Recruiting is an art, not a science

[freedevil]

More to the point, though, it's ridiculous to assume that Duke will even be able to find five or six guys at each position every year worth a scholarship offer. Take this year. There certainly weren't six guys at Monroe's position who fit Duke's profile and were worth offering.

I think this point needs to be emphasized more. I, for one, lose sight of this fact very often - there's a reality check out there that many of us fans forget: should Duke miss on its favorite target at a certain position in a given year (which obviously every school does, and often) does not necessarily mean there's a backup plan worth pursuing, at all!

[K24U]

This has been repeated ad nauseam in various recruiting threads, but Duke has a) changed its recruiting significantly since the Deng/Livingston/Humphries situations (which I noted in my original post) and indeed recruits with backup plans in mind. If Duke didn't have backup plans, we wouldn't have 11 scholarship players on next year's roster.

Show me one time in the past 3 years that Duke lost out on a recruit and had a backup plan. Every player that is on Duke’s roster this year was part of the master plan, not a back up. You say that Duke has changed its recruiting since Deng/Livingstone/Humphries, I guess I would have to agree if you’re talking about 2009 recruits. Duke has definitely cast a wider net with the 2009 class.

This "magic wand" myth has been debunked repeatedly here. K has always lost recruits he has wanted. Always. From Jason Collier to Jared Jeffries, we can provide you a pretty comprehensive list of major recruiting misses that spans K's career. In fact, one exists somewhere here, which I can link if you want.

I know that Duke has lost recruits it went after and has for years. Did not matter as much in the past because Duke was recruiting for the future. You can’t recruit for the future anymore; you have to recruit for today. If Duke had a viable backup plan as you say because we have 11 scholarship players, wouldn’t Duke have a low post player?

I'm not opposed to offering multiple scholarships, but that has its drawbacks too (like developing relationships). More to the point, though, it's ridiculous to assume that Duke will even be able to find five or six guys at each position every year worth a scholarship offer. Take this year. There certainly weren't six guys at Monroe's position who fit Duke's profile and were worth offering.

I was trying to make a point and really didn’t think Duke could find 5 at every position every year. Didn’t think someone would take the point so literally.

You're contradicting yourself here. First, you compare Taylor King to a guy hired to do a job who couldn't do it, justifying his time on the bench. Then you say Duke should play his highly recruited players more to keep them happy. Then you say King was rated high based on potential but didn't develop and needed to work harder to earn playing time. So, which is it? FWIW, Boykin wasnt rated highly at all, and certainly wasn't considered to have great "potential." King wasn't rated high based on "potential" either -- it was based on production (beyond the arc), with everyone realizing he had a limited ceiling.

Let me clear it up a bit then. King was brought in to shoot the 3 ball. When he couldn’t do it K benched him. I never said that I thought he should have been benched. I was just stating a fact. It is my feeling that you have give your developing players time on the court.

You say Boykin wasn’t highly rated I guess that depends on what you consider to be highly rated. To me if you’re in the top 100 of every recruiting services list, you’re highly rated.

I still disagree that King was brought in because of production. King was not brought in to play a major role on the team this year. Coach K knew King had work to do and saw him as a project, much like JJ and so many other players at Duke. I guess Zoubek was recruited for his production and not his potential.

I don’t want to get into a peeing match with you I was just giving a rebuttal to your post. I love Duke Basketball but don’t look at the program with dark blue glasses on. Duke has problems just like every other program. If Duke didn’t have any problems they would win the championship every year.

If everyone agreed with you it would make for a pretty boring message board, there would be nothing to talk about.

[chrisheery]

detailing transfers, early entries, and non-arrivals of major basketball programs was one of the best posts I have ever read. Absolute proof that we overreact to transfers.

Also, looking through the list, the only guy I can remember having any impact on the team he went to was Bynum. Did anyone else play a key role for the team he went to?

[Jumbo]

K24U,
When you want to quote someone, you can click the "quote" button, rather than quick reply. And then if you want to quote certain sections, followed by your own text, just copy and paste the tags that pop up. Anyway, on to your points...

Show me one time in the past 3 years that Duke lost out on a recruit and had a backup plan.

