Quick Question

[Archie Graham]

Maybe there is more to it than you are describing, but the picture you just painted makes it seem like a mess. In today's game, programs that recruit nationally (successfully) are extremely organized and put in structure and systems to allow them to maximize coverage and relationship within the limitations of the rules (well sometimes outside the limits as well but that is a different topic). Recruiting is more than just single self-contained cycles in which you are trying to land 25+/- kids a year - it is more of an ambassador program in which you are trying to develop long term relationships with high schools which might not have a prospect you are interested in each year.

Schools that do this successfully have a deep bullpen of support consisting of staffers the average fan has never heard of. They also do thing like employ a CRM (software) system and subscribe to "pro-grade" recruiting services (not talking Rivals, Scout, etc. but services/databases that compile info and charge way more for it than $10 a month). But at the end of the day the most important cog still is often the assistant coach who is able to go on the road and be the program's face.

What you described sounds more like it is ad hoc...almost hit and run...where you decide on a case by case basis of how you are going to recruit a kid. Sure, once an initial relationship with the recruit (not just the school) is established then it is smart to personalize it...including shifting the key contact to the guy's position coach. But what you described is not that (you made it seem like each position coach is out there all around the county looking just for kids at their position and calling in help when needed). The model I described is different (kind of the opposite). For example, Michigan just landed a DT and safety from Alabama. During interviews, post verbal, both credited our LB (their area recruiter and the first coach each mentioned) for getting them interested in the school and up for a visit...it was then that they started to build a relationship with their potential position coach, the DC and then HC. That example is not "each position coach being responsible for their position" but a team effort built on a structure that allows for more coverage. And what I described is not something that Harbaugh invented (by any means) but a pretty standard approach (to national recruiting) that has it's different variations (but still all similar) depending on school. Something in my gut tells me you guys do something similar and maybe what you described is an incomplete version of your practices?

Sorry. I thought you were one of ours, and as such, had a stronger background in the approach they are using.

 

[ellobo]

Sorry. I thought you were one of ours, and as such, had a stronger background in the approach they are using.

Whether I am one of you or not is irrelevant to the point(s) you are trying to make. You have said that each position coach is responsible for recruiting their position and your DL needs a year to establish his contacts. That is incorrect on many levels.

One of the reasons you have area recruiters is because it is a stabilizer when there is turnover in staff. If you change a position coach but not an area recruiter it is often a small speed bump at worst. You still have strong relationships with the school and the kid...and 9 times out of 10 the kid will give the new position coach a chance (it can sometimes even be refreshing for the kid). If you lose the region's recruiter it will have more of an effect on long-term relationships (especially if you don't hire someone with existing relationships in the area even if it is just someone who is a part of the support staff) but on a kid by kid basis (for kids you already have a relationship with) again it is a small speed bump at worst assuming you still have the kid's position coach. Point being, your DL coach is not trying to establish relationships (certainly not from scratch) in the regions covered by returning area recruiters...he has someone who has made them for him already.

And the part of the story you completely glossed over is that in situations in which you bring in a young coach from a lower level program it can often mean a slight instant boom in recruiting assuming he is assigned to an area he has recruited before. While it is not always the case, it is not uncommon to have a guy who has all the makings of a great recruiter, he just didn't have the product to sell...he might have even built up some good will in the area because he was able to give kids (who have few options) a chance for a free education...so now that he has something to sell he all of a sudden opens new doors for his new program that they never had before...the minute he shows up...not a year later...and with top level talent whose coaches are more than happy to make the introduction (it might have already been established when the kid was younger and didn't know how big a prospect he would be and is happy to see a friendly face again).

It seems to me you are almost trying to make an excuse for your DL coach. First of all it is June so it is too early to need to make excuses. But the bigger picture is the way you are painting this is not accurate. Your position coaches are not alone on the hook to recruit their position...it is a team and systematic effort. In addition, your DL coach shouldn't need a year to get up to par on connections...your process should be able to quickly integrate him and hopefully he actually brings new connections in to enhance your efforts.

 

[i8uP]

Whether I am one of you or not is irrelevant to the point(s) you are trying to make. You have said that each position coach is responsible for recruiting their position and your DL needs a year to establish his contacts. That is incorrect on many levels.

