2025 Men's Basketball Recruiting

[DavidBenAkiva]

247 joined the fun and ranked the Class of 2025 and Cameron Boozer was named the top player in the class.

https://247sports.com/Season/2025-Ba...cruitRankings/

Here's a look at the top 10:

1. Cameron Boozer, 6'9" F
2. Cooper Flagg, 6'8" F
3. Koa Peat, 6'6" F
4. Bryson Tiller, 6'8" F
5. Isiah Harwell, 6'5" F
6. Darryn Peterson, 6'5" G
7. Meleek Thomas, 6'3" G
8. Mikel Brown, Jr., 5'11" G
9. Caleb Wilson, 6'8" F
10. Jalen Haralson, 6'7" G

Other player of note:

24. Cayden Boozer, 6'3" G

[FastBreak]

247 joined the fun and ranked the Class of 2025 and Cameron Boozer was named the top player in the class.

https://247sports.com/Season/2025-Ba...cruitRankings/

Here's a look at the top 10:

1. Cameron Boozer, 6'9" F
2. Cooper Flagg, 6'8" F
3. Koa Peat, 6'6" F
4. Bryson Tiller, 6'8" F
5. Isiah Harwell, 6'5" F
6. Darryn Peterson, 6'5" G
7. Meleek Thomas, 6'3" G
8. Mikel Brown, Jr., 5'11" G
9. Caleb Wilson, 6'8" F
10. Jalen Haralson, 6'7" G

Other player of note:

24. Cayden Boozer, 6'3" G

Sadly Cameron and Cooper will most likely be off to the NBA. Any ideas on how many on this top 10 will declare for the draft?

[JasonEvans]

Sadly Cameron and Cooper will most likely be off to the NBA. Any ideas on how many on this top 10 will declare for the draft?

How about we wait to see what the NBA and the NBAPA decide before engaging in this speculation. It ain't at all a done deal that they will get rid of the OAD rule nor is it a sure thing when they will do it. As has been mentioned, getting rid of that restriction creates a "super class" in the draft where teams are likely to be taking lottery-level talent in the 20s. The league apparently wants to be careful about suddenly overvaluing some already traded draft picks. I know some people who think that even if they change the draft rule, it won't go into effect until 2029 or later.

Plus, we are all still figuring out how NIL can be maximized by the truly elite players. It is faaaaar too early to have any sense of what class of 2025 kids are going to do.

[flyingdutchdevil]

How about we wait to see what the NBA and the NBAPA decide before engaging in this speculation. It ain't at all a done deal that they will get rid of the OAD rule nor is it a sure thing when they will do it. As has been mentioned, getting rid of that restriction creates a "super class" in the draft where teams are likely to be taking lottery-level talent in the 20s. The league apparently wants to be careful about suddenly overvaluing some already traded draft picks. I know some people who think that even if they change the draft rule, it won't go into effect until 2029 or later.

Plus, we are all still figuring out how NIL can be maximized by the truly elite players. It is faaaaar too early to have any sense of what class of 2025 kids are going to do.

While I agree with what you said, FastBreak does have a point: changing the age limit should factor into our understanding of what players we can and cannot get. Duke will always be in the hunt for the top players who attend college. But they aren't going to be in the hunt for players who want to get the NBA as quickly as possible and have a solid means to get there.

Also, NIL isn't going to factor into top 5 players' decisions (like Boozer and Flagg). It's just not. Thinking so is being blinded by the "opportunity of college ball" rather than the numbers.

This speculation is legit; Adam Silver is onboard and he isn't the kind of guy to speak his mind without knowing there is a high chance this gets passed. The question is timing, and I'd assume sooner (closer to 2024) rather than later (closer to 2029).

[DavidBenAkiva]

While I agree with what you said, FastBreak does have a point: changing the age limit should factor into our understanding of what players we can and cannot get. Duke will always be in the hunt for the top players who attend college. But they aren't going to be in the hunt for players who want to get the NBA as quickly as possible and have a solid means to get there.

Also, NIL isn't going to factor into top 5 players' decisions (like Boozer and Flagg). It's just not. Thinking so is being blinded by the "opportunity of college ball" rather than the numbers.

This speculation is legit; Adam Silver is onboard and he isn't the kind of guy to speak his mind without knowing there is a high chance this gets passed. The question is timing, and I'd assume sooner (closer to 2024) rather than later (closer to 2029).

