Duke Recruiting Changes: Gary Parrish

[BlueintheFace]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12290265


Bottom line, the recruiting troubles that have plagued Duke recently seem to be a thing of the past.

[FireOgilvie]

1. Kyrie Irving has not committed to Duke. He's not a lock, despite what every alleged "source" says. Harrison Barnes' recruitment is totally open. He is just as likely to come to Duke as UNC or Kansas or Oklahoma. No one except Harrison knows what he is thinking, because he hasn't said anything to anyone and everything else is pure speculation.

2. Parrish actually says Duke is putting too much emphasis on getting recruits with "character and intangibles" and "good and smart kids." He uses Calipari as an example of what Duke should do. He casts a "wide net." While I agree that Duke should target multiple prospects, Calipari's wide net just got him another Final Four appearance erased. Calipari recruits anyone and everyone as long as they can play basketball; this includes some in the good spectrum (Kyrie Irving) and a lot in the bad. I don't want Duke to use Calipari as an example for anything, except what NOT to do. I want to keep any potential Final Fours.

3. I don't know why Parrish is categorizing Duke players into "busts" and "average college players" when they are still playing at Duke and have 2-3 years left. It's kind of a horrible thing to say about a college kid in the first place, and especially so when you're writing for a national news organization and a huge audience. Also, he says Olek is a bust, but Miles is "too young to label" when they're the same year. Olek was what everyone thought he was going to be last year. He has 3 years to improve. That is not a bust. Nolan has 2 years and many people (not just Duke fans) expect him to have a big breakout season. I don't get it. Wait, I do. Gary Parrish is a fake-tanned moron with a stupid haircut.

[Bob Green]

I don't know why Parrish is categorizing Duke players into "busts" and "average college players" when they are still playing at Duke and have 2-3 years left. It's kind of a horrible thing to say about a college kid in the first place, and especially so when you're writing for a national news organization and a huge audience.

BINGO! This article is a great example of the types of comments that do not belong posted at DBR. If Parrish was a DBR poster, I would hit him with a destructively negative infraction.

Additionally, he is inconsistent. He labels Duke's three freshmen as "too young to label", while simultaneously labeling freshmen John Henson (UNC) and Xavier Henry (Kansas) as "NBA level players."

[DukieTiger]

I'd just like to add that he labeled Greg Paulus a "bust."

While Greg might not have lived up to the expectations (realistic or not) of some, Greg should at worst fit into the category of "average college player" according to Parrish. Paulus was All ACC for crying out loud!

[El_Diablo]

And signing Elliot Williams somehow counts as bad recruiting because he later transferred for a serious family issue. :confused:

(Sorry, the more obvious idiocies of the article were pointed out already.)

[Lord Ash]

Anyone else wonder if the "badass ballers who can run and jump" line seemed vaguely like code about the ethnic breakdown of the team, or am I being oversensitive?

[rotogod00]

Anyone else wonder if the "badass ballers who can run and jump" line seemed vaguely like code about the ethnic breakdown of the team, or am I being oversensitive?

think he's just commenting on the lack of athleticism duke teams have generally had over the past few years. but your conjecture is the logical next step.

[sandinmyshoes]

1 -- I would want Duke to have no part of a Calipari style recruiting strategy.

2 -- If we are to get excited about this new tweak by the Devils, do we then have to admit that the posters asserting there was a problem were correct?

[soccerstud2210]

"It's a direct result, I think, of putting too much emphasis on character and intangibles -- i.e., so-called "good and smart kids" -- in recruiting and not enough emphasis on just getting badass ballers who can run and jump at an elite level. "

i mean, what do you even say to this? i'll take coach k's recruiting style any day rather than a sketchy "wide-net" tactic in getting to the final four that is more than likely to be taken away because of some sort of infraction.

[soccerstud2210]

one more thing....

who are we recruiting right now that is " ...badass ballers who can run and jump at an elite level."????

if what everyone is saying is true about irving and barnes with how they are great kids and outstanding students, i wouldn't think they have that label or reputation. well... maybe just the run and jump at an elite level

[rotogod00]

one more thing....

who are we recruiting right now that is " ...badass ballers who can run and jump at an elite level."????

if what everyone is saying is true about irving and barnes with how they are great kids and outstanding students, i wouldn't think they have that label or reputation. well... maybe just the run and jump at an elite level

well, barnes and irving happen to be both "badass ballers who can run and jump at an elite level" AND "good and smart kids". They are the whole package and hence the reason we're going so hard after them.

[rotogod00]

"It's a direct result, I think, of putting too much emphasis on character and intangibles -- i.e., so-called "good and smart kids" -- in recruiting and not enough emphasis on just getting badass ballers who can run and jump at an elite level. "

i mean, what do you even say to this? i'll take coach k's recruiting style any day rather than a sketchy "wide-net" tactic in getting to the final four that is more than likely to be taken away because of some sort of infraction.

well, you can go after more "ballers" the right way and not calipari's way.

[jv001]

Anyone else wonder if the "badass ballers who can run and jump" line seemed vaguely like code about the ethnic breakdown of the team, or am I being oversensitive?

then throw in the rankings of Henson & Henry vs. Mason and you are really on to something. Lord Ash you are not being oversensitive. Go Duke!

[JDev]

I picked up the new Lindy's basketball preview yesterday and there is a comparable article citing the same stuff as the reasons that Roy has surpassed K currently (i.e. recruiting "smart" or "good" kids that are likely to remain in the program longer than a year or two). I don't recall who the author is and I do not have the article in front of me, but many of the same points are made. The article states that all the early defections between 1999 and 2004 caused K to alter his recruiting strategy. They feel he shifted his focus from the elite player to the "program player" (inaccurate, but that is neither here nor there).

What neither article realizes is that K has always been successful because he could recuit a functioning combination of both types of kids. For every Carlos Boozer, there is a Casey Sanders. For every Jason Williams, there is a Sean Dockery. For every Gerald Henderson, there is a Lance Thomas. You need them all to be successful.

The only relevance I see in both articles is the idea of a wider focus when recruiting, which K and his staff are clearly doing (the Lindy's article doesn't discuss this near as much, focusing more on the preceived gap between Roy and K recently).

[flyingdutchdevil]

then throw in the rankings of Henson & Henry vs. Mason and you are really on to something. Lord Ash you are not being oversensitive. Go Duke!

Am I the only one who didn't read into that quote as being racially motivated? IMO, Parrish is saying that sometimes we go after good character kids, regardless of their athletic / basketball skills when we should be going after kids with great athletic / basketball skills who happen to be high character kids (and I can guarantee that there are more high character than low character kids out there).

Also, I may be one of the only posters who actually liked the article. I agree with a few posters who said that Parrish was being unjust by referring to Olek and other current players as busts when they haven't had a chance, but I personally feel that his overall point is spot on - Duke hasn't been as good during the NCAA tourney as it used to be due to recruiting. Regardless of talent, K will always preform well during the season. But during the tourney, coaching can only get you so far. Parrish's insight isn't anything new, but I like that he seems excited for the future of the Blue Devils. I don't think Parrish is a "moron" or an "idiot" (Doyle, on the other hand, is both of these, but that's a different matter ;)). Just because someone says something negative about Duke, doesn't make them evil...

[Reddevil]

1) Duke has the most wins in college basketball over the last 10 years.

2) All good teams contain a mixture of go-to guys and role players.

3) Championship runs rely on the right chemistry and matchups. Chemistry is tricky. You can't recruit chemistry, and putting together a 13 man roster comprised of a mixture of Fr, So, Jr, and Sr go-to guys and role players is challenging for the best of coaches - even without transfers, early entries, and injuries. Coach K and the staff do a consistently amazing job of fielding a contender year in and year out. Every now and then that magical chemistry is achieved. They take us on a thrilling ride year after year. Final Four runs are incredible accomplishments. Those who appreciate Duke for whatever reason know how special this ride has been, and continues to be. Keep chasing that carrot guys!

[BlueintheFace]

To add on to the criticism, doesn't it seem like this article is written weeks too early? Duke hasn't signed either recruit. NOT good journalism.

[UrinalCake]

Ok, dumb question here.. what happens when you "cast a wider net," and then too many kids commit?

Or maybe none of them commit because they all felt that they weren't the #1 priority.

My point is that it's really easy to say "we should cast a wider net, then we'd get more players," but it's not really that simple.

[Reddevil]

.....and if you cast a wider net, is it tuna safe? The tuna being the questionable student athlete/character that brings the team, or worse - the program down.

[Wander]

Am I the only one who didn't read into that quote as being racially motivated?

No, you're not. Note that he lists McRoberts and Singler as two of our best three players over the past five years.

I don't agree with all of his groupings, but none of them are so wildly unreasonable that they make Parrish an idiot. And given that about 90% of Duke fans think his basic premise is right, that we haven't had as much March success recently because of just a slight dip in recruiting (maybe because of the Olympics, maybe just bad luck), I don't see what the big problem here is (OK, aside from the Calipari comment, which was indeed dumb).

[superdave]

then throw in the rankings of Henson & Henry vs. Mason and you are really on to something. Lord Ash you are not being oversensitive. Go Duke!

Bill Simmons on ESPN Page 2 made mention of Duke flirting with a "whitewash" (5 white guys on the court at once) on the court several years ago. So yes, this point has explicitly been made in the mainstream media.

Scroll to 4:32
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/NCAA/dayone

[roywhite]

I guess Parrish has some point, but the possible addition of Kyrie Irving and Harrison Barnes hardly proves it. I can't think of any time in the Coach K era where they would not have been prime recruiting targets. Kyrie and HB appear to have the complete package of basketball ability, character, and interest in academics.