One of the reasons you have area recruiters is because it is a stabilizer when there is turnover in staff. If you change a position coach but not an area recruiter it is often a small speed bump at worst. You still have strong relationships with the school and the kid...and 9 times out of 10 the kid will give the new position coach a chance (it can sometimes even be refreshing for the kid). If you lose the region's recruiter it will have more of an effect on long-term relationships (especially if you don't hire someone with existing relationships in the area even if it is just someone who is a part of the support staff) but on a kid by kid basis (for kids you already have a relationship with) again it is a small speed bump at worst assuming you still have the kid's position coach. Point being, your DL coach is not trying to establish relationships (certainly not from scratch) in the regions covered by returning area recruiters...he has someone who has made them for him already.

And the part of the story you completely glossed over is that in situations in which you bring in a young coach from a lower level program it can often mean a slight instant boom in recruiting assuming he is assigned to an area he has recruited before. While it is not always the case, it is not uncommon to have a guy who has all the makings of a great recruiter, he just didn't have the product to sell...he might have even built up some good will in the area because he was able to give kids (who have few options) a chance for a free education...so now that he has something to sell he all of a sudden opens new doors for his new program that they never had before...the minute he shows up...not a year later...and with top level talent whose coaches are more than happy to make the introduction (it might have already been established when the kid was younger and didn't know how big a prospect he would be and is happy to see a friendly face again).

It seems to me you are almost trying to make an excuse for your DL coach. First of all it is June so it is too early to need to make excuses. But the bigger picture is the way you are painting this is not accurate. Your position coaches are not alone on the hook to recruit their position...it is a team and systematic effort. In addition, your DL coach shouldn't need a year to get up to par on connections...your process should be able to quickly integrate him and hopefully he actually brings new connections in to enhance your efforts.

You realize who you talking to right? Many on here are clueless to big picture discussions!

 

[Archie Graham]

Whether I am one of you or not is irrelevant to the point(s) you are trying to make. You have said that each position coach is responsible for recruiting their position and your DL needs a year to establish his contacts. That is incorrect on many levels.

One of the reasons you have area recruiters is because it is a stabilizer when there is turnover in staff. If you change a position coach but not an area recruiter it is often a small speed bump at worst. You still have strong relationships with the school and the kid...and 9 times out of 10 the kid will give the new position coach a chance (it can sometimes even be refreshing for the kid). If you lose the region's recruiter it will have more of an effect on long-term relationships (especially if you don't hire someone with existing relationships in the area even if it is just someone who is a part of the support staff) but on a kid by kid basis (for kids you already have a relationship with) again it is a small speed bump at worst assuming you still have the kid's position coach. Point being, your DL coach is not trying to establish relationships (certainly not from scratch) in the regions covered by returning area recruiters...he has someone who has made them for him already.

And the part of the story you completely glossed over is that in situations in which you bring in a young coach from a lower level program it can often mean a slight instant boom in recruiting assuming he is assigned to an area he has recruited before. While it is not always the case, it is not uncommon to have a guy who has all the makings of a great recruiter, he just didn't have the product to sell...he might have even built up some good will in the area because he was able to give kids (who have few options) a chance for a free education...so now that he has something to sell he all of a sudden opens new doors for his new program that they never had before...the minute he shows up...not a year later...and with top level talent whose coaches are more than happy to make the introduction (it might have already been established when the kid was younger and didn't know how big a prospect he would be and is happy to see a friendly face again).

It seems to me you are almost trying to make an excuse for your DL coach. First of all it is June so it is too early to need to make excuses. But the bigger picture is the way you are painting this is not accurate. Your position coaches are not alone on the hook to recruit their position...it is a team and systematic effort. In addition, your DL coach shouldn't need a year to get up to par on connections...your process should be able to quickly integrate him and hopefully he actually brings new connections in to enhance your efforts.

