Ron Fraser, the former U. Miami coach, asked this question ...
"Which is more important? Being a good recruiter or being a good coach?"
What do you think?
www.baseballbytheyard.blogspot.com
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Many head coaches don't recruit as much anymore, they pay others to do it for them. Then they seal the deal in the end.
The best coaches are those that delegate and let others do their intended job and teach their coaches to go onto be successful recruters as well as head coaches, so they in turn can teach others to do the same. Some coaches take just as much pride in turning out other HC coaches as they do all americans and high draft picks. Some of those assistant coaches do a lot more work than their well established head coaches.
My son was not recruited by his head coach at all, but by the coach he would be with 95% of the time.
We all know that this is always not possible at all programs due to lack of funds. What some programs lack in good recruiting make up in excellent coaching, and sometimes the other way around. Sometimes those guys from smaller programs who have strict budgets actually do a better job at recruiting because they have to. They are excellent coaches too.
I really think that is why Randy Shannon didn't find success at UM, he couldn't do it all. What he made up in recruiting success he lacked in coaching ability. He was a great guy, I am sorry it didn't work for him.
I really think that it's difficult to wear both hats and always be successful but there are quite a few who can do it.
JMO.
The best coaches are those that delegate and let others do their intended job and teach their coaches to go onto be successful recruters as well as head coaches, so they in turn can teach others to do the same. Some coaches take just as much pride in turning out other HC coaches as they do all americans and high draft picks. Some of those assistant coaches do a lot more work than their well established head coaches.
My son was not recruited by his head coach at all, but by the coach he would be with 95% of the time.
We all know that this is always not possible at all programs due to lack of funds. What some programs lack in good recruiting make up in excellent coaching, and sometimes the other way around. Sometimes those guys from smaller programs who have strict budgets actually do a better job at recruiting because they have to. They are excellent coaches too.
I really think that is why Randy Shannon didn't find success at UM, he couldn't do it all. What he made up in recruiting success he lacked in coaching ability. He was a great guy, I am sorry it didn't work for him.
I really think that it's difficult to wear both hats and always be successful but there are quite a few who can do it.
JMO.
If you want to get a job then you need to be a good coach. If you want to keep a job then be a good recruiter.
But TPM has made some great points.
But TPM has made some great points.
Even a bum of a coach can look like Einstein with the right players...great players make smart coaches.
To me, this isn't even close to a chicken or egg question. You have to recruit to be successful.
Look at what Howard Schnellenberger did with The U. He wasn't a mastermind coach, but he was a heck of a recruiter with a great recruiting game plan.
To me, this isn't even close to a chicken or egg question. You have to recruit to be successful.
Look at what Howard Schnellenberger did with The U. He wasn't a mastermind coach, but he was a heck of a recruiter with a great recruiting game plan.
He was a College Coach talking specifically about the their circumstances. TPM noted,correctly I believe, that the best programs have Assistant Coaches that are great recruiters, allowing the Head Coach to focus on the Coaching dynamics. Without skilled recruits, that Coach is only gonna see so-so results.
High School Coaches must play the hand they're dealt, thus Coaching knowledge/ability is crucial to success. JMO
High School Coaches must play the hand they're dealt, thus Coaching knowledge/ability is crucial to success. JMO
IMO... Recruiting is most important and part of being a good college coach revolves around your program being able to recruit.
However, being a good coach very much involves development of the players and talent. The coaches that have a great track record of developing talent and helping those players improve and advance to the next level have a big advantage when it comes to recruiting.
So no matter how anyone looks at it, there are coaches that will win no matter where they are coaching (look at Liberty for one example) Recruiting is very much about what a school has to offer and great coaching is one of the greatest recruiting tools there is.
However, being a good coach very much involves development of the players and talent. The coaches that have a great track record of developing talent and helping those players improve and advance to the next level have a big advantage when it comes to recruiting.
So no matter how anyone looks at it, there are coaches that will win no matter where they are coaching (look at Liberty for one example) Recruiting is very much about what a school has to offer and great coaching is one of the greatest recruiting tools there is.
In the business book Built to Last, the authors call it “The Genius of the ‘AND’.” The best companies don't choose between 2 essential elements, they do both.
/ I promise not to talk about any more book readin'
/ I promise not to talk about any more book readin'
From the levels and sports I've coached from 7/8 rec through 18U showcase my favorites teams were the ones I had a coach my brains out finding an approach to help the team win. But I was a coaching genius when I had the best talent and told the team to "go get 'em."