The change in recruiting seems to be a little more activity with younger players and a few more offers than in the past. Not earth-shattering, but probably beneficial.

[superdave]

Ok, dumb question here.. what happens when you "cast a wider net," and then too many kids commit?


Kentucky under Calipari is a prime example:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4199530&name=katz_andy

[miramar]

I picked up the new Lindy's basketball preview yesterday and there is a comparable article citing the same stuff as the reasons that Roy has surpassed K currently (i.e. recruiting "smart" or "good" kids that are likely to remain in the program longer than a year or two). I don't recall who the author is and I do not have the article in front of me, but many of the same points are made. The article states that all the early defections between 1999 and 2004 caused K to alter his recruiting strategy. They feel he shifted his focus from the elite player to the "program player" (inaccurate, but that is neither here nor there).

.


The LIndy's article was over the top, with a drawing of Roy knocking Coach K to the canvas, and comments that Duke's recruiting will never recover until Coach K retires.

Paris was harsh, but he has a point. Duke's recruiting has suffered, but I don't think it's because of the character issue. I certainly don't believe that McRoberts was a character recruit, for example.

Instead, I would say that too many players have turned out to be underachievers or disappointments (I would not use the word bust). I would say that McDonalds AAmericans such as McRoberts, Paulus, Thomas, King, and Boateng have not lived up to their billing, and the results have been obvious.

I would also say that much of this can be attributed to the breaks of the game and the vagaries of recruiting. On paper the McRoberts/Paulus tandem would have been considered to be the equal of Hansbrough/Lawson (who came in one year later than the other three), but the results were radically different.

The biggest difference between the two articles is that Parish realizes that Coach K is now casting a wider net, and that he expects Duke to be ultimately successful in their recruiting. I just wish he wouldn't use Coach Cal as an example, because the two programs are radically different.

[airowe]

I believe Gregg Doyel wrote the Lindy's article so that should explain the over the top anti-Duke slant. Parrish is a little more level-headed but the stance that Duke should recruit lesser quality kids to gain advantages on the basketball court is full of slippery slopes. Kyrie and Harrison are two players that are not necessarily exceptions to the rule that kids can have both academic excellence and high-level basketball talent. Why would anyone suggest that any school not recruit these kinds of kids? Brandon Knight is another kid who immediately comes to mind as having both character and talent. There are only so many of these kids out there, but Duke has consistentl gone after them, not just this year.

[Kedsy]

Also, I may be one of the only posters who actually liked the article. I agree with a few posters who said that Parrish was being unjust by referring to Olek and other current players as busts when they haven't had a chance, but I personally feel that his overall point is spot on - Duke hasn't been as good during the NCAA tourney as it used to be due to recruiting.

Well, despite the many criticisms of the article, it appears a lot of posters here seem to agree with Parrish's basic premise. But I don't. I absolutely do not believe our "lack of success" in the past few years is due to poor recruiting.

I looked back at every Duke recruiting class since 2003, applied the RSCI final recruiting rankings, and have found: (a) we've received commitments from at least two top 20 recruits every year except 2008, and (b) we've received a commitment from at least one top 15 recruit every single year. He might successfully argue that many of our recruits in the past five years have underachieved, but Parrish's assertion that our last five recruiting classes have been "terrible" is just plain wrong.

The detail:

HS class of 2003:
----------------
Luol Deng #2
Kris Humphries #10 (committed, then asked for and received a release)

2004
-----
Shawn Livingston #2 (committed, then decided to go pro)
DeMarcus Nelson #18
David McClure #71

2005
-----
Josh McRoberts #1
Greg Paulus #13
Eric Boateng #39
Marty Pocius #53
Jamal Boykin #60

2006
-----
Gerald Henderson #10
Lance Thomas #20
Brian Zoubek #25
Jon Scheyer #28

2007
-----
Kyle Singler #5
Nolan Smith #19
Taylor King #24

2008
-----
Elliot Williams #15
Olek Czyz #66
Miles Plumlee #81

2009
-----
Ryan Kelly #14
Mason Plumlee #18
Andre Dawkins (would probably have been top 25 if he had been rated)


So in the past five "terrible" years we've had two top 5 commitments, six top 15 commitments, and twelve top 25 commitments (including Andre). Sure, you'd rather have a top 5 guy headlining every class, but let's face it that's not realistic, especially when the top 5 is often littered with players like OJ Mayo and Brandon Jennings, who for academic or other reasons we have a zero percent chance of landing.

Obviously our recruiting hasn't been perfect; we've come in second place for several recruits we'd have liked to have seen in Duke blue. (Although it should be noted that none of Kenny Boynton (#9), Patrick Patterson (#9) or Greg Monroe (#6) were top 5 guys.) Also, looking at the list above, for whatever reason a whole lot of our recruits in the past seven years have not stayed in Durham long enough to give us the benefits of their full potential.

So, while there are many possible reasons why we've failed to advance very far in the past five NCAA tourneys, I just don't think poor recruiting is one of them.

[Taco]

.....and if you cast a wider net, is it tuna safe? The tuna being the questionable student athlete/character that brings the team, or worse - the program down.

mm, yes. And what happens if a dolphin gets caught in the net? These are hard questions.

[trinity92]

I started my morning, as I do most days, with a check of DBR. I read the Parrish article, and parts of it stung me, especially the "that's what you get for emphasizing quality kids over quality ballers," the comparisons to Calipari and some of the player evaluations.

Then I immediately came to the board for the inevitable thread excoriating Parrish for such blasphemy. I hoped to be able to tell my fellow Devils to think a while about the points made before unleashing a torrent of hate towards Parrish. I don't know this guy's writing aside from this article, so I can't say whether he's a hack, but sometimes you have to take a very critical article and think hard on whether the author is totally off-base. Of course, I was too late, and the expected posts are already here.

I'm not saying Parrish is right, and certainly not right across the board, but it's a good opportunity to think from the other side. Remember, perception, especially in recruiting, is amazingly important. If potential recruits have a general idea in their heads that Duke is too white for them, too hard for them academically, not great at developing our McD AAs, etc., then that's a conception (whether it's a misconception is another story) that we must understand and contend with. Think about how we looked at colleges when we were making decisions:

Harvard-- Stuffy, entitled
Yale-- Pink triangle
Princeton-- Old-boy, dining clubs, kinda racist
Dartmouth-- Work hard, play hard
Duke-- Same as Dartmouth, but with better basketball and worse skiing.
Brown-- Bohemian
UChicago-- All work, no play
Berklee-- Hippies
MIT-- Freaks who take 1/4 hits of acid to stay up all night
and study (no personal knowledge there at all, really)

Admit it, due to reputation, we all have certain broad ideas of schools when we're looking at them, and can never really know what they're like until we've matriculated. The stereotypes are very important when it comes to paring down school choices.

[Kedsy]

I've been poking around the RSCI website and looked at their overall team national recruiting rankings for the past five years:

2005: Duke #2
2006: Duke #3
2007: Duke #3
2008: Duke #11
2009: Duke #8 (and I'm pretty sure this doesn't count Andre, so we'd actually be better)

Well, I take it all back now. That really is terrible. Parrish is right on the money.

[eightyearoldsdude]

Bill Simmons on ESPN Page 2 made mention of Duke flirting with a "whitewash" (5 white guys on the court at once) on the court several years ago. So yes, this point has explicitly been made in the mainstream media.

Scroll to 4:32
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/NCAA/dayone

Does this kind of joke actually surprise any of you?

[slower]

And you can bet he'll hop all over it if we roll out Scheyer, Singler, Kelly, MP1 and MP2. Of course, who gives a crap what Simmons thinks? But don't be surprised when it happens.

[eightyearoldsdude]

I'm not saying Parrish is right, and certainly not right across the board, but it's a good opportunity to think from the other side. Remember, perception, especially in recruiting, is amazingly important. If potential recruits have a general idea in their heads that Duke is too white for them, too hard for them academically, not great at developing our McD AAs, etc., then that's a conception (whether it's a misconception is another story) that we must understand and contend with.

This is why it's silly to challenge these kinds articles the way most fans do--in fact, countering these assertions with facts to the contrary ("hey, we've got four black scholarship players this year!") helps solidify the original impression. [Incidentally, this is part of the reason the D.A.R.E. program didn't work: giving kids reasons not to take drugs mostly served to draw more attention to drugs and gave kids the false impression that lots of their peers were taking them, which made it seem normative and ultimately increased substance use.]

IMO, Coach K has created a very distinctive brand for Duke basketball, and brands don't change willy nilly. Arguing with journalists over the negative aspects of the brand won't help either. The interesting question (to me, anyway) is how these kinds of articles and wisecracks are interpreted by K, the A.D., etc., if they are acknowledged at all. I know among fans (of any stripe) there is a tendency to disregard criticism as jealousy from haters, but I wonder if the powers that be have a different take.

[NYDukie]

Am I the only one who didn't read into that quote as being racially motivated? IMO, Parrish is saying that sometimes we go after good character kids, regardless of their athletic / basketball skills when we should be going after kids with great athletic / basketball skills who happen to be high character kids (and I can guarantee that there are more high character than low character kids out there).

