Why Coaches Hate Recruiting

[MilfordHusky]

A couple of family-related thoughts on recruiting.

My younger son went to Rice University. It had and may still have the smallest student body of a school fielding a Division I football team. The undergraduate enrollment is now up to 3,800, but was only 2,600 or so back in 2001. As a result, the incoming class of 650 needed to include the right number of students for each academic major and meet the needs of the various coaches, whether it was a catcher on the baseball team or tight end on the football team. That sounded like an incredible challenge to me.

The second point is that my 5'0" and 100 lb. badass of a granddaughter apparently will be recruited for college soccer. She has a few mid-to-low level college teams interested in her. Some of you may recall that she played on the Philippines U-16 team in a tourney in China last year. She had a big game last weekend with 2 goals and an assist, so she has been asked to play on some elite team in another state. I think offers can be made on September 1 of her junior year. When she was a freshman, 6 seniors on her public high school team got Division I scholarships, including to top teams such as Auburn and Rutgers.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

"What you get is coaches that are scattershot when they should be more selective based on the quality of players they already have."

UCMiami -- I remember this (kind of) conversation in relation to coaches like Jeff Walz, who many felt -- now that he's built an established program -- could/should switch from a "shotgun" approach to a more focused one, based on factors ranging from needs of the roster in the near- and the long-term, to the attitude of the prospects toward Coach Jeff's coaching strategy and what it means to them. Walz tends to run plays and the offense for a few and that can be a bucket of cold water to a prospect who thought they'd shine.

Still, even a selective, focused approach does not guarantee success. Coach McGraw has said she's trying to get to know her recruits and players on a more thorough basis so both player and coach can enjoy each other for four years. Sometimes things happen that can change the situation and sometime coaches miss things. Plus, there's the other factors that have been pointed out.

The "downfall" of Rutgers began with the "fab five" recruiting class that committed in the wake of the Imus controversy in 2007. Rutgers never expected to get all of them - possibly not most of them. So what happened - one player was gone at the start of the season for being "California Cool when we are Blue Collar Workers" (Viv's words), one wowed (some) fans but had no discipline or desire to learn the game plan and transferred, one contributed at her own pace (for example, losing 30 pounds after her senior season to improve her chances in the WNBA draft - suggesting she might have contributed more if she had lost that weight while playing in college) and one that stayed only because her boyfriend was at Rutgers.

Yet a coach has to follow all the tracks - things might have turned out differently if less of them had come. But you don't say know - especially to very well thought of players.

 

[triaddukefan]

A second, more insidious practice, involves pulling scholarship offers previously extended to HS recruits. One of the most notorious such occurrences was when Sylvia Hatchell pulled the scholarship offers from the Day sisters, out of nearby Raleigh, so she could sign DD and her posse at UNC. We all know how that worked out for Hatchell.

Im the last person to defend UNC..... but Im not quite sure if she actually pulled the scholarships. Maybe a UNC lurker knows more about it and can chime in.

 

[iamcbs]

One of the elements that I did not discuss was the end of season "annual review" where a coach and player sit down after the season to discuss the player's performance and the coaches expectations for the upcoming year. Someone on another thread suggested that coaches use these reviews to gently nudge players out the door who don't otherwise figure into their long-term plans, in order to open up more scholarships for a coach to restock the pantry. It would be interesting to know just how many of the 47 D1 transfers were encouraged to seek playing time somewhere else by their respective coaches.

What's wrong with a coach telling an athlete that he/she doesn't fit into the long term plans of the program and that he/or she would be better off elsewhere? The onus shouldn't always be on the athlete. Things don't always work out as planned.

 

[Dillon77]

Man, you stole my reply! I wanted to finish all of the comments to post this and BAM! Dillon comes in and scores the layup...

I should be so lucky....
(Plus, I played club lacrosse for a few years and my girls both played through high school, so I follow the sport.)

 

[oldude]

What's wrong with a coach telling an athlete that he/she doesn't fit into the long term plans of the program and that he/or she would be better off elsewhere? The onus shouldn't always be on the athlete. Things don't always work out as planned.

