Getting Recruited

All of them, baseball168............

You didn't list the MOST important thing ------ TALENT!

Highly competitive coaches don't recruit scholars, they recruit talented athletes. Coaches don't recruit showcase attendees, they go to showcases looking for talent. Size is just the size of the body that holds the talent. Most assume the larger the frame the more talent it is able to accommodate --- that is hotly debatable by the smaller people. High school and summer teams are just organizations ---- college coaches attend these events looking for talent. It stands to reason the more talented the team, the greater number of talented players.
Fungo

quote:

Highly competitive coaches don't recruit scholars, they recruit talented athletes

Respectfully disagree. There are a number of coaches from DI to DIII who MUST recruit scholars as well as talented athletes just to get the player past admissions. This is more prevalent in DIII, but there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second...and they can still be highly competitive.

quote:

by krak: Respectfully disagree ... there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second...and they can still be highly competitive.

I do understand where you're coming from, but your explanation will certainly confuse others ... if true I'd expect to see coaches hangin out at hs libraries looking for slim tall guys writing a term paper left-handed

1) there are literally tons of very talented ball players who are also very solid academicly

2) coaches at ALL levels recruit talent

3) their recruiting process designed screen out academic misfits

4) to suggest a smart kid w/out talent has a chance is a dis-service

The coach who recruited my son really liked his poise and calm demeanor out on the mound. The coach saw my son pitch in a lot of different situations. In fact, we think he never really saw him pitch that well. But the coach said he saw something "different" in him and felt he was very projectable. Plus, he said he never saw my son get rattled, get angry with players in the field, dispute a call or throw his glove or bat.

quote:

there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second

There is no doubt that talent is the #1 thing. In fact, without it there will be no interest, at least at the more competitive levels.

That said, Krak is also 100% correct when he says…
there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second

When colleges like Harvard or other Ivy League schools along with others with tough academic requirements go to showcases, tournaments, etc., the first thing they do is check the rosters for the GPA and test scores. After highlighting those players, they then start looking for who is most talented from the list they created. No sense in spending a lot of time on players who can’t get in their school. So in these cases, they really are looking for scholars before talent. However, they are not interested in scholars without talent.

quote:

by PG: When colleges like Harvard or other Ivy League schools along with others with tough academic requirements go to showcases, tournaments, etc., the first thing they do is check the rosters for the GPA and test scores ...they start looking for who is most talented from the list they created.

I'm always willing to learn, and do stand corrected & will update my frame of reference ...

by PG/Krak - - "if a player does not have the minimum baseball talent to be recruited as a baseball player ... he still has a shot at on the roster as "designated brain"




from our experience with Ivy type coaches they were looking for ballplayers with brains, not brainy guys whom they hoped they could turn into a player ... but if you say soo

.
Sorry...Not buying it for a minute!...

Here is the current reality...and I'm big on reality...give me the truth, I can handle it

While academics DO play a big part, and I would NEVER tell a player that it was not important...it is, as a seconday benefit to support talent...

I can name you at least four HSBBW posters with '08 sons at 4.2 or better, with high SAT's, and a basketfull of advanced placements...

...whose parents bought into the "designated academics" theory (we did too)...and whose players were very good to boot...

...and who came away disappointed, frustrated, bitter and feeling mislead to by schools, coaches and frankly...other posters...when their son's academic turned out to a secondary consideration after coaches qualified them atheltically...

Now academics WILL get them academic $, and has in a couple instances...which is great!...and it will benefit them long term more than baseball ever will...which is most important!...and again...DO YOUR HARD ACADEMIC WORK...don't let that be a reason to be disqualified...but be aware that it is going to take more than academics and "good" skills.

...It is going to take Superior athletic skills...AND academics...

44
.

Academics are important to the coach in respect to remaining eligible and the scholarship package.
Talent is #1 and without it you are not a recruitable player. There are many who get recruited who academically are bare minimum.
You need both but only talent gets you a roster spot.

