|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 6:43:13 GMT -6
How much does coaching have on the development of a player and how much does the winning and reputation of a program have to do with a player getting DI scholarships?
Had the pleasure of spending some time with a high profile perennial USA today top 10 HS DC recently. Public school, they're accross the street rival has nearly the same success they do etc. Coach told me they had a down year, only 3-4 DI kids on the team. One year they had 15 DI kids on the team (not all seniors).
Amazing to me so many DI kids in such a tiny area. How much of it is coaching? Is it the winning and tradition of the program that maybe gives kids there a lot more looks than if the team was 1-8? It's not the water or some lucky freakish streak, it's been pretty long term at this school.
Same for the D/FW area, in 2007 there were 174 Division I kids from there. 6 Million people there but sheesh that is a huge number of kids for such a small area. Teams like Kansas that have done very well of late have rosters full of Texas kids (23), NU has 9 Texas Recruits on their recruiting commit list. How much of the development of the player can be attributed to coaching?
Im not convinced there is some kind of "Texas" gene that genetically makes a kid better than kids from other parts of the country, but it has to be something.
At the youth level the Texas teams that play in the National tournaments are very ordinary, they rarely if ever win them.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 7:08:43 GMT -6
how much? 5%
I'd say the rest is; 60% genetics 25% academics 10% parenting / support that keeps the kid's head together and grounded with work ethic
but then again, what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 7:19:26 GMT -6
how much? 5% I'd say the rest is; 60% genetics 25% academics 10% parenting / support that keeps the kid's head together and grounded with work ethic but then again, what do I know? Academics? HEre in NEbraska our state ranks in the top 5 for ACT scores., Nebraska and Minnestoa rank in the top 5 in nearly all academic categories and neither produces many DI kids, Florida on the other hand finishes very poorly in academics and they produce a ton of DI kids. That's probably not 25%c of the equation. Lots of 4.0 kids here that arent good enough to play DI ball. Nebraska ranks in the top 10 in households that have both parents that are married and in the home. Yet from a per capita basis of just 2 million people, maybe 8-10 kids go DI every year from here in a football crazed state. I dont know the answer but Im not sure those are them. If its all genetics why would all those genetically superior "master race" type kids be congregated in one area of the country or in a small city like Tulsa? I really dont know but am interested in finding out.
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Feb 4, 2008 7:38:12 GMT -6
What about money, administrative support and facilities? I'm asking. I certainly don't have any answers.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 7:45:48 GMT -6
Not even Bill Walsh can take a 5'8" 130 lb kid, coach the hell out of him and make him 6'3" 265 lbs running a 4.4 Right now we have a LB...6'1" 235 lb....great nose for the ball, very physical player, a kid everyone of us here would love to have. Problem: 40 time 4.5/4.6 = D1 LB recruit 4.7+ = D3 DL recruit Was getting a lot of attention last year at a few camps and combines from some pretty high level D1 schools, until he ran a 5.2, now every coach I talk to, the very first words out of their mouth is "what's his 40 time?" He has gotten it back down to a 4.8, and that's what I tell them and they say "too slow." I think Brophy is pretty much right on but I will also say, some kids are a product of the system. If academics play such a big part why do states with very poor academic results also have big DI numbers and the opposite being true, the states with very high academic numbers like Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota have very poor per capita numbers going DI? BTW those 3 states also have very high % of nuclear intact families as well. The numbers don't add up to support that hypothesis. States like Louisiana have huge numbers of DI kids but finish very low in the academics and nuclear family numbers, not picking on Louisiana at all BTW. Just trying to figure out why certain states or even teams have dramatically higher per capita numbers of kids going DI every year, while others dont.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 7:56:32 GMT -6
well, if you're going to debate the point made - you'll see that academics only comprised 25% of the equation.
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan athletes by majority do not compare favorably with the speed and explosiveness found elsewhere in the country. Not saying there aren't prime athletes coming from these areas, just not very many.
Can 'coaching' up a passer make an impact? I think so...but you have to have the other qualities (size, speed, grades).