Duke lost out on Brandan Wright. All along, Lance Thomas was the backup plan. Duke landed him. Duke has had plenty of other backup plans in place. Sadly, Duke didn't land all those guys. For instance, Duke started out recruiting Kevin Love, then soured on him. So Duke turned to Blake Griffin and Gary Johnson, but missed on both guys. Duke then went to its backup-backup plan, Patrick Patterson, but he picked Kentucky.

Every player that is on Duke’s roster this year was part of the master plan, not a back up.

I don't understand what that means, but I just told you Lance Thomas was Duke's backup plan after missing on Brandan Wright.

You say that Duke has changed its recruiting since Deng/Livingstone/Humphries, I guess I would have to agree if you’re talking about 2009 recruits. Duke has definitely cast a wider net with the 2009 class.

No, that's not what I mean. After Duke got one combined year out of those three guys, K began targeting players who would be at Duke for longer periods of time and decided to try to fill as many of his 13 available scholarships as possible. Sure, he went after the occasional guy who was potentially a one-and-done player (McRoberts, Wright, Monroe), but Duke has brought in consistently large classes with more long-term players. That's a stark contrast to the previous strategy. Among other things, K never came close to filling the 13 scholarships. It had been a decade since Duke had this many scholarship players on the roster.

I know that Duke has lost recruits it went after and has for years. Did not matter as much in the past because Duke was recruiting for the future. You can’t recruit for the future anymore; you have to recruit for today.

I don't understand what you mean by "recruiting for the future."

If Duke had a viable backup plan as you say because we have 11 scholarship players, wouldn’t Duke have a low post player?

Brian Zoubek is certainly a low-post player. How good he'll be remains to be seen, but the coaches projected him as an Aaron Gray type of a project who would hopefully produce as a junior and a senior. We'll soon learn if they were right. More to the point, though, is this: There is a difference between having a backup plan and that backup plan succeeding. Duke has gone after players after missing on others. Some of them have just elected to go to other schools. If your definition of a backup plans means having someone waiting in the wings who will be a sure thing to sign at the first chance he gets, that's an unrealistic expectation. Not gonna happen.

Let me clear it up a bit then. King was brought in to shoot the 3 ball. When he couldn’t do it K benched him. I never said that I thought he should have been benched. I was just stating a fact. It is my feeling that you have give your developing players time on the court

No, you were stating an opinion, as I think you can certainly argue that Coach K didn't bring in King to only "shoot the 3 ball."

You say Boykin wasn’t highly rated I guess that depends on what you consider to be highly rated. To me if you’re in the top 100 of every recruiting services list, you’re highly rated.

When I think of "highly rated," I think of someone with the potential to be a star. Boykin was always described as a workmanlike player who might develop into a solid role player -- nothing more.

I still disagree that King was brought in because of production. King was not brought in to play a major role on the team this year. Coach K knew King had work to do and saw him as a project, much like JJ and so many other players at Duke.

Uh, J.J. started as a freshman and led the team in scoring. I never expected King to contribute much as a frosh, largely because he had a number of better players ahead of him. That doesn't mean he was strictly brought in as a "project" or because of his "potential." It's not like King was some sort of a raw athlete who needed to be shaped into a basketball player. King had been highly touted for years, verbally committed to UCLA as an 8th-grader and had a fairly established skill set.

I guess Zoubek was recruited for his production and not his potential.

Not at all. Zoubs was the definition of a project.

I don’t want to get into a peeing match with you I was just giving a rebuttal to your post.

Same here.

I love Duke Basketball but don’t look at the program with dark blue glasses on.

Same here.

Duke has problems just like every other program.

I agree.

If Duke didn’t have any problems they would win the championship every year.

That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

If everyone agreed with you it would make for a pretty boring message board, there would be nothing to talk about.

Amen. That's why we all take the time to debate this stuff, right?

[Jumbo]

detailing transfers, early entries, and non-arrivals of major basketball programs was one of the best posts I have ever read. Absolute proof that we overreact to transfers.

Thanks! And now I'll have to start updating some of the other teams (adding Bayless to Arizona's early-entry list, for instance).

Also, looking through the list, the only guy I can remember having any impact on the team he went to was Bynum. Did anyone else play a key role for the team he went to?

