Official Late Signing Day Thread:

[Highlander]

Mostly good medicine! The best quote in this article is for all those outspoken allbuffers who believe in the magical recruiter-the position coach who can convince top recruits to come here with some superhuman charisma. This magical recruiter mythos is complete fantasy.

"Yet, despite all the phone calls, letters, text messages, unofficial visits, or any other obscure recruiting tactics that coaches deploy to attract elite talent, the final recruiting rankings align precisely with the high school demographic’s perceived brand rankings. The actual act of recruiting, apparently, is one giant charade. Is it necessary? Sure. Will marginally better recruiting execution lead to better results? No."

So lets focus on getting position coaches that can motivate and teach (while projecting ability to teach and motivate to recruits) and let the HC/AD build the brand.

Dude. Just stop.

 

[8Jah]

Dude. Just stop.

Actually I've had my coffee and am just about to get started again.

 

[You Assholes]

Actually I've had my coffee and am just about to get started again.

Go!

 

[8Jah]

A place like CU has to bootstrap its brand. We have to win more games and get to bowls and use each winning season to incrementally improve our recruiting. We have to continue to coach and develop players. Being known as the builder of the NFL's secondaries would be a good brand.

 

[Highlander]

Mostly good medicine! The best quote in this article is for all those outspoken allbuffers who believe in the magical recruiter-the position coach who can convince top recruits to come here with some superhuman charisma. This magical recruiter mythos is complete fantasy.

"Yet, despite all the phone calls, letters, text messages, unofficial visits, or any other obscure recruiting tactics that coaches deploy to attract elite talent, the final recruiting rankings align precisely with the high school demographic’s perceived brand rankings. The actual act of recruiting, apparently, is one giant charade. Is it necessary? Sure. Will marginally better recruiting execution lead to better results? No."

So lets focus on getting position coaches that can motivate and teach (while projecting ability to teach and motivate to recruits) and let the HC/AD build the brand.

Dude. Just stop.

Actually I've had my coffee and am just about to get started again.

Have you ever been in a direct sales position or at least directly involved with sales people to know the difference?

 

[8Jah]

Have you ever been in a direct sales position or at least directly involved with sales people to know the difference?

Yes and yes. Everything in life is about selling to some extent. But NCAA recruiting is not like being a sales professional.

Companies with bad product die quickly, but when two similar products are competing, salesmen can make all the difference. That is the world that salespeople live in - they have a chance to make a difference. In NCAA football bad programs can't die. NCAA football is ALL about unequal brand, unequal product, unequal everything. Try to be the guy selling sketchers when the guy on the corner is selling Nike. Brand strategy isn't made by the salesman on the street, its made by the executives at the top, and without a desirable brand salespeople can't make a difference.

 

[Buffnik]

Yes and yes. Everything in life is about selling to some extent. But NCAA recruiting is not like being a sales professional.

Companies with bad product die quickly, but when two similar products are competing, salesmen can make all the difference. That is the world that salespeople live in - they have a chance to make a difference. In NCAA football bad programs can't die. NCAA football is ALL about unequal brand, unequal product, unequal everything. Try to be the guy selling sketchers when the guy on the corner is selling Nike. Brand strategy isn't made by the salesman on the street, its made by the executives at the top, and without a desirable brand salespeople can't make a difference.

Trust me when I tell you that I know salespeople who would kick Nike's ass selling Sketchers if they were on the same corner.

Remember, too, that in NCAA football recruiting the brands that are a lot stronger than yours are few and they can only take so many players. Most of your competition has about as many warts as you do. For CU to take a step up it doesn't have to beat USC and aTm in California and Texas. CU has to out-recruit ASU and Mizzou.

 

[8Jah]

Also, there are businesses where salespeople make a sale solely on their hustle and those other industries where salespeople just align interested folks with their product and guide them through the process. I think when the importance of that being sold gets big, the sales people are the latter.

I think deciding where to be a college athlete is about alot of things: the brand, the facilities, the education, positioning for next level, the other guys, match of playing style, the coaching staff, etc.. The coach callin you all the time and twittering you is just there to let you know you are important. It's more comparable to a job interview than selling an insurance policy or somethin, and your recruiter more like the HR lady. You don't decide to to take a job because the HR lady had mad hustle, you take it because you like what it will do for your career, you think you would like to live there and you can see yourself fitting in...and the HR lady was nice too.

 

[MtnBuff]

Yes and yes. Everything in life is about selling to some extent. But NCAA recruiting is not like being a sales professional.