Silver is the voice of the owners. If enough owners think that creating a "super draft" in 2024 or 2025 is going to change the perceived value of draft picks - and I am inclined to believe they will think this - then you can bet that Silver and the NBA will take the view of the owners. Besides, Silver has been on both sides of the OAD rule over the years. I wouldn't take his statements as gospel. It comes down to the negotiations. How important is this relative to everything else on the table in the CBA? That is the question and I think I know the answer. It's likely OAD gets thrown out as part of the negotiations. It's just not that important to the people at the table.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Silver is the voice of the owners. If enough owners think that creating a "super draft" in 2024 or 2025 is going to change the perceived value of draft picks - and I am inclined to believe they will think this - then you can bet that Silver and the NBA will take the view of the owners. Besides, Silver has been on both sides of the OAD rule over the years. I wouldn't take his statements as gospel. It comes down to the negotiations. How important is this relative to everything else on the table in the CBA? That is the question and I think I know the answer. It's likely OAD gets thrown out as part of the negotiations. It's just not that important to the people at the table.

Why would the union be against the age limit? Historically, the owners loved the age limit because they often deemed the draft too risky with all of these unproven HS students declaring for the draft.

There is a lot of alignment on this. It's not like mental illness which will be a hot topic at the next CBA.

To me, it's not a matter of 'if' but a matter or 'which year'.

[JasonEvans]

Silver is the voice of the owners. If enough owners think that creating a "super draft" in 2024 or 2025 is going to change the perceived value of draft picks - and I am inclined to believe they will think this - then you can bet that Silver and the NBA will take the view of the owners. Besides, Silver has been on both sides of the OAD rule over the years. I wouldn't take his statements as gospel. It comes down to the negotiations. How important is this relative to everything else on the table in the CBA? That is the question and I think I know the answer. It's likely OAD gets thrown out as part of the negotiations. It's just not that important to the people at the table.

Teams that have traded (or could get caught in a trade swap) first round draft picks in 2024*: Brooklyn, Char, Chi, Dal, Den, Detroit, GS, Hou, LAC, LAL, Mil, Por, Sacto, Utah, Wash
Teams that have traded (or could get caught in a trade swap) first round draft picks in 2025*: Atlanta, Char, Chi, Cle, Dal, Den, GS, LAL, Mia, Milw, Min, NYK, Philly, Port, Sacto, Utah, Wash

*- Some of these are "protected" picks so the pick would not convey if it is in the top 5, top 10, top 15 and so on... but these teams would be very hesitant about any deal that left them short-handed in draft capital in that year

So, that is 15 teams who would be quite opposed to make a super draft in 2024 and 17 who would feel the same about 2025. And I'm not even looking at early 2nd round picks which are suddenly far more valuable than usual. The super draft simply ain't happening in any of these years unless the league does some kind of strange rule that allows teams to claw back a traded pick for a pick in some other year (which would be super hard to manage due to the tremendous number of picks involved).

But, the further we get out, the easier it becomes to make this fair. In 2028, for example, there are only 5 teams who have traded first round picks (all of which are protected in some way, meaning they may not convey). In 2029, there are only 3 traded first rounders.

If the owners and players both want this, which is a big if, I could see them dropping the age restriction/OAD rule in the 2028 or 2029 draft and allowing teams who have already made a trade the option RIGHT NOW to convey that traded pick to another draft (likely shift it to either 2029 or 2030). But the notion the 15 teams who dealt first round picks in 2024 are going to be ok with that draft suddenly becoming perhaps the richest draft in history is just bonkers. No way it will happen.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Teams that have traded (or could get caught in a trade swap) first round draft picks in 2024*: Brooklyn, Char, Chi, Dal, Den, Detroit, GS, Hou, LAC, LAL, Mil, Por, Sacto, Utah, Wash
Teams that have traded (or could get caught in a trade swap) first round draft picks in 2025*: Atlanta, Char, Chi, Cle, Dal, Den, GS, LAL, Mia, Milw, Min, NYK, Philly, Port, Sacto, Utah, Wash

*- Some of these are "protected" picks so the pick would not convey if it is in the top 5, top 10, top 15 and so on... but these teams would be very hesitant about any deal that left them short-handed in draft capital in that year

So, that is 15 teams who would be quite opposed to make a super draft in 2024 and 17 who would feel the same about 2025. And I'm not even looking at early 2nd round picks which are suddenly far more valuable than usual. The super draft simply ain't happening in any of these years unless the league does some kind of strange rule that allows teams to claw back a traded pick for a pick in some other year (which would be super hard to manage due to the tremendous number of picks involved).

