be a one-and-done.

K said a long time ago that in the modern era, you have to balance the short-term super prospects and the long term guys who give you continuity and experience. Overall, I think he's done a great job of that,

[miramar]

In his 32 years, K has had a total of four one-and-dones -- Maggette in 1999, Deng in 2004, Irving in 2011 and Rivers in 2012. I agree that one each in the last two years is more than we're used to, but nothing like the Calipari pace.

Maggette and Deng surprised people by leaving so quickly, so they weren't recruited as one and dones. With Irving and Rivers it was different because everyone understood that the possibility was there, but that's a long way from setting up a collegiate NBA development league. I don't criticize Cal since it probably fits in well at Kentucky, but that would be awful at Duke. Or it may be better to say that would not be Duke at all.

[Lar77]

Maggette and Deng surprised people by leaving so quickly, so they weren't recruited as one and dones. With Irving and Rivers it was different because everyone understood that the possibility was there, but that's a long way from setting up a collegiate NBA development league. I don't criticize Cal since it probably fits in well at Kentucky, but that would be awful at Duke. Or it may be better to say that would not be Duke at all.

I agree with most of what you say, but have a couple of different impressions.

First, my recollection was that Kyrie Irving was assumed originally to be a 2-3 year Dukie. I recall that he was coming in with enough advanced placement credits that, with summer school, he could graduate in 2 years or so. He developed much more quickly than expected, and well, you know the rest.

Second, looking at Duke recruits and what K has said, it is clear we look for a certain type of person and have backed off some as a result (Kris Humphries comes to mind).

Not to say that our way is the best way, but it is a way that I, as a fan, have come to enjoy. Our track record has been amazing considering this standard. If we continue to be successful, it is good for all concerned, especially our players who hopefully learn more than basketball under Coach K.

Kentucky has adopted the Tarkanian style - get great players who want to prepare for an NBA career and get them to play together. Calipari is good at what he does. Getting this year's team to play the defense they have shown is remarkable. Will their presumed success signal the demise of college basketball? No, not anymore than it has since the one and done age began.

I don't regret players leaving after a year to pursue their dream if they are ready for it. Many have said in the past that they would leave college early for a lot less than a multimillion dollar career in their chosen field.

But I like our way of developing players as people, of building a program. It can be frustrating at times when our program doesn't click the way we want it to, but it is ours. My only hope is that Coach K has figured out the most important part of a program's success: who will sustain it after the CEO retires.

[unexpected]

I agree with most of what you say, but have a couple of different impressions.

First, my recollection was that Kyrie Irving was assumed originally to be a 2-3 year Dukie. I recall that he was coming in with enough advanced placement credits that, with summer school, he could graduate in 2 years or so. He developed much more quickly than expected, and well, you know the rest.

Second, looking at Duke recruits and what K has said, it is clear we look for a certain type of person and have backed off some as a result (Kris Humphries comes to mind).

Not to say that our way is the best way, but it is a way that I, as a fan, have come to enjoy. Our track record has been amazing considering this standard. If we continue to be successful, it is good for all concerned, especially our players who hopefully learn more than basketball under Coach K.

Kentucky has adopted the Tarkanian style - get great players who want to prepare for an NBA career and get them to play together. Calipari is good at what he does. Getting this year's team to play the defense they have shown is remarkable. Will their presumed success signal the demise of college basketball? No, not anymore than it has since the one and done age began.

I don't regret players leaving after a year to pursue their dream if they are ready for it. Many have said in the past that they would leave college early for a lot less than a multimillion dollar career in their chosen field.

But I like our way of developing players as people, of building a program. It can be frustrating at times when our program doesn't click the way we want it to, but it is ours. My only hope is that Coach K has figured out the most important part of a program's success: who will sustain it after the CEO retires.

Just a minor, completely unrelated quibble: AP Credits pretty much count for nothing if you're in Trinity. Duke only gives something like 2 of them credit, and there's a big list of what they can or cannot be. Credits taken at another institution are reviewed on a course by course basis.

[Lar77]

Just a minor, completely unrelated quibble: AP Credits pretty much count for nothing if you're in Trinity. Duke only gives something like 2 of them credit, and there's a big list of what they can or cannot be. Credits taken at another institution are reviewed on a course by course basis.

Thanks for the clarification. I recall that Irving had the potential to graduate in 2 years. I assumed, wrongly, that part of it was AP. But point still being that no one, including Kyrie, expected him to go pro before the annointed "superstar" who chose to take his talents to Chapel Hill.