There is nothing wrong with a coach giving a player an honest assessment of their performance and ability, but there are a lot of things wrong with suggesting they would be better off elsewhere.

After a sophomore or junior year in particular, a player has probably established a course of study (some of these kids, especially WBB players, are actually student athletes). They also establish friendships and the school may be closer to home than other options. So the coach is effectively suggesting that the player pick up and move their life to another place where they don't necessarily know anyone, have to sit out a year and may or may not have the opportunity to play more. After an honest assessment by the coach, if a player decides to transfer on their own that's fine.

Once a player is granted a scholarship by a school that player absolutely has to earn playing time, but the coach in turn owes the player 4 years of tuition, room and board plus their good faith effort to help the individual develop into the best player they can be.

 

[UcMiami]

There is nothing wrong with a coach giving a player an honest assessment of their performance and ability, but there are a lot of things wrong with suggesting they would be better off elsewhere.

After a sophomore or junior year in particular, a player has probably established a course of study (some of these kids, especially WBB players, are actually student athletes). They also establish friendships and the school may be closer to home than other options. So the coach is effectively suggesting that the player pick up and move their life to another place where they don't necessarily know anyone, have to sit out a year and may or may not have the opportunity to play more. After an honest assessment by the coach, if a player decides to transfer on their own that's fine.

Once a player is granted a scholarship by a school that player absolutely has to earn playing time, but the coach in turn owes the player 4 years of tuition, room and board plus their good faith effort to help the individual develop into the best player they can be.

Nailed it - but would add that the player has to fulfill their part of the bargain - maximum effort, maintain academic status, and be a good teammate regardless of minutes. As long as they are doing all that, suggesting they move on is reneging on the implied promise given to them when they were recruited.

 

[iamcbs]

There is nothing wrong with a coach giving a player an honest assessment of their performance and ability, but there are a lot of things wrong with suggesting they would be better off elsewhere.

After a sophomore or junior year in particular, a player has probably established a course of study (some of these kids, especially WBB players, are actually student athletes). They also establish friendships and the school may be closer to home than other options. So the coach is effectively suggesting that the player pick up and move their life to another place where they don't necessarily know anyone, have to sit out a year and may or may not have the opportunity to play more. After an honest assessment by the coach, if a player decides to transfer on their own that's fine.

Once a player is granted a scholarship by a school that player absolutely has to earn playing time, but the coach in turn owes the player 4 years of tuition, room and board plus their good faith effort to help the individual develop into the best player they can be.

If a player is not going to contribute to the program in any meaningful way then the coach has an obligation to use that scholarship on a player that will contribute. The player in question can always remain at the school and pay his or her own way. That's what coaches get paid to do evaluate their programs and determine who can and cannot make meaningful contributions to the team. Some individuals make contributions by their mere presence, Tierney Lawlor and Jackie Fernandez come to mind immediately at Connecticut, but for some players a change of venue is best for all concerned.

 

[oldude]

If a player is not going to contribute to the program in any meaningful way then the coach has an obligation to use that scholarship on a player that will contribute. The player in question can always remain at the school and pay his or her own way. That's what coaches get paid to do evaluate their programs and determine who can and cannot make meaningful contributions to the team. Some individuals make contributions by their mere presence, Tierney Lawlor and Jackie Fernandez come to mind immediately at Connecticut, but for some players a change of venue is best for all concerned.

First off, the coach has an obligation to honor the contract of the LOI, or she opens up the university to a lawsuit, not to minimize the terrible publicity that would result.

Secondly, you've made a subtle change in your argument from a player not, "fitting into a team's long term plans" which implies basketball ability, and your revision citing "meaningful contributions" using Tierney as an example.

Your second argument implies attitude and effort, which UCMiami also cited a few posts earlier. I completely agree that if a player becomes a distraction to a team by virtue of a bad attitude and lack of effort, a coach needs to do everything they can to encourage the player to go elsewhere. But if we're just talking about a player's basketball ability, the coach recruited that player so the coach needs to own their mistake and make the best of it.

