Dez Wells and the Price of Xavier's Success

[Knight Commission]

 Mo Money, Mo Problems..........

__________________________________
Written byPaul Daugherty Cincinnati Enquirer

In big-time, quasi-amateur basketball, Dez Wells is the cost of doing business. The day Xavier decided that men’s basketball was a wonderful way to market the university, it rolled the dice with its image. Sometimes, the dice are snakes.

Xavier said goodbye to its best returning player Tuesday, amid vague pronouncements of serious conduct violations. Rumors are what they are. But when your best returning player is shown the gate, chances are it isn’t for missing a few classes or spitting on a sidewalk.

Xavier didn’t simply kick Wells off the team. Xavier kicked him out of school.

You can’t serve two masters in college sports. At least not well. Nice guys might not finish last, but they’re not getting you to Final Fours, either. Aspiring to Final Fours means recruiting Final Four talent. Problems and all. It’s not coincidence that Xavier’s rise to national hoop prominence has included a jump in its knucklehead factor. These aren’t merit-badge people you’re signing. If you want to run with the big dogs, expect big-dog problems.

When Xavier was Bob Staak and Pete Gillen and to some extent Skip Prosser, its boasts of Right Way basketball were genuine. Those early teams went to Mass together, on the road. They had a priest on the bench.

The Musketeers had genuinely high-quality people playing for them, who developed into outstanding basketball players. David West was as good as they came. So was Brian Grant. Those two wouldn’t get a long look from Xavier now. They were not Top 100 recruits. They weren’t blue-chip types.

I don’t know when, exactly, basketball became a high priority on Victory Parkway. It was an evolution, probably. The correlation between marketing and basketball has been very tight for at least a decade. Basketball success has provided marketing, advertising, positive PR and national exposure. It is a fine way for a little school with big aspirations to sell itself on a regional, even national, stage. All well and good.

Except when it isn’t.

If you’re an alumnus/alumna, what do you make of this? What do you think when you see a video clip of The Fight, for the 10,000th time? How is it to hear a representative of your alma mater refer to himself and his mates as “gangsters’’? Would you prefer to return to the Little Team That Could days of Pete Gillen, if it meant keeping your school off the police pages? Or is the devil-deal simply the way of things now?

The problem isn’t that XU has made the deal that almost every school aspiring to hoop greatness makes. The problem is, a certain segment of the XU faithful retain the notion that their “kids” are a cut above yours.

Not anymore.

The top teams recruit from the same pool of players. Just because a kid signs at Xavier doesn’t mean he’s a better person than if he’d signed at, pick a name, UNLV. Or, these days, North Carolina, where the burgeoning academic scandal cuts across all sports.

Unless you are Duke and a few, select others, you cannot have it both ways. Athletic grace doesn’t confer social grace.

All schools seeking big success make that bargain. Some are better at dealing with the inevitable fallout, and for that Xavier deserves credit. In some win-obsessed places, Dez Wells would still be on the team.

He’s gone from Xavier, but the taint remains. The perceived moral high ground has been ceded. But the championships are nice. Just because the Musketeers have had a run of knuckleheads doesn’t mean the program is that way. It just means Xavier basketball is officially big time.

[GGGG]

What a stupid, condescending article this is.  You *can* recruit players who are good off the court and also also ranked high on the court.

[Benny B]

What a stupid, condescending article this is.  You *can* recruit players who are good off the court and also also ranked high on the court.

True; however, fewer and fewer of those players come out of HS these days, and those who do typically don't consider Xavier.

[The Equalizer]

__________________________________
Written byPaul Daugherty Cincinnati Enquirer

"In some win-obsessed places, Dez Wells would still be on the team."

In other news . . .

"UK showing interest in ex-Xavier player Dez Wells"

http://ukrecruiting.bloginky.com/2012/08/23/uk-showing-interest-in-ex-xavier-player-dez-wells/

[GGGG]

True; however, fewer and fewer of those players come out of HS these days,

Got proof for this statement?  Are top 100-150 type kids more likely to get in off the court trouble now than they were a decade or more ago?

