1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Risk - Reward in Recruiting

Discussion in 'University of Colorado Recruiting Archive' started by Buffnik, Oct 31, 2011.

  1. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,772
    Likes Received:
    16,483
    It's the risk/reward curve with recruiting.

    Great athletes who are well-developed at their positions have the lowest risk for the highest reward. These are the top-rated guys that everyone wants and programs like USC stock up with every year. When you miss on these guys, you have to go somewhere else. Your choices are:

    Low risk/ moderate reward. 3* types who aren't academic risks, don't have injury histories that give you a red flag, show good character, and have enough athletic ability to compete on the BCS level. Not likely to be All-Conference guys, but likely to be solid contributors to the program who start for a year or two.

    Low risk/ low reward. Great guys who will help you set a GPA record but don't have the ability to be good players on this level. Hawkins loved these guys. Embree might take them as walk ons.

    High risk/ high reward. Players with injury/academic/character issues who have the potential to be great football players. Embree seems wiling to take a couple risks a cycle here if the risk is academic or they're coming off an injury, but he doesn't seem to be interested in going after guys with character problems.

    High risk/ moderate reward. Same issues as the HR/HR guys, but without the "playmaker" upside. We seem willing to take these guys if it's an injury issue.

    High risk/ low reward. Players with issues who also have limited upside. I'm not sure why anyone would recruit one of these guys.

    Last, we have the moderate risk guys. These would be players who have had minor injuries, need a lot of technique work, had some minor infraction in their past, or need their bodies to develop (linemen who need to add 40 lbs, for example). The guys in this category who might deliver high reward are usually going to have a lot of offers. Embree targets a lot of these types as his "Plan B" guys. We also seem to be targeting a number of them who have moderate reward. These are the guys who haven't shown enough to get BCS offers but have the measurables that may make a coach confident that he can turn them into contributing players and effective starters for a couple years. The low reward guys shouldn't be recruited.

    When I analyze our offers, I have to say that I think that Embree is playing this the right way. We're quick to offer the LR/HR guys and we go hard after any of these guys who show interest in CU. If our chances aren't good, we quickly move to our Plan B offers at the position and look for guys we can coach up. We'll take risks on guys, but not too many and not for serious character issues. (I'm talking football character, not suitability to be head of the Boulder Kiwanis Club once they arrive.) I don't see any willingness to take a low reward guy to fill a class.

    There does seem to be a preference, once we miss on the Plan A types everyone want, to go after guys who are pretty risky in terms of their physical development and technique if they have a big upside versus going after guys who are solid players and have lower ceilings. There is definitely a big collective ego among the coaching staff that they're able to coach guys up if those guys have the raw tools and the right attitude. They also seem to like the guys who aren't likely to be superstars, but are the types that show exceptional leadership and football character that will establish the culture Embree wants.
     

Share This Page