AAU recruiting?

[AubTiger14 0]

I want someone to clarify Auburn's deal with AAU basketball. I've heard there was some kind of issue, but I want clarification. If we are not allowed to deal with AAU that really hurts us and it's probably a reason coaches don't want to come here and we struggle with recruiting.

[AUpocalypse 12]

Here ya go, this pretty much sums it all up:

http://bigbluebagel.blogspot.com/2012/01/was-1999-really-that-long-ago.html

gets in detail about halfway through, should clarify your questions.

[AubTiger14 0]

Here ya go, this pretty much sums it all up:

http://bigbluebagel....t-long-ago.html

gets in detail about halfway through, should clarify your questions.

Thank you that clarifies it. If we can't recruit through Komara because of past NCAA issues then fine. But we need to switch to Nike so we can have more clout when recruiting through other AAU avenues.

[milehighfan 1,240]

The experts seem to think Auburn needs to go after someone with experience and I agree with that judgement. Even if Auburn were to hire someone young up and comer who did in fact, turn the program around, kust how long do you think he would stay at Auburn?

[Charleston Tiger 134]

So, in regards to the article, sounds like since Under Armour has no affiliation to AAU, the AAU players (arguably the best HS athletes in the sport) wouldn't be heading towards a UA school? Just trying to make sense of all this. Also, I'm willing to bet the house that we don't switch the Nike - with Maryland only being so-so at best, and Carolina still only on the cusp of a conference championship appearance, we're easily the flagship of their company in regards to team sponsorship. Add in that we've got 2 national championship appearances and 1 win while with them - UA is going to do absolutely ANYTHING they can to hold on to us.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

There are a bunch of Nike schools that are bad at basketball as well. Blaming Under Armor as the primary culprit of the source of AU basketball problems is ridiculous. Does it have an effect, yes, but primary cause of our basement dweller status, no. Do shoes stop you from rebounding, playing consistent defense, making free throws, no. Do shoes cause players to transfer, shave points, or get kicked of the team, no. AU's problems under Barbee are many and severe. AU's basketball program problems predate Barbee and Under Armor.

[1auburn1 1,120]

There are a bunch of Nike schools that are bad at basketball as well. Blaming Under Armor as the primary culprit of the source of AU basketball problems is ridiculous. Does it have an effect, yes, but primary cause of our basement dweller status, no. Do shoes stop you from rebounding, playing consistent defense, making free throws, no. Do shoes cause players to transfer, shave points, or get kicked of the team, no. AU's problems under Barbee are many and severe. AU's basketball program problems predate Barbee and Under Armor.

I agree with that to an extent but as we have seen in football, all 5* players are not created equal. Some only have 1* character and when you are facing an uphill climb in recruiting due to a smaller talent pool to choose from, aka the Nike effect, you have to take chances. Now I think the attrition was completely out of hand under CTB but basketball players are a bit different than football players. They tend to move away from home and around more easily. We need an experienced hand on the wheel with the next hire who understands all aspects of the "game".

[telling tiger 156]

In 2014 alone, you can find stats that place NATIONAL attrition rates between 30%- 40% of college basketball players.

[keesler 5,924]

So, in regards to the article, sounds like since Under Armour has no affiliation to AAU, the AAU players (arguably the best HS athletes in the sport) wouldn't be heading towards a UA school? Just trying to make sense of all this. Also, I'm willing to bet the house that we don't switch the Nike - with Maryland only being so-so at best, and Carolina still only on the cusp of a conference championship appearance, we're easily the flagship of their company in regards to team sponsorship. Add in that we've got 2 national championship appearances and 1 win while with them - UA is going to do absolutely ANYTHING they can to hold on to us.

Like the article said, Auburn prostituted themselves out to Under Armour. Under Armour will still pay top dollar to the flagship of their company for team sponsorship and like any prositute, you give your goodies to the highest paying John.

[cooltigger21 0]

There are a bunch of Nike schools that are bad at basketball as well. Blaming Under Armor as the primary culprit of the source of AU basketball problems is ridiculous. Does it have an effect, yes, but primary cause of our basement dweller status, no. Do shoes stop you from rebounding, playing consistent defense, making free throws, no. Do shoes cause players to transfer, shave points, or get kicked of the team, no. AU's problems under Barbee are many and severe. AU's basketball program problems predate Barbee and Under Armor.

I agree with that to an extent but as we have seen in football, all 5* players are not created equal. Some only have 1* character and when you are facing an uphill climb in recruiting due to a smaller talent pool to choose from, aka the Nike effect, you have to take chances. Now I think the attrition was completely out of hand under CTB but basketball players are a bit different than football players. They tend to move away from home and around more easily. We need an experienced hand on the wheel with the next hire who understands all aspects of the "game".

