recruits

[Ignatius07]

Jim, you should be a politician.

[gotham devil]

Wow... that St. Benedict's Prep team must have some good interior defenders. We should be looking at recruiting one of those guys.

I don't mean to embarrass you, but you are trying to mock him.
Unfortunately, you've got the wrong team.

The prep team, consisting of postgraduates, played WA. The varsity team at St. Benedict's, which has Duke recruits Tristan Thompson and Gregory Echenique, never played against Riek.

[SilkyJ]

See people, THIS is why Jim is the man.

Here here. Thanks as always, Jim.

The thing to remember is that generally Coach K gets who he wants and second, he gets people who will fit into his scheme. Players who will enhance the team and fit into its character. he may not always go after a top 5 player, but he goes after the top player who will fit.

He also looks at potential 4 year players and not one and out players.

I agree with the last two sentences, but the 1st one hasn't been true as of late. We whiffed on our three latest top big men prospects in Brandan Wright, Patterson, and Monroe...I'm not freaking out or anything, but we have been spoiled from K basically getting whoever he wants and lately it hasn't been quite that easy...

Wow... that St. Benedict's Prep team must have some good interior defenders. We should be looking at recruiting one of those guys.

hehe

Jim, you should be a politician.

Battier/Sumner '16?

[jimsumner]

I'll still be younger than McCain is now.

[dukie8]

The thing to remember is that generally Coach K gets who he wants and second, he gets people who will fit into his scheme. Players who will enhance the team and fit into its character. he may not always go after a top 5 player, but he goes after the top player who will fit.

He also looks at potential 4 year players and not one and out players.

are you kidding me? there have been countless thread over the past month about all of the big whiffs as of late. ever hear of monroe, patterson, love or wright? moreover, what do you think monroe and wright were/will be and mcroberts was projected to be (hint: 1 and done)? you need to stop kidding yourself that k gets anyone he goes after and only goes after guys who will be around for multiple years.

[mepanchin]

Love wasn't a whiff

[Uncle Drew]

"Duke has offered Kenny Boynton, a consensus top-10 combo guard. I don't think I'm betraying any premium info to state that Duke is regarded as the clear favorite for Boynton."

This is part of a post by Jim the day before yesterday and it got me to thinking. Okay, I've always gotten confused with things that are copyrighted, and I'm a bit confused as to what we as posters could get in trouble for on a legal basis. For example if we post a link to an article that's okay if I'm understanding correctly. But if I paste and copy from a site, that's where I / we can get in trouble? I may be a little slow but what's the difference?

And if I subscribed to say Rivals.com and they revealed UNC was recruiting some 8 foot guy from Turkey. If I came on here and said I read on Rivals, or "heard from a reliable source" they were recruiting this guy, Can I or DBR get in trouble for that? I mean you pay to use that site ,do you sign a confidentiality agreement when you join or something? I don't see it any different than joining Brittneyspears.com and then coming on here and saying she's lost her mind.

And I know VERY well IF I came on here telling about the 8' UNC recruit, half the board would be wanting me to cite sources and stop "rumor mongering" or typing unsubstantiated data. For the record I don't subscribe to any on line recruiting sources, but I do get every issue of a particular recruiting rag sheet. So moderators or anyone else. Explain the lines and how not to cross them.

[devildeac]

"Duke has offered Kenny Boynton, a consensus top-10 combo guard. I don't think I'm betraying any premium info to state that Duke is regarded as the clear favorite for Boynton."

This is part of a post by Jim the day before yesterday and it got me to thinking. Okay, I've always gotten confused with things that are copyrighted, and I'm a bit confused as to what we as posters could get in trouble for on a legal basis. For example if we post a link to an article that's okay if I'm understanding correctly. But if I paste and copy from a site, that's where I / we can get in trouble? I may be a little slow but what's the difference?

And if I subscribed to say Rivals.com and they revealed UNC was recruiting some 8 foot guy from Turkey. If I came on here and said I read on Rivals, or "heard from a reliable source" they were recruiting this guy, Can I or DBR get in trouble for that? I mean you pay to use that site ,do you sign a confidentiality agreement when you join or something? I don't see it any different than joining Brittneyspears.com and then coming on here and saying she's lost her mind.

