Re: GSU.
They need to get kids to want to go there. They need a "name" hire, someone who can recruit, with proven domestic and international recruiting results. Hire the olympian who has applied, he's white and a male, but c'mon you need a drawcard
Re: GSU.
They need to get kids to want to go there. They need a "name" hire, someone who can recruit, with proven domestic and international recruiting results. Hire the olympian who has applied, he's white and a male, but c'mon you need a drawcard
whiteymcwhite wrote:
Re: GSU.
They need to get kids to want to go there. They need a "name" hire, someone who can recruit, with proven domestic and international recruiting results. Hire the olympian who has applied, he's white and a male, but c'mon you need a drawcard
Have you not been reading the thread about this school? First, "name hire?" Please, at any school it's nice to say you have a "name" on staff, but the bottom line is can the "name" develop the type of recruit that a GSU type school will get? International recruits?! Great! How will you pay for them? They will each require a full ride or damn near-not to mention all the fun paperwork to get them here. You aren't talking about a situation where the head coach will throw 5 scholarships toward distance and you can spend 3 fulls on foreigners so you have a strong front three, and then split 2 fulls on domestic talent so you have solid 10 all on money. You are talking about MAYBE 1-2 to build a whole men's distance squad, and then all the money you can give away on the women's side-yipee! Nice. This is a school that will get 2nd-3rd tier recruits(9:20-9:45) as the building block for the distance group. There won't be any sub 9:00 kids going there because THERE IS NO MONEY! So as a "name" you had better be able to develop these types into 14:00/29:00 if you want to have mediocre success at the D-I level, otherwise even don't bother applying. You are welcome.
-Someone who has done it
The men's program at GSU only have scholarships for distance kids. No sprinters. 7 scholarships for men's distance.Please look at the history of the program before you try to make an opinion sound like a fact.
GSU-Any interviews yet?
[quote]WOWWie wrote:
7 scholarships for men's distance.quote]
I highly doubt this.
Historically GSU was primaly a distance program and scholarships were given for DISTANCE RUNNERS ONLY.
Will there be any changes in the ACC?
whiteymcwhite wrote:
Re: GSU.
They need to get kids to want to go there. They need a "name" hire, someone who can recruit, with proven domestic and international recruiting results. Hire the olympian who has applied, he's white and a male, but c'mon you need a drawcard
yeah...... recruiting trumps actual coaching. riiiight
Joker,
I've been a college coach for 6 years now...recruiting is absolutely the single most important thing that I do.
If you don't recruit good kids you will not be a good coach. People can talk all they want about development but if I get six 4:15 kids and they stay 4:15 kids and you get six 4:30 kids and make them 4:20 kids....guess what, I'm going to kick your butt.
Good coaching is good recruiting first and foremost. Those with the most talent usually win. Just a fact.
I believe 100% in development and my #1 goal is for every kid to leave my program better than they were is hs, but recruiting is absolutely the #1 most important thing I do every year.
[quote]a college coach wrote:
Joker,
I've been a college coach for 6 years now...recruiting is absolutely the single most important thing that I do.
If you don't recruit good kids you will not be a good coach. People can talk all they want about development but if I get six 4:15 kids and they stay 4:15 kids and you get six 4:30 kids and make them 4:20 kids....guess what, I'm going to kick your butt.
quote]
Recruiting in good talent is not a requirement to being a good coach. Recruiting is part of being a good coach but it is more important to develop the athletes and help guide them to being better people. If you are able to do that, you will be able to recruit in better talent and move up the competitive ladder. There are a lot of teams who recruit in talent and do nothing with them or only improve them a little bit. That is not good coaching - just good recruiting.
Having a recruiting draw is a good thing but there has to be more to the equation or the given program will never be what it could be.
Skillet,
Did you read my entire post?
I believe in development 100%, however, recruiting is still a #1 priority...here is the actual combination of what I shoot for...
Find the 4:15 kids who are underdeveloped and make them 4:10 kids or better.
There is an art to finding talented kids that will continue to improve vs. those that won't.
You can't make chicken soup out of chicken feathers.
In other words, if you can't recruit, it doesn't matter what you know. There are no points awarded for biggest margin of improvement. There are points awarded for fastest times in a race. Without effective recruiting, you won't have a job before too long.
It's a big part of the collegiate coaches job. It's also very time intensive and most coaches are very inept at recruiting and you see the affect it has on their team.
Lets get back to the title of this thread...
What about St. Mary's college of Califonia?
And California Baptist?
What is going on at EIU? The job posting wasn't even up a week and it is already down??
It's not about the ability to recruit or how good of a coach you are, but how much scholarship money you have. Money talks with kids (and more importantly, their parents).
No doubt money helps, but look at D1 in the upper tier. Almost all the big schools have the same amount of money, but not all of them recruit well. You have to make projections on if kids will improve or not and that can be a crap shoot sometimes. I've seen people over scholarship people and not be able to put together an all around team as well.
I've also seen D3 coaches recruit well with no athletic scholly money, so it's not all about the money. Money can be a deal breaker, but not always.
No, it's not about the total budget-- all the big schools in major conferences are fully funded. It's about how many full scholarships will a head track coach give to their jumps coach, sprint coach, throws coach, distance coach, etc.. And then also, where can a team likely score the most points (and thus allow more scholarships for that coach)? It makes a huge difference in a coach's ability to recruit blue chippers, having 1-3 full scholarships to work with vs. 7-10 (or more). Again, most kids and their parents are looking at the scholarship amount they're offered, and it has nothing to do with how good of a recruiter or coach you are.
And no, you can't compare D3 to D1. Those considering a D3 school know there's no scholarship money, so it's not an issue. It actually comes down to recruiting/coaching/the school. D1, it's all about the scholarship offer with kids (or as with Oregon, the program sells itself).
This makes sense since up until a few years ago, there was no Track Team - just Cross Country. They put together some decent teams back in the mid-90's and had a guy make it to NCAA Nationals last year. Must be some potential there, right?
You would be surprised. Some kids have the mercenary approach while many others want the best coaching and competition. In the upper levels of D1, it is very much about how good a coach and/or recruiter you are as well as how good the team is at the NCAA level.
Been there, done that, know what I'm talkin about.
Have you been at a major conference school working with a limited number of scholarships? YOU would be surprised. I'll say it again for the 3rd time: it doesn't matter how good of a recruiter or coach you are because it's all money with kids.
You can say it all you want, but you would be overstating the issue big time. I've been at all kinds of situations at all three divisions. I know what I'm talking about here.