Actually, there were quite a few high-impact transfers on that list. To name some:
-David Padgett was a terrific player for Louisville this year.
-J.R. Giddens was a stud at New Mexico this season.
-James White played a big role at Cincy.
-Mario Boggan became a star at Oklahoma State.
-Ryan Appleby became a starter at Washington.

There are others who made big impacts on new programs, and others who are waiting in the wings to do that (Alex Legion, for instance).

[MChambers]

Look at this way: many of the best freshman will be entering the draft: Love, Rose, Beasley, Gordon, and Griffin (I think). Can you name the one freshman who was mentioned before the season and during the year as being of the same skill level, yet isn't going pro? (Hint: he's in Durham.)

[burns15]

I have been discussing the state of Duke's program with my dad recently and I have come up with some interesting observations. I have delayed posting them for 2 weeks after the WV game in order to stay clear of any accusations of rash decisions or emotional respone. But what I discovered was a very disturbing trend with big men. On the surface a lot of people have made the point that Duke lacks quality big men, but after taking a second look this is true. First off in recent years Duke has had several players transfer out after roughly one year in the program (Michael Thompson, Jamal Boykin, Eric Botaeng, Taylor King, and even Chris Burgess). The thing that troubles me here is that for 3 consecutive years someone has transfered out of the program. This tells me that something to do with the Duke basketball program has gone seriously wrong to make these players transfer after one year. Secondly, after being the last major school to have an early defection to the NBA, Duke has had more than its fair share in recent years. More interesting is the number of big men who have left Duke early (Josh McRoberts, Shavlik Randolph, Corey Maggette). Thirdly, Duke has begun to lose battles on the recruiting trail for big men (Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, Greg Echenique, and even Kris Humphries). All of these big men who came and transferred/left early, or never even came at all qualifies as a big problem for this Duke program and demands that the coaching staff re-evaluate some of their philosophies. I understand that each player could have transferred for personal reason and we could look at each of these events as a single event that had no effect on the others, but I think with the mass quantity of information provided here that something must not totally be clicking with the Duke program. Whether this problem exists in coaching style, evaluation of talent, ability to communicate with potential recruits, or a supposed image that Duke cannot develop big men, I dont know. Don't get me wrong, I am the biggest Duke fan you will find, but I think that the program needs to seriously re-evaluate what is going on because losing in the first and second round is not acceptable for this DUke program.

[Jumbo]

I've edited the original post to include Bayless...

[Jumbo]

More early entry updates...

[slower]

True that 12 doesn’t divide into 200 available minutes nicely

Sure it does! 16 minutes and 40 seconds each.

[mgtr]

Several people in this and other threads have made the point that, with one and done, or two and thru, we need to build a team for right now, and not for the future.
Looking at the KU team in the championship game, I find that there were seven players who got significant minutes: Arthur and Collins are sophomores, Chalmers and Rush are juniors, and Jackson, Kaun, and Robinson are seniors. Aldrich, a freshman, got limited minutes in the championship game, but played a lot in the semi-final.
I conclude from this that it is certainly possible to build a team over time, that a coach doesn't have to run out and grab a bunch of one and dones.
While it is only my own hangup, if Coach K brought in a bunch of one and dones, I would probably start to lose interest in the Duke team. Our most recent one and done, Luol Deng, didn't start out as a one and done, but became as his freshmen performance improved with a) his ability, b) Duke coaching, and c) time.

[CDu]

Several people in this and other threads have made the point that, with one and done, or two and thru, we need to build a team for right now, and not for the future.
Looking at the KU team in the championship game, I find that there were seven players who got significant minutes: Arthur and Collins are sophomores, Chalmers and Rush are juniors, and Jackson, Kaun, and Robinson are seniors. Aldrich, a freshman, got limited minutes in the championship game, but played a lot in the semi-final.

I conclude from this that it is certainly possible to build a team over time, that a coach doesn't have to run out and grab a bunch of one and dones.

Completely agree. Furthermore, UNC built their Final Four team without a one-and-done player, either. Memphis was built largely thanks to a one-and-done, and UCLA certainly benefited from their one-and-done, but it's not the only path to the Final Four.

Our most recent one and done, Luol Deng, didn't start out as a one and done, but became as his freshmen performance improved with a) his ability, b) Duke coaching, and c) time.