And I know VERY well IF I came on here telling about the 8' UNC recruit, half the board would be wanting me to cite sources and stop "rumor mongering" or typing unsubstantiated data. For the record I don't subscribe to any on line recruiting sources, but I do get every issue of a particular recruiting rag sheet. So moderators or anyone else. Explain the lines and how not to cross them.

unc is recruiting an 8' guy from Turkey? WOW. Why wasn't he on our radar? What grade is he? 7th? 8th? Why can't we recruit these big guys? They'll kill our frontcourt for the next decade or so. Do they have a big man coach? (all tongue in cheek of course)

[Carlos]

I don't mean to embarrass you, but you are trying to mock him.
Unfortunately, you've got the wrong team.

The prep team, consisting of postgraduates, played WA. The varsity team at St. Benedict's, which has Duke recruits Tristan Thompson and Gregory Echenique, never played against Riek.

Actually, I wasn't trying to mock anyone. But thanks for the information.

[bluedevils2008]

any update with brandon knight?

[Ignatius07]

I don't have any premium info, but I also have yet to read anything concrete about Duke's 2010 recruiting (other than that we were at least somewhat interest in UNC-commit Kendall Marshall). Regardless, we probably should go after an elite PG in that class, especially since the last true point guard we recruited was in the class of 2005.

[gotham devil]

I don't have any premium info, but I also have yet to read anything concrete about Duke's 2010 recruiting (other than that we were at least somewhat interest in UNC-commit Kendall Marshall). Regardless, we probably should go after an elite PG in that class, especially since the last true point guard we recruited was in the class of 2005.

It's a safe bet that Duke will be going hard after Brandon Knight for the 2010 class. He has been out with an injury this season, but recently rejoined his Pine Crest team. On the AAU circuit, he plays on Team Breakdown with Kenny Boynton, the aforementioned '09 recruit. As of last year, coincidentally, former Duke point guard Bobby Hurley had at least one child at the private school.

[JBDuke]

"Duke has offered Kenny Boynton, a consensus top-10 combo guard. I don't think I'm betraying any premium info to state that Duke is regarded as the clear favorite for Boynton."

This is part of a post by Jim the day before yesterday and it got me to thinking. Okay, I've always gotten confused with things that are copyrighted, and I'm a bit confused as to what we as posters could get in trouble for on a legal basis. For example if we post a link to an article that's okay if I'm understanding correctly. But if I paste and copy from a site, that's where I / we can get in trouble? I may be a little slow but what's the difference?

There's a long, long history of copyright/fair use debates, and the most recent part of that has a lot of stuff about Internet usage. I'm no expert, so I'm not going to interpret the "why" of it. DBR's guidelines state "You may not cut and paste large or entire sections from a newspaper article or other website. You may mention an article, use a quote or two, critique it, and give a link."

Copying a significant part of an article onto DBR is essentially like copying it out of a book or newspaper. It's piracy, and it's a violation of copyright law. Linking to an article that is posted online is completely different - you direct the reader to the legally published location of an article. It's a little bit like the difference between citing a source in a paper versus copying a source.

And if I subscribed to say Rivals.com and they revealed UNC was recruiting some 8 foot guy from Turkey. If I came on here and said I read on Rivals, or "heard from a reliable source" they were recruiting this guy, Can I or DBR get in trouble for that? I mean you pay to use that site ,do you sign a confidentiality agreement when you join or something? I don't see it any different than joining Brittneyspears.com and then coming on here and saying she's lost her mind.

And I know VERY well IF I came on here telling about the 8' UNC recruit, half the board would be wanting me to cite sources and stop "rumor mongering" or typing unsubstantiated data. For the record I don't subscribe to any on line recruiting sources, but I do get every issue of a particular recruiting rag sheet. So moderators or anyone else. Explain the lines and how not to cross them.

Generally, yes, you sign (electronically) some sort of confidentiality agreement when you subscribe to a premium site. After all, those sites only make money if they can convince people to subscribe, and exclusive access to info is the carrot.

BTW, by offering your opinion of Ms. Spears, you are not violating any sort of copyright law. Similarly, if you went to rivals or wherever and read about Carolina leading for six of the top seven big men in next year’s class, then you could come to DBR and post something like “It looks like Carolina may be in for a whale of a recruiting class next year.” But you could NOT post the specific info as to why you held that opinion. This would be “teasing”, and it’s something that folks have been accused of on this site previously. It can also be considered rude, as you have access to information that others do not, yet you cannot share it. It’s a little like rubbing peoples’ noses in it.

[jimsumner]

Good summation. I think a couple of points can be clarified. Rivals and Scout both have premium and free components. Linking or revealing info from a premium site is strictly verboten, legally and ethically. I would assume a little more latitude is allowed regarding the free stuff but am open to being corrected by those higher up the food chain.

And then there's info that is designed to be disseminated as widely as possible, press releases or press conferences.