Also, I may be one of the only posters who actually liked the article. I agree with a few posters who said that Parrish was being unjust by referring to Olek and other current players as busts when they haven't had a chance, but I personally feel that his overall point is spot on - Duke hasn't been as good during the NCAA tourney as it used to be due to recruiting. Regardless of talent, K will always preform well during the season. But during the tourney, coaching can only get you so far. Parrish's insight isn't anything new, but I like that he seems excited for the future of the Blue Devils. I don't think Parrish is a "moron" or an "idiot" (Doyle, on the other hand, is both of these, but that's a different matter ;)). Just because someone says something negative about Duke, doesn't make them evil...

I pretty much felt the same way for the most part. I wouldn't emphasis badass ballers over character guys but we haven't seen a Carrawell or Dockery come through in a while. I know some will mention Wall but we were never committed from the get go as we were with C-Well or Dock. I do think many intrepreted the Cal comparision in a bad light and have run with it. I think what Parrish is saying is that Coach K should recruit with a wider net, which seems to be the case this year and going forward. However, I think Parrish put Cal and Kentucky in the mix to get the Duke fans goat...which is mission accomplished by the comments on this thread for Parrish. And don't think for a second he doesn't check out the various boards (UNC and UK for example) to check the pulse of the fan bases to see what potential reaction he may get. Take the criticism and to some degree, his agreement of the new "net" by Parrish with a grain of salt by. If you get past your disdain for him and carefully look at some of his points, you will see that he has hit on some mentioned on this board.

[trinity92]

This is a fine line to walk, both because I don't want to hijack the thread, and because issues of race are so loaded and charged.

HOWEVER

In the last 20 or so years, which is the relevant time period for kids who are only approaching 18 years of age, I would argue the players who have been the "face" of our program have been:

Christian Laettner
Bobby Hurley
Grant Hill
Cherokee Parks
Trajan Langdon
Elton Brand (best player of that era although he wasn't really around long enough to be our "face")
Shane Battier
Jason Williams
JJ Redick
Shelden Williams
McBob/Greg Paulus
Kyle Singler

Possible additions/Second most air-time:

Jeff Capel
Chris Collins
Steve Wojo
Roshown McLeod
Chris Carrawell
Carlos Boozer
Mike Dunleavy

This is the face of Duke. It's a very white crowd, especially for college basketball and even more so compared to the NBA or the typical playground.

Now add to that the distinct possibility of us fielding an all white lineup at times this year, something rarely done anywhere in the country, unless it's BYU, Utah or Princeton, and you can see what the press is talking about.

I am completely secure in saying K is not a racist. I don't even think there's an organizational bias toward recruiting good white players. However, this is our history, and this is what potential recruits and the rest of the country sees.

[BD80]

I don't see a sea change in recruiting. Are we really "casting a wider net?"

We have offered Tokoto, but that really isn't all that different than Demarcus. We pursued a one-and-done in Wall after missing on Boynton, but how is that different than pursuing Maggette after missing on Fife? Do we really have that many offers out there?

I see this more as a cycle in recruiting. We had a period where some prospects did not live up to billing - some due to injury - and we missed out on some top flight recruits. Either Patterson or Monroe might have changed the coversation completely.

[eightyearoldsdude]

Good post Trinity. I would go a little further and say that the men most associated with Duke basketball are:

1) K
2) Laetner
3) Reddick

Those three have to be on Duke's Mount Rushmore. For the fourth spot, I'd have a hard time deciding between Battier, Hill, or Hurley. (But my knowledge of Duke b-ball only goes back to the late 80's, so maybe someone could make a case for Heyman or another old-timer).

Anyway, it's easier to see where the wisecracks come from when you couple that image with the most recent face of the program (Paulus) and the current complexion of the team. And it's not simply about race--race is only the most visible signifier--it's a stylistic thing as well. (Can you imagine the *other* Jason Williams playing for Duke?)

[NSDukeFan]

Well, despite the many criticisms of the article, it appears a lot of posters here seem to agree with Parrish's basic premise. But I don't. I absolutely do not believe our "lack of success" in the past few years is due to poor recruiting.

I looked back at every Duke recruiting class since 2003, applied the RSCI final recruiting rankings, and have found: (a) we've received commitments from at least two top 20 recruits every year except 2008, and (b) we've received a commitment from at least one top 15 recruit every single year. He might successfully argue that many of our recruits in the past five years have underachieved, but Parrish's assertion that our last five recruiting classes have been "terrible" is just plain wrong.

So in the past five "terrible" years we've had two top 5 commitments, six top 15 commitments, and twelve top 25 commitments (including Andre). Sure, you'd rather have a top 5 guy headlining every class, but let's face it that's not realistic, especially when the top 5 is often littered with players like OJ Mayo and Brandon Jennings, who for academic or other reasons we have a zero percent chance of landing.

Obviously our recruiting hasn't been perfect; we've come in second place for several recruits we'd have liked to have seen in Duke blue. (Although it should be noted that none of Kenny Boynton (#9), Patrick Patterson (#9) or Greg Monroe (#6) were top 5 guys.) Also, looking at the list above, for whatever reason a whole lot of our recruits in the past seven years have not stayed in Durham long enough to give us the benefits of their full potential.

So, while there are many possible reasons why we've failed to advance very far in the past five NCAA tourneys, I just don't think poor recruiting is one of them.

for your research. I agree with you completely. I'll take that "terrible" recruiting record anytime. (Like many others, I am crossing my fingers for a superlative class for next year.)

I don't think Parrish is necessarily an idiot, but this article is very poor. It's great for us here to debate about potential lineups, but I don't know if makes sense for a national writer to be doing that, before players commit.

I also can't see any rationale to making comparisons to Calamari. He has never even been to a final four ;), so why would anyone want to emulate him?

[FireOgilvie]

I just saw the most recent ESPNU Duke commercial where a tour guide talks about spots on campus and mentions 6 famous Duke players. Of those 6, 4 are black, and 2 are white. He didn't mention Shelden Williams, Jason Williams, Hurley, Langdon, Singler, or Gerald Henderson, who are in addition to those mentioned, the players I think of when I think about famous Duke players. That is the public face of Duke Basketball.

Opposing fans think about Redick more probably because they hate him, and the same goes for Laettner, especially with Kentucky fans. I'm guessing there is a reason why opposing fans choose the 3 most hated fans in Duke recent history to be Laettner, Redick, and Paulus. Another player that got a lot of hate from fans all over the country is Tyler Hansbrough. It seems like a trend.

I believe it was Kyrie Irving that recently said his favorite basketball player is JJ Redick.

Every recruit we are targeting in 2010 is African-American (Roscoe Smith, Barnes, Irving, Josh Smith). All but Marshall Plumlee in 2011 are African-American (Miller, Rivers, Beal, Quinn Cook, etc.).

Our recent biggest recruiting misses were Patterson, Monroe, Boynton, and Wall.

The players that left the team but could still have eligibility were Elliot Williams to a family issue transfer, Gerald Henderson to the NBA, and Pocius to play pro ball in Europe.

People need to consider all of these things before making further generalizations.

[eightyearoldsdude]

People need to consider all of these things before making further generalizations.

Perhaps they should, but I don't think they will.

[InSpades]

I like how he includes Tyler Zeller and John Henson as NBA-level players when they have scored a combined 47 points in college basketball (18 of those coming in 1 game).

Put me in the group that thinks the article is a load of hooey (sp?). If Greg Monroe or Patrick Patterson commits to Duke does that mean all of a sudden K and company go from doing a bad job at recruiting to a good job at recruiting? Duke has always gone after a certain type of player but made certain exceptions. John Wall would have been one of those exceptions I guess. Irving and Barnes seem right in-line w/ the Deng/Battier/Henderson/Hill mold. I'd rather see Duke never make another final four than have to vacate one. I'll take 4 years of Jon Scheyer over 1 year of OJ Mayo any day of the week (heck, I'd take 4 years of Jon Scheyer over 4 years of OJ Mayo). These things go in cycles. Just ask UConn. Fortunately for Duke the cycles don't involve stolen laptops or NCAA sanctions.

[FireOgilvie]

Perhaps they should, but I don't think they will.

Yeah, I hate how those silly facts always get in the way of bias and hatred.

[eightyearoldsdude]

Yeah, I hate how those silly facts always get in the way of bias and hatred.

Actually, I don't think the facts get in the way at all. The generalizations inherent in brands, images, stereotypes, reputations, etc., are cognitively efficient and thus far more powerful than any given fact. I don't think it's all jealousy and hatred either.

[Kedsy]

This is a fine line to walk, both because I don't want to hijack the thread, and because issues of race are so loaded and charged.

HOWEVER

In the last 20 or so years, which is the relevant time period for kids who are only approaching 18 years of age, I would argue the players who have been the "face" of our program have been:

Christian Laettner
Bobby Hurley
Grant Hill
Cherokee Parks
Trajan Langdon
Elton Brand (best player of that era although he wasn't really around long enough to be our "face")
Shane Battier
Jason Williams
JJ Redick
Shelden Williams
McBob/Greg Paulus
Kyle Singler

Possible additions/Second most air-time:

Jeff Capel
Chris Collins
Steve Wojo
Roshown McLeod
Chris Carrawell
Carlos Boozer
Mike Dunleavy

This is the face of Duke. It's a very white crowd, especially for college basketball and even more so compared to the NBA or the typical playground.

Now add to that the distinct possibility of us fielding an all white lineup at times this year, something rarely done anywhere in the country, unless it's BYU, Utah or Princeton, and you can see what the press is talking about.

I am completely secure in saying K is not a racist. I don't even think there's an organizational bias toward recruiting good white players. However, this is our history, and this is what potential recruits and the rest of the country sees.

I don't understand your conclusion. Half of the players you mention are black.

