I am always bemused by the various posters that proclaim x person is an excellent recruiter and will be an excellent HC as if the program she just left and worked for had nothing to do with the recruiting AND that now at the new school this x person will singularly be responsible for the recruits.
Those comments do not correlate. If you are the Head Coach, you have to get engaged on the recruiting at some point as it is your program you are selling (along with the rest of your coaches) AND the HC has to delegate the recruiting due to all the other responsibilities they now have. So Coach Messers was not solely responsible for Baylor or LSUs recruits and as new HC she can’t singularly do the recruiting for UCF.
Whether she can handle the actual HC duties who really knows, more than 1 top recruiter has failed as a HC just as some lead recruiters have been successful.
Thank you for saying this. I'll throw out an example - Jolette Law was an outstanding recruiter at Rutgers, when she went to Illinois as head coach it didn't suddenly mean Illinois was getting all those players who, after all, came to Rutgers ultimately to play for CVS, with a Jolette relationship part of it, of course.
The recruiting assistant(s) do the nitty gritty, a lot of the talent evaluations, sift through the "interested" parties, reach out the ones they are interested in, start correspondence, etc. Ultimately, the head coach decides what sorts of players they need / want and, of course, seal the deal. With various levels of activity and various efforts to show their "interest" in the prospect.
If you have particular recruiting skills (or, relationships with yet uncommitted players) this is doubtless a good thing as you start your head coaching career, but, as you say, it is no guarantee of success.
