creekdipper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,097
- Likes
- 22,269
The perennial subject around here is recruiting. For the last year, a lot of the talk in multiple threads has been about who can and who can't recruit. So the question is this: what do the ones who can recruit do differently from those who can't.
If we can set aside the obvious and glib responses...they get top recruits, they cheat, they win, etc....what is it they do so much better?
For reference, we can use Holly. It's constantly said that "she could recruit," but how? By any objective standard, what individual qualities did she demonstrate that exceeded those of Kellie? The only thing that comes to mind was Holly's early success with Pat's recruits, but even then the team could look like a mess at times.
There are certain factors that lie beyond a coach's influence such as the school's academic reputation, geographic location (natural or cultural attractions, proximity to family, etc.), family legacy, friends attending, success in other sports, etc. Then there are things such as facilities, fan base, perks (overseas trips), tradition, and other things that the coach may influence or have direct impact while still relying upon outside help.
But what do coaches have to do to attract top recruits? Remember that it's not just McGraw, Graves, Mulkey, Auriemma that are the yardsticks. Recently-fired Astin and Warlick consistently pulled in top talent. How were they able to sell their programs when the on-court results were lacking (if success is the biggest factor)?
And what specifically is Kellie and staff failing to do? What techniques and/or qualities do they have to show or use?
If we're going to be critical, we ought to be able to give the recommended steps for improvement, just as we do when making suggestions for on the court. Seems only fair.
If we can set aside the obvious and glib responses...they get top recruits, they cheat, they win, etc....what is it they do so much better?
For reference, we can use Holly. It's constantly said that "she could recruit," but how? By any objective standard, what individual qualities did she demonstrate that exceeded those of Kellie? The only thing that comes to mind was Holly's early success with Pat's recruits, but even then the team could look like a mess at times.
There are certain factors that lie beyond a coach's influence such as the school's academic reputation, geographic location (natural or cultural attractions, proximity to family, etc.), family legacy, friends attending, success in other sports, etc. Then there are things such as facilities, fan base, perks (overseas trips), tradition, and other things that the coach may influence or have direct impact while still relying upon outside help.
But what do coaches have to do to attract top recruits? Remember that it's not just McGraw, Graves, Mulkey, Auriemma that are the yardsticks. Recently-fired Astin and Warlick consistently pulled in top talent. How were they able to sell their programs when the on-court results were lacking (if success is the biggest factor)?
And what specifically is Kellie and staff failing to do? What techniques and/or qualities do they have to show or use?
If we're going to be critical, we ought to be able to give the recommended steps for improvement, just as we do when making suggestions for on the court. Seems only fair.