It was always fun playing the teams that include the GPA's with the BA's on the scoreboard statistics.

quote:

All of them, baseball168............

Sometimes that's hard to comprehend until you go to a large showcase, or the PG event in Jupiter, and realize how many young men have ALL of the required features.

They are 6'4", run a 6.6 sixty, 88MPH from CF, 93 on the mound, left or right handed, don't smoke, don't cuss, don't do PED, and have a 4.2 GPA, with a beautiful momma.

I really ain't kidding.

And, when you don't have ALL the requirements, you've got to find a way to still get there.

quote:

with a beautiful momma.

Hey, that was #5 on my top 5 reasons I got into coaching. (maybe a little higher)

In my mind the # 1 thing is TALENT coupled with the proper exposure----no matter where a player is seen if he has not got the talent then he won't be recruited m by many schools.

Once a player is a HS varsity contributor it is time to begin the exposure process

#1 Talent
#2 Showcase (that is where my son was recruited to go where is now, by someone he wasn't considering at the time.)
#3 HS

We never did travel, so I can't comment on that, but I would figure it to go under one heading with showcase...aptly named by TR, Exposure.

I totally agree with Observer 44:

Talent 1st........then academics. And there are many, many boys that are great athletes and get good grades. Talent allows a coach to overlook middle of the road academics as long as the player can remain eligible in high school and college.

But of course that isn't for elite academic schools like the Ivies and Stanford!

In the North some may feel we live with the "cart before the horse". Talent cannot be argued as "the" tangible, but, someone has to identify that talent and personally I feel that exposure is the only way that talent will be realized. PG has been our savior in recent years because because they, not intentionally, actually weed out the talent "has" and "has nots" through showcase exposure and those with talent reap the benefits. Very seldom do you see college recruiters at HS games in WI regardless of the talent level. In 2002-3, my sons jr/sr years, I personally met scouts from over 20 MLB teams, but not 1 college coach above the d3 level at games. Those college intros were done by aggressive marketing on my sons part sometimes using those same scouts as references. I guess you would call that "virtual exposure".

Academics come into play after the talent is rated.

Newcomer,
He recognized the talent when he said he was projectible. He also kept tabs on him to make sure the talent did come through. That's a program that puts more of a premium on character than most. Even so the bottom line was that the talent was there. Personally, I'm hoping that coach is very good at projecting talent.

TR,
Guess Brett Hunter should have skipped the showcase Pepperdine saw him at because he hadn't played varsity ball yet. Some HS coaches don't put the most talented players on varsity, and repeat their mistakes. You showcase when you are good enough to make the right impression. If the talent is there you've got to get it in front of people who know how to recognize talent.

quote:

by PG/Krak - - "if a player does not have the minimum baseball talent to be recruited as a baseball player ... he still has a shot at on the roster as "designated brain"



from our experience with Ivy type coaches they were looking for ballplayers with brains, not brainy guys whom they hoped they could turn into a player ... but if you say soo

Bee, I'm confused... What's new? Here is what I posted and it is 100% all true. BTW, nothing in there about making a roster as a designated brain, in fact the exact opposite was said.

quote:

There is no doubt that talent is the #1 thing. In fact, without it there will be no interest, at least at the more competitive levels.

That said, Krak is also 100% correct when he says…
there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second

When colleges like Harvard or other Ivy League schools along with others with tough academic requirements go to showcases, tournaments, etc., the first thing they do is check the rosters for the GPA and test scores. After highlighting those players, they then start looking for who is most talented from the list they created. No sense in spending a lot of time on players who can’t get in their school. So in these cases, they really are looking for scholars before talent. However, they are not interested in scholars without talent.

quote:

by PG: That said, Krak is also 100% correct when he says…
there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second.

nothing in there about making a roster as a designated brain, in fact the exact opposite was said.

ok a bit of semantics there ..
however, if you carefully read responses here and on other threads dealing this topic ...

what people are "HEARING" from you and others is - -
"programs will recruit & sign scholars who otherwise would not get recruited as players"

quote:

When colleges like Harvard or other Ivy League schools along with others with tough academic requirements go to showcases, tournaments, etc., the first thing they do is check the rosters for the GPA and test scores. After highlighting those players, they then start looking for who is most talented from the list they created. No sense in spending a lot of time on players who can’t get in their school. So in these cases, they really are looking for scholars before talent. However, they are not interested in scholars without talent.

