Blood Is Thicker than Water: Family and Friends Are Changing Recruiting

On Wednesday, ESPN’s No. 17 high school player, Ray McCallum Jr., signed his letter of intent to play his college ball at the University of Detroit.

Why would a premier prospect choose to attend a school that finished 20-14 in the regular season with a 9-9 record in a mediocre conference?

The answer is the head coach: Ray McCallum Sr.—his father.

On the same day, ESPNU 100 player Trey Ziegler made similar headlines, committing to play for his father Ernie Ziegler at Central Michigan. These two rare occurrences are cause for an examination of the role families have begun to play in recruiting.

Recent trends in college basketball have revealed many cases like this. Players are now being influenced by more than just coaches and colleges. They are making decisions based on more than program prestige, coaching style, winning chances, and playing time.

Their decisions are now being pushed by family legacy, influence at the college, and even current family attendance. 

Although a father-son situation like McCallum’s happens to be rare, instances of brothers attending the same college together are becoming increasingly common.

Robin and Brook Lopez at Stanford were one of the most successful brother pairings. They led the Cardinal to a Sweet Sixteen berth during their sophomore season before both 7-footers went pro.

More brother pairs have emerged in the last couple of years, including Travis and David Wear at UNC, Marcus and Markieff Morris at Kansas, and the new champion Plumlee brothers, Miles and Mason, at Duke. In fact, a third Plumlee named Marshall could be on his way in the class of 2011.

However, one of the more famous incidents in recent history wasn’t quite as innocent a circumstance as these brothers.

The case of Michael Beasley pushed the bounds of ethical use of family persuasion. Beasley’s AAU coach Dalonte Hill was signed on as an assistant coach for the Charlotte 49ers by Bobby Lutz during the time Michael Beasley was in high school.

Beasley was attached to Hill “like a big brother” (Beasley’s words, not mine), so he committed verbally to the 49ers in order to play for Hill again. Seeing how attached Beasley was to Hill, Bob Huggins lured Hill to an assistant coaching job at Kansas State, which happened to bring Beasley along with him.

The package deal was a new form of recruitment generally scorned by the public. But if that wasn’t bad enough, Kansas State then proceeded to pay him what amounts to a king’s ransom for assistant coaches.

Hill, an assistant with only three years as a college coach under his belt, was paid $150,000 in base salary with another $270,000 of compensation for “television, radio, media, and other services.”

This $420,000 total was more than the total salary for all of the assistant coaches combined at schools like Wisconsin and Ohio State. In fact, after Bob Huggins left for West Virginia the same season, Hill’s salary was more than half of Frank Martin’s, the new head coach.

In essence, Kansas State University found a loophole that allowed them to pay their way to a decent season.

Ray McCallum’s case is more clear-cut. The only thing to really call into question is his decision-making ability.

One could approach this two ways. If McCallum is looking to jump to the NBA after one year, then maybe he was wise to sign with a small school. McCallum’s game will flourish at a small school where he should get instantaneous playing time, allowing him to pick up valuable experience and showcase his talent as a scoring-oriented point guard.

If this is not the case, however, McCallum is trying to build a program in Detroit with his father. Although making Detroit a contender for the conference championship is well within the grasp of the father-son duo, it is going to be hard to surpass Butler in the Horizon League for a championship.

One great player is a good start, but a team returning almost everyone from a near championship run is going to be hard for the McCallums to overcome.

These instances just prove that there are new factors in determining which school recruits are going to attend.

Although some of these situations have satisfactory motives behind them, incidents like the Michael Beasley’s prove that this could be a slippery slope if coaches aren’t careful.