[bill brill]

mcroberts, because of his skill level, was rated higher than hansbrough. they don't allow you to check out the heart. I imagine that hans will be the last national player of the year as a junior to ever return for his fourth year. but he wouldn't have been drafted as high as players who weren't one-tenth as good in college. and if lawson doesn't have an open beer can in his car, he's not around last year. without him, unc didn't even make the acc finals. ellington, green and lawson all would have left the previous year if they had been wanted by the nba. that's the luck of the draw. duke's recruiting in the past five years was considered very good at the time. some of them didn't pan out. my feeling is that duke is on the verge of a monster recovery from the demise of the program. after all, who's happy with 30-7, and acc title and a sweet 16?

[Greg_Newton]

I've been poking around the RSCI website and looked at their overall team national recruiting rankings for the past five years:

2005: Duke #2
2006: Duke #3
2007: Duke #3
2008: Duke #11
2009: Duke #8 (and I'm pretty sure this doesn't count Andre, so we'd actually be better)

Well, I take it all back now. That really is terrible. Parrish is right on the money.

I disagree that recruiting has not played a large part in the recent lack of "contender" teams. However, I would argue that it's been "unlucky" recruiting more than anything else. Injuries/transfers/leaving early aside, if you were to go back and retroactively rank recruiting classes from those years, the rankings would look quite different... particularly in the big 05 and 06 classes. Analysts' rankings at the time aren't just the say-all-end-all verdict on the actual talent that ends up matriculating into the program. Just ask Jeff Capel, whose #16 recruit Blake Griffin turned out a little differently than our #13 and #20 recruits Greg Paulus and Lance Thomas (even though I love 'em)...

I think the biggest change that is going on right now, besides K's Olympic legacy settling in, is that so many current elite recruits are "recruitable" by Duke. It's very uncommon for K to be involved in 3 of the top 4 high school basketball players like he currently is .

You've gotta knock it outta the park every few years to really have a championship-level program, and unfortunately the 05 and 06 classes did not end up being the home runs they looked like they were at the time...

[sagegrouse]

This is a fine line to walk, both because I don't want to hijack the thread, and because issues of race are so loaded and charged.

HOWEVER

In the last 20 or so years, which is the relevant time period for kids who are only approaching 18 years of age, I would argue the players who have been the "face" of our program have been:

Christian Laettner
Bobby Hurley
Grant Hill
Cherokee Parks
Trajan Langdon
Elton Brand (best player of that era although he wasn't really around long enough to be our "face")
Shane Battier
Jason Williams
JJ Redick
Shelden Williams
McBob/Greg Paulus
Kyle Singler

Possible additions/Second most air-time:

Jeff Capel
Chris Collins
Steve Wojo
Roshown McLeod
Chris Carrawell
Carlos Boozer
Mike Dunleavy

This is the face of Duke. It's a very white crowd, especially for college basketball and even more so compared to the NBA or the typical playground.

Now add to that the distinct possibility of us fielding an all white lineup at times this year, something rarely done anywhere in the country, unless it's BYU, Utah or Princeton, and you can see what the press is talking about.

I am completely secure in saying K is not a racist. I don't even think there's an organizational bias toward recruiting good white players. However, this is our history, and this is what potential recruits and the rest of the country sees.

The evidence you present supports the opposite conclusion.

Lets take another look at the last 20 years. The strongest Duke teams were in 1991-1992, 1999, 2001, and 2004. Maybe one could add 1994, but I didn't.

On the 1991-1992 teams the key players were NPOY Laettner, Hurley, Grant Hill, and Thomas Hill, with support credit to Brian Davis, Cherokee (1992), McCaffrey (1991).

On the 1999 team the key players were NPOY Brand, Langdon, Battier, Wm. Avery, and Carrawell, with supporting role to Maggette.

On the 2001 team the ley players were NPOY Battier, JWill (2002 NPOY), Boozer, Dunleavy, with supporting roles to CDu and Nate James.

On the 2004 teams the key players were JJ (NPOY 2006), CDu, Shelden, and Luol Deng with supporting roles to Ewing and Shav.

The only way you can claim that the keading players on Duke represent "a very white crowd" is to ignore the data and mouth some generalities. On these teams with a lot of stars, you have Laettner, Hurley, JJ and Dunleavy -- four out of the 16 key players named.

Are you counting Langdon and Battier, who each had one white parent? Or maybe you are questionong Grant Hill, a noted collector of African-American art, whose impressive parents graduated from Yale and Wellesley? Any further speculation goes downhill from here.

This is a very troublesome post. I don't get the logic of it, and I certainly don't understand why you posted it.

sagegrouse

[eightyearoldsdude]

Sagegrouse, who would you put on the Mount Rushmore of Duke basketball? You've got four spots to fill.

[JaMarcus Russell]

If it's just players (and let's be serious, if we are counting coaches, that's going to be a predominantly white crowd), I think most people would pick Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, Jay Williams, and either Shane Battier or Bobby Hurley. Some of the guys who barely miss out would probably be Johnny Dawkins, JJ Redick, Shelden Williams, Carlos Boozer, Mike Gminski, and the older guys like Heyman and Groat.

Especially if we go back to the 1950s and 60s, Duke's racial make-up would be comparable to most schools. Even if we go from 1980 onward, I don't think it would be nearly as dramatic difference as you think.

[trinity92]

Every recruit we are targeting in 2010 is African-American (Roscoe Smith, Barnes, Irving, Josh Smith). All but Marshall Plumlee in 2011 are African-American (Miller, Rivers, Beal, Quinn Cook, etc.).

Our recent biggest recruiting misses were Patterson, Monroe, Boynton, and Wall.


The recruits we're pursuing may or may not reflect a conscious effort to change our image. All we really know is they're among the best out there.

The recruits we've missed may or may not reflect a reaction to that image. All we really know is they were among the best out there.

[RelativeWays]

Ancient Durham Secret: Duke teams are often as good as the PGs picked to run them. Take a look at the teams not just from the past five years, but also the teams from the mid nineties when Duke also struggled a bit. The one common factor is that none of those teams had a truly elite PG running them. The lone exception would have been the 94 team, but thats because Grant Hill is like the PS3, he only does everything.

[sagegrouse]

Sagegrouse, who would you put on the Mount Rushmore of Duke basketball? You've got four spots to fill.

We actually had a thread on this specific subject some months ago. Maybe someone else can find it.

I like this kind of exercise. I usually try to begin by thinking about standards.

There are 13 retired jerseys.

Of these, 6-8 were NPOY (some Qs in my own mind about Groat, JD, and Ferry as consensus NPOY).

Five of those retired jerseys were on teams that won national championships.

The intersection of those three criteria yields Laettner, Battier and JWill. I, for one, would add Grant Hill to the list. And I might add some pioneer players who ushered in eras (Heyman for Bubas or Dawkins for K) in place of Battier or JWill, who came to prominence when Duke was a dominant program and got a lot of recognition by being the best player on the Duke team.

But that limits Mt. Rushmore to players only. I would put Coach K up there, and at UNC you would probably ensure that Dean Smith was featured (no nose jokes -- this is a serious subject).

sagegrouse

[eightyearoldsdude]

We actually had a thread on this specific subject some months ago. Maybe someone else can find it.

I like this kind of exercise. I usually try to begin by thinking about standards.

There are 13 retired jerseys.

Of these, 6-8 were NPOY (some Qs in my own mind about Groat, JD, and Ferry as consensus NPOY).

Five of those retired jerseys were on teams that won national championships.

The intersection of those three criteria yields Laettner, Battier and JWill. I, for one, would add Grant Hill to the list. And I might add some pioneer players who ushered in eras (Heyman for Bubas or Dawkins for K) in place of Battier or JWill, who came to prominence when Duke was a dominant program and got a lot of recognition by being the best player on the Duke team.

But that limits Mt. Rushmore to players only. I would put Coach K up there, and at UNC you would probably ensure that Dean Smith was featured (no nose jokes -- this is a serious subject).

sagegrouse

You guys wouldn't put Reddick up there? NPOY, broke the longstanding ACC scoring record??? My Duke Mt. Rushmore would have K, Laettner, Reddick, and after that I'd have a hard time choosing between Williams, Battier, Hill, or Hurley. Actually, I think Williams and Battier edge out the latter two. Tough call, but I'd go with Battier because he stayed four years.

For UNC, Dean, Roy, and Jordan are no-brainers. After that, it's a tough call between a number of guys, but Hansbrough is probably near the front of the line.

[Indoor66]

(no nose jokes -- this is a serious subject).

sagegrouse

I agree. Such jokes would cast a huge shadow on the subject.

[Kedsy]

I disagree that recruiting has not played a large part in the recent lack of "contender" teams. However, I would argue that it's been "unlucky" recruiting more than anything else. Injuries/transfers/leaving early aside, if you were to go back and retroactively rank recruiting classes from those years, the rankings would look quite different... particularly in the big 05 and 06 classes. Analysts' rankings at the time aren't just the say-all-end-all verdict on the actual talent that ends up matriculating into the program. Just ask Jeff Capel, whose #16 recruit Blake Griffin turned out a little differently than our #13 and #20 recruits Greg Paulus and Lance Thomas (even though I love 'em)...


Well, if a recruit leaves the program or doesn't live up to expectations, is that a recruiting problem or something else? The rules only allow coaches to get a limited amount of time to see recruits in person, so they have to at least partially rely on film and scouting reports/recruiting rankings. As far as I know, nobody working at the college level has access to a crystal ball.