The biggest thing the next coach can do is develop good relations with the has coaches. 5* players are the ones truly affected by AAU. The kind of players Auburn would recruit are more readily available if we will put in the effort to get them. I bet if people will focus on the hs coach we can do pretty well.

[AubTiger14 0]

So, in regards to the article, sounds like since Under Armour has no affiliation to AAU, the AAU players (arguably the best HS athletes in the sport) wouldn't be heading towards a UA school? Just trying to make sense of all this. Also, I'm willing to bet the house that we don't switch the Nike - with Maryland only being so-so at best, and Carolina still only on the cusp of a conference championship appearance, we're easily the flagship of their company in regards to team sponsorship. Add in that we've got 2 national championship appearances and 1 win while with them - UA is going to do absolutely ANYTHING they can to hold on to us.

Like the article said, Auburn prostituted themselves out to Under Armour. Under Armour will still pay top dollar to the flagship of their company for team sponsorship and like any prositute, you give your goodies to the highest paying John.

according to Jay G. Tate though our basketball program can be under a different sponsorship and football can remain with Under Armour.

[keesler 5,924]

So, in regards to the article, sounds like since Under Armour has no affiliation to AAU, the AAU players (arguably the best HS athletes in the sport) wouldn't be heading towards a UA school? Just trying to make sense of all this. Also, I'm willing to bet the house that we don't switch the Nike - with Maryland only being so-so at best, and Carolina still only on the cusp of a conference championship appearance, we're easily the flagship of their company in regards to team sponsorship. Add in that we've got 2 national championship appearances and 1 win while with them - UA is going to do absolutely ANYTHING they can to hold on to us.

Like the article said, Auburn prostituted themselves out to Under Armour. Under Armour will still pay top dollar to the flagship of their company for team sponsorship and like any prositute, you give your goodies to the highest paying John.

according to Jay G. Tate though our basketball program can be under a different sponsorship and football can remain with Under Armour.

Then why the hell has Jacobs kept AU basketball tied to the Under Armour brand for so long?

The very brand puts AU basketball at a recruiting disadvantage - an AU coach needs access to the AAU players and to obtain that access they HAVE to go through the AAU coaches. Those AAU coaches are in buisness because of Nike sponsorship and they hold the keys to the top players.

[AUtrader 0]

Here ya go, this pretty much sums it all up:

http://bigbluebagel....t-long-ago.html

gets in detail about halfway through, should clarify your questions.

Thanks for that, its nice to finally see a clear explanation. Its frustrating to me that one guy (Komara) can have such influence and we can't deal with him at all. Most schools benefit heavily from contacts in high school that happen to be fans of their program. Could you imagine if bama could not recruit football players from high schools where the head coach is a bama fan? Something that should be a huge benefit for us is actually the worst possible impediment to our recruiting success. We didn't even let his son walk on the team...there must have been some serious issues that the admin is not telling us.

[cooltigger21 0]

So, in regards to the article, sounds like since Under Armour has no affiliation to AAU, the AAU players (arguably the best HS athletes in the sport) wouldn't be heading towards a UA school? Just trying to make sense of all this. Also, I'm willing to bet the house that we don't switch the Nike - with Maryland only being so-so at best, and Carolina still only on the cusp of a conference championship appearance, we're easily the flagship of their company in regards to team sponsorship. Add in that we've got 2 national championship appearances and 1 win while with them - UA is going to do absolutely ANYTHING they can to hold on to us.

Like the article said, Auburn prostituted themselves out to Under Armour. Under Armour will still pay top dollar to the flagship of their company for team sponsorship and like any prositute, you give your goodies to the highest paying John.

according to Jay G. Tate though our basketball program can be under a different sponsorship and football can remain with Under Armour.

Then why the hell has Jacobs kept AU basketball tied to the Under Armour brand for so long?

The very brand puts AU basketball at a recruiting disadvantage - an AU coach needs access to the AAU players and to obtain that access they HAVE to go through the AAU coaches. Those AAU coaches are in buisness because of Nike sponsorship and they hold the keys to the top players.

the top players are not going to go to Auburn not in basketball. UK, Duke and a handful of others will grab them. For Auburn a different tactic is necessary. Now I personally don't care which company Auburn goes with. Signing with Nike is not going to change the type of players we can attract. TB actually recruited quite well. If he could have kept the ones that left and done a good coaching job he would still be the coach today.

[keesler 5,924]

Here ya go, this pretty much sums it all up:

http://bigbluebagel....t-long-ago.html

gets in detail about halfway through, should clarify your questions.