[The Equalizer]

What a stupid, condescending article this is.  You *can* recruit players who are good off the court and also also ranked high on the court.

Its sort of like top 10 ranked 7-footers.  You *can* recruit them, but you don't always land them. 

I think the larger point of the article is what happens then?

Everyone wants the kid with great character and loads of talent.  The next tier down are either compromised in terms of athletic ability or, as the articles states, the "social graces."  Or both.

So do you recruit a kid with great character but maybe not as talented and hope your coaching can transform the skills?  Or do you take the flawed character with a lot of talent and hope you can transform his character flaws?

[Pakuni]

What a stupid, condescending article this is.  You *can* recruit players who are good off the court and also also ranked high on the court.

Completely agree. The notion that one's athletic ability is inversely related to one's character is about as asinine as it gets.
There are plenty of young people who aren't stellar athletes out there acting like idiots/thugs/bad people. Probably more than the athletes. They just don't often come across the radars of pompous sports columnists and fans.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

We should welcome this author to the real world. College coaches can't predict the future. Some players will make bad choices. Just like any employer hires individuals who don't end up working out, college coaches recruit kids who fail to live up to the program's standards. Just as its idiotic to generalize the character of jucos (see Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, DJO, etc), you can't generalize about the top 100 guys.

Yes, top talent tends to come from the inner cities and with that comes some baggage. But its not immediately obvious how to sort out the good apples from the bad. Should we simply assume that every kid with cracked sidewalks in front of his house will commit some violation while on campus? For every Dez Wells out there who does something stupid, there are five kids who will come on campus and have no issues. Unless there are obvious character flaws, a criminal history, etc, you have to give each individual a chance to live up to their potential, not just write them off because they grew up in a rough neighborhood or don't talk the way as your ideal recruit would.

[GGGG]

We should welcome this author to the real world. College coaches can't predict the future. Some players will make bad choices. Just like any employer hires individuals who don't end up working out, college coaches recruit kids who fail to live up to the program's standards. Just as its idiotic to generalize the character of jucos (see Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, DJO, etc), you can't generalize about the top 100 guys.

Yes, top talent tends to come from the inner cities and with that comes some baggage. But its not immediately obvious how to sort out the good apples from the bad. Should we simply assume that every kid with cracked sidewalks in front of his house will commit some violation while on campus? For every Dez Wells out there who does something stupid, there are five kids who will come on campus and have no issues. Unless there are obvious character flaws, a criminal history, etc, you have to give each individual a chance to live up to their potential, not just write them off because they grew up in a rough neighborhood or don't talk the way as your ideal recruit would.

Well stated.  <applause>

[Dawson Rental]

We should welcome this author to the real world. College coaches can't predict the future. Some players will make bad choices. Just like any employer hires individuals who don't end up working out, college coaches recruit kids who fail to live up to the program's standards. Just as its idiotic to generalize the character of jucos (see Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, DJO, etc), you can't generalize about the top 100 guys.

Yes, top talent tends to come from the inner cities and with that comes some baggage. But its not immediately obvious how to sort out the good apples from the bad. Should we simply assume that every kid with cracked sidewalks in front of his house will commit some violation while on campus? For every Dez Wells out there who does something stupid, there are five kids who will come on campus and have no issues. Unless there are obvious character flaws, a criminal history, etc, you have to give each individual a chance to live up to their potential, not just write them off because they grew up in a rough neighborhood or don't talk the way as your ideal recruit would.

You're preaching to the choir, at least when it comes to Division I basketball programs.  Kentucky is already looking into recruiting Wells, although I think almost everyone would consider a player who is expelled from another university after being the focus of a police investigation as having charactor flaws.

[muwarrior69]

Al and many of his players would have been thrown out of the University by today's standards. However, though they would beat up on each other I never heard any of Al's players beating up their girl friend.

[Dawson Rental]

What a stupid, condescending article this is.  You *can* recruit players who are good off the court and also also ranked high on the court.

There is perhaps no better example of that than Jabari Parker.