I disagree a bit on this point. Deng certainly had the potential to be a one-and-done from the beginning, in terms of talent. Before he arrived, Coach K made the comparisons to Carmelo Anthony as an impact freshman. Deng was one of the rare examples of guys who could be one-and-dones but were expected to stay for a while. His one-and-done status came thanks to pressure to provide for his family who was in financial need.

[Jumbo]

Just added more Florida guys. Waiting for that rebuttal from Gary ...

[Indoor66]

Just added more Florida guys. Waiting for that rebuttal from Gary ...

Hey Jumbo, where (or in what post #) is the revised list?

[Jumbo]

Hey Jumbo, where (or in what post #) is the revised list?

I'm updating post #45 as more guys transfer or go pro early.

[Indoor66]

I'm updating post #45 as more guys transfer or go pro early.

Thanks, that is very helpful.

[Skitzle]

In another thread, Gary wrote:


I did dispute Gary's claim, and said I'd do some research to back up my opinion. I'm proud to report that I've finished that research, and it's even stronger than I expected. Before getting to that, though, let me discuss a couple of problems with the initial premise.

First, how do we identify the "national power programs?" Do we include traditional powers like Indiana who have faded? What about schools very recently on the rise, like Memphis? Florida won back-to-back titles, then made the NIT this year. Georgetown was crumbling until JT III arrived. UConn's last three seasons have ended in a loss to George Mason, a Tourney-less year, and a loss to San Diego in the first round of the NCAA Tourney. It's amazing that over a span as seemingly short as seven years, barely any program can be considered consistently "elite." In the end, I picked 10 schools to examine: UNC, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, UConn, Syracuse, Texas, Florida, Arizona and Michigan State. Apologies go out to Georgetown, Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin and Indiana, among others. And I didn't even mention Maryland.

Secondly, Gary gave himself a convenient escape route when he essentially blamed UNC's transfers on a coaching change. The amazing thing I found when deciding which schools to use was how many have changed coaches since the end of the 2001-02 season, which is the point from which I began measuring. Just look at this year's Final Four -- UCLA, UNC and Kansas all have switched coaches since then. Calipari has the longest tenure, and he has only been at Memphis since 2000-01. Of the 10 teams I picked, four (UNC, UCLA, Kansas and Kentucky) went through coaching changes over that period. And we know how much turmoil Arizona went through this year.

Anyway, I present a list of each school's transfers, early entries (either to the NBA or Europe, in a couple of cases) and non-arrivals. The non-arrivals were really tough to track if they weren't drafted or went to another school (like Kris Humphries). I might be missing some. I tried to avoid including walk-ons among transfers. I did include kids who were kicked off the team, though, particularly when they ended up at another college. Finally, I did not include Carlos Boozer and Jason Williams among Duke's early-entry losses, because they announced their intention a year earlier, allowing Duke to prepare for their departure, and graduated early. I did include Mike Dunleavy, though, because his departure was a surprise. And keep in mind that this list will grow for several of the other schools this year, because some announcements are expected to come. By contrast, I have already included Taylor King for Duke, and don't expect anyone to leave early for th the NBA. Anyway, check out the list. Not only do the numbers make for an interesting comparison, so too does the quality of players lost. If I'm missing names, or have included some in error, please let me know and I'll make the appropriate adjustments.

Duke
Transfers: 4 (Michael Thompson, Eric Boateng, Jamal Boykin, Taylor King)
Early Entries: 4 (Mike Dunleavy, Shavlik Randolph, Luol Deng, Josh McRoberts)
Non-Arrivals: 2 (Shaun Livingston, Kris Humphries)

North Carolina
Transfers: 3 (Adam Boone, Brian Morrison, Neil Fingleton)
Early Entries: 5 (Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Sean May, Marvin Williams, Brandan Wright)
Non-Arrivals: 2 (J.R. Smith, JamesOn Curry)