[dcdevil2009]

Just a minor, completely unrelated quibble: AP Credits pretty much count for nothing if you're in Trinity. Duke only gives something like 2 of them credit, and there's a big list of what they can or cannot be. Credits taken at another institution are reviewed on a course by course basis.

Also a minor, completely unrelated quibble with your quibble: when I was at Trinity, they allowed two to be used for credit to graduate in 8 semesters, but I remember that the number went up if you wanted to graduate a semester early and might have actually been unlimited if you graduated two or more semesters early. However, they couldn't be used to replace credits needed toward your major or to place the math, ethical inquiry, writing, etc., requirements. The classes taken at another institution were reviewed both for whether you could get credit for them (easier to do) and whether they could satisfy other requirements (more difficult). So although Kyrie would probably not have enough AP credits to graduate in 2 years taking full course loads, with summer classes, he might have been able to use more than two APs to satisfy his graduation requirements.

[dyedwab]

I also don't know how relevant this is to the topic, but I was impressed that Kyrie spent last summer taking summer school classes (and, to be fair, John Wall took remote classes at UK).

It is important to me as Duke fan and as a Duke alum that when we recruit players who play for one year that we look for players who want to be part of the larger institution that is Duke University. And I believe that Coach K and his staff have clearly adopted that as a sorting mechanism for the players who he recruits

[flyingdutchdevil]

I also don't know how relevant this is to the topic, but I was impressed that Kyrie spent last summer taking summer school classes (and, to be fair, John Wall took remote classes at UK).

It is important to me as Duke fan and as a Duke alum that when we recruit players who play for one year that we look for players who want to be part of the larger institution that is Duke University. And I believe that Coach K and his staff have clearly adopted that as a sorting mechanism for the players who he recruits

Boom. Could not agree more. As a Double Dukie, players who represent the school academically is more important than hitting a game winner (NOTE: this is not a negative comment towards Rivers at all). I would choose Nolan over D. Rose everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

As much as we idolize and love these players, they aren't any better than John Smith, Econ major, Trinity College, Class of '13.

[gocanes0506]

The reason most coaches have not embraced this type of recruiting is because its draws a lot of attention. This is a reason Calipari gets the top recruits. He has been busted twice already. I do not expect him to be busted at Kentucky until after he leaves because UK has the pull and money to keep the NCAA off their back. Then again maybe UK has enough money there to back door the recruiting rules so that Calipari or UK doesnt get caught. Who knows.

[Lar77]

The reason most coaches have not embraced this type of recruiting is because its draws a lot of attention. This is a reason Calipari gets the top recruits. He has been busted twice already. I do not expect him to be busted at Kentucky until after he leaves because UK has the pull and money to keep the NCAA off their back. Then again maybe UK has enough money there to back door the recruiting rules so that Calipari or UK doesnt get caught. Who knows.

I humbly recall a couple probations.

Thankfully, Duke seems to care about its reputation, both in developing STUDENT athletes and its position in the broader context.

So, should we start a John Smith, Trinity 1913, board?

[Bluedog]

I have no way to prove this, but I'm not sure Coach K recruited Kyrie to be one-and-done. It's just not very Coach-K-esque.

Thanks for the clarification. I recall that Irving had the potential to graduate in 2 years. I assumed, wrongly, that part of it was AP.

Before coming to Duke, it was either in a twitter exchange or one of the ustream videos that Kyrie's best friend said something like "282 days!" which was how many days there were until the 2012 NBA draft (I don't remember the exact number of days). Kyrie then told him to be quiet and to keep it on the down low. It seems like Kyrie had in his mind that his ultimate goal was to declare for the draft after one year before enrolling at Duke, but was also open to the possibility of staying longer if he needed more development or his draft status was not where he wanted it to be. But it seems to me that Coach K definitely recruited Kyrie and Austin both as potential one-and-dones (depending on how the year turned out and NBA teams viewed them, of course).