I think that the article is poorly written.  If, in fact, what he means to say that if you're Xavier playing in the Atlantic 10 and you want to get a top 50 player from the ACC's backyard (North Carolina) you really have no chance unless the guy is a player that most, if not all, of the ACC is passing on.  And if most, if not all, of the ACC is passing on him, the player is going to have character flaws.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

You're preaching to the choir, at least when it comes to Division I basketball programs.  Kentucky is already looking into recruiting Wells, although I think almost everyone would consider a player who is expelled from another university after being the focus of a police investigation as having charactor flaws.

I'm not arguing that Dez Wells doesn't have character flaws, but I'm not sure he had demonstrated them prior to being recruited by Xavier. This author is arguing that this incident is evidence of a flaw in Xavier's recruiting practices, which is some serious Monday morning quarterbacking. If the allegations are true, then obviously I would have a problem were Marquette to start wooing him.

[Lennys Tap]

There is perhaps no better example of that than Jabari Parker.

I think that the article is poorly written.  If, in fact, what he means to say that if you're Xavier playing in the Atlantic 10 and you want to get a top 50 player from the ACC's backyard (North Carolina) you really have no chance unless the guy is a player that most, if not all, of the ACC is passing on.  And if most, if not all, of the ACC is passing on him, the player is going to have character flaws.

I think you make a good point, Murs. The "bluebloods", theoretically at least, get the pick of the litter when it comes to top 50 players. They shouldn't have to take chances (relatively speaking) on scholastics/character. If you're the 25th best program trying to recruit top 50 talent there won't be a great deal left to pursue when the bigger dogs are done. If you want to compete, you probably have to take a few more risks than the top programs.

[6746jonesr]

Something has happened to this board over the past year so.  Someone writes an opinion piece, and rather than taking a few minutes to digest what was written, the immediate reaction is to jump all over the person who has taken the time to write an opinion piece.  I believe that the author was actually talking about the danger to a University about compromising its core values for the sake of winning basketball games.  Some on this board seem willing to turn a blind eye to the misconduct of student athletes as long as we win.  I don't know if the character of student athletes is different today than in the past, but the stakes involved in revenue producing sports certainly has risen with the money that is being thrown around by media outlets and shoe companies.  I think the original poster is raising an important question--how far should a University go in order to win?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Something has happened to this board over the past year so.  Someone writes an opinion piece, and rather than taking a few minutes to digest what was written, the immediate reaction is to jump all over the person who has taken the time to write an opinion piece. 

We are all indebted to the newspaper journalist who takes five minutes out of his busy day to churn out an opinion piece sandbagging a basketball program for issues that it had little ability to predict in advance.

We all get it and have heard it many times before: universities should stop caring so much about winning sporting events and start putting "core values" above everything else. But what exactly does that look like? What is the "core value" that Xavier missed on here? Are schools just to stop recruiting all top 100 players because some people have a vague notion that there is some correlation between rivals rank and risks of ethical violations. You only recruit "traditional" players from suburban neighborhoods because you only want model citizens? You refuse to offer kids with tats? What core value did Xavier break by extending an offer to a talented basketball player who hadn't demonstrated character flaws prior to or during his recruiting?

Yes, apparently this kid made some mistakes; but to say that it is evidence that the entire university has lost its way is just ludicrous. Keep in mind, Xavier still kicked this kid out after learning of the issues. Its not like they covered this up to try and protect their basketball program.

[GGGG]

We are all indebted to the newspaper journalist who takes five minutes out of his busy day to churn out an opinion piece sandbagging a basketball program for issues that it had little ability to predict in advance.

We all get it and have heard it many times before: universities should stop caring so much about winning sporting events and start putting "core values" above everything else. But what exactly does that look like? What is the "core value" that Xavier missed on here? Are schools just to stop recruiting all top 100 players because some people have a vague notion that there is some correlation between rivals rank and risks of ethical violations. You only recruit "traditional" players from suburban neighborhoods because you only want model citizens? You refuse to offer kids with tats? What core value did Xavier break by extending an offer to a talented basketball player who hadn't demonstrated character flaws prior to or during his recruiting?