Why would anyone hear "programs will sign scholars who otherwise would not get recruited as players" based on what was posted above or anywhere else?

In fact, believe I've been most consistent in trying to say that talent has always been #1. However talent without high academic achievement won't work at certain colleges. No talent with high academic achievement can get you to college but not on the baseball roster. Is someone hearing something different?

Guess I don't always write exactly what I mean, but anyone who would get the wrong message in this case, is not reading very closely.

BTW, Is there another example among 3500 posts where I've ever mentioned anything that people could be hearing.... "programs will recruit & sign scholars who otherwise would not get recruited as players"

IF so... That would make me a lier!

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

quote:

there are numerous DI schools who must look for top-achieving scholars first, and talent second

When colleges like Harvard or other Ivy League schools along with others with tough academic requirements go to showcases, tournaments, etc., the first thing they do is check the rosters for the GPA and test scores.

Other than Harvard and the other Ivies, what are some other DI schools that check first the gpa and test scores? William and Mary? Texas? UVA? UW-Madison? Northwestern? Patriot League Schools? Any Others? Would you say the minimum test score they are seeking is more like a 27 ACT or a 30 ACT?

Cal, Stanford, possibly USC.....Michigan....who knows exactly. And I'd be willing to bet there's a lot more leeway for players in football and hoops than there is for baseball.....just a hunch.

But mainly you're looking at various schools like Emory, Davidson, Trinity, Georgetown, et al, from across the NCAA spectrum. My only point was that there certainly are a number of schools that will very quickly look at a kids gpa/tests and scratch or circle their names accordingly, and scratch them regardless of talent - UNLESS they are reasonably close to the bottom of the admissisability range for a particular school. Why waste time going after a kid that's going to be very hard to admit and will probably flounder, or more likely fail, academically right from Day One.

quote:

PG says: Guess I don't always write exactly what I mean, but anyone who would get the wrong message in this case, is not reading very closely.

lol, not me

and not at all fair daring me to proof read 3540 posts at bedtime


Kraks assertion that ... "numerous DI schools look for top-achieving scholars first" strongly suggests that they are recruiting much differently than programs like Rice, Vandy, Mich, Stanford etc where anyone with talent can get in (not)

or that other sucessfull baseball schools like UNC, Miami (Fl), Miami (Oh), Clemson, GT, etc don't bother looking at GPA because only talent counts.


it seemed to me that Fungos observations were well in line with recruiting reality and Krak & PG disagreed with 'em

not trying to argue .. just observing

Krak,
While I agree that each of those schools, although Cal might have a few surprises, have high academic requirements, talent still comes first at most of them.
For instance, when coaches evaluate at the Stanford Camp, and others, they look at whether the player has the talent and skills they project to succeed in their program. Once they have decided the skills and talent exist, the issue of grades and SAT's get evaluated.
While there is a point where they might seem to blend or blur, it would surprise me if a coach at any of the schools mentioned in this thread would recruit a player they didn't think had the talent to play, no matter what the level of the grades.

I don't think I'm doing a good job at clearly expressing what I mean (Jerry and I must be drinking the same bottled water)....but if you read IFdad's post above, that's basically what I'm trying to say.....if I made the issue sound black-and-white, my intent was actually to imply a strong 'grey area' where it's almost impossible to separate which takes priority at certain schools: the student or the athlete. I never meant to imply that a coach would take a **** player with a stellar gpa under ANY circumstances.