Also, it's impossible to graduate from Duke in 2 years. As stated above, Duke is verystingy with AP credits and transfer credits as well. Although if you graduate early, you can use more AP credits. You're allowed 4 total if you fulfilled all the other requirements to graduate in 7 semesters and can use up to 8 AP credits if you graduate in six semesters (although very difficult to do with the major requirements). Vanessa Rousso, the professional poker player, is reportedly the fastest person in Duke history to graduate as she did it in 2.5 years. She was the valedictorian in high school with a 4.0 GPA, and graduated from Duke with a major in economics and minor in political science. She studied game theory and went on to receive a scholarship at Miami Law and was ranked in the top 5% of her class there, but quit to pursue professional poker. Even three years at Duke is really difficult unless you take summer school every year. Duke is not like Kentucky where you can take algebra I online and get credit for it. The lowest math course offered is Calculus and I think you have to be there in person. I am incredibly impressed by JWill and Mason having gotten all their requirements out of the way in three years as that's really difficult to do at Duke. If I was a basketball player who wanted to graduate early, 99% of schools would make that easier on me than Duke would.

[Billy Dat]

I included this post in another thread...but it's just as relevant here. Everyone's favorite, Grantland.com, has published a thoughtful, if a little alarmist, Chuck Klosterman piece about how the colleghe bball landscape may further change if Kentucky wins the title this year:

Kentucky's Death March - They're going to win. And what happens next will be really bad for college basketball.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ege-basketball

"So let's assume Kentucky succeeds. Let's assume they rampage through their final two games. It will disprove a lot of lingering suspicions about what does (and doesn't) work. It will mean that winning a title with freshmen and sophomores is not only plausible, but logical and inarguable. That realization will knock the system out of balance. Right now, there are always two foolproof arguments against the Calipari ideal — it reflects badly on the university, and it breaks down in moments that matter most. No one is going to emulate a program with a bad reputation if the end result is the same as doing things the way they've always been done. But that argument evaporates the moment Calipari climbs a ladder and cuts a net. If Kentucky is simultaneously the most straightforward finishing school for future professionals and the best place to win a national championship, there's no reason for a blue-chip high school senior to go anywhere else. Calipari will dynastically dominate with a revolving door of sheer horsepower, and the only way other schools will be able to respond is by becoming exactly like him.

Now, I'm not suggesting that every single college will turn into a clone of Kentucky, because that's impossible. There aren't enough good players in America for that to happen. But Calipari's scheme will become standard at a handful of universities where losing at basketball is unacceptable: North Carolina, Syracuse, Kansas, UCLA, and maybe even Duke. These schools already recruit one-and-done freshmen, but they'll have to go further; they'll have to be as transparent about their motives as Calipari is (because transparency is the obsession of modernity). If they resist, they will fade. And the result will be a radical amplification of what the game has already become: There will be five schools sharing the 25 best players in the country, and all the lesser programs will kill each other for the right to lose to those five schools in the Sweet 16. It will skew the competitive balance of major conferences and split D-I basketball into two completely unequal tiers. Final Four games will look more and more like sloppy pro games, and national interest in college basketball will wane (even if the level of play technically increases).5 In 10 years, it might be a niche sport for people like me — people who can't get over the past."

[Wander]

I included this post in another thread...but it's just as relevant here. Everyone's favorite, Grantland.com, has published a thoughtful, if a little alarmist, Chuck Klosterman piece about how the colleghe bball landscape may further change if Kentucky wins the title this year:

Alarmist is right.

The other three final four teams, combined, start a total of one freshman. As far as I can tell, the last national champion to have a one-and-done player was... 2005 Carolina with Marvin Williams, who didn't even start. Kentucky winning would be notable as the youngest team in a long time to win the title, but it wouldn't make a trend by itself. If Kentucky wins three years in a row with different one-and-done players, then we can start talking about being afraid the landscape of the game is dramatically changing.

I remember Pat Forde predicting in 2007 (when Florida and Ohio State played for the title) that we were taking a turn into an era where mega-football schools were going to rule the basketball world. Short-sighted, and so is this.

[MaxAMillion]

Alarmist is right.

The other three final four teams, combined, start a total of one freshman. As far as I can tell, the last national champion to have a one-and-done player was... 2005 Carolina with Marvin Williams, who didn't even start. Kentucky winning would be notable as the youngest team in a long time to win the title, but it wouldn't make a trend by itself. If Kentucky wins three years in a row with different one-and-done players, then we can start talking about being afraid the landscape of the game is dramatically changing.

I remember Pat Forde predicting in 2007 (when Florida and Ohio State played for the title) that we were taking a turn into an era where mega-football schools were going to rule the basketball world. Short-sighted, and so is this.

Thank you...the idea that you can continually win every year with one and done players is silly. UK was able to get a dominant big man to add to their usual haul of talent. That is the difference this season. I don't know why there is this rush to take this one season and extrapolate the future of college basketball (Duke and otherwise).