|
|
Post by kiyoat on May 25, 2022 8:14:09 GMT -6
With the quick success that Coach Pete seems to have had in both re-recruiting current players and bringing in both regional high school and transfer players, I'm left wondering...
Why?
Why was it so hard for Lee, and (seemingly) so easy for Peterson? I have my guesses, but I'll hold off on commenting until some of you have chimed in on the poll.
Why a poll? I have found that it seems to facilitate participation in the discussion. It's much easier to do multiple-choice anonymously than to stick your neck out with a comment. Plus, our lurkers can have a say without loudmouths like me dominating the discussion.... plus I just like polls.
Have fun, and remember you can choose up to four answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on May 25, 2022 13:18:44 GMT -6
Well, it looks like there it a clear pattern:
15 contacts/ networking
15 personality/ recruiting skill
14 quality facilities
7 winning tradition of school
I agree with all of these. I'd say with Coach Pete it seems like we have three out of the four (its still early in the process), and if we can get over the hump with a conference title, or at least some consistent top-2 finishes, well, the recruiting will really take off.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrj on May 25, 2022 14:46:25 GMT -6
I would like to say academic choices and quality, but I am not sure how often that is actually important.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on May 25, 2022 15:18:34 GMT -6
I would like to say academic choices and quality, but I am not sure how often that is actually important. Good point! Yes, I'd say that can be a factor, but not for all recruits. For the top schools, or private schools it probably helps. I'd guess that Denver and in the future UST probably benefit a little from the prestige factor. Not so much with ORU. Recruits that are serious about their specific career aspirations probably make that a criteria, I would guess. So the programs offered, or the school ranking in specific programs could be a factor for those student-athletes. It doesn't seem to stop them from transferring, though. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincoyote on May 25, 2022 19:46:43 GMT -6
I voted "other" as one of my choices and then forgot to explain. A coach's history of developing similar players/athletes plays a major factor. Athletes want to maximize their potential. A coach being able to say, "You remind me of 'x' at your age" can go a long way.
|
|
yote18
Senior Member
Posts: 536
|
Post by yote18 on May 26, 2022 9:35:39 GMT -6
I think what helps Coach Pete is the excitement factor, he’s young and he’s been a part of some successful teams. Naturally that helps sell recruits and he’s also had success developing players and from what I can see is very personable.
Lee, and this is just my basic observations, wasn’t as personable but was a good X’s and O’s guy. He no doubt had passion but it wasn’t the type needed to make USD exciting. IMO USD needs a Tim Miles, Craig Smith type of coach to succeed and with coach Pete we’re seeing that so far with the recruiting in the off season.
|
|
dbyote
Senior Member
Posts: 536
|
Post by dbyote on May 26, 2022 10:00:00 GMT -6
Yote 18 is spot on. Todd Lee was the Mike Zimmer of college basketball coaches, only harder to like.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on May 26, 2022 10:33:05 GMT -6
I think what helps Coach Pete is the excitement factor, he’s young and he’s been a part of some successful teams. Naturally that helps sell recruits and he’s also had success developing players and from what I can see is very personable. Lee, and this is just my basic observations, wasn’t as personable but was a good X’s and O’s guy. He no doubt had passion but it wasn’t the type needed to make USD exciting. IMO USD needs a Tim Miles, Craig Smith type of coach to succeed and with coach Pete we’re seeing that so far with the recruiting in the off season. Yup. Another thing is the current climate in mid-major college basketball, with all the transfers and coach movement. The best hope for stability is to get a coach with lots of recruiting ties, as Coach Pete seems to have. There isn't as much time anymore for "installing systems" or "player development". You never know how long that player or coach will be there. Coach Lee did Stan a solid and developed him. Then Arkansas reaped the reward. Like it or not, we are better to focus on the ability to get talent to Vermillion quickly, and to replace talent quickly. Deep recruiting ties make a big difference in that regard, I think. So the ability to connect with people quickly, and maintain those relationships, is key. That's why I think Coach Kayla will do very very well here, too. Everyone says she is all about relationships. Don't get me wrong, I still think that player development is hugely important. It just seems like a zero-sum game in some instances, unfortunately. Especially in Division-I mid-major basketball. It's one of the negative side-effects of expanding the players' transfer choices. Player development, by necessity, becomes a little less of a priority when roster stability becomes less secure. JMO |
|
|
|
Post by captaincoyote on May 27, 2022 0:21:07 GMT -6
I think we're starting to blend the recruitment and program success conversations. I agree that we need to bring in guys who are ready to contribute, but almost all college basketball players would love a shot at playing professionally and virtually none are ready out of high school. Even if they aren't sure that they'll stay at the school they originally sign with for 4-5 years, they know they don't want to waste a single year where they don't believe they're being developed efficiently and effectively. That all comes back around to the new reality for mid-majors. We want to recruit guys who are all ready good but not maxed out while also knowing that, if we help them reach their full potential, they will likely leave for a P5. That just cycles back to needing to bring in HS talent to develop, not miss on evals, and to attract immediate impact transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincoyote on May 27, 2022 0:21:54 GMT -6
I think we're starting to blend the recruitment and program success conversations. I agree that we need to bring in guys who are ready to contribute, but almost all college basketball players would love a shot at playing professionally and virtually none are ready out of high school. Even if they aren't sure that they'll stay at the school they originally sign with for 4-5 years, they know they don't want to waste a signal year where they don't believe they're being developed efficiently and effectively. That all comes back around to the new reality for mid-majors. We want to recruit guys who are all ready good but not maxed out while also knowing that, if we help them reach their full potential, they will likely leave for a P5. That just cycles back to needing to bring in HS talent to develop, not miss on evals, and to attract immediate impact transfers.
|
|