Krak, I thought I understood what you were trying to say. That is why I tried to explain what I thought you were saying. Guess Bee read my post differently than what I did.

quote:

Posted by Bee... it seemed to me that Fungos observations were well in line with recruiting reality and Krak & PG disagreed with 'em

I agree and agreed completely with Fungo when he replied with this to the original poster… What did he say that I disagreed with here?

quote:

By Fungo... You didn't list the MOST important thing ------ TALENT!

It’s really nothing to brag about but I'm fairly certain there is no one who posts here who talks to more college coaches than we do. I’m not trying to make something up in order to fool someone.

If scouting and recruiting are not about talent first, then I’d have to wonder why we spend so much time grading, writing reports, and trying to find the most talented players.

For some reason the way this thread has gone seems to bother me. Keep reading that Krak and I are saying something opposite to what's been written. The last thing I want to do is confuse or fool anyone. Guess I really don't know how anyone could have been confused, but....

There’s a reason for saying there are schools that will look at rosters and earmark those who qualify academically, and after doing that, then look for those on that list who are talented enough to recruit. That reason for saying that is… It’s absolutely true!

I’ll use Harvard (as they were brought up) as an example, but could use several others. Harvard attends many of our events and whether it’s Joe Walsh or his assistant, they get the rosters, programs, lists, etc and they want to get those rosters early. Then they spend time check marking those with the grades and test scores that will allow possibility for acceptance. They do it at every event that I’ve been around!

Now if they simply looked for talent first rather than grades first… They would come up with a long list of great prospects they’d like to recruit, but maybe none of them can get into Harvard. They would have wasted their time looking for the most talented players first and academics last. And they might have spent so much time trying to see everyone that they might have missed the hidden gem with "Talent" and great grades that they needed to glue in on.

Much more productive to make out a list of those who have a chance to get accepted and concentrate on them. At that point they are looking for the most talented players to actually recruit. They don’t try to recruit the scholar who hasn't got the neccessary talent, they recruit the scholar who does have the talent. But it all starts "first" by figuring out who the scholars are. No one has to believe me, but this is a fact and one that I thought was well known! Most talented baseball players can't get into Harvard. That's another fact!

Can’t tell you how many times in discussions about talented players with college coaches I’ve heard, “He doesn’t have the grades”. Often, if it’s a top academic school they already know that before they even see him play.

Yes, most colleges will look for talent first and then check academics. And there are some who do it the other way around. I’m not talking about meaningless lists, but lists at showcases, tournaments, camps, etc., where lots of players will be in attendance. That is when “some” colleges will make out the list they follow based on academics first.

Once again… Talent is most important, everyone knows that! But it doesn’t matter how talented a player is if he can’t get into your school. Like wise, it doesn’t matter how smart a player is if he has no talent.

My reference was to the fact there are some situations when some colleges will first sort by grades and then by talent. Only because it is a much more efficient way of scouting and recruiting players in their case.

BTW, there are small colleges in this country who will accept almost anyone who says they want to play baseball. They are schools that have enrollment quotas they're trying to meet. Once there, you may or may not end up on the roster. However, that is an all together different subject.

PG,

I understand exactly what you are saying. When my son was corresponding with one of the IVYs they had seen him play once and sent that first interest letter. after my son took his first SATs he scored 620 on math but was under 600 by 30 points in critical reading. the coach told him in an email that it wouldnt be high enough, that they were looking for 600 plus in both.My son had a 3.7 and he said that was ok but SATs were not high enough.. Now if that was a UC they would make it work if the kid is in the ballpark and of course can play. Obviously the player has to have talent. But what PG is saying is why look at 500 talented players who cant get into your school when you can narrow it down to maybe 100 who HAVE THE TALENT but can get accepted into the school. some of these types of schools do not make exceptions. there is a line in the sand from what we were told.Why would all the colleges ask for your transcripts and SATS, they want to see if you can make it academically. There are exceptions at some of the schools but not the real serious academic ones.

quote:

Once again… Talent is most important, everyone knows that! But it doesn’t matter how talented a player is if he can’t get into your school. Like wise, it doesn’t matter how smart a player is if he has no talent.

