Something triggers Nike-UK to have a reputed 10 OAD/TADs, while adidas KU and Nike MSU appear to have less than half that number.
Something triggers Nike-Duke to have a reputed 9 OAD/TADs, while adidas KU and Nike MSU appear to have less than half that number.
Rick Pitino's recent reputed comments suggest that agents and agent runners have something to do with it, and that he reputedly understood the NCAA thinks there was nothing wrong, so he did not either. But that doesn't really explain the mechanism of what makes it happen.
Norm Roberts reputedly got forced out of St. Johns, because, at least I recall, that it was reputedly reported in a NY newspaper that he would not play ball with some summer game and juco coaches. What playing ball meant was never made clear as I recall.
So: let's collect certain agents and agent runners, and certain summer game coaches and juco coaches, into a category called "hypothetical triggers of recruiting asymmetry."
I can kind of see how this hypothetical category might "enable" recruiting generally. If they get to know and be trusted by players, players and/or their families would likely get to know and associate with them in order to find trusted summer game teams, trusted college programs, and later trusted agency and endorsement relationships.
What I cannot understand is how this hypothetical category would trigger these recruiting asymmetries noted above and others.
How does this system work?
Is there an organization--formal, or informal--that is bringing an order to recruiting that is triggering recruiting asymmetry?
Notice: I am not assuming anything illegal is going on. I am not asking for any explanation that hinges on illegality.
I am assuming that things are legal and in conformity with the rules and reguations of college basketball.
I am only looking for a legal explanation that is in conformity with the rules and regulations of college basketball.
I have considered the hypothesis that Drake and general recruiting hipness and facilities have converged to trigger the recruiting asymmetry. But that hypothesis does not explain Duke, which Drake does not seem a fan of, and whose coach is never described as being incredibly now and nutty. So: I have had to reject that hypothesis.
I have considered the hypothesis that it is just coincidence. But coincindence does not explain the steady trending upwards in Nike-UK's recruiting, and for that matter in Duke's recruiting. Variance is not the same as total coincidence.
I have considered the hypothesis that it is driven by location in an eastern standard time zone. But that does not explain all the teams in the eastern standard time zone, some with good coaches and traditions, that get the same level of recruits as Nike-UK and Nike-Duke. Location is rejected.
I have considered the hypothesis that it is PetroShoeCo brand driven. This does not explain why so many programs with the same PetroShoeCo brand as Nike-UK and Nike-Duke do not have similar large clumps of OAD/TAD recruits. I have to reject the PetroShoeCo only hypothesis.
Someone help me here?