Off topic a bit (I’ll get to Langford in a second). I rather have my son (he’s on the way) play AAU in a somewhat structured environment like they have done for the EYBL, adidas Uprising, and the UAA. It’s usually 4 games a whole weekend (over three days) instead of playing 7-8 games that many teams have to do playing in a regular tournament. Like Matt said, kids get fatigued, but not quite as fatigued as they would in the championship late on a Sunday. Could be different on the girls’ side (Matt, you can answer that).
Langford is clearly a stud. I think it was proven that he was a MAJOR priority during the season when Beilein and/or staff went down on multiple occasions over the course of two weeks. Have to remember as well, they can only evaluate and/or contact (face to face meeting) each prospect 7 times total during the school year (summer doesn’t count). My guess is the staff is being careful with those numbers to make sure they aren’t violating any rules.
Above and beyond basketball, these kids are treated like meat at times...........its sad in many ways that basketball (youth basketball in particular) has become such a business. These kids are expected to perform at a high level regardless of fatigue, personal issues, gym conditions (sometimes no air conditioning and floor is damp)..........all to garner the attention of a college coach which may or may not offer a scholarship.
This is one of a few reasons why I get defensive when people attack the kids. Attack poor sportmanship or an obvious lack of effort, fine…but when kids are giving it their best and just aren’t as skilled as others, I prefer the high road.
In fairness, I think an attack would suggest commenting on their personal character. In my opinion, there is a difference between an attack, and critique of their on court abilities. In any event, The spirit of your statement has some merit in my view.
IMO, a critique is a well reasoned statement containing criticisms and shortcomings, and noting what must be done for improvement. Saying someone is garbage and not fit for this level is not a critique. Maybe attack is not the right word for it, but it’s certainly not an enlightened, useful statement worthy of a quality interchange in communication.
I didn’t use the garbage term, but I can nevertheless see your point. Saying a player is not fit for a certain level does not exceed any sort of boundary in my opinion though. Just depends on your subjective view of what is acceptable and what isn’t. I fall much more on the blunt side of the spectrum…I try to keep feelings out of it.
Off topic a bit (I'll get to Langford in a second). I rather have my son (he's on the way) play AAU in a somewhat structured environment like they have done for the EYBL, adidas Uprising, and the UAA. It's usually 4 games a whole weekend (over three days) instead of playing 7-8 games that many teams have to do playing in a regular tournament. Like Matt said, kids get fatigued, but not quite as fatigued as they would in the championship late on a Sunday. Could be different on the girls' side (Matt, you can answer that).
Langford is clearly a stud. I think it was proven that he was a MAJOR priority during the season when Beilein and/or staff went down on multiple occasions over the course of two weeks. Have to remember as well, they can only evaluate and/or contact (face to face meeting) each prospect 7 times total during the school year (summer doesn’t count). My guess is the staff is being careful with those numbers to make sure they aren’t violating any rules.
HPH - to answer your question the girls side is structured like that (4-5 games for the entire weekend) when we are actually playing EYBL league games (Boo Williams, Nike Nationals, etc.). But for the most part, we play 3-4 games each day, on Saturday and Sunday, for non Nike sponsored events. I can personally attest to the fact that these kids are running on fumes in Sunday bracket play (single elimination) and championship games. Coaches feel bad, but they need the kids to produce in order to win games, and ultimately maintain Nike sponsorship. It’s a very good thing for the kids because I can honestly say that my daughter’s team gets more exposure than any team in the state, but there is an inhumane element to it as well…and I’d assume it’s pretty similar on the boys side. Im often able to watch the boys AAU games because our tournaments usually piggy back off the same facilities a day later, and there doesn’t appear to be a difference.
Yep, probably not good for us. However, we’ve been on Langford for a decent amount of time, so you hope this is one of those situations where a long term relationship helps us against the “flashier” schools. Helped with McGary (along with other things) and helped with Chatman. This is the only way to compete with the blue bloods at this point in time IMO.
Above and beyond basketball, these kids are treated like meat at times...........its sad in many ways that basketball (youth basketball in particular) has become such a business. These kids are expected to perform at a high level regardless of fatigue, personal issues, gym conditions (sometimes no air conditioning and floor is damp)..........all to garner the attention of a college coach which may or may not offer a scholarship.
