Do they lie ?

quote:

Some coaches go out and find talent. And then they work very hard to develop it. Some coaches collect talent. And when they dont develop or pan out they recruit over top of them.

Julie

Very well said Coach May!

Coach May,

Great points.

I agree with your thoughts on Coastal, but also think that Clemson is a college that recruits hard out of state. Every year Clemson's roster is mostly out of state players, and maybe Coastal even more so. Both programs have been among the hardest working in the nation.

Clemson seems to get more of the high profile types out of high school and it's a much bigger school in one of the top conferences, but other than that, those two programs have many similarities IMO.

The original question was do coaches lie?

I learned along time ago, that "truth" is realitive. In the case of baseball, it is momentary. When words come out it was true in the moment. However, time changes, perspective changes and with that the truth. That is reality.

When I came to the realization that most coaches perspectives where similar to a baseball diamond, 90 degrees from foul line to foul line, you could understand why things happend the way they do. When you are missing 270 degrees of perspective, your view may not be the same as a baseball coach.

Just some observations not pointed at any coach or program.

quote:

IMHO The "best of the best" don't end up in school anyway, they sign pro out of HS. That leaves the "rest of the best" and IMO the top recruit at most mid-majors would eventually be a contributing player at any "elite" school in the country. Parity at the top portion of the player pool is increasing in numbers along with geographical influences, and with only so many elite schools available the talent pool is going to be spread around to everyone. Include those good players who go to school for specific education reasons and I think you will find the major differences between power and mid-major is depth, especially on the bump.

great points and you're absolutely right. depth is the biggest difference. can the best players at mid majors contribute at bigger schools? absolutely they can and they would be stars. that's the great thing about the sport of baseball is that development is such a case-by-case issue. some kids really take off when they get into programs. nobody can predict the future and know who will ultimately turn out to be the best players. That's why Tim Clubb is at Missouri State, that's why Nate Lape didn't see the field at North Carolina and has turned himself into an all-american at Marshall, Thain Simon at Santa Clara, Ben Tootle at Jacksonville State... the list goes on and on. Parity is what makes a sport exciting IMO and that's why college baseball is such a great sport. With the new transfer rule and the APR penalties that have been put into place, coaches will be held more accountable for their own recruiting efforts. Programs can't be recycling bins of players until they find the right ones. They must sign guys and try to develop them.

It had become a thing where it was about signing a better player, not making your players better. Coaches poured all their time and effort into recruiting as the immediate answer. Player development was lost along the way in many programs. These new rules will squelch that and I'm thankful for it!

Let's face it, in the past many top programs didn't have to recruit hard, just because of their success they could sit back and sign whoever knocked on their door. I am a firm believer in that a program is as good as the recruiter, whether it be HC or his assistants whether large or small program. The object for most programs is to compete and win within their conference, to win a berth for playoffs, only a select few mid majors have been able to achieve that.

With new rules and economic times, the landscape is changing for many.

I'd much rather my player work under a coach who is interested in his development, as a player and as a person despite the size or reputation of the program. You might be surprised to find that many top programs DID do that in the past. The coach relies more on his better coaching ability than his player's development. I've seen that happen.

Good post TPM. I really do believe these new rules are going to return the game to where it used to be. Where development is important again. The game had taken a drastic turn from that these past 5 years. Now coaches will be coaches again as opposed to spending all their time recruiting. Developing kids is what this game needs to be about.

I really think the programs that don't buy into development and relied so heavily on recruiting are going to drop off until they switch priorities. They won' be able to bring in 3 guys a year at each position and let the cream rise to the top only to see the other 2 transfer out and have to start over again. All the while the school gets those 2 scholarships back and here we go again! I think we'll see in the next 2 seasons which programs don't focus on development as their production will drop off.

I think the new rules may have limited the development of players. Looking more for immediate impact now. Before they could bring in players that might take a year or 2 to grow into their role. Now they will lean more to guys who can deliver now.
I also think that teams will probably roster fewer players and that 35 will be reduced in a few years. More about financial viability especially if the economy stays depressed for an extended period of time.
I don't think that you will ever see college ball just be about development more than it has been in the past.
All college coaches try to develop players within the frame work of the program. Some coaches are just better at what they do. Recruiting will always be the holy grail of college ball especially now.

I disagree, the sit out transfer rule prohibits coaches from getting ready made players. Most HS players are NOT ready to play the game on the college level right away and most coaches will not use them as impact players unless they are needed. Coaches all run their teams differently, play the game differently. This is the first thing you have to learn. There are very few players who are impact players and if they are that makes them top - mid prospects, the coach can't afford to sign all of them.

I think what you might see is more seniors on the roster. Those juinors who might get drafted later, coach will talk them into staying, might even offer them more to stay. JMO.

Not all JUCO players come ready to play either, but they do come with game experience and most who play in the better programs that feed into the larger programs are taught that transition. But now JUCO players must come eligible and have enough credits.

It was in the past easy to tell which teams developed players and which did not. All you had to do was look at their roster for number of D1 transfers. This doesn't include teams who get caught short in the draft and needed to replace a player they thought would not sign.

BTW I recently read an article where Jim Morris said after working so hard to sign a player, now they have to work just as hard to convince that player not to sign. I beleive it because Sully told me that once, some players you actually have to recruit twice, summer of senior year and summer of their draft year.

I think most of us have no clue how college coaches earn their paychecks.