The original point of this thread was an article comparing current recruiting to recruiting of the recent past. We have no idea how the current kids being recruited are going to fare, so I would argue that you can't look at past recruiting retroactively. Apples to apples, and all that.

Duke's recruiting has been top notch in the past five years (three top three classes, one just outside the top 10 and last years which was rated 8 without Andre Dawkins so with him probably around 4 or 5?). Things just haven't panned out the way all of us wanted.

[sagegrouse]

You guys wouldn't put Reddick up there? NPOY, broke the longstanding ACC scoring record??? My Duke Mt. Rushmore would have K, Laettner, Reddick, and after that I'd have a hard time choosing between Williams, Battier, Hill, or Hurley. Actually, I think Williams and Battier edge out the latter two. Tough call, but I'd go with Battier because he stayed four years.

For UNC, Dean, Roy, and Jordan are no-brainers. After that, it's a tough call between a number of guys, but Hansbrough is probably near the front of the line.

JJ was a brilliant shooter and very good player, but Laettner, JWill, and Art Heyman were all over the court and obviously the best players against almost anyone. Everyone who knows basketball has always marveled at Grant Hill and his combination of size and quickness. Plus, he has the NCs, the Olympics Gold, and the NBA honors, which is why you put Jordan on the UNC version, not based on his college accomplishments.

Battier doesn't need to be on the Duke Mt. Rushmore; he'll be elected President in 2028.

sagegrouse
'Ever wonder what the first explorers thought who discovered Mt. Rushmore and those carvings?'

[jimsumner]

Groat, Dawkins, and Ferry all won at least one major national POY award.

We did the point guard dance just a few weeks ago, IIRC.

But let me repeat.

Given my druthers, I'd rather have an elite PG than not. But Duke has made FFs with Fred Schmidt, Denny Ferguson, Steve Vacendak, John Harrell, Tommy Amaker, Quin Snyder (twice), freshman-junior Bobby Hurley, freshman Jeff Capel, and William Avery as starting PGs.

None were first team All-ACC in those years. Only Vacendak, Hurley ('92), and Avery were second team. None except Hurley '92 even sniffed an All-America team. Hurley only made first-team All-ACC in 1993, when Duke lost in the second round of the NCAAs.

In fact, only Jason Williams in 2001 and Chris Duhon in 2004 were 1st-team All-ACC in the years they QB'd Duke to the FF.

So, the idea that you absolutely have to have an elite PG to advance deep into the NCAA Tournament simply isn't supported by the facts.

It does to have an All-American or two somewhere else in the lineup.

Someone like a Kyle Singler.

[Greg_Newton]

Kedsy, I'm not sure we're disagreeing on anything besides semantics... I'm not saying we have recruited badly, just that we've had bad luck in regards to many recruits panning out or being as talented as they were expected to be. Therefore, for whatever reason, the actual level of talent brought into the program has been slightly less than during K's epic stretches, which I would call a "recruiting issue" rather than something else (coaching, player development, etc). I was not trying to imply that K's recruiting tactics were flawed or anything like that, just that there's a large element of the unknown that goes into recruiting that not even a HOF coach like K can control for. I think sometimes people point to our high recruiting rankings in those years and say "Well, talent isn't the issue", which isn't necessarily a fair leap.

Also, these "Mount Rushmores" are kind of missing the point, IMO... the origin of this particular discussion was a debate about Duke's image in the minds of recruits. Kyrie was born around the time of Hurley and Laettner's last title, and was about 2 when Grant Hill graduated... these guys grew up in a different era than most folks on this board. Similar to how I appreciate Art Heyman's historical significance, but given that I was not alive during his playing days I can't honestly say he has had much influence on my personal perception of Duke basketball.

I would guess that in the eyes of 16-18 year old kids, Jay Williams, JJ Redick, Kyle Singler, and Shane Battier are probably the 4 names that are most synonymous with Duke basketball, probably in that order (besides K, of course). It would be nice if there was a full fledged NBA star in there, but you could sure have worse representatives of your program...

[BlueintheFace]

I agree. Such jokes would cast a huge shadow on the subject.

hahahaah. Oh my, I just laughed for two minutes straight. Well done Indoor.

[Kedsy]

Kedsy, I'm not sure we're disagreeing on anything besides semantics... I'm not saying we have recruited badly, just that we've had bad luck in regards to many recruits panning out or being as talented as they were expected to be. Therefore, for whatever reason, the actual level of talent brought into the program has been slightly less than during K's epic stretches, which I would call a "recruiting issue" rather than something else (coaching, player development, etc). I was not trying to imply that K's recruiting tactics were flawed or anything like that, just that there's a large element of the unknown that goes into recruiting that not even a HOF coach like K can control for. I think sometimes people point to our high recruiting rankings in those years and say "Well, talent isn't the issue", which isn't necessarily a fair leap.


OK. It sounds like you understand I'm not talking about "talent" at all. Recruiting is an inexact science, and sometimes players peak in high school. I just think Mr. Parrish has missed this very point when he lists his perception of the in-hindsight talent level of past recruiting and then compares it to present recruiting and says we're doing better. It's the proverbial apples and oranges.

[jimsumner]

"I would guess that in the eyes of 16-18 year old kids, Jay Williams, JJ Redick, Kyle Singler, and Shane Battier are probably the 4 names that are most synonymous with Duke basketball, probably in that order (besides K, of course). It would be nice if there was a full fledged NBA star in there, but you could sure have worse representatives of your program... "

If our hypothetical recruits are following the NBA, why wouldn't Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand, or Grant meet the star standard, with Battier, Corey Maggette, Mike Dunleavy, Luol Deng, and Chris Duhon a tad behind?

[Greg_Newton]

If our hypothetical recruits are following the NBA, why wouldn't Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand, or Grant meet the star standard, with Battier, Corey Maggette, Mike Dunleavy, Luol Deng, and Chris Duhon a tad behind?

They certainly would, I just don't know any of them come to mind before JWill/JJ/Kyle/Shane when a 17-y/o thinks Duke, which what I was talking about in my post. My reasoning being that I've heard many recent recruits reference J-Will and JJ, but none Luol Deng or Corey Maggette, for example. Not a big deal, though, I don't want to clog this thread up too much...


OK. It sounds like you understand I'm not talking about "talent" at all. Recruiting is an inexact science, and sometimes players peak in high school. I just think Mr. Parrish has missed this very point when he lists his perception of the in-hindsight talent level of past recruiting and then compares it to present recruiting and says we're doing better. It's the proverbial apples and oranges.

Agree.

[ice-9]

Parrish's point isn't that Duke has recruited badly, it's that Duke's recruits haven't lived up to their billing (e.g. due to transfers). Some of the points he made in the article are erronous, but I kinda agree with the overall point.

[El_Diablo]

Parrish's point isn't that Duke has recruited badly, it's that Duke's recruits haven't lived up to their billing (e.g. due to transfers). Some of the points he made in the article are erronous, but I kinda agree with the overall point.

You should re-read it...it's actually ALL about recruiting.
-Character vs. badass ballers who can run and jump
-Class rankings
-No backup plans
-Ability to take those recruiting classes and "still finish first or second in the ACC"
-His bottom line: "the recruiting troubles that have plagued Duke recently seem to be a thing of the past."

[jesus_hurley]

JJ was a brilliant shooter and very good player, but Laettner, JWill, and Art Heyman were all over the court and obviously the best players against almost anyone. Everyone who knows basketball has always marveled at Grant Hill and his combination of size and quickness. Plus, he has the NCs, the Olympics Gold, and the NBA honors, which is why you put Jordan on the UNC version, not based on his college accomplishments.

Battier doesn't need to be on the Duke Mt. Rushmore; he'll be elected President in 2028.

sagegrouse
'Ever wonder what the first explorers thought who discovered Mt. Rushmore and those carvings?'

Coach K
Johnny Dawkins
Laettner
G. Hill

I don't think JJ or Hansbrough would have touched Dawkins point total if he'd had the 3 point line for 4 years instead of just one.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Coach K
Johnny Dawkins
Laettner
G. Hill

That is not a bad list if Duke basketball only dates from the arrival of Coach K. There a few extremely great players that predate the K era.

[jesus_hurley]

That is not a bad list if Duke basketball only dates from the arrival of Coach K. There a few extremely great players that predate the K era.

Very true. Coach K is a given I would think. The first teams I remember were during the Dawkins era so my perspective is a bit skewed to the later years. Can we carve more then one side of the mountain? ;)

[Indoor66]

That is not a bad list if Duke basketball only dates from the arrival of Coach K. There a few extremely great players that predate the K era.

How about Bubas, Mullins, K & Laettner

[jimsumner]

"I don't think JJ or Hansbrough would have touched Dawkins point total if he'd had the 3 point line for 4 years instead of just one."

If you want to play what-might-have-been, project Jason Williams over four years.

[ricks68]

I do not think this article should have been given a headline credit. That's the bottom line.

It's way too contradictory. For example, he compares numbers of Duke players that are in the NBA to UNC players that are in the NBA plus those UNC players that are, in his opinion, still in the UNC pipeline. All the way through the article, he appears to twist and manipulate things that seem to exhibit a very anti-Duke, pro UNC bias.