But, the further we get out, the easier it becomes to make this fair. In 2028, for example, there are only 5 teams who have traded first round picks (all of which are protected in some way, meaning they may not convey). In 2029, there are only 3 traded first rounders.

If the owners and players both want this, which is a big if, I could see them dropping the age restriction/OAD rule in the 2028 or 2029 draft and allowing teams who have already made a trade the option RIGHT NOW to convey that traded pick to the next draft (either 2029 or 2030). But the notion the 15 teams who dealt first round picks in 2024 are going to be ok with that draft suddenly becoming perhaps the richest draft in history is just bonkers. No way it will happen.

Is it really a big if?

https://www.si.com/nba/2022/09/19/nb...ams%20Charania.

The NBA and players association are expected to agree on moving the age eligibility for the draft from 19 years old to 18, clearing the way for the return of high school players who want to make the jump to the professional ranks, per The Athletic’s Shams Charania.

There is agreement on the table. I don't think it's a big if at all. To the rest of your post (which I agree with), it's a big when.

[Nugget]

How important is this relative to everything else on the table in the CBA? That is the question and I think I know the answer. It's likely OAD gets thrown out as part of the negotiations. It's just not that important to the people at the table.

Absolutely right, DBA. The key point on this is that ending OAD is not an important "get" for either the owners or the Players' Association. It might well happen simply because it's the "right thing to do," but neither side will give up anything important to them to get it.

[DavidBenAkiva]

The simple rule is "follow the money."

OAD was created because owners thought it was better for them to have a slightly older group of players entering the draft. A number of teams had been burned drafting high schoolers that had flaws exposed as soon as they hit the league, either in terms of skills, maturity, or both. More data, in theory, leads to better decisions. Of course, that doesn't explain Markelle Fultz, Anthony Bennett, or other draft mistakes since OAD. There will never be a perfect system. It seems to me that owners have a vested interest in getting more data before committing a huge sum of money to teenagers.

On the other side of the table, how does the NBPA benefit from lowering the draft age? There is a moral argument to make (and I agree with it). How does allowing the next HS stud to go right to the NBA financially benefit anyone that will be at the bargaining table other than agents? I don't see the money in this for that side.

I think the right thing to do is to get rid of OAD. In an ideal world, the NCAA, NBA, and NBPA would all get together over the summer and work out a system that works well enough for all involved. We don't live in that world right now. The pragmatic side of me sees no change as the most likely outcome. The next most likely outcome is what Jason wrote above (sporks to all of that). If OAD goes away, it will be in 2026 or beyond.

As it relates to Duke recruiting, I really, REALLY love to see some players that have a chance (emphasis on chance) of playing 2-4 years in each of the classes Coach Scheyer has assembled so far. Jaden Schutt, Christian Reeves, perhaps one or more of the Class of 2023 with the exception of Mackenzie Mgbako, and Jaylen Blakes are all guys that can and hopefully will stick around. If and when the draft rules change, I don't think Duke will be caught with their pants down. Quite the opposite, in fact. Duke will be poised to succeed right away and every year leading up to that time. It's a tightrope to walk, getting players that have legit NBA aspirations but that could benefit from playing 2-3 years of college ball. We'll see how well the coaching staff can pull that off.

[JasonEvans]

Apparently, 5-star class of 2025 center Alier Maluk is on a visit to Duke right now: https://twitter.com/TheCircuitAlex/s...71117419433984

Ranked 21st by 247 and 12th by Rivals. He is from Pittsburgh and Jeff Capel really wants him (not sure how likely it is that Jeff is still at Pitt in 2025). He has taken visits to Pitt and West Virginia in recent weeks.

[dukelifer]

The simple rule is "follow the money."

OAD was created because owners thought it was better for them to have a slightly older group of players entering the draft. A number of teams had been burned drafting high schoolers that had flaws exposed as soon as they hit the league, either in terms of skills, maturity, or both. More data, in theory, leads to better decisions. Of course, that doesn't explain Markelle Fultz, Anthony Bennett, or other draft mistakes since OAD. There will never be a perfect system. It seems to me that owners have a vested interest in getting more data before committing a huge sum of money to teenagers.

On the other side of the table, how does the NBPA benefit from lowering the draft age? There is a moral argument to make (and I agree with it). How does allowing the next HS stud to go right to the NBA financially benefit anyone that will be at the bargaining table other than agents? I don't see the money in this for that side.