Yeah...so I'm not sure what you're talking about WRT to my comments. It was suggested that our DC shoudl be recruiting our DL. I simply noted that position coaches are primarily responsible for recruiting their position, and, another poster also added the details about geopgraphic considerations on a by-coach basis. My point was simply that in our current model it's not a primary role of the DC to recruit for DL unless there is overlap with geography. So, in short, or DC is not falling short by not recruiting DL more aggressively. And my goal was ABSOLUTELY not to try and paint a detailed picture of our entire recruiting strategy. I'm not sure how you could have interpreted my post in this way.

And I didn't say our DL coach didn't have connections, or, that he needed a year to establish them. That was another poster. See below. So spare me the thesis on the points I'm trying to make. You don't even know who you are responding to.

4. You have a new DL coach who has not established contacts - Yes Banker should be recruiting especially since Hughes was his recommendation that did not work out

I'm of the opinion JP hit the ground running on day one and was absolutely integrated quickly. I'm not making any excuses for him. That's also incorrect. I'm suggesting that we can't say whether he's an outstanding recruiter becvause we need more data.

 

[Archie Graham]

You realize who you talking to right? Many on here are clueless to big picture discussions!

Who?

 

[nebcountry]

Whether I am one of you or not is irrelevant to the point(s) you are trying to make. You have said that each position coach is responsible for recruiting their position and your DL needs a year to establish his contacts. That is incorrect on many levels.

One of the reasons you have area recruiters is because it is a stabilizer when there is turnover in staff. If you change a position coach but not an area recruiter it is often a small speed bump at worst. You still have strong relationships with the school and the kid...and 9 times out of 10 the kid will give the new position coach a chance (it can sometimes even be refreshing for the kid). If you lose the region's recruiter it will have more of an effect on long-term relationships (especially if you don't hire someone with existing relationships in the area even if it is just someone who is a part of the support staff) but on a kid by kid basis (for kids you already have a relationship with) again it is a small speed bump at worst assuming you still have the kid's position coach. Point being, your DL coach is not trying to establish relationships (certainly not from scratch) in the regions covered by returning area recruiters...he has someone who has made them for him already.

And the part of the story you completely glossed over is that in situations in which you bring in a young coach from a lower level program it can often mean a slight instant boom in recruiting assuming he is assigned to an area he has recruited before. While it is not always the case, it is not uncommon to have a guy who has all the makings of a great recruiter, he just didn't have the product to sell...he might have even built up some good will in the area because he was able to give kids (who have few options) a chance for a free education...so now that he has something to sell he all of a sudden opens new doors for his new program that they never had before...the minute he shows up...not a year later...and with top level talent whose coaches are more than happy to make the introduction (it might have already been established when the kid was younger and didn't know how big a prospect he would be and is happy to see a friendly face again).

It seems to me you are almost trying to make an excuse for your DL coach. First of all it is June so it is too early to need to make excuses. But the bigger picture is the way you are painting this is not accurate. Your position coaches are not alone on the hook to recruit their position...it is a team and systematic effort. In addition, your DL coach shouldn't need a year to get up to par on connections...your process should be able to quickly integrate him and hopefully he actually brings new connections in to enhance your efforts.

I recognize you ellobo, in an on-line persona sense. Parrella is our new DL coach. He's pretty green in college coaching, just a couple years. But he is a former NU player, was all conference, and played in the pro's over 10 years (so he knows something about football at the highest levels). NU's recruiting MO for defensive players of late seems to be selling the accumulated achievements for our program. Which, Parrella has been doing (I think). Of course here's our academics, our support, our coaching, our etc that goes with the recruiting package.

Last year closing the football season, we didn't have any DT's lined up. There were names that floated around, but other than saying something nice about our program, none of the recruits seemed much interested. It was mostly hunky-dory because our roster numbers still fell inside our tolerance range. Then upper class men starting leaving, now we're outside our tolerance range for the DL. Our then DL coach Hank Hughes was summarily fired. There appears to be some interest with current DL recruits, just not "I'll commit right now" interest.

Take a little dash of complacency (prior roster numbers), stir in a rabid fanbase, sprinkle in redshirt freshman playing with no true freshman on the roster, top it off with a position coach still gaining coaching experience, and here we are.