My reference was to the fact there are some situations when some colleges will first sort by grades and then by talent. Only because it is a much more efficient way of scouting and recruiting players in their case.

PG - thanks for your thoughts on the subject.

We have at least cleared up that the most effcient way to recruit scholar athletes is not to go to the library first and search for baseball talent

I think the disagreements in this thread have mostly been semantic. My experience with baseball players is they are often smarter than the average athlete or average student for that matter. Thus, the very top schools often get the best athletes and the smartest players at the same time.

I agree with most everyone in this thread. Especially the part about semantics.

Talent is #1, but without the academics, some might get left out depending on where they want to attend.

In my son's case, he was playing in a showcase in AZ during fall ball. Dartmouth's assistant coach asked the fall ball coach if he had anyone on his team that he thought could gain admission to Dartmouth. The coach mentioned my son and told him he would be pitching tomorrow. The assistant coach said he would be back to watch him and the rest is history.

As PG stated, irregardless of how great the player is, why scout someone who you have no chance of getting in.

Certainly what we do is on a much smaller scale than PG but I agree with PG regarding the coaches at "academic" schools---they run down the list of showcase participants and look at grades/SAT/ACT scores and circle those who appear to be able to gain admission--then they look at the player and his talent---no matter how great a talent a 2.0 GPA student is he is not getting into HARVARD and many other schools, particularly a great number of the Division III programs here in the Northeast.

Getting recruited today is a combination of talent and academics and for a good number of schools academics comes before talent on the field---there is nothing wrong with this because there is room for both procedures

I am really glad that you all got that cleared up, because I do beleive you were all trying to say the same thing.
PG makes good points, because when my son first attended wood bat in Jupiter, the letters that followed were from all different type of programs and I am sure his listed GPA had a lot to do with that as well as his talent. Definetly agree that while some schools will scrutinize the talent first, there are schools that will and have to consider the GPA first. While I do not beleive that son could have been a Rhode Scholar, most definetly could have played at a school with higher academic admissions standards than the one he chose. The great part was that he had those OPTIONS.
Anyone reading over this topic has to realize that the recruit is definetly considerd or not for a variety of reasons the two most important is talent and class achievement, maybe not necessarily in that order. The more options that you give any coach, the easier it becomes.

This is where those discussions of not being big enough, or fast enough to get into a D1 school does come into the picture (not to change the subject). There was a player who played on son's HS travel team that was probably around 160 and 5'6" soaking wet who was able to continue to play baseball at one of the more prestigious schools mentioned due to a 4.5 and 1400 GPA. Meanwhile last week I saw a player with extreme bb talent and fits the size that most D1 schools look for (according to some here), but he and his folks didn't realize how important it was to also perform in the classroom to play at those type of schools and most likely heading off to a JUCO first.
JMO.

In speaking to Pro and College scouts/coaches this is the best information I have pulled from many resources.

Determine what schools your son is intested in. If you can't pick a school yet (and most can't)then at least decide on a state or region by the time your son is a junior (if not as a sophomore).


• If you decide to attend showcases, camps, etc then it is best to go to only those where you know a scout/coach from one of your "wish list" schools will attend. Per a scout from the Seattle Mariners "why go to anything where the school you would like to attend is not represented". It is simply a waste of money.
  
  
• Beware of programs that offer to video and send off video to coaches on behalf of your son. Unless you have worked with those programs closely how do you know your tape gets in the right hands? Remember you pay for it so get EXACTLY what you want.
  

Not sure the school you are interested in will be at a particular showcase or camp? Call the coach. There is no rule prohibiting a player of any age from contacting a college coach. They (coaches) have rules about contact but those rules do not apply to the student athlete. Contact those schools you like then continue the contact for as long as you want. If the schools you like are not going to attend a particular camp/showcase, ect. then don't waste your money!

