Picking an AAU Team

This is the time of the year that you'll see some AAU coaches/directors start to linger around high school games. Some get the ball rolling early and are around all season. Just like with picking a college, there are many things that need to be looked at when picking an AAU team.  I am strictly talking about players that want to play in college when it comes to picking the correct AAU team/program.

Most if not all guys that play AAU think they are or want to be Division One basketball players. If you think you are a D1 player, you HAVE to play during the Division One Live Periods. A Live Period is when Division One coaches are allowed to watch travel basketball and evaluate prospects. The Live Periods this year are April 10-12, April 24-26, July 8-12, July 15-19, and July 22-26. It is very important that you are playing in tournaments during those weekends to be seen.

Division Two and Division Three coaches have a much different recruiting calendar. They are allowed to see prospects almost all the time. I'm not as familiar with the D2 coaches but they certainly aren't as restricted as the D1 coaches. There are no dead periods for D3 coaches. They can be out ALL THE TIME.

Last thing when it comes to what tournaments the team plays in is, you want college coaches to see you play when you are fresh. Both Nike and adidas have structured their travel team schedules with guys only playing three or four games a weekend. It's brilliant thinking. The Upper Midwest has done the same thing with their Sanford Pentagon Series. If you are tired (your body especially), you will not be your best and you want coaches to see you at your best. Simply put, four games is MUCH better than seven or eight games every weekend.

Playing at a high level is important. You want to be able to play against other good players on a consistent basis. By playing on a program's second team (generally speaking) doesn't allow you to do that. Yes, there are some programs that have very good second teams but make sure to look at the schedules of each team to see which is the top team and which is the second team, especially if the program directors tell you the "teams are equal." Top teams will generally travel a bit more and/or play in slightly better tournaments.

It's important to have a plan in place for each individual player's development. Ideally, you want to be able to play a position that you will in college. Practice time is generally limited so it's extremely important that practice has some type of skill development in it. It can't just be scrimmaging. Communication with high school coaches on what their thoughts on the player's development is something that is forgotten at times (it's a two-way street).

You want to be on a good team. Good teams go further in tournaments (yes, I know I'm not a huge fan of tournaments but everyone still plays in them) and the further the team goes, the better chance of college coaches see that team. Asking who else is on the team is important. You don't want to play with guys/girls that aren't very good or don't have the same goals as you. Continuity on the roster is important as well. You don't want to have a new roster every weekend and ideally the roster only changes one to three guys every year.

Winning at the expense of development is an interesting concept (much like youth travel basketball). The reason I say this is because A LOT of travel teams will play zone. They play zone because a lot of the players play with different defensive concepts and zone is easy to teach and just about all HS programs teach it the same way. I know when I coached in college it was important to see how players moved side to side on defense. On top of that, with the exception of Syracuse, how many college programs exclusively play zone? Some zone isn't bad, but all zone isn't what you want.

Cost is important for just about all families. Programs will range from $800-$2500 and sometimes more. Some programs don't charge or charge very little and that is usually for the programs with the sneaker affiliations.  There are times with the "sneaker affiliated programs" to charge a way more money to the kids that aren't on their top team in order to fill the gap because their top team is barely paying anything at all. Your son or daughter is paying to have "_________" across his/her chest and it doesn't mean that much. All these programs make money for their coaches/directors, you don't want to be the sacrificial pawn in their money making machine. Which program gives you the best bang for your buck?

Last thing I will talk about is what I think is the most important. Obviously, you want exposure to college coaches but you WANT to be exposed as a player. You want to get beat on defense, you want to miss shots around the basket, you want to struggle from 3, you want to get matched up against someone much better than you, you want to be dominated physically, and you want to get benched. Why????? Because you need to get better and you need to get stronger. And you need to figure how what works and what doesn't work against better players.

Can the team that you picked expose you to all of this? I hope so.

Trickle Down Recruiting

Trickle down recruiting happens every year throughout the country. What exactly is it? It's when there aren't enough recruitable prospects that fit the level of certain schools and it forces that same school to recruit a player that normally would be recruitable at a lower level. In normal terms, it's when a D1 school recruits what is normally a D2 player and when a D2 school recruits what is normally a D3 player.

Why does this happen?

You will see it a lot with schools that recruit at a state or regional level. Most of their athletes are from the state that the school is located or in the surrounding states. Knowing that there isn't as many as recruitable athletes in a certain class, schools will go after a player that fits perfectly into a lower level school.