While he has a very good point on Duke's change of tactics on recruiting, his bias taints whatever else he is saying to the point that his credibility becomes even more than suspect IMHO. So, I have to strongly agree with Bob Green's original post. This article shouldn't even have made it on to DBR.:(

ricks

[Classof06]

Regardless of how you feel about some of the undertones in the Parrish article (rating players, Duke vs. UNC, etc), his overall point is both undeniable and promising at the same time. Duke's recruiting the past four or five years has not been as strong as the previous 10-15 years before that. I don't care how much royal blue you bleed, you have to admit that. And, the major reason for that is that, like Parrish said, Duke has relied on their brand and not cast as wide of a net, expecting to get the kids they target. Clearly, this has not worked (see: Patterson, Patrick; Monroe, Gregory; Boynton, Kenneth; etc). For this, I have been disappointed.

Coach K, being the HOF coach that he is, has seemingly retooled his recruiting approach and is making changes. These changes could potentially land Duke a class for 2010 that they haven't had in years. For this, I am extremely happy.

This article might not be 110% accurate, but I think Parrish does a good job of highlighting the recent struggles in Duke's recruiting that I and others on this board have noticed for some time. It was refreshing to read some things I've been thinking and even more refreshing to see that Duke really is on the verge of a potential renaissance, if you will.

Keepin my fingers cross for Irving and Barnes...

[Kedsy]

Regardless of how you feel about some of the undertones in the Parrish article (rating players, Duke vs. UNC, etc), his overall point is both undeniable and promising at the same time. Duke's recruiting the past four or five years has not been as strong as the previous 10-15 years before that. I don't care how much royal blue you bleed, you have to admit that. And, the major reason for that is that, like Parrish said, Duke has relied on their brand and not cast as wide of a net, expecting to get the kids they target. Clearly, this has not worked (see: Patterson, Patrick; Monroe, Gregory; Boynton, Kenneth; etc). For this, I have been disappointed.

Coach K, being the HOF coach that he is, has seemingly retooled his recruiting approach and is making changes. These changes could potentially land Duke a class for 2010 that they haven't had in years. For this, I am extremely happy.

This article might not be 110% accurate, but I think Parrish does a good job of highlighting the recent struggles in Duke's recruiting that I and others on this board have noticed for some time. It was refreshing to read some things I've been thinking and even more refreshing to see that Duke really is on the verge of a potential renaissance, if you will.

Keepin my fingers cross for Irving and Barnes...

Well, I've posted about this a couple times already, but both you and Gary Parrish ought to spend a moment to distinguish between recruiting and whether the recruits panned out. These are completely different things.

Josh McRoberts was the #1 player in his class. Greg Paulus was the #1 rated PG. Why are you (and Parrish) assuming Harrison Barnes and Kyrie Irving will be better? Everyone seems to think they are, and we all hope they are (at least if they come to Duke), and frankly I think they will be, but we can't say for certain until they come to college and get out on the court.

From 2005 to 2007, Duke had three consecutive top 3 recruiting classes. My guess is it's the only time in the K era that has happened. I haven't done the research fully, but K's only top 3 classes I can think of before 2005 were the 1982 (JD & co), 1997 (Battier, Brand, etc), 1999 (JWill & friends), and 2002 (JJ & Shelden) recruiting classes (although it's possible I missed one or two).

Having said that, I understand in those days it was not really necessary (or even possible) to get a top 3 class every year, because Duke players pretty much always stayed four years. It was more important to get smaller recruiting classes that would replace the talents of the seniors without unneccessarily replicating the talents of the underclassmen. It's not that way today, and this represents a change that perhaps has haunted us the past few years, one of many possible issues that are really not "recruiting" problems.

So all this is just my way of saying I strongly disagree with your statement that Duke's recruiting has not been as strong in recent years. The evidence does not bear out your assertion.

[Kedsy]

And, the major reason for that is that, like Parrish said, Duke has relied on their brand and not cast as wide of a net, expecting to get the kids they target. Clearly, this has not worked (see: Patterson, Patrick; Monroe, Gregory; Boynton, Kenneth; etc). For this, I have been disappointed.

I also believe you are employing selective memory. Even in Duke's "golden age" we missed out on a lot of recruits that we really wanted. In those days I suppose our NCAA tourney success allowed us to revel in who we did get rather than who we missed.

I believe Jim Sumner and Al Featherston both wrote very good articles that perhaps you ought to take a look at, debunking the idea that recruiting was so much better then than it has been recently.

[The Gordog]

.....and if you cast a wider net, is it tuna safe? The tuna being the questionable student athlete/character that brings the team, or worse - the program down.

Tuna is what you are trying to catch. The net you are looking for is TURTLE safe.

[eightyearoldsdude]

I don't mean to divert this, but it seems like recruiting woes have been discussed ad nauseum, and I was kind of interested in returning to the Duke image question. I know I'm a guest here, so if this is not a welcome topic then it's fine if a mod deletes this.

There seems to be something about Duke that leads people to make cracks about it (I pasted two typical examples below). I could be wrong, but I don't think UNC gets the same treatment (and it's not because of a vast carolina journalism school conspiracy). This is true despite our recent hot streak and despite having a Tyler Hansbrough as the face of the program for the past four years. Hansbrough has been mocked and criticized relentlessly (much like JJ), yet none of that criticism or mockery seems to have transferred to UNC as an institution or as a brand.

Anyway, I'm curious about a few things:
a) is it even true that Duke is mocked more than UNC or other comparable programs?

If so:
b) why?
c) does it hurt the program?
d) how would you improve the image without compromising the standards of the program?

Simmons:
"One last thing: Don't go to Princeton. I'm still waiting to meet my first Princeton grad that I might like. I am like 0-for-79. Princeton grads carry themselves like bad guys in a sports movie. Remember the scene in "Pretty In Pink" when James Spader ordered his two henchmen to beat up Andrew McCarthy because he didn't approve of McCarthy's poor girlfriend? There's no question that Spader's character went on to Princeton, just like there's no doubt Johnny Lawrence went to Duke. Neither hypothetical situation is up for debate."

from the GQ Douchiest Colleges:

#2: Duke
Home of: The O.D. (Original Douche)
Affectations: Pressed oxford; Goldman Sachs summer-internship tote; always ending the party by taking your shirt off and wrestling a guy named Schmitty.
A peek inside: They're probably number one. But we'd rather not rank Duke number one at anything.
In ten years, will be: Still trying to re-create the golden age of banking while wearing driving mocs and no socks.

[The Gordog]

I like how he includes Tyler Zeller and John Henson as NBA-level players when they have scored a combined 47 points in college basketball (18 of those coming in 1 game).

Put me in the group that thinks the article is a load of hooey (sp?). If Greg Monroe or Patrick Patterson commits to Duke does that mean all of a sudden K and company go from doing a bad job at recruiting to a good job at recruiting? Duke has always gone after a certain type of player but made certain exceptions. John Wall would have been one of those exceptions I guess. Irving and Barnes seem right in-line w/ the Deng/Battier/Henderson/Hill mold. I'd rather see Duke never make another final four than have to vacate one. I'll take 4 years of Jon Scheyer over 1 year of OJ Mayo any day of the week (heck, I'd take 4 years of Jon Scheyer over 4 years of OJ Mayo). These things go in cycles. Just ask UConn. Fortunately for Duke the cycles don't involve stolen laptops or NCAA sanctions.

Agree 100%.

Re. UConn: our cycles don't involve missing the NCAAT either.

[flyingdutchdevil]

This is a loaded question. I don't think anyone has the answer, but I'll give my opinion. I graduated from Duke in 07 and was there during the Lacrosse scandal, and, as I'm sure you know, there has a boat load of anti-Duke sentiment. It gave me a little perspective on why people hate Duke.

a) People absolutely hate Duke more than UNC, and I think most of that doesn't come more basketball
b) The public generally sees us as a rich, white, private Northern institution in the "poor, black, South." We go on to become bankers, lawyers, businessman - the kind of people that we love to hate. I'm not saying that UNC doesn't have that as well, but with Duke, it's a little more highly publisized. For instance, the last CEO of Bear Sterns, the last CEO of Wachovia and the current CEO of Morgan Stanley all went to Duke. That's the heads of two banks that went under and the CEO of an "evil" institution that went to Duke. The public does catch up with these things. Also, I feel that in the last 5 years, Duke has gotten a lot more bad press than before. And I feel that this is entirely due to the lacrosse scandal. In the public's eyes, it confirmed that Duke is made up of a bunch of rich, white kids taking advantage of Durham and being completely disrespectful. Despite the lacrosse kids being completely innocent, the initial press did considerable damage to Duke.
From a basketball perspective, I have talked to a lot of my friends about Duke basketball, and the main point that they bring up is coach K. They know he's a good coach, they know he's a great recruiter and they know that he is a good guy. However, they despise two things about him - one, he has an incredibly annoying voice and, two, he looks like a "rat" (they're words, not mine, so please don't attack me on that point). Ole Roy looks like one hell of a friendly guy compared to Coach K. Also, Duke has that "white" factor that everyone keeps talking about. In a country like the US, people will point that out.
I could like boat loads more, but I feel that you're probably already bored with my post.

c) From a recruiting standpoint, no. We have a) a great basketball program and b) the best academics for a major basketball program not named Stanford.

d) Improve the standards? Now this may upset a lot of peope, but I really think that Duke needs a new president. I am not the happiest of people when it comes to Dick Broadhead (I think he made the lacrosse scandal so much worse by not supporting his kids straight out and instead agreeing with the media). From a basketball standpoint, let K keep doing what he's doing. Great bball kids will always be going to Duke, just like they will always be going to UNC. Also, the public will always have a little bit of hatred for Duke as an institution, and as a result its basketball program as well.