I've been blessed to coach 4 DI scholarship athletes. Although I spent a lot of time with all of those boys, I wouldn't kid myself for one minute into believing I'm the reason he has a scholarship. They earned it all on their own. There are probably double that amount of boys who had equal the physical skills to play DI, but blew it in the other areas.
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been discussed ad nauseum to the same result on here? I wanna say there was a topic not 3 months ago on the very same argument.
What are college recruiters looking for? Finished products or clay they can mold in 4-5 years? They are looking for who they can keep eligible (grades), who will grow (body frame and ceiling), and who will stay out of trouble (maturity). Do you really think those guys are looking for something else, honestly?
Well, I've said my peace - have at it.
Believe what you want.
|
|
|
Post by rideanddecide on Feb 4, 2008 8:22:39 GMT -6
And the effect of spring ball and year round contact in the weight room?
We have no spring ball. We cannot require athletes to lift out of football season--although we can get creative here. There are no "athlete weight room" classes at most schools. Wisconsin puts out few DI recruits each year.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 8:33:03 GMT -6
well, if you're going to debate the point made - you'll see that academics only comprised 25% of the equation. Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan athletes by majority do not compare favorably with the speed and explosiveness found elsewhere in the country. Not saying there aren't prime athletes coming from these areas, just not very many. Can 'coaching' up a passer make an impact? I think so...but you have to have the other qualities (size, speed, grades). I've been blessed to coach 4 DI scholarship athletes. Although I spent a lot of time with all of those boys, I wouldn't kid myself for one minute into believing I'm the reason he has a scholarship. They earned it all on their own. There are probably double that amount of boys who had equal the physical skills to play DI, but blew it in the other areas. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been discussed ad nauseum to the same result on here? I wanna say there was a topic not 3 months ago on the very same argument. What are college recruiters looking for? Finished products or clay they can mold in 4-5 years? They are looking for who they can keep eligible (grades), who will grow (body frame and ceiling), and who will stay out of trouble (maturity). Do you really think those guys are looking for something else, honestly? Well, I've said my peace - have at it. Believe what you want. When this related tangent was part of another thread a moderator suggested I open a new thread. I dont know the answer, have no idea thats why I asked the question, but Im not sure your answer is supported by the evidence. I was hoping others may be able to shed light on why these numbers are so dramatic and so skewed. NU hasnt got a bunch of players from the the coach I spoke to. The only one they sent up here played as a Freshman, quite a player. I dont know if this coach sends a lot of "finished" product all over the country but find it hard to believe year after year after year in a Public school in very average sized to smaller city, this team would have so many DI kids through the sheer lottery of genetics. How much of it is the coach and how much of it is they win and have a lot of college recruiters there because of the rep and the wins? Or is it something else? Of course the kid has talents, but in a Public school why would one guy every year get great DI kids? Why does one tiny area of the country like D/FW or one school in Tulsa Oklahoma have SO many DI kids? Are all these "master" race people seletively breeding with other "master" race people to create some kind of freakish master race of football talent?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 8:35:37 GMT -6
NU hasnt got a bunch of players from the the coach I spoke to. just one last question.... are we seeing this through the eyes of a coach or as a fan?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 8:38:07 GMT -6
NU hasnt got a bunch of players from the the coach I spoke to. just one last question.... are we seeing this through the eyes of a coach or as a fan? As a coach, not sure how, why, what that hs to do with anything, could use any University as an example
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 8:46:03 GMT -6
For the sake of discussion (clarity) is this hypothesis based on the example you gave (small public HS essentially feeding NU) or the large percentage of DI recruiting?
I apologize if I was misguided with the latter.
If you are a DI college coach, and have X amount of scholarships to give out, what would you be recruiting (reverse-engineer the logic) to acquire talent?
If your job is based on the talent you acquire, how many of those scholarships will you risk on 'projects'?
Some schools prepare kids better for the 'next level' (through organization, high-level of play/expectations, and relationships) so there is not so much of a culture shock for the recruit.