I'll just throw an example of schools that are local. North Dakota State generally gets kids from the Upper Midwest. In the class of 2016 (I don't know this, it's all hypothetical) there is a limited amount of low major D1 players that are available. Since there is a very limited number of players that are recruitable, they will go after a kid that would normally go to MN-Duluth. Since, MN-Duluth can't get their "normal" prospect, they then go after a kid that would normally go to UW-Eau Claire.

In the grand scheme of things, the D3 school gets hit the most. Why? The prospects that they are normally looking for get decreased drastically. It also forces the D3 schools to get creative with their recruiting. By creative, I mean, go out of state and/or get junior college guys.

What happens next?

After about an year or two, the kids and their current coach realize (maybe it's just the kid) that there really isn't a role for the player on the current team. They realize that playing time won't be very easy to come by, especially after the next recruiting comes in and that now sophomore isn't the player that a few of the freshmen are.

These players then transfer down a level to where they originally fit. They end up being successful at that level and everyone ends up happy. Sometimes you'll see kids eventually transfer down two levels and realize the D3 level is exactly what they are looking for. The allure of the scholarship blinded their decision making skills during their recruitment.

Duke NBA Draft Prospects

As I am sitting on my couch watching the Louisville-Duke game, I figured I would finally get to Duke's draft prospects and where I see them in the upcoming or future drafts. I believe they have a few NBA players but they aren't as overwhelming as Kentucky. They have the same amount of McDonald's All-American's as Kentucky has though.

Jahlil Okafor - #1 pick in next draft
He is as polished on offense of a big as there has been in the draft since Tim Duncan. He has great moves and counters to them. He looks like he lost some weight since last year and is running the floor a little better than he did last year in HS. One concern I have is his lateral foot speed. He isn't very good defending screens and that is probably why Duke is playing zone today vs. Louisville.
NBA Comparison - Al Jefferson

Justice Winslow - Mid 1st Round whenever he leaves
I love his game. Ultimate glue guy. Struggles with inconsistency on his shot but if he can become more consistent with his shot he could be in the NBA for a long time. Very willing defender and capable for covering 1-3.
NBA Comparison - Kawhi Leonard/Tony Allen

Tyus Jones - Late Lottery to Mid-20s whenever he leaves
Great point guard offensively. I got to see it first hand last year when he gave us fits the first game of the year. His shot has gotten better every year and I expect that to continue. He has great vision and really knows how to play. Can get by anyone he wants whenever he wants. It looks exactly the same whether he is playing against Louisville or Burnsville HS. Two concerns for him are strength and willingness to move laterally consistently. I think he can cover but he has never needed to consistently.
NBA Comparison - skinnier version of Chris Paul/Jose Calderon

Quinn Cook - Late second to underrated
I like his game and he has adjusted to playing more off the ball this year. I think he'll get a shot because of his shooting ability but I'm not sure where he fits in the NBA.
Comparison - John Lucas III/Tauraen Green (former Florida guard on Championship teams)

Matt Jones/Rasheed Suliamon/Grayson Allen - Euro players
I think all these guys are the close to the same type of players. Good shooters and can get streaky but will have similar careers to DeMarcus Nelson, who is playing in Greece for Panathinkakos in Athens.

Eval of Kentucky Players

This is a little change of how I have been doing things but I want to go over Kentucky's roster. They are extremely talented at the college level and I want to talk about their pro potential and where they fit in the NBA.

Aaron Harrison - Shooting Guard
He made some really tough shots last year during the NCAA Tourney but wasn't overly consistent and that's where I see his game in the NBA. With the way the game is played in the NBA he has to be a 3 (3 point shooter) and D (defensive specialist) guy and I don't think he shoots it well enough. Will probably be a early to mid 2nd round pick.

Andrew Harrison - Point Guard
Physically dominant at the position. Helps to be 6'5" and strong. Can he run a NBA team? I'm not so sure about it. I honestly think he'll be a career backup and could do well on a bad team. Late first round to early 2nd round pick.

Marcus Lee - Power Forward
Has the height and length to be a power forward. Doesn't have the perimeter skills that most NBA teams are looking for in the 4 position. At his best he would be John Henson (Bucks) or Brendan Wright (Celtics). Will be drafted higher than he should. Should be in the 20's in the 2016 draft.

Willie Cauley-Stein - Center
After three years, I saw him finally make a post move. He is a crazy athlete and oozes potential. Will be drafted in the top 10 this year but Nerlens Noel is a better pro. Better comparison is probably Larry Sanders minus the fighting in the club.