[BlueintheFace]

This is a loaded question. I don't think anyone has the answer, but I'll give my opinion. I graduated from Duke in 07 and was there during the Lacrosse scandal, and, as I'm sure you know, there has a boat load of anti-Duke sentiment. It gave me a little perspective on why people hate Duke.

a) People absolutely hate Duke more than UNC, and I think most of that doesn't come more basketball
b) The public generally sees us as a rich, white, private Northern institution in the "poor, black, South." We go on to become bankers, lawyers, businessman - the kind of people that we love to hate. I'm not saying that UNC doesn't have that as well, but with Duke, it's a little more highly publisized. For instance, the last CEO of Bear Sterns, the last CEO of Wachovia and the current CEO of Morgan Stanley all went to Duke. That's the heads of two banks that went under and the CEO of an "evil" institution that went to Duke. The public does catch up with these things. Also, I feel that in the last 5 years, Duke has gotten a lot more bad press than before. And I feel that this is entirely due to the lacrosse scandal. In the public's eyes, it confirmed that Duke is made up of a bunch of rich, white kids taking advantage of Durham and being completely disrespectful. Despite the lacrosse kids being completely innocent, the initial press did considerable damage to Duke.
From a basketball perspective, I have talked to a lot of my friends about Duke basketball, and the main point that they bring up is coach K. They know he's a good coach, they know he's a great recruiter and they know that he is a good guy. However, they despise two things about him - one, he has an incredibly annoying voice and, two, he looks like a "rat" (they're words, not mine, so please don't attack me on that point). Ole Roy looks like one hell of a friendly guy compared to Coach K. Also, Duke has that "white" factor that everyone keeps talking about. In a country like the US, people will point that out.
I could like boat loads more, but I feel that you're probably already bored with my post.

c) From a recruiting standpoint, no. We have a) a great basketball program and b) the best academics for a major basketball program not named Stanford.

d) Improve the standards? Now this may upset a lot of peope, but I really think that Duke needs a new president. I am not the happiest of people when it comes to Dick Broadhead (I think he made the lacrosse scandal so much worse by not supporting his kids straight out and instead agreeing with the media). From a basketball standpoint, let K keep doing what he's doing. Great bball kids will always be going to Duke, just like they will always be going to UNC. Also, the public will always have a little bit of hatred for Duke as an institution, and as a result its basketball program as well.

Re: the basketball team: EXPOSURE AND SUCCESS

It is also important to note that Duke was THE team when ESPN took off. The 91 and 92 championship team players were rock stars before college athletes were rockstars. This led to a largely expanded fan base AS WELL AS a largely expanded base of resentful haters. Nobody likes the guy who has it all. Duke was/is on TV more than any other program AND they still beat your favorite team in March and the pre-season (Most succesful college program in modern era). This exposure has made Duke (according to ESPN) both the most loved and most hated college basketball team in America statistically.

Exposure cuts both ways. Duke is on TV more than any other athletic team in america, professional or collegiate. This means everything is overanalyzed and hyperbole becomes the norm. Duke's best players have a better shot at NPOY and All-American teams than players at smaller schools that may be talented but are never seen (same is true for the other blue bloods though). On the other side of the coin, The whole "Duke gets all the calls" cry is simply a product of people seing Duke getting more calls than other teams. Why? Because they actually WATCH duke more than other teams. If you dislike Duke, then you are presented with as much fodder as a team can give to spit vitriole. Duke doesn't "get all the calls" more than any other top tier team with a solid home-court advantage. They just get more publicity on everything, positives AND negatives.

[Kedsy]

There seems to be something about Duke that leads people to make cracks about it (I pasted two typical examples below). I could be wrong, but I don't think UNC gets the same treatment (and it's not because of a vast carolina journalism school conspiracy). This is true despite our recent hot streak and despite having a Tyler Hansbrough as the face of the program for the past four years. Hansbrough has been mocked and criticized relentlessly (much like JJ), yet none of that criticism or mockery seems to have transferred to UNC as an institution or as a brand.


I half-suspect you don't actually want an answer and are merely trying to have a little fun yourself at Duke's expense. I also think this probably belongs in a different thread.

However, taking your question at face value, the previous two posters have hit it pretty well on the head. Also, you can't underestimate the perception disparity between a state school like UNC and a private institution that many perceive as privileged and uppity. If Princeton or Harvard (or even Stanford or Northwestern) had the same kind of athletic success and exposure you'd be hearing all the same stuff about them.

[blueprofessor]

I half-suspect you don't actually want an answer and are merely trying to have a little fun yourself at Duke's expense. I also think this probably belongs in a different thread.

However, taking your question at face value, the previous two posters have hit it pretty well on the head. Also, you can't underestimate the perception disparity between a state school like UNC and a private institution that many perceive as privileged and uppity. If Princeton or Harvard (or even Stanford or Northwestern) had the same kind of athletic success and exposure you'd be hearing all the same stuff about them.

...has won 15 straight Directors' Cup designations as the top sports program in the NCAA's top division. It is the platinum standard.:)

Best--Blueprofessor

[BlueintheFace]

...has won 15 straight Directors' Cup designations as the top sports program in the NCAA's top division. It is the platinum standard.:)

Best--Blueprofessor

Collegiate Swimming, Tennis, Golf, and Water Polo aren't really on TV very much.

[blueprofessor]

Collegiate Swimming, Tennis, Golf, and Water Polo aren't really on TV very much.

Very selective memory. Over the last 20 years, Stanford has equaled or exceeded Duke's success in virtually every sport (including sports like baseball and football, in which we have performed poorly), except men's basketball, and Stanford was very good in that sport over many of those 20 years. If we salute Duke's successes in sports , objectively we must acknowledge Stanford's superiority.
Best--Blue Prof:)

[BlueintheFace]

Very selective memory. Over the last 20 years, Stanford has equaled or exceeded Duke's success in virtually every sport (including sports like baseball and football, in which we have performed poorly), except men's basketball, and Stanford was very good in that sport over many of those 20 years. If we salute Duke's successes in sports , objectively we must acknowledge Stanford's superiority.
Best--Blue Prof:)

Oh I acknowledge it. Stanford is clearly top dog in collegiate sports. However, this conversation has really focused on the sports that are visible to the public at large (since we are talking about public perception). If Stanford were a perennial powerhouse in football or basketball, I do believe they would experience much of the resentment Duke experiences (perhaps not as much since Duke is on the East Coast).

[Duvall]

Very selective memory. Over the last 20 years, Stanford has equaled or exceeded Duke's success in virtually every sport (including sports like baseball and football, in which we have performed poorly), except men's basketball, and Stanford was very good in that sport over many of those 20 years. If we salute Duke's successes in sports , objectively we must acknowledge Stanford's superiority.
Best--Blue Prof:)

Baseball isn't on TV much either, and Stanford's success in football, though real, is largely historical at this point. They've been much better than Duke, but also far from being a dominant power.

[blueprofessor]

Oh I acknowledge it. Stanford is clearly top dog in collegiate sports. However, this conversation has really focused on the sports that are visible to the public at large (since we are talking about public perception). If Stanford were a perennial powerhouse in football or basketball, I do believe they would experience much of the resentment Duke experiences (perhaps not as much since Duke is on the East Coast).

Stanford is disliked quite a bit by California rival schools' fans and Pac 10 member schools' fans because of its wealth ,private school status, and academic and sports dominance. I have not seen that Stanford envy-hate in other quarters.Harvard is disliked/envied by fans/students of other schools in the Boston area. I believe a lot of this enmity toward the very best academic schools who also play sports is a result of the target schools' academic prestige.
Best--Blue Prof :)

[heyman25]

I just met an IOWA woman that hates UNC as much as I do.She has no affiliation with Duke but loves Coach K and Duke basketball.I told her about Harrison Barnes who is about 2 or 3 hours away in Ames.

[Kedsy]

I just met an IOWA woman that hates UNC as much as I do.She has no affiliation with Duke but loves Coach K and Duke basketball.I told her about Harrison Barnes who is about 2 or 3 hours away in Ames.

Have you considered a marriage proposal?

[heyman25]

She is hot too.Anyone who has Physical Therapy professional connections in North Carolina I will pass it on to her. She wants to be a certified Physical Therapist. About 22 or 23 in age. She loves JJ Redick as well. Her meeting was the highlight of my work on a film called Lucky.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

I don't mean to divert this, but it seems like recruiting woes have been discussed ad nauseum, and I was kind of interested in returning to the Duke image question. I know I'm a guest here, so if this is not a welcome topic then it's fine if a mod deletes this.

There seems to be something about Duke that leads people to make cracks about it (I pasted two typical examples below). I could be wrong, but I don't think UNC gets the same treatment (and it's not because of a vast carolina journalism school conspiracy). This is true despite our recent hot streak and despite having a Tyler Hansbrough as the face of the program for the past four years. Hansbrough has been mocked and criticized relentlessly (much like JJ), yet none of that criticism or mockery seems to have transferred to UNC as an institution or as a brand.

Anyway, I'm curious about a few things:
a) is it even true that Duke is mocked more than UNC or other comparable programs?

If so:
b) why?
c) does it hurt the program?
d) how would you improve the image without compromising the standards of the program?

Simmons:
"One last thing: Don't go to Princeton. I'm still waiting to meet my first Princeton grad that I might like. I am like 0-for-79. Princeton grads carry themselves like bad guys in a sports movie. Remember the scene in "Pretty In Pink" when James Spader ordered his two henchmen to beat up Andrew McCarthy because he didn't approve of McCarthy's poor girlfriend? There's no question that Spader's character went on to Princeton, just like there's no doubt Johnny Lawrence went to Duke. Neither hypothetical situation is up for debate."

from the GQ Douchiest Colleges:

#2: Duke
Home of: The O.D. (Original Douche)
Affectations: Pressed oxford; Goldman Sachs summer-internship tote; always ending the party by taking your shirt off and wrestling a guy named Schmitty.
A peek inside: They're probably number one. But we'd rather not rank Duke number one at anything.
In ten years, will be: Still trying to re-create the golden age of banking while wearing driving mocs and no socks.