UCLA
Transfers: 4 (Nican Robinson, Andre Patterson, Ryan Walcott, Ryan Wright)
Early Entries: 5 (Trevor Ariza, Jordan Farmar, Arron Afflalo, Kevin Love, Darren Collison)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Kansas
Transfers: 7 (David Padgett, Nick Bahe, Alex Galindo, J.R. Giddens, Micah Downs, C.J. Giles, Omar Wilkes)
Early Entries: 2 (Drew Gooden, Julian Wright)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Kentucky
Transfers: 8 (Jason Parker, Rashaad Carruth, Marvin Stone, Bernard Cote, Shagari Alleyne, Rekalin Sims, Adam Williams, Alex Legion)
Early Entries: 3 (Kelenna Azubuike, Randolph Morris*, Rajon Rondo)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

UConn
Transfers: 6 (Scott Hazelton, Marcus White, Antonio Kellogg, Ben Eaves, Rob Garrison, Marcus Johnson)
Early Entries: 7 (Caron Butler, Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva, Josh Boone, Marcus Williams, Rudy Gay)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (Andrew Bynum)

Syracuse
Transfers: 6 (DeShaun Williams, James Thues, Billy Edelin*, Louie McCroskey, Mike Jones, Josh Wright)
Early Entries: 2 (Carmelo Anthony, Donte Greene)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Texas
Transfers: 3 (Dion Dowell, Mike Williams, Edgar Moreno)
Early Entries: 5 (T.J. Ford, P.J. Tucker, Daniel Gibson, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Durant)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (C.J. Miles)

Florida
Transfers: 9 (James White, Orien Greene, Mario Boggan, Chris Capko, Mohamed Abukar, Ryan Appleby, David Huertas, Brandon Powell, Jonathan Mitchell)
Early Entries: 8 (Anthony Roberson, Matt Walsh, Christian Drejer*, Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Taurean Green, Marreese Speights -- may return)
Non-Arrivals: 0 (None that I could find)

Arizona
Transfers 7 (Will Bynum, Dennis Latimore, Tyler Tiederman, Beau Muhlbach, Jesus Verdejo, J.P. Prince, Laval Lucas-Perry)
Early Entries: 3 (Andre Iguodala, Marcus Williams, Jerryd Bayless)
Non-Arrivals: 1 (Ndudi Ebi)

Michigan State
Transfers 3 (Brandon Cotton, Justin Ockerman, Maurice Joseph)
Early Entries: 3 (Marcus Taylor, Erazem Lorbek, Shannon Brown)
Non-Arrivals 0 (None that I could find)

Superb post Jumbo.

Any chance you can * or highlight in some fashion the programs that have had coaching changes, as well as which players that transferred were recruited by the current staff.

May be a lot to ask but I think it applies. Looking at UCLA specifically, Ryan Wright is the only guy that transferred and was recruited by Howland.

[Jumbo]

Just had a though -- should Taylor King count as a "non-arrival" for UCLA?

[Ignatius07]

Only if you also count Gordon as one for Illinois.

I say no - neither signed an LOI.

[johnb]

Seems to me is that the people who disagree with Jumbo misunderstand the extent to which chance is inherent in sports.

1. The best experts can--maybe--agree more or less on the identities of the top 100 high school players, but they disagree dramatically on the order, especially out of the top 10. To my mind, this means there are hundreds of guys playing college basketball who see themselves as having been top 50 recruits (say 80 kids/year x 4 years).

2. Further, individual basketball games are often decided by a few plays. Duke could have 6 or 8 NC's if things had broken our way. OTOH, we could have none. Don't believe it? Which is more likely, a couple of Laettner shots or our '99 team not winning?

Given the above, the best any team can hope for is to be consistently in the top 10.

3. We can look at the numbers for trends (and I find the efforts enjoyable), but don't confuse these numbers for facts. Statistics that make use of n's of 1 or 5 or 10 are essentially worthless. While I suppose we could guess why Taylor transferred (too little PT; future roster backlog; the Duke team; the coaching staff; the students; the fans; the school atmosphere), I don't think anyone knows.

4. Similarly, I doubt if any of the posters know how King's transfer will impact future recruits (it might remind a marginal recruit of the lack of pt; it might frighten away the next best thing who is also from California; it might provide reassurance that Duke isn't a haven for slow white 3 point shooters; it might open up a spot for a guy ranked number 43 in hs who turns out to have his number retired, etc).

There is inherent uncertainty in all of this, from recruiting, to the games, to the transfers, to the future. To think that we are immune from the uncertainty seems naive to me. Though if you'd like more confidence about these, you might try: http://www.astrology-online.com/