Karl-Anthony Towns - Center
Great skill set that I don't think we've seen all of it yet. Right now, I believe he lingers on the perimeter too much, in part because of UK's personnel, he needs to assert himself more down there. If  people say he is a young LaMarcus Aldridge they are crazy. He won't be that good. Definitely a top 5 pick this year.

Devin Booker - Shooting Guard
Great size and a great shooter. Not a spectacular athlete but his shooting makes him look more athletic than he is. I think he has a little Danny Green in him and is probably a better shooter at this point in his career. Eventually he'll be a late lottery to early 20's first round pick.

Tyler Ulis - Point Guard
Really controls the tempo for UK. They are better when he is on the floor. I believe he can be a career backup in the NBA. Nothing is wrong with that but he is just too small for most NBA teams to take a chance on. Will probably be in an Aaron Craft situation when he gets done. He'll get some shots in the NBA, just a matter of what team falls in love with him.

Trey Lyles - Power Forwad
He wants to be a 3 and is playing it for UK but is clearly a 4 in the NBA. Why? He can't cover any 3's in the league. He has a good skill set but is a classic tweener in the NBA. He'll get drafted in the first round, I just don't know when.

Alex Poythress - Small Forward
Another tweeter at the NBA level. He is a good college player and probably would've been a star at another school. He can't shoot, and that's a huge issue with the position he has to play in the NBA. He isn't Kenneth Faried. I don't think he ever cracks the first round or even sticks in the NBA.

Dakari Johnson - Center
I've heard about him since he was a freshmen at St. Patrick's in Elizabeth, NJ. I just don't see it. He is big and decently skilled. His ceiling is low because he isn't very athletic. Al Jefferson is a comparison athletically. He isn't close to him physically (thin shoulders) or skill wise. He'll be drafted in the teens if he comes out after next year. A team will take a flyer on him because of his size.

I know I'll get, "You don't think they are good? They will go undefeated." In my opinion, they don't have guys that will be NBA All-Stars. More "potential" with this group than any Kentucky team in the past couple of years.

Duke evals will be next.

Fit and Style in Recruiting

As parents go through the recruiting process many get caught up in the school that is recruiting their son or daughter. They think that their son or daughter is a D1 and/or a scholarship level player without really looking at two important aspects of having a great college experience (besides academics, which should be the top priority). Those two things are where does the athlete fit on the team and does the style/system fit the athlete.

Besides the academics, one of the first things a prospective athlete should do is look at the roster of the team.  How many upperclassmen are on the roster? What position do they play? What are the chances that the prospective athlete plays right away? Do freshmen play right away or do they have to wait their turn? Does this coach have a tendency to recruit junior college athletes and/or get transfers? They don't recruit those type of players to sit the bench.

Depending on what each athlete is looking for, is playing right away important? Or is competing for those minutes very important? Different places provide different opportunities and you have to be able to figure out which is the best fit for each individual athlete.

Another important thing to research is what kind of system does the program run? Offensively, do they push the ball, do they slow it down, or do they do a little bit of both? On defense, do they press, do they trap, or do they play in the gaps in the half court?

Again, these are all things that are important when making a decision for the next four or five years of life.

I am going to run through a few examples of what I talked about above. I won't name players or schools (besides the last one) but I'll give the rundown.

My college choice was based a lot of academics and the fact that I wanted to win. I choose SUNY Brockport because they had physical education as a major and the program was on the rise. Theu played fast and a point guard, I wanted that. They had a point guard that played a lot as a sophomore and I figured I would be his backup as a freshmen. It didn't happen. Why? The team played fast, and I wasn't athletic enough to get the playing time I thought I deserved. It also didn't help (me, not the team) that a fifth year senior decided to come back and play after tearing his ACL the previous year. I didn't play again as a sophomore but I played significant minutes as a junior and senior. I didn't truly realize what I signed up for. I did have a great experience and wouldn't change it for anything. I realized that not everything would go my way and if I didn't work, I wouldn't play. 

A few years ago, I gave three different D1 schools (yep, humble brag) a heads up on player here in Minnesota. All three schools were able to watch the player in July and all of them gave me a little feedback on the prospect. The two schools I thought were on a lower level (all the schools were mid or low major schools) didn't think he was good enough. Yet, the team that I thought was the best of the three loved him. He fit what they were looking for that particular year.

While I was at West Virginia, I told a high academic school about a WV prospect. They really liked his game and then got his transcript and backed off. He was a very good student according to his GPA and his above 1300 SAT (two parts). The schooling in WV is ranked extremely low in the country and that certainly played a role in the head coach pulling the plug on that particular athlete's recruitment. It wasn't worth the fight with Admissions to get him in school.