If there was a program out there that can, through sheer coaching, develop 6'4" 225+lbs, 4.4 athletes, then they need to patent it and hold some seminars.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 8:50:48 GMT -6
Point taken DC. Football is King in Nebraska as well, by a huge margin, nothing is remotely close. But there certainly are much lower DI players per capita here than in many states, especially Texas, Louisiana and Ohio of course. Perplexing question. .
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 8:57:58 GMT -6
For the sake of discussion (clarity) is this hypothesis based on the example you gave (small public HS essentially feeding NU) or the large percentage of DI recruiting? I apologize if I was misguided with the latter. If you are a DI college coach, and have X amount of scholarships to give out, what would you be recruiting (reverse-engineer the logic) to acquire talent? If your job is based on the talent you acquire, how many of those scholarships will you risk on 'projects'? Some schools prepare kids better for the 'next level' (through organization, high-level of play/expectations, and relationships) so there is not so much of a culture shock for the recruit. If there was a program out there that can, through sheer coaching, develop 6'4" 225+lbs, 4.4 athletes, then they need to patent it and hold some seminars. I thought no more questions ;D I dont have a hypothesis, I never stated one. I had a question. The question was not raised due to the odd 1 off 1 player from 1 High School going to NU. It was based on that HS sending MANY DI kids to many schools every year as well as the enromous amount of DI kids coming out of multitides of D/FW area high schools every year. I would think if these D/FW area coaches or this Tulsa school are doing things different than those in other areas of the country that somehow others would like to undertand what it is. One of my pet peeves BTW is 40 times so much inflation, in 1997 the last yer NU won a national Title their best 40 time after winter conditioning was 4.56, so few legit 4.4 guys out there but with inflation we see it all the time. A few years back the best NFL combine time was 4.38 ( Smaller defensive back) and yet we see so many HS kids with supposed 4.4 times
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 8:59:03 GMT -6
But there certainly are much lower DI players per capita here than in many states, especially Texas, Louisiana and Ohio of course. Perplexing question. . thread 1thread 2Out of 250 total DI (+ sub division) football programs in the 50 States... 57 DI NCAA 58 DI NCAA Sub Division Football programs exist in the "Southern" states, for a total of 115 DI programs in the country.
|
|
|
Post by briangilbert on Feb 4, 2008 9:02:17 GMT -6
Is the player in question self motivated to play football? If he is not, then you have to find a way to motiave the player to play the game with the same passion you have for it.
That's all as a coach you can really do outside of technique to make someone a division 1 athlete. The rest is definitely GENETICS.
I played at a MAC school and you'd be shocked how many guys who were 3 star recruits in HS by Rivals (Which is a joke service BTW) would end up never really amounting to anything at the college level because they weren't self motivated to play at the next level.
So if you take a kid who's got the potential to be a D1 body in HS and motivate him to love football (or just help foster the motivation he already has) then you have a Division 1 football player.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 9:17:49 GMT -6
But there certainly are much lower DI players per capita here than in many states, especially Texas, Louisiana and Ohio of course. Perplexing question. . thread 1thread 2Part of the answer maybe explaining why D/FW has so many kids go DI, but my guess even compared to the rest of the SOuth, it's statistically much higher. Doesnt answer or address why one Public School would always have so many DI kids. Im not a college coach and Ive never asked one this question, but it does seem odd so many DI kids coming from just one school or such a high number from a tiny area. Was curious how many thought coaching or anything else was a factor in the players development. It just seems statistically impossible to me anyways that so many players going DI from the one school every year due to the lottery of genetics. Im not being facitous, I really don't know the answers to this question. BTW NU just signed a Calvary Baptist WR yesterday, so if it's the water, genetics and/or coaching, hopefully it translates into some DI success for the kid.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Feb 4, 2008 9:30:39 GMT -6
Has anyone looked a the poluation make up of these areas? There is no way to tell but it would be interesting to see the number of skill players that come from these areas and the number of line positions that come from Neb and the such.