This is one of a few reasons why I get defensive when people attack the kids. Attack poor sportmanship or an obvious lack of effort, fine…but when kids are giving it their best and just aren’t as skilled as others, I prefer the high road.
In fairness, I think an attack would suggest commenting on their personal character. In my opinion, there is a difference between an attack, and critique of their on court abilities. In any event, The spirit of your statement has some merit in my view.
IMO, a critique is a well reasoned statement containing criticisms and shortcomings, and noting what must be done for improvement. Saying someone is garbage and not fit for this level is not a critique. Maybe attack is not the right word for it, but it’s certainly not an enlightened, useful statement worthy of a quality interchange in communication.
Above and beyond basketball, these kids are treated like meat at times...........its sad in many ways that basketball (youth basketball in particular) has become such a business. These kids are expected to perform at a high level regardless of fatigue, personal issues, gym conditions (sometimes no air conditioning and floor is damp)..........all to garner the attention of a college coach which may or may not offer a scholarship.
This is one of a few reasons why I get defensive when people attack the kids. Attack poor sportmanship or an obvious lack of effort, fine…but when kids are giving it their best and just aren’t as skilled as others, I prefer the high road.
Team Loaded has Dennis Smith on it and Duke has offered. Would imagine that's the reason he was there. Could be looking at Langford and/or Kobi Simmons as well.
I sure hope you are right…but Duke is probably going to get Thornton to reclassify to 15 (meeting this week), which would probably negate Smith. I think its pretty well known that Langford wants a Duke offer.
In any event, he may have been there for Smith, but considering the film I posted, how could anyone not take notice of Langford?
Above and beyond basketball, these kids are treated like meat at times...........its sad in many ways that basketball (youth basketball in particular) has become such a business. These kids are expected to perform at a high level regardless of fatigue, personal issues, gym conditions (sometimes no air conditioning and floor is damp)..........all to garner the attention of a college coach which may or may not offer a scholarship.
This is one of a few reasons why I get defensive when people attack the kids. Attack poor sportmanship or an obvious lack of effort, fine…but when kids are giving it their best and just aren’t as skilled as others, I prefer the high road.
In fairness, I think an attack would suggest commenting on their personal character. In my opinion, there is a difference between an attack, and critique of their on court abilities. In any event, The spirit of your statement has some merit in my view.
Team Loaded has Dennis Smith on it and Duke has offered. Would imagine that’s the reason he was there. Could be looking at Langford and/or Kobi Simmons as well.
On Kyle Guy, that’s the classic dilemma. 6-8 months ago, we were getting strong interest from Thornton and Battle, even as a potential package deal. In that situation, how do you take a commitment from Guy?
But I do think that if we miss on our top 2016 guys (Thornton, Winston, Battle, Langford, Towns), we’ll go back to targeting guys like Guy and McQuaid and take commitments from them right away. If we take Kenny Williams, for example, does that mean we like him more than McQuaid, or does it mean that now that things don’t look as great with some of our top guys, we would take McQuaid but since he already committed, we’ll take a comparable talent in Williams?
I assume his grades must be in order for this to happen. Of note that Jefferson’s Dad played for New Mexico. REALLY hope we can get this kid to visit assuming his academics are in order.
I assume his grades must be in order for this to happen. Of note that Jefferson's Dad played for New Mexico. REALLY hope we can get this kid to visit assuming his academics are in order.
Are they in order enough for a B1G school though? It seems like he’s at least putting in the work re: academics so that is a very good sign. Keep up the good work Damien!
If his grades are in order, I really hope JB gets this kid on campus for a full academic tour and gives him an offer. Just need to cast the net wider the way recruiting is going for 16.
2016 CF Damien Jefferson of the SYF Players has a big time motor and was the difference in their win.… https://t.co/PDXuSO99SK
Jefferson named to Post Trib First Team. Nice write-up about him considering the Region has some good players.
“Damien Jefferson, East Chicago Central, 6-5 junior, guard: Played more like a point forward as Cardinals ran most of their offense through him. Most spectacular player on offense in the Region, his vertical jump was off the charts. Averaged 23.4 points, 9.85 rebounds and 2.8 assists.”