Certain coaches really like to stagger their scholarship offers for certain positions. For example, John Beilein has used this theory while at West Virginia and then again at Michigan. He specifically does this with point guards. Every two years he wants to get one. The reasoning behind this recruiting philosophy is that the upperclassmen can show the underclassmen the ropes. The younger PG is then forced to compete for playing time his first two years and hopefully the last two years, where he is the older PG, gives him a huge edge.

At WVU, the first one was JD Collins, next up was Darris Nichols, and his last point guard was Joe Mazzulla. Darris came in when JD was a junior and Joe came in when Darris was a junior. He continued this at Michigan with Darius Morris, Trey Burke, and Derrick Walton. The only issue that he has had is that each one of those guards (Walton is still there) left early for the NBA. This has forced freshmen to handle the ball a majority of the time in his complicated system.

Recruiting Advantages

A little more than a month ago Adrian Wojnarowski wrote an article on the recruiting advantage that Coach K has by coaching the USA National Team. There were a fare share of people that agreed and disagreed with the article. Think what you want, almost everything they do benefits recruiting and their image. Speaking at coaches' clinics throughout the country is another example of gaining a recruiting advantage, especially if the clinic is run by prominent HS or AAU coaches. Do you think coaching Team USA is an advantage?

Of course it's an advantage to coach potential recruits or to have access to them. I don't think it's the main reason why these coaches do it but it certainly doesn't hurt them in recruiting. It's an honor to have a USA across your chest and if by chance it helps with recruiting, then coaches will do it.

Do you think it's a little odd that the three biggest recruits that Coach K brought in this year at Duke all have been playing for the US Junior National (16u-19u) teams for the last several years? He has a different kind of access to them because he is the Senior National Team coach. Another question to ask is, does coaching LeBron, Kobe, and Carmelo create an advantage in recruiting. It sure does. Why? "We could use you like we used LeBron." "This is a set that we used for Kobe that I think we could run for you." Wouldn't that peak your interest a little bit as a recruit or a parent?

Another interesting tidbit is that Tyler Lydon, a Syracuse commit, was a late addition to tryout for US 18U team this past summer. He made the team as well. He clearly helped the team as well, as they won a gold medal at the 18U FIBA Americas tournament. What people don't always see is that Jim Boehiem, his future coach, is in charge of the committee to select these teams. A little, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." It was clearly for recruiting, regardless of how well Lydon did.

Well, why don't other coaches do the same thing? They are trying. Billy Donovan of Florida, Sean Miller oF Arizona, Shaka Smart of VCU, John Beilien of Michigan, etc., have all done a stint of coaching for the US at the younger levels. Does it make them a better coach? Absolutely, they get to bounce ideas of different coaches that could have very different philosophies in a lot of different things. Along with playing against countries that have completely different philosophies in regards to playing the game.  At the same time, it gives them access to potential recruits that they would never have if they didn't try. A few of the coaches haven't coached the younger squads but working for USA Basketball is never a bad thing.

It's a two street as well. Coaches get to see a different side of the athletes that they normally wouldn't see. At the same time, athletes get to see the coaches differently than others would. They get to see how they operate in practice, how they use film to teach, and how they communicate with their players. It should give the athletes an idea if they actually want to play for that certain coach. That's a huge plus when trying to figure out the recruiting process.

If you stop by any Division One practice you will notice that certain assistant coaches do very little or nothing in regards to coaching. Why? They are strictly recruiters. Their sole job is to find/recruit players to come to their school. It's not the case everywhere but it happens a lot more than people know about. If you can't recruit, then you technically can't coach, because you will be out of a job quickly. To have "coaches" who just recruit shows the importance of recruiting. It's probably 75% or more of most coaches' jobs.

Ask any coach and they will take any recruiting advantage they can. They need players. If this wasn't the case, why do head coaches hire AAU coaches as assistants who aren't technically qualified according to the job qualifications? They want to get their hands on certain kids from certain programs and the best way to do that is to hire someone that has a relationship with a kid or a coach within a certain program.

Skill Trainers

Just like with anything in life, there are some good things and some bad things. Like the AAU scene,  these "skill trainers" that are popping up all over the place. There are some that really have a grasp of what is going on and there are others that are in it for nothing but the money, and many in between.

I believe the first step to any skill session is to sit down and talk with the trainer and figure out goals. When I say goals, I mean, what does the athlete want to accomplish by working with the trainer? Do you want to make the team, do you want to make varsity, do you want to play minutes on varsity, do you want to start, do you want to play in college, and/or do you want to play professionally? These are all questions that should be asked by the trainer to order to figure a plan over the course of time. 