Thanks for that, its nice to finally see a clear explanation. Its frustrating to me that one guy (Komara) can have such influence and we can't deal with him at all. Most schools benefit heavily from contacts in high school that happen to be fans of their program. Could you imagine if bama could not recruit football players from high schools where the head coach is a bama fan? Something that should be a huge benefit for us is actually the worst possible impediment to our recruiting success. We didn't even let his son walk on the team...there must have been some serious issues that the admin is not telling us.

After the Komara embargo some AU folks think the administration will give Bruce Pearl a look? Fat chance

[AUUSN 823]

Follow. The. Money.......

How much money did UA commit to the Basketball arena? I would be suprised if they didnt.

[InfernoOrangeSS 321]

I would think UA's contract with us would guarantee that they handle all sports. It may be true that we could theoretically go with another company for BB, but I seriously doubt that the UA contract would allow it.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

From what I understand, we do have at this juncture in the UA deal (which has been in place since 2005) the ability to remove basketball from the contract and remain with UA for all other sports.

[AUtrader 0]

]the top players are not going to go to Auburn not in basketball. UK, Duke and a handful of others will grab them. For Auburn a different tactic is necessary. Now I personally don't care which company Auburn goes with. Signing with Nike is not going to change the type of players we can attract. TB actually recruited quite well. If he could have kept the ones that left and done a good coaching job he would still be the coach today.

I tend to agree with this. There are plenty of Nike schools that aren't fielding good teams. We need someone innovative that can take our disadvantages and find opportunity in them. We need the Gus Malzahn of basketball. Maybe that is an old experienced guy, doesn't have to be an unproven up and comer. But they need to understand our situation and realize that our success (at least at first) will have to come from coaching up decent, not 5*, talent. I just want to see a team playing good fundamental basketball...that would be a huge step in the right direction.

[InfernoOrangeSS 321]

From what I understand, we do have at this juncture in the UA deal (which has been in place since 2005) the ability to remove basketball from the contract and remain with UA for all other sports.

I stand corrected then. I wouldn't think a company would allow that kind of competition.

Thank you for the info.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

It's not an either/or thing. UA is a sinker weight around our neck. We need to remove that obstacle to recruiting no matter what coach we get. But moving to Nike in and of itself won't solve the problem either. We still need to make an excellent hire.

But don't act as if we can bring in just the right coach and expect that he can do great things with our current AAU/Nike vs UA affliation thing creating drag.

[AUtrader 0]

I would think UA's contract with us would guarantee that they handle all sports. It may be true that we could theoretically go with another company for BB, but I seriously doubt that the UA contract would allow it.

If this is really an issue, I think we could negotiate basketball out, at least by the next contract. UA does not have a large portfolio of big schools yet and I would think that plays to our advantage. I don't think they would risk losing the entire contract over a sport they seem to be making little effort to support (i.e. fielding their own AAU type programs).

[AubTiger14 0]

Switching to Nike isn't going to automatically turn our basketball program into a winner. But it will lift the "brand" obstacle we are under when it comes to recruiting. Why would you not want this? Maybe you have some reason you don't thinks it's a big deal (which I would probably disagree with), but our basketball program can be under a different sponsorship than football. So someone give one good, factual, and solid reason why it's to our advantage to stick with Under Armour over Nike?

[keesler 5,924]

I would think UA's contract with us would guarantee that they handle all sports. It may be true that we could theoretically go with another company for BB, but I seriously doubt that the UA contract would allow it.

If this is really an issue, I think we could negotiate basketball out, at least by the next contract. UA does not have a large portfolio of big schools yet and I would think that plays to our advantage. I don't think they would risk losing the entire contract over a sport they seem to be making little effort to support (i.e. fielding their own AAU type programs).

Nike has a strangle hold on AAU - they pour money into AAU for a reason - they want the high school AAU players wearing Nike - they want those same players wearing Nike in college - and they want them to carry it over to the NBA when the time comes. Street kids and the basketball culture want the Nike swoosh ~ AU would be better served to remove that obstacle from our basketball program in the future.

[keesler 5,924]

Switching to Nike isn't going to automatically turn our basketball program into a winner. But it will lift the "brand" obstacle we are under when it comes to recruiting. Why would you not want this? Maybe you have some reason you don't thinks it's a big deal (which I would probably disagree with), but our basketball program can be under a different sponsorship than football. So someone give one good, factual, and solid reason why it's to our advantage to stick with Under Armour over Nike?

It's all about $$$, and like an article posted earlier said, "Auburn prostituted themselves out to Under Armour". It's high time the prostitute gets a new John.