Part of it I am sure is culture and might even be quality of coaching from the bottom all the way to the top. Winning at a program sure helps get players attention and motivate. Those programs also develop reps for playing higher quality teams so opponents are not drawn into question as much
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 9:34:29 GMT -6
Was curious how many thought coaching or anything else was a factor in the players development. It just seems statistically impossible to me anyways that so many players going DI from the one school every year due to the lottery of genetics. what other factors can be considered as variables in this? Why do some schools seem to have more prospects than others? Do enrollments remain static? What is the transfer (out of / into district) look like? To temper the discussion, I would believe those factors have to be addressed. "Edward James Almos High has at least 2 DI recruits every season.....they must put something in the water over there!" "I am transferring my boy to ____ high, because he'll get more exposure to scouts than at ____ high"A school's tradition (pipeline) contributes to how closely (how hard a recruiting coordinator has to work) the school is with the University. Secondly, when expectations are higher, people expect more. Also, when you have established that kind of reputation/tradition, programs can demand more (get away with more) out of the parents & community. (ie. if Rush Propst demanding your kids stay 45 hours during season makes a bigger difference than Joe Somebody trying to get that support) Does that make Propst a 'better' coach than Coach Somebody? Did keeping the kids 45 hours make them better players, or was it the support to allow him to do that make them better? Point being, if parents are involved that 'expectation' carries into the homelife. Parents are demanding their sons make every practice and they are heavily involved in doing whatever it takes. Kids I knew that went DI (about two dozen) all were physically gifted (men among boys) and although 'home-life' wasn't ideal for half, every parent figure in their life pushed these kids in what they did (academics and athletics). Not living through them, but stressing excellence in their performance. It wasn't an 'accident' that these kids were discovered (like American Idol-mentality some folks have). The kids were the best of the best, and THAT is why they earned a scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Feb 4, 2008 9:41:47 GMT -6
Look at a program that does not believe in liftin weights and then I think you might adjust the influence of the coach.
I would say academics is an all or nothing and it is exponentially more difficult to make that happen the worse the home life. So, Homelife is big. However, we have parents that coddle their kids tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. And they are not very tough. So, perhaps a rough upbringing makes for a better football player.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 9:50:27 GMT -6
Was curious how many thought coaching or anything else was a factor in the players development. It just seems statistically impossible to me anyways that so many players going DI from the one school every year due to the lottery of genetics. what other factors can be considered as variables in this? Why do some schools seem to have more prospects than others? Do enrollments remain static? What is the transfer (out of / into district) look like? To temper the discussion, I would believe those factors have to be addressed. "Edward James Almos High has at least 2 DI recruits every season.....they must put something in the water over there!" "I am transferring my boy to ____ high, because he'll get more exposure to scouts than at ____ high"A school's tradition (pipeline) contributes to how closely (how hard a recruiting coordinator has to work) the school is with the University. Secondly, when expectations are higher, people expect more. Also, when you have established that kind of reputation/tradition, programs can demand more (get away with more) out of the parents & community. (ie. if Rush Propst demanding your kids stay 45 hours during season makes a bigger difference than Joe Somebody trying to get that support) Does that make Propst a 'better' coach than Coach Somebody? Did keeping the kids 45 hours make them better players, or was it the support to allow him to do that make them better? Point being, if parents are involved that 'expectation' carries into the homelife. Parents are demanding their sons make every practice and they are heavily involved in doing whatever it takes So part of it may be some schools that have winning traditions may be recruited more heavily? Therefore have a higher percentage of kids getting DI offers? The HS I was speaking of does not haev open enrollment and has very stringent attendance zone requirements and the school adjacent to them is also a USA Today top 20 program, so my guess not a lot of "stealing" going on. No doubt that probably happens in a lot of places, Im told. If coach A expects, demands and gets more from his players than coach B, how much of that is on coach A? If Coach A's programs are fun, engaging and the kids see lots of results and coach Bs program design is tired, old, boring and the kids dont see much in the way of progress, isnt that part of coaching ? How about if Coach A is there all the time and is enthusiastic and coach B isnt there all the time and doesnt have his hair on fire? In Business, I know sales managers that seem to get a lot more out of their people than other sales managers, etc, how much does program design, management and leadership play in getting the kids involved and motivated to work? I dont know. Im sure there are plenty of kids that get DI scholarships on natural ability alone, but there has to be more to it for a lot of kids.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 9:59:09 GMT -6
If Coach A's programs are fun, engaging and the kids see lots of results and coach Bs program design is tired, old, boring and the kids dont see much in the way of progress, isnt that part of coaching ? How about if Coach A is there all the time and is enthusiastic and coach B isnt there all the time and doesnt have his hair on fire? In Business, I know sales managers that seem to get a lot more out of their people than other sales managers, etc, how much does program design, management and leadership play in getting the kids involved and motivated to work? I dont know. If Coach A has Noel Devine in his HS, will he not get a scholarship offer? If Coach B has Noel Devine in his HS, will he not get a scholarship offer? Are we debating participation, production, wins, or what defines a college scholarship recruit? Are we discussing college recruiting or the statistical anomaly of one NE high school? If the latter, then I detect an agenda presented as a question.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 4, 2008 10:08:41 GMT -6
If the latter, then I detect an agenda presented as a question. Really???
