ADVERTISEMENT

Something I've always wondered about recruiting

rwhitney014

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2007
5,109
4,310
113
I'm sure the board experts can help with this one. Off the top, I'll posit that the answer to my question is convenience of travel and relationships with high school coaches. And that there's plenty of collaboration between our coaches that everyday people like us don't see. But food for thought as we enter the offseason.

Why don't position coaches recruit for their position groups? Instead, coaches recruit geographic territories.

Shouldn't position coaches have the best insight into what will make a good player for their schemes, styles, preferences, etc.?

Wouldn't position coaches be able to develop more meaningful relationships with recruits, seeing as they're going to be the primary coach-player relationship for 4-5 years? (Especially at a program like ours, where we see so little turnover in the staff?) Like, whoever recruits Texas is looking at players at many positions, even though that coach won't actually be coaching most of the players that we pull from there.

I'm pretty sure I've read we don't offer a QB until McCall sees that QB throw. I'm not sure whether it's live in game settings, or on film, or in camp. But that seems to be more along the lines of what I'm talking about. QB recruiting is a different beast because we're generally taking one guy a year from a very limited pool of offers. But as coaching and GA/recruiting assistant staffs grow, doesn't that setup start to make more and more sense across the whole roster?
 
I'm sure the board experts can help with this one. Off the top, I'll posit that the answer to my question is convenience of travel and relationships with high school coaches. And that there's plenty of collaboration between our coaches that everyday people like us don't see. But food for thought as we enter the offseason.

Why don't position coaches recruit for their position groups? Instead, coaches recruit geographic territories.

Shouldn't position coaches have the best insight into what will make a good player for their schemes, styles, preferences, etc.?

Wouldn't position coaches be able to develop more meaningful relationships with recruits, seeing as they're going to be the primary coach-player relationship for 4-5 years? (Especially at a program like ours, where we see so little turnover in the staff?) Like, whoever recruits Texas is looking at players at many positions, even though that coach won't actually be coaching most of the players that we pull from there.

I'm pretty sure I've read we don't offer a QB until McCall sees that QB throw. I'm not sure whether it's live in game settings, or on film, or in camp. But that seems to be more along the lines of what I'm talking about. QB recruiting is a different beast because we're generally taking one guy a year from a very limited pool of offers. But as coaching and GA/recruiting assistant staffs grow, doesn't that setup start to make more and more sense across the whole roster?

Coaches do recruit both their geographical area and their position groups, at least at NU. Once a coach identifies a prospect from his area, he performs his own on- and off-field evaluation (usually both off tape and in-person) and sends it along to the position coach if deemed a "definite" or "probable" offer. The position coach then performs his own evaluation (usually off tape) and moves it to the head coach if deemed a "definite" offer or to the coordinator if "probable" offer; if deemed necessary, the position coach will also go see the player in person to complete his evaluation. The head coach then performs his own evaluation (usually off tape), which is the final "offer/no offer" decision.

Once offered, a player is recruited by his area, position, coordinator, and head coach in a very coordinated manner (i.e. weekly call plans, etc.). If deemed a "go-to" guy who would likely be in the next round of offers, he will typically be recruited primarily by his area recruiter with some support from the position coach.

(Hope that makes/made sense... a bit of psychobabble going on)
 
Coaches do recruit both their geographical area and their position groups, at least at NU. Once a coach identifies a prospect from his area, he performs his own on- and off-field evaluation (usually both off tape and in-person) and sends it along to the position coach if deemed a "definite" or "probable" offer. The position coach then performs his own evaluation (usually off tape) and moves it to the head coach if deemed a "definite" offer or to the coordinator if "probable" offer; if deemed necessary, the position coach will also go see the player in person to complete his evaluation. The head coach then performs his own evaluation (usually off tape), which is the final "offer/no offer" decision.

Once offered, a player is recruited by his area, position, coordinator, and head coach in a very coordinated manner (i.e. weekly call plans, etc.). If deemed a "go-to" guy who would likely be in the next round of offers, he will typically be recruited primarily by his area recruiter with some support from the position coach.

(Hope that makes/made sense... a bit of psychobabble going on)

So there are usually 4-5 coaches recruiting a player? Why do only one or two of the coaches get listed as the “primary recruiter”? I always figured coaches were assigned to recruit geographic regions based on their relationships with the high school coaches in the area and that is more important than the position that you coach.
 
So there are usually 4-5 coaches recruiting a player? Why do only one or two of the coaches get listed as the “primary recruiter”? I always figured coaches were assigned to recruit geographic regions based on their relationships with the high school coaches in the area and that is more important than the position that you coach.

Because that’s a Rivals/247 thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aquacat
ADVERTISEMENT