 

[ellobo]

I recognize you ellobo, in an on-line persona sense. Parrella is our new DL coach. He's pretty green in college coaching, just a couple years. But he is a former NU player, was all conference, and played in the pro's over 10 years (so he knows something about football at the highest levels). NU's recruiting MO for defensive players of late seems to be selling the accumulated achievements for our program. Which, Parrella has been doing (I think). Of course here's our academics, our support, our coaching, our etc that goes with the recruiting package.

Last year closing the football season, we didn't have any DT's lined up. There were names that floated around, but other than saying something nice about our program, none of the recruits seemed much interested. It was mostly hunky-dory because our roster numbers still fell inside our tolerance range. Then upper class men starting leaving, now we're outside our tolerance range for the DL. Our then DL coach Hank Hughes was summarily fired. There appears to be some interest with current DL recruits, just not "I'll commit right now" interest.

Take a little dash of complacency (prior roster numbers), stir in a rabid fanbase, sprinkle in redshirt freshman playing with no true freshman on the roster, top it off with a position coach still gaining coaching experience, and here we are.

I sometimes act a little naive on your specific situations because the truth is I don't know the ins and outs of it nearly as well as some people on this board. I'm not a NU guy so I shouldn't be expected to. But I try to know what is going on with other programs in our conference. I know you fired Hughes and I know who Parrella is which gives me a little ability to jump in without sounding totally stupid.

The bigger thing is my curiosity, and why I get into these discussions (on other schools' boards), is how the whole recruiting thing works. I can often understand my own program better by learning about others. Right now our big debate (in terms of recruiting) centers around our OL recruiting. We have similar arguments. So thanks for the real insight.

 

[NikkiSixx]

That's not correct. My inability to provide you a link does not mean this is simply my opinion.

If you can not provide any evidence, it is simply hearsay..

 

[Archie Graham]

If you can not provide any evidence, it is simply hearsay.. it's just opinion.

You know those two words don't mean the same thing?

Like I said, believe it or don't. I don't care.

 

[NikkiSixx]

You know those two words don't mean the same thing?

Like I said, believe it or don't. I don't care.

Yeah, I was making an edit on that.

You are quite full of double standards then Archie..

It's pretty obvious that you just have an agenda.. you're not interested in having a discussion, but rather you are Mike's personal cheerleader, and your agenda is to sway public opinion via outlandish claims, unsubstantiated allegations, failure to provide facts or evidence and double standards.

I'm tired of reading your garbage, so on the the ignore list you go.

 

[Archie Graham]

Yeah, I was making an edit on that.

You are quite full of double standards then Archie..

It's pretty obvious that you just have an agenda.. you're not interested in having a discussion, but rather you are Mike's personal cheerleader, and your agenda is to sway public opinion via outlandish claims, unsubstantiated allegations, failure to provide facts or evidence and double standards.

I'm tired of reading your garbage, so on the the ignore list you go.

Your decision. I said one thing in this thread that can't be supported with a link. One. And if you don't want to believe it, even though it's true, then by all means add me to the ignore list. The rest of the board can continue reading the truth surrounding the AD and SE.

Finally, I'm not sure how you can accuse me of those things. It's silly. Obviously I had an agenda; I started the thread. I've clearly documented the point of this thread. Obviously I'm interested in a discussion since I've participated for five pages. I've strenuously documented that we have to finish the class, the recruiting results must persist of over years, and we have to win. I've not made any outlandish claims or created double standards. Again, there is one thing I posted in this thread that can't be supported by a link. And it's true.

 

[timnsun]

Yeah, I was making an edit on that.

You are quite full of double standards then Archie..

It's pretty obvious that you just have an agenda.. you're not interested in having a discussion, but rather you are Mike's personal cheerleader, and your agenda is to sway public opinion via outlandish claims, unsubstantiated allegations, failure to provide facts or evidence and double standards.

I'm tired of reading your garbage, so on the the ignore list you go.

You seriously believe the only way Archie is telling the truth is if he can provide a link? No insider information allowed? Wow.

And that's an itchy trigger finger on the ignore button. I'm assuming I'm still on your ignore list too... Sad that it's your goto when things don't go your way...

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Normally I don't claim to be able to read minds, because I can't...but I'm willing to bet a lot of money the mods will be grateful when two things happen;

1-Election passes &
2-Football season starts.