Yes, apparently this kid made some mistakes; but to say that it is evidence that the entire university has lost its way is just ludicrous. Keep in mind, Xavier still kicked this kid out after learning of the issues. Its not like they covered this up to try and protect their basketball program.

2-for-2

[real chili 83]

This article is wrong in soooooo many ways.

This guy could be on the JS staff once Walker or Pladipus move on.

[The Equalizer]

We should welcome this author to the real world. College coaches can't predict the future. Some players will make bad choices. Just like any employer hires individuals who don't end up working out, college coaches recruit kids who fail to live up to the program's standards. Just as its idiotic to generalize the character of jucos (see Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, DJO, etc), you can't generalize about the top 100 guys.

Yes, top talent tends to come from the inner cities and with that comes some baggage. But its not immediately obvious how to sort out the good apples from the bad. Should we simply assume that every kid with cracked sidewalks in front of his house will commit some violation while on campus? For every Dez Wells out there who does something stupid, there are five kids who will come on campus and have no issues. Unless there are obvious character flaws, a criminal history, etc, you have to give each individual a chance to live up to their potential, not just write them off because they grew up in a rough neighborhood or don't talk the way as your ideal recruit would.

Interesting comments you've made in this thread--you're repeatedly stated that coaches just can't possibly predict whether players will turn out to be high-character people or complete thugs.

So given that you think Xavier can't be faulted for recruiting a thug like Wells,  the question is whether you think Buzz deserve credit for finding high-character players like Butler or Crowder or DJO?  

Of course that's a trick question. Once you argue that Mack couldn't possibly tell that Wells was a thug, then you have to also argue that Buzz was simply lucky that Butler, Crowder and DJO didn't turn out to be thugs just like Dez Wells.  

Frankly, I think you're dead wrong. I think Chris Mack knew exactly who he was getting with Wells. A great player who was a less than great person. Mack  gambled that he'd be able to clean up Wells' act. And he took that gamble for exactly the reason Paul Daugherty claims in his article: Mack put winning ahead of character.

I think Buzz is vetting his recruits and making damn sure that they're high character guys FIRST and FOREMOST, and good players second.  Just take a look at the life stories on Butler and Crowder. High character guys first.

So, if you ask me, I'll say yes, absolutely a coach can sort out the good kids from the thugs.  And I think Buzz is doing just that.  I don't think Mack did.

Kudos to Buzz for doing the right thing.  Kudos to Paul Daugherty for calling out Mack.

[GGGG]

I think Buzz is vetting his recruits and making damn sure that they're high character guys FIRST and FOREMOST, and good players second.  Just take a look at the life stories on Butler and Crowder. High character guys first.

Are you sure you want to stick by this statement 100%???

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Equalizer,

To answer your question, no, I don't think Buzz can take a lot of credit for the fact that guys like DJO, JFB, and Crowder didn't have any major incidents during their time at MU. If Buzz wants to take credit for those guys, then he would have to take responsibility for recruiting guys like Montrele Clark and Dave Singleton. So while you think its a trick question and obviously Buzz should get credit for his recruits good behavior, you have a false premise: not all of Buzz's recruits behavior has been on board with university policies and what not. That's just part of life; people fail, and its not always obvious who will be solid and who will falter.

In my view, people aren't as black and white as you think they are. It is hard to sort the "good" from the "bad", and you can't throw an entire university under the bus simply because of a few incidents. In the same way, universities and coaches can't necessarily be commended just because they haven't had a major incident in a few years. Life is unpredictable and some things can just be chalked up to chance.

[Benny B]

Got proof for this statement?  Are top 100-150 type kids more likely to get in off the court trouble now than they were a decade or more ago?

I think kids, in general, are more likely to get in trouble today than they were 20 years ago.  The profile of a college athlete has changed. What's deemed acceptable behavior by society has changed. The number of kids who videotape their shenanigans have changed.  The number of lawyers looking to make a quick buck have changed.