I think the right thing to do is to get rid of OAD. In an ideal world, the NCAA, NBA, and NBPA would all get together over the summer and work out a system that works well enough for all involved. We don't live in that world right now. The pragmatic side of me sees no change as the most likely outcome. The next most likely outcome is what Jason wrote above (sporks to all of that). If OAD goes away, it will be in 2026 or beyond.

As it relates to Duke recruiting, I really, REALLY love to see some players that have a chance (emphasis on chance) of playing 2-4 years in each of the classes Coach Scheyer has assembled so far. Jaden Schutt, Christian Reeves, perhaps one or more of the Class of 2023 with the exception of Mackenzie Mgbako, and Jaylen Blakes are all guys that can and hopefully will stick around. If and when the draft rules change, I don't think Duke will be caught with their pants down. Quite the opposite, in fact. Duke will be poised to succeed right away and every year leading up to that time. It's a tightrope to walk, getting players that have legit NBA aspirations but that could benefit from playing 2-3 years of college ball. We'll see how well the coaching staff can pull that off.

Recruit big men that can’t shoot beyond 8 feet, guards that can shoot from deep but are not Uber athletic and small point guards. Sprinkle some high end forwards and you could make it work.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The simple rule is "follow the money."

OAD was created because owners thought it was better for them to have a slightly older group of players entering the draft. A number of teams had been burned drafting high schoolers that had flaws exposed as soon as they hit the league, either in terms of skills, maturity, or both. More data, in theory, leads to better decisions. Of course, that doesn't explain Markelle Fultz, Anthony Bennett, or other draft mistakes since OAD. There will never be a perfect system. It seems to me that owners have a vested interest in getting more data before committing a huge sum of money to teenagers.

On the other side of the table, how does the NBPA benefit from lowering the draft age? There is a moral argument to make (and I agree with it). How does allowing the next HS stud to go right to the NBA financially benefit anyone that will be at the bargaining table other than agents? I don't see the money in this for that side.

I think the right thing to do is to get rid of OAD. In an ideal world, the NCAA, NBA, and NBPA would all get together over the summer and work out a system that works well enough for all involved. We don't live in that world right now. The pragmatic side of me sees no change as the most likely outcome. The next most likely outcome is what Jason wrote above (sporks to all of that). If OAD goes away, it will be in 2026 or beyond.

As it relates to Duke recruiting, I really, REALLY love to see some players that have a chance (emphasis on chance) of playing 2-4 years in each of the classes Coach Scheyer has assembled so far. Jaden Schutt, Christian Reeves, perhaps one or more of the Class of 2023 with the exception of Mackenzie Mgbako, and Jaylen Blakes are all guys that can and hopefully will stick around. If and when the draft rules change, I don't think Duke will be caught with their pants down. Quite the opposite, in fact. Duke will be poised to succeed right away and every year leading up to that time. It's a tightrope to walk, getting players that have legit NBA aspirations but that could benefit from playing 2-3 years of college ball. We'll see how well the coaching staff can pull that off.

There will always be "draft busts," but I am under the impression that the scouting of talent now starts MUCH earlier than it used to, there's MUCH more film of players for scouts to breakdown, and that there's a MUCH more level evaluating field - you don't get surprise superstars as often anymore, because everyone is on the travel team circuit and playing top tier talent from age 11 or something.

Of course, one year of college is a nice proving ground, but nothing will ever be foolproof. Some organizations will always stretch for some perceived diamond in the rough and pick someone too high.

I think OAD has run it's course. The entire universe of basketball scouting is so much deeper in the age of the internet. I don't think you can make nearly as strong an argument for the "one year" restriction as you could 25 years ago.

[dukelifer]

There will always be "draft busts," but I am under the impression that the scouting of talent now starts MUCH earlier than it used to, there's MUCH more film of players for scouts to breakdown, and that there's a MUCH more level evaluating field - you don't get surprise superstars as often anymore, because everyone is on the travel team circuit and playing top tier talent from age 11 or something.

Of course, one year of college is a nice proving ground, but nothing will ever be foolproof. Some organizations will always stretch for some perceived diamond in the rough and pick someone too high.

I think OAD has run it's course. The entire universe of basketball scouting is so much deeper in the age of the internet. I don't think you can make nearly as strong an argument for the "one year" restriction as you could 25 years ago.

They are also developing players differently and giving them more guidance on nutrition and general training. All said- some high end players will fail and some undrafted players will have multi-year careers ala Seth Curry.