 

[UConnCat]

The "downfall" of Rutgers began with the "fab five" recruiting class that committed in the wake of the Imus controversy in 2007. Rutgers never expected to get all of them - possibly not most of them. So what happened - one player was gone at the start of the season for being "California Cool when we are Blue Collar Workers" (Viv's words), one wowed (some) fans but had no discipline or desire to learn the game plan and transferred, one contributed at her own pace (for example, losing 30 pounds after her senior season to improve her chances in the WNBA draft - suggesting she might have contributed more if she had lost that weight while playing in college) and one that stayed only because her boyfriend was at Rutgers.

Yet a coach has to follow all the tracks - things might have turned out differently if less of them had come. But you don't say know - especially to very well thought of players.

Jim Fuller made a similar point about Rutgers in his lengthy blog post a few weeks ago. In recounting how certain teams have fallen off after reaching Final Fours several years ago, Jim cited Rutgers while offering up a cautionary tale to Vic Schaefer:

The challenge now is to take the next step but to avoid the mistakes that Rutgers made of recruiting a different type of player than the ones that got them to the title game in the first place.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

A couple of family-related thoughts on recruiting.

My younger son went to Rice University. It had and may still have the smallest student body of a school fielding a Division I football team. The undergraduate enrollment is now up to 3,800, but was only 2,600 or so back in 2001. As a result, the incoming class of 650 needed to include the right number of students for each academic major and meet the needs of the various coaches, whether it was a catcher on the baseball team or tight end on the football team. That sounded like an incredible challenge to me.

The second point is that my 5'0" and 100 lb. badass of a granddaughter apparently will be recruited for college soccer. She has a few mid-to-low level college teams interested in her. Some of you may recall that she played on the Philippines U-16 team in a tourney in China last year. She had a big game last weekend with 2 goals and an assist, so she has been asked to play on some elite team in another state. I think offers can be made on September 1 of her junior year. When she was a freshman, 6 seniors on her public high school team got Division I scholarships, including to top teams such as Auburn and Rutgers.

One has to wonder why a college like Rice (it was, really, a small liberal arts college) is so obsessed with major college sports? Even with close to 4k students, it's still pretty small. Keep in mind that a full D-1 male and female sports program requires about a thousand kids. And that doesn't include all the kids who drop off or get injured or transfer during their four years. So for a school with 4k students, it means that well over one fourth of all students accepted and enrolled must be intercollegiate-level athletes. So Rice, at its present size, has a D-1 program and the same numbers as Dartmouth and Bucknell.

Among liberal arts colleges, many with just 2k students, or thereabouts, still need some 1k athletes to field a full program. So Williams College must accept and enroll athletes comprising half of its entire class. More, if one includes those leaving the program due to injury or other reasons.

And all of those athletes are also great students? The best intellects they can find? Not likely.

For a university like Connecticut, with over 20k undergraduates, a full sports program will not distort admissions much. But for the smaller schools, it represents an enormous factor.

 

[UcMiami]

oldude - just to be clear, an LOI is valid on the school's part for only one year which is a bone of contention with the NCAA for a lot of folks. Just one way the NCAA has stacked the deck towards the schools. Scholarships need to be renewed each year as the school has only committed to a single year. Some schools on their own have chosen to guarantee an athlete with four years of scholarship (could change from being an athletic scholarship if the team and athlete part ways) on their own (as long as the athlete remains in good academic and disciplinary standing) but that currently is the exception not the norm. That being said ...
The implied condition of an LOI is that it is a four year offer (with all the same athlete responsibilities) and will be renewed each year. And a coach who pulls a scholarship or pushes a player to leave just because they have found a better recruit in a later year is breaking the spirit of their agreement if not the actual 'contract' that is the LOI. And I agree, they have failed that athlete and should be held up to public scorn.

Specific to some walk-ons that were given scholarships by Geno, it is reported that he made it very clear to them that it was just for the current year and would only be renewed in any following years if he did not need the scholarship for another player - it was a reward they were getting for their contribution because he had it available currently with no guarantee it would be available in future years.

