must be incredibly tough. It's easy to spot great talent, but the big boys are going to get the obviously great players, so a mid major coach has to see not only ability, but future growth possibilities, because some of our best players in the past had not reached their potential in high school, and it took them a couple of years to reach it here. I always use Richard Hardman as my example. He was nearly let go each of his first two seasons, yet became a very solid player for us. I think Ben Dillard is just starting to reach his true potential. Hopefully others like Kemy, Stetson and Mariek will continue to grow as players. No question James and Josh will be stars in the SBC for the next two seasons. As will D'Vonte this season and next. Right now, I see a pretty bright future for the program if we keep all the right players and plug in new additions that fit. Losing Will will be a problem, but hopefully we'll be able to adjust with different players.
One thing coaches have to do is to evaluate not only talent but character. If a kid stays with it and works hard, then he could end up surpassing his natural talent. And if he is a team player, he can help the sum of the parts be greater than the whole, as the saying goes. Coachable kids, in other words. Like Co Willis and Hardman and Dillard.
(01-07-2014 12:05 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]One thing coaches have to do is to evaluate not only talent but character. If a kid stays with it and works hard, then he could end up surpassing his natural talent. And if he is a team player, he can help the sum of the parts be greater than the whole, as the saying goes. Coachable kids, in other words. Like Co Willis and Hardman and Dillard.
I think our coaches have done a great job evaluating character. At least so far. And I think some of the players who we have complained about leaving in the past might have had some character issues. I know one several years ago did. However, I think most leave because of lack of playing time, or grades, or something other than character. For the most part, our kids have been good citizens
(01-07-2014 12:22 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2014 12:05 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]One thing coaches have to do is to evaluate not only talent but character. If a kid stays with it and works hard, then he could end up surpassing his natural talent. And if he is a team player, he can help the sum of the parts be greater than the whole, as the saying goes. Coachable kids, in other words. Like Co Willis and Hardman and Dillard.
I think our coaches have done a great job evaluating character. At least so far. And I think some of the players who we have complained about leaving in the past might have had some character issues. I know one several years ago did. However, I think most leave because of lack of playing time, or grades, or something other than character. For the most part, our kids have been good citizens
I have a heard time understanding how recruiting works at our level. Let's say we find a player who we think is a "diamond in the rough". We recruit him hard, but then some Big12/SEC-type schools start showing interest and offer him scholarships. Do we just back off at that point? Do we keep fighting? Do we just acknowledge it's a losing battle and move on? We never know the truth in recruiting. Have we ever gotten a player that had a solid offer from a BCS school? I don't know. I know a lot of schools were interested in Will Neighbour (I heard UConn, Florida, etc.), but did he ever get a commitable offer from a school like that? Maybe BTH might have more insight into this. Just seems like if a kid gets a BCS offer, that's were he'll go. I've seen exceptions like when a player's father is a coach at a midmajor or maybe has an ill parent at home. Don't know if it has happened at UALR or not.
(01-07-2014 01:12 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2014 12:22 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2014 12:05 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]One thing coaches have to do is to evaluate not only talent but character. If a kid stays with it and works hard, then he could end up surpassing his natural talent. And if he is a team player, he can help the sum of the parts be greater than the whole, as the saying goes. Coachable kids, in other words. Like Co Willis and Hardman and Dillard.
I think our coaches have done a great job evaluating character. At least so far. And I think some of the players who we have complained about leaving in the past might have had some character issues. I know one several years ago did. However, I think most leave because of lack of playing time, or grades, or something other than character. For the most part, our kids have been good citizens
I have a heard time understanding how recruiting works at our level. Let's say we find a player who we think is a "diamond in the rough". We recruit him hard, but then some Big12/SEC-type schools start showing interest and offer him scholarships. Do we just back off at that point? Do we keep fighting? Do we just acknowledge it's a losing battle and move on? We never know the truth in recruiting. Have we ever gotten a player that had a solid offer from a BCS school? I don't know. I know a lot of schools were interested in Will Neighbour (I heard UConn, Florida, etc.), but did he ever get a commitable offer from a school like that? Maybe BTH might have more insight into this. Just seems like if a kid gets a BCS offer, that's were he'll go. I've seen exceptions like when a player's father is a coach at a midmajor or maybe has an ill parent at home. Don't know if it has happened at UALR or not.
In most cases that I'm aware from ASU is if the kid says he's just not interested, they won't waste their time. Recruit until the kid says forget it. I do believe that if a kid won't give you hope at all and a BCS school is recruiting them, you have very little luck. Chances are you have to find the one's that fall through the cracks.
I don't know if any staff will admit this or not but from looking at that post on wku, it looks like they offer 50 players and start sorting through things as kids say yes.
so, at out level I think there is a lot of potluck. You never know what you are getting until you put some on the plate and try it.
I don't know how literally we can take what he said as fact, but John Wooden claimed that only once did he go see a prospect play. He would send a questionairre to people who knew the player, and proceed upon the basis of the answers. And his assistants would have been in the field. The point is that he wanted to know more about the player than ability.