I agree the discuss seems to be about semantics. BB talent is required to get you a shot at a college BB team. Academics will dictate acceptance to a college and has nothing to do with BB acceptance other than eligibility and scholarship money.
Some schools are harder to get into academically and some and not hard. That dictates the college that will accept you quite aside from what the BB coach would accept.

quote:

Originally posted by jfsbndr:
).

If you decide to attend showcases, camps, etc then it is best to go to only those where you know a scout/coach from one of your "wish list" schools will attend. Per a scout from the Seattle Mariners "why go to anything where the school you would like to attend is not represented". It is simply a waste of money.

Welcome to the HSBBW! I agree with your suggestions but not so sure about the one above. Wish lists change, and sometimes your wish cannot always be granted. I think it is a good idea to attend a showcase or tourney where a good representation of schools is attending.

If one sees a showcase where a list of schools have been given, call someo f those schools to see if they are actually attending.

JMO.

If you focus on your "wish list" schools you may be left out in the cold for a number of reasons.

01-- Academics\
02-- Baseball talent
03-- They need another player at your position
04-- They may like an instate palyer(less cost)
than you

Sometimes "wish lists" are not the way to go--

All good advice...

Might I add this...

It could be said that College coaches belong to a big fraternity. They really do help each other out at times, just as pro scouts will help out certain college coaches at times.

If they see a good player who does not fit into their plans in one way or another, they will tell others about the player, usually outside their conference or compertition. Good players get talked about a lot, they do not remain secrets once they are seen by enough people!

I think "wish lists" are fine, but sometimes they don't match the college's "wish list".

Regarding video...

It doesn't matter who receives the video. What matters is who actually is interested enough to watch the video.

If I were to give any advice, it would be to get seen as much as you can or as much as you can afford. You do not always have to spend a lot of money, but you do need to figure out how to get in front of people that make decisions.

Here are some tips FWIW... Check the results of past events. Check the rosters for who attends. If you are very talented, but unknown to the scouting and recruiting community, find out where the best prospects go and try to get with them. The results from past events and the roster of the current event is the thing that will put you in a good place to be identified. If you can't afford to travel, look for MLB tryout camps in your area. Ask people who would know when and where they are at. There are some that are listed and many more that aren't listed anywhere. If all else fails, find the most influencial baseball person in your area and contact them. There are people all over the country who have a lot of credibility with college coaches and scouts.

If you want, send your information to us. It won't cost a dime and you will be entered into a pretty important database. This doesn't guarantee anything, but it is free and can't hurt. At least people will have a chance to know who you are, maybe even your dream school.

Lastly... Shoving a player down a college coaches throat, usually doesn't work. Their time is valuable and the only pests they really pay attention to are those with talent. So make sure that any interest goes both ways. It can be likened to telemarketing calls in a college coaches mind. Ever wonder why you get messages so often when calling college coaches. Now, if they have given you their cell number, they actually want you to call.

I have a bit different thinking when it comes to "marketing" a player. The best and most effective marketing is when others are doing the promoting. Not saying that you should not send out info and try to contact schools, but realize just how much of this is going on and put yourself in the recruiting coordinators shoes.

At the highest levels, if that's what you're most interested in, coaches find you in most every case, rather than your marketing efforts paying off. The acception is if you are recognized as a top level prospect, they already know it most of the time and they will welcome your efforts and interest.

Hope I haven't started another debate. Just trying to keep things real.

quote:

I have a bit different thinking when it comes to "marketing" a player. The best and most effective marketing is when others are doing the promoting. Not saying that you should not send out info and try to contact schools, but realize just how much of this is going on and put yourself in the recruiting coordinators shoes.

These comments have great merit.