You know - you have a great ability to highjack a thread and shift it to what you are able to portray as Duke's problems. (kind of a high class troll). I would guess that you are a good lawyer who is able to keep things focused on the opponent's deficiencies, but I really think we here would be better off not taking the bait.

[77devil]

I don't mean to divert this, but it seems like recruiting woes have been discussed ad nauseum, and I was kind of interested in returning to the Duke image question. I know I'm a guest here, so if this is not a welcome topic then it's fine if a mod deletes this.

There seems to be something about Duke that leads people to make cracks about it (I pasted two typical examples below). I could be wrong, but I don't think UNC gets the same treatment (and it's not because of a vast carolina journalism school conspiracy). This is true despite our recent hot streak and despite having a Tyler Hansbrough as the face of the program for the past four years. Hansbrough has been mocked and criticized relentlessly (much like JJ), yet none of that criticism or mockery seems to have transferred to UNC as an institution or as a brand.

Anyway, I'm curious about a few things:
a) is it even true that Duke is mocked more than UNC or other comparable programs?

If so:
b) why?
c) does it hurt the program?
d) how would you improve the image without compromising the standards of the program?

Simmons:
"One last thing: Don't go to Princeton. I'm still waiting to meet my first Princeton grad that I might like. I am like 0-for-79. Princeton grads carry themselves like bad guys in a sports movie. Remember the scene in "Pretty In Pink" when James Spader ordered his two henchmen to beat up Andrew McCarthy because he didn't approve of McCarthy's poor girlfriend? There's no question that Spader's character went on to Princeton, just like there's no doubt Johnny Lawrence went to Duke. Neither hypothetical situation is up for debate."

from the GQ Douchiest Colleges:

#2: Duke
Home of: The O.D. (Original Douche)
Affectations: Pressed oxford; Goldman Sachs summer-internship tote; always ending the party by taking your shirt off and wrestling a guy named Schmitty.
A peek inside: They're probably number one. But we'd rather not rank Duke number one at anything.
In ten years, will be: Still trying to re-create the golden age of banking while wearing driving mocs and no socks.

It's called envy. Outside the state of NC nobody could care less about UNC which I'm sure annoys you immensely.

[Bob Green]

It's called envy. Outside the state of NC nobody could care less about UNC which I'm sure annoys you immensely.

Unfortunately this is not true. I left North Carolina 32 years ago and have lived in Japan, Hawaii, San Diego, Washington State and several other places and I can assure you that UNC Fandom is Pandemic.

[77devil]

Unfortunately this is not true. I left North Carolina 32 years ago and have lived in Japan, Hawaii, San Diego, Washington State and several other places and I can assure you that UNC Fandom is Pandemic.

I guess it depends where you have lived. I've lived in Italy, U.K. Brasil, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and North Carolina and found nothing of the sort.

[sagegrouse]

Unfortunately this is not true. I left North Carolina 32 years ago and have lived in Japan, Hawaii, San Diego, Washington State and several other places and I can assure you that UNC Fandom is Pandemic.

Where I live UNC stands for University of Northern Colorado, which, as it turns out, was the setting for a key development in the birth of Al Qaeda. (see The Looming Tower).

In one club here in Steamboat Springs, there are four Dukies and one lonely Tarheel (a very nice lady, BTW).

I would also offer the opinion that Tarheels travel well -- UNC alumni who live outside the state often seem to be totally reasonable people in comparison to many Heel fans within NC (who may have never set foot on the campus).

sagegrouse

[chrisheery]

Actually, I don't think the facts get in the way at all. The generalizations inherent in brands, images, stereotypes, reputations, etc., are cognitively efficient and thus far more powerful than any given fact. I don't think it's all jealousy and hatred either.

is the opposite of truth. Generalizations are created to group things by people who can't look under the surface. We use them every day, but if you explore the thoughts that run through your head about people without knowing them, you will find you are wrong very very often.

Just because a great mass of people believe something doesn't make it right. They want to believe something, they are told to believe something, and instead of exploring the facts behind their beliefs, they just take the easiest explanation available. To say it has nothing to do with jealousy or hatred is remarkably biased on your part.

[chrisheery]

Groat, Dawkins, and Ferry all won at least one major national POY award.

We did the point guard dance just a few weeks ago, IIRC.

But let me repeat.

Given my druthers, I'd rather have an elite PG than not. But Duke has made FFs with Fred Schmidt, Denny Ferguson, Steve Vacendak, John Harrell, Tommy Amaker, Quin Snyder (twice), freshman-junior Bobby Hurley, freshman Jeff Capel, and William Avery as starting PGs.

None were first team All-ACC in those years. Only Vacendak, Hurley ('92), and Avery were second team. None except Hurley '92 even sniffed an All-America team. Hurley only made first-team All-ACC in 1993, when Duke lost in the second round of the NCAAs.

In fact, only Jason Williams in 2001 and Chris Duhon in 2004 were 1st-team All-ACC in the years they QB'd Duke to the FF.

So, the idea that you absolutely have to have an elite PG to advance deep into the NCAA Tournament simply isn't supported by the facts.

It does to have an All-American or two somewhere else in the lineup.

Someone like a Kyle Singler.

I don't care about All-ACC or not, William Avery was just nasty. He was an elite PG. With him at the helm last year, that is a much better Duke team. However, the team GPA likely takes a huge dip.

[Kedsy]

I don't care about All-ACC or not, William Avery was just nasty. He was an elite PG. With him at the helm last year, that is a much better Duke team. However, the team GPA likely takes a huge dip.

Certainly Will Avery would have been a vast improvement at PG for last year's team, but to me at least he was too inconsistent to be considered "elite."

[eightyearoldsdude]

is the opposite of truth. Generalizations are created to group things by people who can't look under the surface. We use them every day, but if you explore the thoughts that run through your head about people without knowing them, you will find you are wrong very very often.

Just because a great mass of people believe something doesn't make it right. They want to believe something, they are told to believe something, and instead of exploring the facts behind their beliefs, they just take the easiest explanation available. To say it has nothing to do with jealousy or hatred is remarkably biased on your part.

I never said generalizations are always correct, or morally "right." I just said they are powerful. I also never said it had nothing to do with jealousy or hatred.

Your misreading of my post is remarkable, but this:


Generalizations are created to group things by people who can't look under the surface.

This is indeed sweet.

[Jim3k]

"I don't think JJ or Hansbrough would have touched Dawkins point total if he'd had the 3 point line for 4 years instead of just one."

If you want to play what-might-have-been, project Jason Williams over four years.

Or Artie, or Verga

[jimsumner]

"Or Artie, or Verga "

But neither had the option to play another season. Jason Williams did.

Williams scored 841 points in 2001, 746 in 2002. Let's say 800 points in 2003.

That's 2,879. A Duke run to the FF and a slight increase in his PPG and we're looking at 3,000 career points.

[Jim3k]

"Or Artie, or Verga "

But neither had the option to play another season. Jason Williams did.

Williams scored 841 points in 2001, 746 in 2002. Let's say 800 points in 2003.

That's 2,879. A Duke run to the FF and a slight increase in his PPG and we're looking at 3,000 career points.

I thought we were talking about who Duke would put on Mt. Rushmore -- and observing that some of our greats never had the opportunity to play four varsity years. I was only pointing out how amazing these earlier guys were. It's unfair to compare their three year careers with four year careers if you rely on numbers alone. Extrapolate for Jason W if you want to, but fairness requires you extrapolate for the 60's guys, too, for Rushmore purposes.

[jimsumner]

My specific mention of JWill was in the context of a sub-discussion of how many career points Dawkins would have scored had he played four seasons under today's rules and comparing that to the career scoring totals of J.J. Redick and Tyler Hansbrough. One could make the same case for Dennis Scott or Kenny Anderson, both of whom would have shattered Hemric's mark had they played four seasons.

Heyman and Verga were not eligible to play four seasons. Jason Williams was but elected not to. Two different groups.

As for Mt. Rushmore, you're going to have a tough time limiting it to four. But if you want to bring Heyman and Verga into the discussion, why not bring in Dick Groat and Jeff Mullins?

The only sure things would be Bubas and Krzyzewski. IMO.

[slower]

that Laettner should be a sure thing. IMO.

[BD80]

that Laettner should be a sure thing. IMO.

At least his foot

[Jim3k]

My specific mention of JWill was in the context of a sub-discussion of how many career points Dawkins would have scored had he played four seasons under today's rules and comparing that to the career scoring totals of J.J. Redick and Tyler Hansbrough. One could make the same case for Dennis Scott or Kenny Anderson, both of whom would have shattered Hemric's mark had they played four seasons.

Heyman and Verga were not eligible to play four seasons. Jason Williams was but elected not to. Two different groups.

As for Mt. Rushmore, you're going to have a tough time limiting it to four. But if you want to bring Heyman and Verga into the discussion, why not bring in Dick Groat and Jeff Mullins?

The only sure things would be Bubas and Krzyzewski. IMO.

Agreed on adding Mullins and Groat. Mt Rushmore will just have to have smaller faces to accommodate the greats. :) They'd fit well around Bubas and Krzyzewski.