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 10:14:49 GMT -6
If Coach A's programs are fun, engaging and the kids see lots of results and coach Bs program design is tired, old, boring and the kids dont see much in the way of progress, isnt that part of coaching ? How about if Coach A is there all the time and is enthusiastic and coach B isnt there all the time and doesnt have his hair on fire? In Business, I know sales managers that seem to get a lot more out of their people than other sales managers, etc, how much does program design, management and leadership play in getting the kids involved and motivated to work? I dont know. If Coach A has Noel Devine in his HS, will he not get a scholarship offer? If Coach B has Noel Devine in his HS, will he not get a scholarship offer? Are we debating participation, production, wins, or what defines a college scholarship recruit? Are we discussing college recruiting or the statistical anomaly of one NE high school? If the latter, then I detect an agenda presented as a question. The High School coach Im speaking of is from Oklahoma. There isnt a single HS in Nebraska that has consistently had 3-4 DI recruits per year ;D or one that had 15 DI kids on one team or is in the USA Today Top 10/ It's all in the thread. I clearly stated MANY players get scholarships based on natural ability alone it's in the thread. The orginal question was why do so many kids from one school or one tiny area of the coountry get DI scholarships? How much of it has to do with coaching or other factors. I thought you were out of this a bunch of times ;D You responded that maybe it had to do with Coach X expecting more or holding them accountable to more time developing etc. If that is true, my response would be sure you can expect more, thats a great start, but how does one develop that expectation into reality? Sometimes that has to be a very charismatic, demanding and creative person one would think. Even with many kids if they have no internal spark, you cant make it work, but some of these guys and some tiny areas of the country seem to do it every year. What are these components and how can others do the same?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2008 10:24:54 GMT -6
How much does coaching have on the development of a player and how much does the winning and reputation of a program have to do with a player getting DI scholarships? Had the pleasure of spending some time with a high profile perennial USA today top 10 HS DC recently. Public school, they're accross the street rival has nearly the same success they do etc. Coach told me they had a down year, only 3-4 DI kids on the team. One year they had 15 DI kids on the team (not all seniors). Amazing to me so many DI kids in such a tiny area. How much of it is coaching? Is it the winning and tradition of the program that maybe gives kids there a lot more looks than if the team was 1-8? It's not the water or some lucky freakish streak, it's been pretty long term at this school. Same for the D/FW area, in 2007 there were 174 Division I kids from there. 6 Million people there but sheesh that is a huge number of kids for such a small area. Teams like Kansas that have done very well of late have rosters full of Texas kids (23), NU has 9 Texas Recruits on their recruiting commit list. How much of the development of the player can be attributed to coaching? Im not convinced there is some kind of "Texas" gene that genetically makes a kid better than kids from other parts of the country, but it has to be something. At the youth level the Texas teams that play in the National tournaments are very ordinary, they rarely if ever win them. I think it is important to discern between being a division I caliber player, and being offered a division I scholarship. Division I caliber players are usually defined by: 1) measurable attributes (Height, weight, VJ, 40, clean, etc) 2) "motor" 3) technique/football skills. However, to earn one of 25 (or less) scholarships, the player must "excel" (relative to the level of school offering) in those previously mentioned qualities, AS WELL as : 1. Be FOUND by a coach. 2. Be academically eligible 2a. Have a reasonable expectation to maintain that eligibility under the "duress" of a collegiate academic program. 3. Prove to the coach that they will be able to make the transition from being a High School player to a College player. This is critical, because FAR MORE kids wash out than anyone outside the industry realize or would expect. These things are where coaching/high school programs impact recruiting, both positively and negatively. Scholarships are precious and limited so it is always better to play the percentages. It is smarter to offer one to someone coming from a H.S. program that has a good track record of sending kids that can make that transition.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 4, 2008 10:29:33 GMT -6