 

[UcMiami]

One has to wonder why a college like Rice (it was, really, a small liberal arts college) is so obsessed with major college sports? Even with close to 4k students, it's still pretty small. Keep in mind that a full D-1 male and female sports program requires about a thousand kids. And that doesn't include all the kids who drop off or get injured or transfer during their four years. So for a school with 4k students, it means that well over one fourth of all students accepted and enrolled must be intercollegiate-level athletes. So Rice, at its present size, has a D-1 program and the same numbers as Dartmouth and Bucknell.

Among liberal arts colleges, many with just 2k students, or thereabouts, still need some 1k athletes to field a full program. So Williams College must accept and enroll athletes comprising half of its entire class. More, if one includes those leaving the program due to injury or other reasons.

And all of those athletes are also great students? The best intellects they can find? Not likely.

For a university like Connecticut, with over 20k undergraduates, a full sports program will not distort admissions much. But for the smaller schools, it represents an enormous factor.

A lot of smaller schools do not field 'full D1 athletic programs'. Rice has 14 sports, Uconn 22.

And it gets down to why colleges support athletics in the first place - theories of education that stress a healthy body and a healthy mind and for college spirit and teamwork. Add in the current climate of alumni giving.

 

[stamfordhusky]

One has to wonder why a college like Rice (it was, really, a small liberal arts college) is so obsessed with major college sports? Even with close to 4k students, it's still pretty small. Keep in mind that a full D-1 male and female sports program requires about a thousand kids. And that doesn't include all the kids who drop off or get injured or transfer during their four years. So for a school with 4k students, it means that well over one fourth of all students accepted and enrolled must be intercollegiate-level athletes. So Rice, at its present size, has a D-1 program and the same numbers as Dartmouth and Bucknell.

Among liberal arts colleges, many with just 2k students, or thereabouts, still need some 1k athletes to field a full program. So Williams College must accept and enroll athletes comprising half of its entire class. More, if one includes those leaving the program due to injury or other reasons.

Rice has approximately 300 athletes on its combined sports rosters. A number of them are non-scholarship and some are true walk-ones. Even accounting for athletes who left the various programs, the total number of athletes doesnt make up more than 10% of the pool of admitted students. The percentage of athletes is somewhat higher at Bucknell and Dartmouth. As for Williams, recruited athletes are nowhere close to 50% of their admitted students.

 

[oldude]

oldude - just to be clear, an LOI is valid on the school's part for only one year which is a bone of contention with the NCAA for a lot of folks. Just one way the NCAA has stacked the deck towards the schools. Scholarships need to be renewed each year as the school has only committed to a single year. Some schools on their own have chosen to guarantee an athlete with four years of scholarship (could change from being an athletic scholarship if the team and athlete part ways) on their own (as long as the athlete remains in good academic and disciplinary standing) but that currently is the exception not the norm. That being said ...
The implied condition of an LOI is that it is a four year offer (with all the same athlete responsibilities) and will be renewed each year. And a coach who pulls a scholarship or pushes a player to leave just because they have found a better recruit in a later year is breaking the spirit of their agreement if not the actual 'contract' that is the LOI. And I agree, they have failed that athlete and should be held up to public scorn.

Specific to some walk-ons that were given scholarships by Geno, it is reported that he made it very clear to them that it was just for the current year and would only be renewed in any following years if he did not need the scholarship for another player - it was a reward they were getting for their contribution because he had it available currently with no guarantee it would be available in future years.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. But the reality is that other than if a player loses their eligibility due to academic issues, stops attending practice for some reason, or is determined to have done something illegal, unethical or immoral, scholarships are seldom rescinded just because a player isn't good enough to earn regular pt. Furthermore, in order to rescind a scholarship, a school is required to provide written notice to an athlete, with the additional requirement that the athlete can request a hearing before a university board of review. As I had indicated such an action would be a public relations nightmare for a school, particularly if a jilted athlete showed up at the hearing with her parents, a lawyer and every letter, text and voicemail ever received from the head coach indicating how much the school wanted little Suzy Basketball and how great she was going to be at Two-faced University.

