My point is this thread shows that some people get creative to keep that relationship with the college coach. That is what people need to understand, is that in a lot of cases people buy access. I also feel it is fair to say that those who can afford showcases, camps, etc are also buying access. In the end, your $$$$ are going to end up in someone else’s pocket in your pursuit.
I am not sure if that relationship with the coach will significantly influence the decision to sign him. If he can't play on that level, he ain't getting recruited.
Really? I can. There are teams that bring players in due to being legacies, this wouldn’t be any different.
2022OFDad posted:Really? I can. There are teams that bring players in due to being legacies, this wouldn’t be any different.
I don't buy this. I'm sure it has happened at one point or another but it is not the norm, or even common. It isn't HS. This is the coaches job. It is what pays the mortgage and puts food on the table. If they don't win they can't pay the bills.
If you don't have the talent to play you are not going to get recruited. Especially at the D1 or D2 level where there is money involved. I'm not sure how many kids are getting recruited because their father was a middle relief pitcher for a school that had a different coaching staff 30 years earlier.
PABaseball posted:2022OFDad posted:Really? I can. There are teams that bring players in due to being legacies, this wouldn’t be any different.
I don't buy this. I'm sure it has happened at one point or another but it is not the norm, or even common. It isn't HS. This is the coaches job. It is what pays the mortgage and puts food on the table. If they don't win they can't pay the bills.
If you don't have the talent to play you are not going to get recruited. Especially at the D1 or D2 level where there is money involved. I'm not sure how many kids are getting recruited because their father was a middle relief pitcher for a school that had a different coaching staff 30 years earlier.
In support of this, if you're a DI coach operating with both roster size and scholarship limits affecting your livelihood, you tend to treat each spot as if it's pretty precious.
Prepster posted:PABaseball posted:2022OFDad posted:Really? I can. There are teams that bring players in due to being legacies, this wouldn’t be any different.
I don't buy this. I'm sure it has happened at one point or another but it is not the norm, or even common. It isn't HS. This is the coaches job. It is what pays the mortgage and puts food on the table. If they don't win they can't pay the bills.
If you don't have the talent to play you are not going to get recruited. Especially at the D1 or D2 level where there is money involved. I'm not sure how many kids are getting recruited because their father was a middle relief pitcher for a school that had a different coaching staff 30 years earlier.
In support of this, if you're a DI coach operating with both roster size and scholarship limits affecting your livelihood, you tend to treat each spot as if it's pretty precious.
You guys are awefully short sighted. There are many programs that don’t operate with scholarships restrictions (they are either fully funded or in conferences where scholarships don’t exist), don’t have a history of winning, and where coaches stay for a long time without ever having produced winning seasons. Penn State, Siena come to mind immediately. Ivy and Patriot League don’t typically have a lot of coaching turn over either and you can’t tell me legacy doesn’t come Into play there.
Virtually all the college coaches I know are pretty intent upon winning...and, I know quite a few of them. You don't win with pay-to-play players.
By the way, "fully-funded" in DI means that your athletic department is capable of supplying the NCAA-regulation amount of 11.7 scholarships (9 in DII). Therefore, there's the equivalent of 11.7 athletic scholarships to be rationed among the 27 scholarship-eligible players on the roster. In other words, a condition of scarcity is created. Meanwhile, the remaining non-athletic scholarship slots on the roster are rationed, as well, by the 35-man cap. Overall, not a promising environment for stragglers.
2022OFDad posted:You guys are awefully short sighted. There are many programs that don’t operate with scholarships restrictions (they are either fully funded or in conferences where scholarships don’t exist), don’t have a history of winning, and where coaches stay for a long time without ever having produced winning seasons. Penn State, Siena come to mind immediately. Ivy and Patriot League don’t typically have a lot of coaching turn over either and you can’t tell me legacy doesn’t come Into play there.
Anything relating to legacy is sorted out with admissions. When a coach is recruiting a player he doesn't tell his staff that they have to sign this guy because his dad was on the '86 team that won the conference. I'm sure there are recruits who get some help in admissions by having parents that went to the school, but I'm not sure the coach cares all that much. If a kid can play, he will. But his parents will not determine that for him.
FWIW the PSU coach is going on his 5th year. I don't think they have a good situation over there either but not a great example.