And the effect of spring ball and year round contact in the weight room? We have no spring ball. We cannot require athletes to lift out of football season--although we can get creative here. There are no "athlete weight room" classes at most schools. Wisconsin puts out few DI recruits each year. But we-Virginia- have the same restrictions and put out quite a few. I agree with Brophy- I think it's mostly genetics.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Feb 4, 2008 10:41:52 GMT -6
How much does coaching have on the development of a player and how much does the winning and reputation of a program have to do with a player getting DI scholarships? Had the pleasure of spending some time with a high profile perennial USA today top 10 HS DC recently. Public school, they're accross the street rival has nearly the same success they do etc. Coach told me they had a down year, only 3-4 DI kids on the team. One year they had 15 DI kids on the team (not all seniors). Amazing to me so many DI kids in such a tiny area. How much of it is coaching? Is it the winning and tradition of the program that maybe gives kids there a lot more looks than if the team was 1-8? It's not the water or some lucky freakish streak, it's been pretty long term at this school. Same for the D/FW area, in 2007 there were 174 Division I kids from there. 6 Million people there but sheesh that is a huge number of kids for such a small area. Teams like Kansas that have done very well of late have rosters full of Texas kids (23), NU has 9 Texas Recruits on their recruiting commit list. How much of the development of the player can be attributed to coaching? Im not convinced there is some kind of "Texas" gene that genetically makes a kid better than kids from other parts of the country, but it has to be something. At the youth level the Texas teams that play in the National tournaments are very ordinary, they rarely if ever win them. I think it is important to discern between being a division I caliber player, and being offered a division I scholarship. Division I caliber players are usually defined by: 1) measurable attributes (Height, weight, VJ, 40, clean, etc) 2) "motor" 3) technique/football skills. However, to earn one of 25 (or less) scholarships, the player must "excel" (relative to the level of school offering) in those previously mentioned qualities, AS WELL as : 1. Be FOUND by a coach. 2. Be academically eligible 2a. Have a reasonable expectation to maintain that eligibility under the "duress" of a collegiate academic program. 3. Prove to the coach that they will be able to make the transition from being a High School player to a College player. This is critical, because FAR MORE kids wash out than anyone outside the industry realize or would expect. These things are where coaching/high school programs impact recruiting, both positively and negatively. Scholarships are precious and limited so it is always better to play the percentages. It is smarter to offer one to someone coming from a H.S. program that has a good track record of sending kids that can make that transition. That makes sense to me. If a coach has consistently had kids do well and not wash out and waste a scholarship, that would make a kid less of a risk as a choice for college coaches. Lets say he has a ranking system based on pure ability, one kid is a 90 and the other is a 85, he may take the 85 because in the long run he will be better off with fewer 85s washing out. Maybe that HS program has a track record of being a very demandign program, that would be of value to the College coach just from the acclimation of time and commitment required aspect alone, one might think. I didnt play DI ball, but DII ball for me was a big jump. All the time, year round, Spring Ball etc etc. We never did any of that then and they dont do it now in Nebraska in High School. While I had no idea then, the coaching I recieved in High School was just atrocious compared to even what we do at the youth level today. My guess is kids that are already doing football stuff year round and doing Spring Ball etc like in TExas and Oklahoma are probably are a bit better prepared and have lower wash out rates than kids that dont, hence it lowers the risk of offering that kid a scholarship. That may partially help explain the fact that many of the same High Schools like the one in Oklahoma every year puts out big numbers of kids that play DI. Not sure of the rest. In speaking with coaches from Texas, Oklahoma and even California last week, I know they have an athletic period and the one guy I spoke to got his coaches together in a planning period every day as well. I know they dont get that up here in Nebraska, that is for sure. With all that extra time and emphasis and better pay, are the coaches there any better than in other areas of the country where the coaches don't get the paid development time and resources?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2008 11:41:43 GMT -6