WBB has 15 scholarships. If a school recruits one or two players that just don't have the ability to contribute on the court, but they work hard and are good teammates, why not keep them around the program?

 

[oldude]

Nailed it - but would add that the player has to fulfill their part of the bargain - maximum effort, maintain academic status, and be a good teammate regardless of minutes. As long as they are doing all that, suggesting they move on is reneging on the implied promise given to them when they were recruited.

I had meant to respond to this post earlier, which I thoroughly agreed with.

Back in the late 70's, I had the opportunity to meet Michigan HFBC Bo Schembechler in an informal setting where he ended up discussing recruiting among other things. He stated that for most of his coaching career, he simply told recruits that, "You will be evaluated based on your performance." He went on to say that in recent years he had become uncomfortable with his simple statement to recruits. He said he added one word and it made him feel much better when he began to tell recruits, "You will be evaluated based on your performance and your attitude."

Clearly, somewhere along the way, Geno developed the same mindset when recruiting HS basketball players,

 

[MilfordHusky]

The folks at Rice have lofty goals. They want to think of themselves as an Ivy. They aren't, but they are close.

They are in Texas, so football is a must. Their stadium has a capacity roughly equal to 100 years of alumni, living and dead. It makes no sense to those of us outside Texas.

Rice was the setting for JFK's famous speech about putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. He asks, "Why does Rice play Texas?" Then he goes on to say that we do these things, including putting a man on the moon, because they are difficult.

Rice had success in baseball for several years. They were a perennial top-10 team and won the College World Series in 2003. Most of their talent came from Texas. They still have the same coach, but the team has dropped out of the rankings and had a losing record the last time I looked. Famous players included Lance Berkman, Jose Cruz, Jr., Jeff Nieman, David Aardsma, and Philip Humber (a limited MLB career that included a perfect game).

 

[GoingPostal]

the simple answer is to many snowflakes

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I like snowflakes!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

The folks at Rice have lofty goals. They want to think of themselves as an Ivy. They aren't, but they are close.

They are in Texas, so football is a must. Their stadium has a capacity roughly equal to 100 years of alumni, living and dead. It makes no sense to those of us outside Texas.

Rice was the setting for JFK's famous speech about putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. He asks, "Why does Rice play Texas?" Then he goes on to say that we do these things, including putting a man on the moon, because they are difficult.

Rice had success in baseball for several years. They were a perennial top-10 team and won the College World Series in 2003. Most of their talent came from Texas. They still have the same coach, but the team has dropped out of the rankings and had a losing record the last time I looked. Famous players included Lance Berkman, Jose Cruz, Jr., Jeff Nieman, David Aardsma, and Philip Humber (a limited MLB career that included a perfect game).

That revived a very distant memory about Rice and baseball.

College baseball seems to be an odd sport. There are some very consistent teams, as in other sports, but there are a lot of teams that just have good years, it seems. Arizona - more or less surprisingly - won the NC the year we moved out here - what a change for RU fans that didn't have such a thing happen in their lifetimes with RU. Surprisingly again, Arizona had great success I think last season, with a new coach and after the team had completely turned over. A complete "out of the blue".

And I remember the year an unseeded team won or almost won the championship (Georgia? maybe).

While they weren't that good, RU had some good years in Baseball as well, but no consistency..

Mind you, I don't follow college baseball, except U of A and the local papers do a good job of making sure supporters know about "all" sports. For example, Arizona is hosting the PAC's sand volleyball championship, and I think the women's golf which is going on now. At Rutgers, it was a struggle to find out anything.

 

[UcMiami]

That revived a very distant memory about Rice and baseball.

College baseball seems to be an odd sport. There are some very consistent teams, as in other sports, but there are a lot of teams that just have good years, it seems. Arizona - more or less surprisingly - won the NC the year we moved out here - what a change for RU fans that didn't have such a thing happen in their lifetimes with RU. Surprisingly again, Arizona had great success I think last season, with a new coach and after the team had completely turned over. A complete "out of the blue".

And I remember the year an unseeded team won or almost won the championship (Georgia? maybe).