[DavidBenAkiva]

There will always be "draft busts," but I am under the impression that the scouting of talent now starts MUCH earlier than it used to, there's MUCH more film of players for scouts to breakdown, and that there's a MUCH more level evaluating field - you don't get surprise superstars as often anymore, because everyone is on the travel team circuit and playing top tier talent from age 11 or something.

Of course, one year of college is a nice proving ground, but nothing will ever be foolproof. Some organizations will always stretch for some perceived diamond in the rough and pick someone too high.

I think OAD has run it's course. The entire universe of basketball scouting is so much deeper in the age of the internet. I don't think you can make nearly as strong an argument for the "one year" restriction as you could 25 years ago.

Hmmm not sure I completely agree with the bolded here. The two-time reigning MVP was a second-round draft pick. The guy before him was the 15th pick in the draft. Pascal Siakim, a 3rd team All-NBA player last season, was the 27th pick. I could go on.

The NBA is a bit of a crapshoot as it relates to talent development. I think that you could probably find evidence that it is less of a crapshoot than in the past. Maybe that's scouting. I'm not so sure.

[HayYou]

There will always be "draft busts," but I am under the impression that the scouting of talent now starts MUCH earlier than it used to, there's MUCH more film of players for scouts to breakdown, and that there's a MUCH more level evaluating field - you don't get surprise superstars as often anymore, because everyone is on the travel team circuit and playing top tier talent from age 11 or something.

Of course, one year of college is a nice proving ground, but nothing will ever be foolproof. Some organizations will always stretch for some perceived diamond in the rough and pick someone too high.

I think OAD has run it's course. The entire universe of basketball scouting is so much deeper in the age of the internet. I don't think you can make nearly as strong an argument for the "one year" restriction as you could 25 years ago.

They've been ranking 8th graders since the mid 90s. I'm sure they start scouting earlier at the NBA level than they used to, but they were looking at camps and tourneys featuring guys in the 10 grade. And when they were scouting player X as a senior, they took note of any highly ranked younger players for future consideration.

The time they start scouting means very little.

The settings in which they scout mean a great deal. I cannot stress enough what bad environments Summer and AAU events are for scouting. Yes, there are other talented players on the court. But a team might have 2-3 top 150 rising Srs, a few top 150 rising Jrs, a few top 150 (if such rankings extended that far, and they don't) rising sophs, and a 1-2 really good rising frosh.

Maybe not that many rising frosh, but there are 4-5 at every major event.

A top 10 rising soph is going to get DESTROYED by some rising Sr who isn't ranked in the top 100. So a top 50 rising Sr isn't really challenged by younger players, even if those younger players are really good. Obviously, a top 20 rising Jr might be able to take out some Sr in ranked in the 75 or lower range.

The talent disparity at AAu events is absurd. Take the Boozer twins vs the Flagg Twins. Cooper Flagg might have been the only kid on his squad in the top 10 players if you ranked the two teams rosters. His bro might have been in the 7-12 ranges on the combined rosters and he was the second best player on that team. So what does that really tell a scout about Flagg? Or Boozer relative to him? One roster was loaded and the other, while talented, wasn't nearly as good?

Some of these AAU events are like Duke vs Elon. One team is so much better than the other one that you can't take a lot from it.

And that is JUST the roster inequality.

If you've ever watched and complained about the Jordan Brand classic, and how bad the hoops is, that is a masterclass of team work and defensive execution compared to AAu events. There is almost no help D in AAu events, outside of a few bigs whose calling card is shot blocking, but even that is based more on being tall and athletic than really understanding defensive nuance.

As a caveat, here I'll say that there are a few good games every year in AAu ball. When the top 3-5 most talented teams, which mostly play top Srs and Jrs, play each other, the quality of the game "improves." They play harder, smarter, and more unselfish. There is some effort to play team defense. But we, as Duke fans, would be mostly disgusted with Duke if they put forth that same effort and effectiveness in a real game. I say that some are better just in relation to most of the AAu games. The play is still pretty selfish, and the defense is terrible. They are just way less terrible than most of the games.

AAu events, for the most part, have devolved into track meets. The team with the best athletes wins. No one can really shoot, but every guard is trying to prove he can, so there are a lot of missed shots in half court play. Thus, getting rebounds (long ones that don't require knowing how to box out or get position) which is mostly luck and athleticism in AAU games, is key. This leads to one of the 3-4 wing or guards on the court pushing the ball and trying to score in transition, or before the other team gets set in their nominal but still bad defensive set.