I think it is important to discern between being a division I caliber player, and being offered a division I scholarship. Division I caliber players are usually defined by: 1) measurable attributes (Height, weight, VJ, 40, clean, etc) 2) "motor" 3) technique/football skills. However, to earn one of 25 (or less) scholarships, the player must "excel" (relative to the level of school offering) in those previously mentioned qualities, AS WELL as : 1. Be FOUND by a coach. 2. Be academically eligible 2a. Have a reasonable expectation to maintain that eligibility under the "duress" of a collegiate academic program. 3. Prove to the coach that they will be able to make the transition from being a High School player to a College player. This is critical, because FAR MORE kids wash out than anyone outside the industry realize or would expect. These things are where coaching/high school programs impact recruiting, both positively and negatively. Scholarships are precious and limited so it is always better to play the percentages. It is smarter to offer one to someone coming from a H.S. program that has a good track record of sending kids that can make that transition. That makes sense to me. If a coach has consistently had kids do well and not wash out and waste a scholarship, that would make a kid less of a risk as a choice for college coaches. Lets say he has a ranking system based on pure ability, one kid is a 90 and the other is a 85, he may take the 85 because in the long run he will be better off with fewer 85s washing out. Maybe that HS program has a track record of being a very demandign program, that would be of value to the College coach just from the acclimation of time and commitment required aspect alone, one might think. Very close to the truth. All of the FOOLISH recruiting sites with their "rankings" have led much of the public to think that there are quantifiable rankings for H.S. players. (As if someone can quantify the difference between two elite high school players, and say "this guy is the #1 qb, and this guy is the #7) But your underlying premise is correct. The coaches are looking for the best possible player that a) will commit to them, and b) will be able to contribute to their program for 3 to 4 years. I would say that part of the answer depends on how you define "coaching" and "better" I would argue that this definitely makes football more "important" to the kids/community. Whether this makes a coach better at instructing his kids, or getting them to do what he/she wants them to do...I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 4, 2008 11:47:53 GMT -6
I'm curious what percentage of players at that school transferred in because they thought it gave them a better chance of getting recruited. I am emphatically NOT accusing anybody of cheating. A high profile public school would be too easy a target if they were doing anything shadey. If the 6'4" freshman's parents wanted to buy a house in their district then the coach sure wouldn't stop them.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2008 11:53:15 GMT -6
phantom, you are essentially describing what has been a very divisive point in Louisiana football for quite a while now.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 4, 2008 11:53:42 GMT -6
I would say that genetics are by far the #1 thing that determines whether a kid is D1 or not... But all the other things listed are reasons why someone with the genetics to be a D1 kid will end up not playing in college.
Grades are a HUGE deal... I bet you the state of Florida would DOMINATE with even more D1 athletes if it weren't for grades!
Parenting, Hard-Work, and Determination can elevate a kid who is "close" to D1 genetically, such as Jacob Hester, who was considered a 2-star athlete recruiting-wise when he came to LSU, and his determination, toughness, and hard work turned him into a GREAT college player... But kids that are far superior to him genetically who didn't make it due to grades, trouble with the law, etc... give kids like Hester a chance to elevate themselves.
If it wasn't almost entirely Genetics, then you wouldn't see these coaches taking chances on kids with questionable grades, or NFL teams taking chances on players like Pac-Man, or the Bengals on EVERYONE they draft...
I would say that a "good coach" is a guy who can convince those that are genetically gifted to USE thier abilities, and get the kid to understand that grades/character are what will get him to the next level both in football AND life, as well as getting kids who are not as genetically gifted to play "out of their minds" by motivation/scheme.
|
|