The goal is to be realistic. If a athlete has never played basketball until the 10th grade and wants to start on the varsity team, that's just not realistic in most settings regardless of how much time the trainer has to work with the athlete. If the goal is to play in college or professionally then the athlete has to work on their own A LOT in order to achieve these goals. No trainer is going to make a college or professional player. It's all up to the athlete, they have to make many personal sacrifices in order to achieve their goals. Again, a trainer can't make that happen. They can push the limits to help but if you work with a certain trainer, regardless of how good they are, it doesn't matter.

I could be completely wrong on this but I think there should be a lot of communication between the skills trainer and the HS coach. Why? Wouldn't you think it would be important to have one of your players working on drills/skills that are important for your HS program? I'm not saying that the trainer can't work on anything else in regards to what the HS program does, but it's important for the development of all for people to be on the same page. 

I also think it's really important that there is a focus on the HS season during the fall. Most of the drills/skills should be based on what the HS coach sees the athlete's role for the upcoming season. Some states don't have an issue with working with trainers because they are able to work with their athletes all year. Other states allow HS programs to pay for a trainer for their kids, as long as the HS coach(es) aren't involved in the skill sessions. 

Yes, I know that an athlete's role could differ from their HS and AAU teams. Again, I'm not saying that athletes can't work on other skills but it's important for their improvement with their HS teams just before their HS season starts. An example would be a 6'5" player who is the tallest player in their HS program and they are forced to play a majority of their time in the post. During AAU, they are more of a wing player and that is probably the position they will play in college. They can work on their perimeter skills all year round but in the few weeks before practice starts for their HS team, it's important that they are still pretty good in the post.

Does the skill trainer(s) actually work on defense? I ask because I don't know. I've seen numerous skill sessions and not once have I seen them work on the defensive side of the ball. Now, I've seen them play one on one and two on two but nothing with a true emphasis on defense. Offense is only half of the game, it's important to work on the other side of the ball on a consistent basis as well. 

A part of the game is overlooked by many, including coaches, is the mental part of the game. Why is overlooked? It's not a part of the game that is on the newest Vines, or the new YouTube videos. Do the trainers talk about strategy? Do they talk about what to do in different situations, especially end of the half/game situations? Do they put you in situations to fail? Failure is a good thing for athletes. The best shooters from three only make 40% of them. That's a lot of failure and the athletes have to be able to handle it.  

Here are a few other things that are important when choosing a trainer. How many athletes do they work with during the same session? You don't want to have 8-10 athletes in each session because there is too many down time. The athlete should be working constantly. Yes, there will be some built in breaks but they shouldn't be for long. You want to get the most amount of bang for your buck. 

Who are the trainer's other clients? Don't you think it's important for the trainer to have an idea how to work with many different skill levels? Would it work for someone that is training NBA players to train a true beginner right after? Do they work with only younger kids? Can you challenge yourself by working with the better players or do you have to stay with kids in the same grade(s)? Those are questions that you will have to ask before working with anyone.

The last thing I want to talk about is, there are some skills that shouldn't be done by certain players. The main reason I say this, is there are certain skills that college and/or NBA players can do that certain players just can't. I don't mean it in a bad way but a lot of the time, the athlete just isn't ready for it. An example is in the video below with Kevin Durant.

Loading

View on Instagram

This is an advanced drill. It's doesn't seem like it but it clearly is. Why? KD shoots around 95% from that spot without a defense. How many athletes can say that shoot that high from anywhere? Not many. So why are trainers making their athletes do these types of drills? Then they can say that the athlete is doing the same drills that KD is doing. 

Another example is, how many athletes are shooting pull-up three's during their HS or AAU games? Not many and even less are actually making that shot. The athlete would probably get better by getting a bunch of inside-out threes, which are more realistic and game-like. 

I deal with the kind of stuff in the class that I teach. I was told by one of students that he would never get into the lane during a game, so he was going to work on his one foot fadeaway jumper. Yet, he couldn't make that jumper, from 15 feet, consistently while on balance. I told him that it would be better to work that shot on balance. He then proceeded to make his next fadeaway, I laughed, he then hit the top of the backboard on the next one. My point, exactly.

This whole blog might seem like a knock on skill trainers but I don't mean it that way. I think there is a time and a place for them especially for challenging athletes. Just make sure that there is research is done beforehand to make sure you have a good trainer rather than one that is stealing money.