While they weren't that good, RU had some good years in Baseball as well, but no consistency..

Mind you, I don't follow college baseball, except U of A and the local papers do a good job of making sure supporters know about "all" sports. For example, Arizona is hosting the PAC's sand volleyball championship, and I think the women's golf which is going on now. At Rutgers, it was a struggle to find out anything.

Baseball is the only major sport with a professional minor league so a ton of the HS talent never arrives on campus - it dilutes the college talent and makes for a wider range of variability in performance. It is similar to earlier days in WCBB and much earlier days in FB and MCBB where a few teams dominated and then a few would pop up with an exceptional talent or two only to disappear again when that talent graduated.

 

[oldude]

Baseball is the only major sport with a professional minor league so a ton of the HS talent never arrives on campus - it dilutes the college talent and makes for a wider range of variability in performance. It is similar to earlier days in WCBB and much earlier days in FB and MCBB where a few teams dominated and then a few would pop up with an exceptional talent or two only to disappear again when that talent graduated.

Michael Lewis pointed out in Moneyball that HS draftees were far more difficult to project as pros, with a much lower success rate than college draftees, as Billy Beene could surely attest to.

 

[UcMiami]

Michael Lewis pointed out in Moneyball that HS draftees were far more difficult to project as pros, with a much lower success rate than college draftees, as Billy Beene could surely attest to.

And as every college coach in every sport could tell you too!

 

[oldude]

And as every college coach in every sport could tell you too!

Yes, but until Bill James came along and started doing regression analysis on MLB, most scouts & GM's were focused on finding the next Willie Mays or Micky Mantle on some HS playing field in Iowa, Oklahoma, etc.

 

[iamcbs]

First off, the coach has an obligation to honor the contract of the LOI, or she opens up the university to a lawsuit, not to minimize the terrible publicity that would result.

Secondly, you've made a subtle change in your argument from a player not, "fitting into a team's long term plans" which implies basketball ability, and your revision citing "meaningful contributions" using Tierney as an example.

Your second argument implies attitude and effort, which UCMiami also cited a few posts earlier. I completely agree that if a player becomes a distraction to a team by virtue of a bad attitude and lack of effort, a coach needs to do everything they can to encourage the player to go elsewhere. But if we're just talking about a player's basketball ability, the coach recruited that player so the coach needs to own their mistake and make the best of it.

The LOI is just what it says, it is a letter stating an athlete's intent to attend a particular university and the university will provide a scholarship for that player, nothing else. So to infer that coach can somehow violate an LOI by encouraging a player to go elsewhere is inaccurate. EDD signed an LOI did she not? Fitting into a program's long term plans doesn't just imply basketball ability, if this is the inference you drew from that statement then that's incorrect. It specifically speaks to the totality of the player and his/her impact on the program. Sadie Edwards didn't have a bad attitude and didn't lack effort, but both she and Geno felt that a change of scenery would be best for her.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Rice has approximately 300 athletes on its combined sports rosters. A number of them are non-scholarship and some are true walk-ones. Even accounting for athletes who left the various programs, the total number of athletes doesnt make up more than 10% of the pool of admitted students. The percentage of athletes is somewhat higher at Bucknell and Dartmouth. As for Williams, recruited athletes are nowhere close to 50% of their admitted students.

From the Williams College website (https://communications.williams.edu/media-relations/fast-facts/):

"Athletics

"Approximately 44 percent of all students participate in intercollegiate sports (36 percent at the varsity level). There are 32 varsity intercollegiate teams (16 men’s and 16 women’s), 8 junior varsity teams, 20 club teams, and a large intramural program. Williams is a member of the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC)."

I presume that the remainder participating in non-varsity intercollegiate sports are in unofficial sports like rugby or the like. But clearly, a major percentage of all students are intercollegiate athletes. I know that in the admissions process, each varsity coach is given a quota of athletes. Each sport is allocated so many admits. The coach submits his/her list, and from that the admissions committee selects those that are both favored by the coach, and also qualified under the college's policies for admissions.

That 44% figure translates into just under 900 kids.