Outside a few elite snipers in AAu games (this being incredibly relative) there are a bunch of guards who think shooting 30% from 3 is good. And that isn't bad if the defense were good. These guys shoot low 30s vs AIR. The hit about barely 35% (the best shooters) when completely open, and low 20s if there is a hand up near them when they shoot. You know how Duke will hear about player X being a shooter in HS and then us not seeing it when they get to college? This is why. They are actually guarded in college games by defenders who know they won't play if they don't defend. So, in AAu events there are lots of missed jumpers and run outs and transition. Which favors whichever team has the best combo of size and more athleticism.

HS games aren't much better. There are a handful of games featuring loaded squads (IMG and a few other teams) but even they have a few underclassmen which aren't much impediment to top 100 srs. And "normal" hs games might feature 1-2 college level athletes, and 6+ "normal" guys who just aren't good enough to impede a star.

IDGAF how good NBA scouts are. They won't learn much from this type of evaluation. The talent level is too uneven, or the play is so unstructured, that you just cannot learn much. Whichever kid is the biggest and/or most athletic will win. But in the NBA everyone is big and athletic. I can't imagine NBA owners want this. Too many opportunities to destroy their franchises for the next 5-10 years.

[jaywilliams22]

Silver is the voice of the owners. If enough owners think that creating a "super draft" in 2024 or 2025 is going to change the perceived value of draft picks - and I am inclined to believe they will think this - then you can bet that Silver and the NBA will take the view of the owners. Besides, Silver has been on both sides of the OAD rule over the years. I wouldn't take his statements as gospel. It comes down to the negotiations. How important is this relative to everything else on the table in the CBA? That is the question and I think I know the answer. It's likely OAD gets thrown out as part of the negotiations. It's just not that important to the people at the table.

Something that hasn't been mentioned: There are going to be a few expansion teams to hit new cities - rumored to be Vegas (with Lebron said to be involved) and Seattle. This is well known in bball circles. Creating a super draft when new expansion teams hit the market makes sense.

[DavidBenAkiva]

The settings in which they scout mean a great deal. I cannot stress enough what bad environments Summer and AAU events are for scouting. Yes, there are other talented players on the court. But a team might have 2-3 top 150 rising Srs, a few top 150 rising Jrs, a few top 150 (if such rankings extended that far, and they don't) rising sophs, and a 1-2 really good rising frosh.

The confidence and the misunderstanding of basic facts is very funny to me. Take the EYBL as an example. They have separate divisions based on player ages. When the Nightrydas and the Boozer twins were taking on Maine United and the Flagg twins, they weren't playing with upperclassmen. That was the 15-and-under division. During the FIBA games, those are also age-separated to some degree. Cooper Flagg and Koa Peat were 15 but were playing on the 17-and-under team with Sean Stewart and others.

[JasonEvans]

The confidence and the misunderstanding of basic facts is very funny to me. Take the EYBL as an example. They have separate divisions based on player ages. When the Nightrydas and the Boozer twins were taking on Maine United and the Flagg twins, they weren't playing with upperclassmen. That was the 15-and-under division. During the FIBA games, those are also age-separated to some degree. Cooper Flagg and Koa Peat were 15 but were playing on the 17-and-under team with Sean Stewart and others.

Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing. The moment he started talking about multiple grades being on the same team, I said, "well... this post may not be the most informed one I read today."

[HayYou]

((removed content related to 2024 recruiting))

Regardless of the rumored NBA shift WRT age of entry, I fully expect the Flagg Bros and Boozer Bros to spend a year in college. It's easy money, and both of them seem to be surrounded by the type of people who understand the value of gradual step ups in competition.

Beyond that, I personally expect, though it is PURELY my opinion based on reading tea leaves, one or both sets of bros (or even just the higher ranked of the respective bros) to reclassify.

Not immediately into college for the 23-24 season. But I think one or both will go up a year into the class of 24. That will let them play out their Senior years of HS, go to the all star games, etc. And then enter college in 24-25 and go pro in the 25 draft.

And despite what any of them say publicly, I think Duke is in great shape with all of them. If that were the case, forwards, be it SF or PF, from the class of 24 will have no interest in Duke. The Flagg and Boozer Fs, currently in the class of 25, are simply better than any player at their position in 24. Possibly a lot better. If Duke were to get both these Fs, they'd play 35+mpg so long as the game remains competitive.