CSNbbs

Full Version: Recruiting difficulties
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(from ESPN)

Despite the lack of in-person evaluations, events have continued to happen around the country, with games livestreamed. But are coaches watching?

I polled around 20 college coaches from the low-, mid- and high-major levels to get a gauge on how much they have been watching the livestreams. The answers ranged from "none" to "four minutes" to "10 games per tourney" to "all."

There was a split down the middle among those polled -- half the coaches admitted to watching at least a decent amount of livestreams, and the other half watched only a handful of games at most.

+++++++++

These are just my thoughts, which may or may not be valid. I suspect that a lot of the recruiting trips (to events) that coaches made were only partly about recruiting and partly about expense-paid vacations and chances to chew the fat with their buddies in the trade. In other words, they were not all, or even mostly, absolutely necessary to the recruiting process. Since coaches start watching these kids when they are high school freshmen these days, missing one season of trips is not going to totally destroy their process.

Of course, they will not have as many opportunities to schmooze the recruits now, but that could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I doubt many of the coaches really enjoy that part of it, anyway. And with less of the wining and dining, if the kid still wants to come to your school, it is more likely that he really did want to to start with.

John Wooden claimed that he hardly ever made trips to see recruits. He relied almost entirely on detailed evaluations from people whose opinions he trusted who knew the players well. That might sound fishy, but it makes sense if you think about it. If Jim Calhoun asks Jim Boeheim, "Is this a kid that can help my program?" and Boeheim says, "Absolutely! Grab him quick," that is a fairly safe recommendation.

Plus, with all the electronics we have today, there really is no more reason for recruiting trips to assess the recruits than there is for office workers to come into their offices.
And maybe this year success will be less about salesmanship, and more about actual coaching. Wouldn't that be a shame!
(08-20-2020 08:14 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ](from ESPN)

Despite the lack of in-person evaluations, events have continued to happen around the country, with games livestreamed. But are coaches watching?

I polled around 20 college coaches from the low-, mid- and high-major levels to get a gauge on how much they have been watching the livestreams. The answers ranged from "none" to "four minutes" to "10 games per tourney" to "all."

There was a split down the middle among those polled -- half the coaches admitted to watching at least a decent amount of livestreams, and the other half watched only a handful of games at most.

+++++++++

These are just my thoughts, which may or may not be valid. I suspect that a lot of the recruiting trips (to events) that coaches made were only partly about recruiting and partly about expense-paid vacations and chances to chew the fat with their buddies in the trade. In other words, they were not all, or even mostly, absolutely necessary to the recruiting process. Since coaches start watching these kids when they are high school freshmen these days, missing one season of trips is not going to totally destroy their process.

Of course, they will not have as many opportunities to schmooze the recruits now, but that could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I doubt many of the coaches really enjoy that part of it, anyway. And with less of the wining and dining, if the kid still wants to come to your school, it is more likely that he really did want to to start with.

John Wooden claimed that he hardly ever made trips to see recruits. He relied almost entirely on detailed evaluations from people whose opinions he trusted who knew the players well. That might sound fishy, but it makes sense if you think about it. If Jim Calhoun asks Jim Boeheim, "Is this a kid that can help my program?" and Boeheim says, "Absolutely! Grab him quick," that is a fairly safe recommendation.

Plus, with all the electronics we have today, there really is no more reason for recruiting trips to assess the recruits than there is for office workers to come into their offices.

Thing is, Wooden was signing the "best of the best" who every expert agreed was going to be a very good to great player. I wouldn't have had any hesitation signing Kareem or Bill Walton without seeing them play in person.
But he still had to fill out the roster.
(08-20-2020 10:24 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]But he still had to fill out the roster.

Some of his "fill-ins" weren't half bad either. Swen Nater never started a game at UCLA (he average 3 points a game as a senior), but was the ABA rookie of the year. He proceeded to play about a dozen years in the ABA and then NBA.
And to our case, the four and five-star players everybody knows today, so the power conference coaches really don't have to do much looking. Guys at our level and below have to dig a lot deeper. Our coaches would know the one-and-dones, but would have little chance to sign them.
Reference URL's