That said, if you are going to market yourself, provide objective information that can be independently verified (60 time, velocity, heights, weight, etc. from PG showcases, pro tryouts, college camps, etc.), plus contact names and numbers, etc. And include your playing schedule so the recruiting coordinator can see you play if he is interested.

quote:

Lastly... Shoving a player down a college coaches throat, usually doesn't work. Their time is valuable and the only pests they really pay attention to are those with talent. So make sure that any interest goes both ways.

I agree with this.

I often advocate players call coaches but it is usually because they have received some type of contact from the school first. People get their first recruiting letters and invariably their first response is to post here and ask what does it mean? I have know clue what it means. It seems to me that a letter invites the recruit to contact the coach however. Sometimes recruiters will approach the high school or travel coach after a game and inquire about a player. This type of contact also invites the player to contact the school imho. If you cold call schools, listen to their advice about what it takes to get recruited there. My guess is most D1's will invite you to one of their camps for a "tryout." For other scenarios such as the one o'brady posted on, I advocated calling the local JUCO coaches. The purposes of those calls would be to hopefully tell the coach enough over the phone that he would invite you for a tryout. I suppose cold-calling might work in some cases, but somehow the player has to be seen by the respective coaches. At a bare minimum, a player should try and find out what it will take to be seen when calling the coach. The best advice I received about recruiting came directly from college coaches.

I am on the same page with the wish list thing. Using son as an example, very few of his sophmore wish list schools panned out, although they were interested, not a good fit. Do your homework first.

PG is correct I know a HC who is always happy to help out those looking for programs through connections or making suggestions after he has seen the player. There are several websters here I have given info (with permission) to contact.

Here's my take on marketing your player. It's not always about making phone calls, sending letters over and over, DVD's, paying for a service to do that, etc. (though that can work). Attending the right showcases and events, camps, finding the right travel team to play on (that attends these events) and then having others do that marking and rating for you is well worth you time and effort, but you do not have to break the bank.
Attending a reliable showcase or tournie before a proven event was my idea of marketing. Playing small tournies within the state with scouts watching was marketing as I knew those scouts contribute to ratings and rankings. Playing on a good team at USA preliminaries as a rising sophmore was good marketing. I know from first hand knowledge that coaches didn't call me to ask about son's bio or ability, they called someone else more reliable and unbiased who does that.

As far as calling coaches, it's a toss up. They are busy guys, lot depends on their program. If they want to speak with you, you get their cell phone number by them. That's why they invite you to camp. To give you all that info you want over the phone ina group setting and to see your player up front and personal. A few folks here who have attended son's former school camp have told me after listeing to the HC about how they recruit and what they look for, they know that they need to readjust their thinking. I have also heard where some recruits have attended a camp and for some reason or another they are scratched off the recruiters list.
JMO.

I agree that coaches talk to other coaches/scouts and it can make a big difference. My son ended up at a school that wasn't on his long list his junior year-much less his short list. Had never contacted the coaches or even thought about it as someplace he wanted to go. In the fall of his jr. year, my son attended a camp (that we did pay for-not cheap) put on by local pro scouts and minor league coaches-month long, small numbers-good instruction (well worth the money!) That January he got a letter from out of no where from the recruiting director. Stayed in contact throughout the season and summer- took an unofficial visit that summer and fell in love with everything about the school and program. Verballed after his official visit that fall. He went back to the same camp the fall of his senior year after he'd signed his NLI. The director of the camp-a local pro scout- congratulated my son on his signing and mentioned that the Head coach was a really good friend of his. Now we, of course, suspect that's where the school got son's name (but don't know for sure). On the other hand, another scout's brother is the Head coach at another school that made an offer. Kind of awkward when he said "so you turned down my brother " (but he was very nice about it!)
I had posted on here early that same fall that I was surprised at the lack of interest in my son-a decent lefty, varsity since freshman year, local awards ,etc.-but little contact. The advice was to get pro-active and get him seen. Took that advice and got busy-worked for us!