Companies with bad product die quickly, but when two similar products are competing, salesmen can make all the difference. That is the world that salespeople live in - they have a chance to make a difference. In NCAA football bad programs can't die. NCAA football is ALL about unequal brand, unequal product, unequal everything. Try to be the guy selling sketchers when the guy on the corner is selling Nike. Brand strategy isn't made by the salesman on the street, its made by the executives at the top, and without a desirable brand salespeople can't make a difference.

NCAA football is all about selling.

The myth of "coaching them up" has been exposed far to many times to even consider it.

The fact is that a team may win a game or two each year on coaching but championships are won on talent, the Jimmys and the Joes.

You are right about one thing. You don't turn a program around with one super recruiter. You build a staff that recruits, some maybe better than others but a staff that can find talent and sell that talent of he vision of being part of the program.

And just like for the guys out selling in their cars or hitting the airports or working the trade shows if they aren't closing enough deals they find themselves unemployed. And the top executives can vision what they want the brand to be on the street but it is the salespeople who make the brand what it is. And if you don't believe that just look at the number of big, well known, well promoted brands that are now owned by some foreign company because the sales force didn't make it happen.

I worked for a national retailer, top five in our segment nationally, most profitable per square foot in our segment. Company was purchased by a British company who put in charge a bunch of Harvard MBAs who's textbooks said if they priced it right, displayed it right, and promoted it right the salepeople were a secondary factor. They cut commissions, cut training, and sat back waiting for the profit to roll in.

I left within a few months of the purchase, three years later the entire company was gone.

 

[Buffnik]

Also, there are businesses where salespeople make a sale solely on their hustle and those other industries where salespeople just align interested folks with their product and guide them through the process. I think when the importance of that being sold gets big, the sales people are the latter.

I think deciding where to be a college athlete is about alot of things: the brand, the facilities, the education, positioning for next level, the other guys, match of playing style, the coaching staff, etc.. The coach callin you all the time and twittering you is just there to let you know you are important. It's more comparable to a job interview than selling an insurance policy or somethin, and your recruiter more like the HR lady. You don't decide to to take a job because the HR lady had mad hustle, you take it because you like what it will do for your career, you think you would like to live there and you can see yourself fitting in...and the HR lady was nice too.

It's much more like a job interview if you're talking about a player who has a family member who went through it or if we're talking about a JUCO or grad transfer. You're really overestimating the maturity and sober reasoning that happens with most recruiting of 15-17 year old kids, though. I think one place that MacIntyre and staff excel is that they aren't the slick b.s. salesmen types. At a certain point in the process, most everyone gets fatigue with it and a lot of guys will end up landing where the coaches have been real, consistent and there the whole time. Most of my frustration with CU recruiting is on that: their approach is a good one and they are good at closing for the reasons I described. Because of that, they could afford to be a lot more patient with the process and I believe a lot of kids like Antwine would end up choosing CU at the end if we gave them more time instead of filling up so early.

 

[8Jah]

Trust me when I tell you that I know salespeople who would kick Nike's ass selling Sketchers if they were on the same corner.

Remember, too, that in NCAA football recruiting the brands that are a lot stronger than yours are few and they can only take so many players. Most of your competition has about as many warts as you do. For CU to take a step up it doesn't have to beat USC and aTm in California and Texas. CU has to out-recruit ASU and Mizzou.

Have your guy come to my old neighborhood in Long Beach and sell his sketchers against some dope selling Nikes both for 80 bucks. If he sells more of his sketchers to these kids then I will be a true believer.

Also the bad news is that our brand is so much worse than ASU. The brand study in that article probably had small sample size, but I bet it is pretty close and CU is near bottom.

 

[8Jah]

It's much more like a job interview if you're talking about a player who has a family member who went through it or if we're talking about a JUCO or grad transfer. You're really overestimating the maturity and sober reasoning that happens with most recruiting of 15-17 year old kids, though. I think one place that MacIntyre and staff excel is that they aren't the slick b.s. salesmen types. At a certain point in the process, most everyone gets fatigue with it and a lot of guys will end up landing where the coaches have been real, consistent and there the whole time. Most of my frustration with CU recruiting is on that: their approach is a good one and they are good at closing for the reasons I described. Because of that, they could afford to be a lot more patient with the process and I believe a lot of kids like Antwine would end up choosing CU at the end if we gave them more time instead of filling up so early.

Football players come from all walks of life, but these city kids know how to smell a hustler from miles away by the time they can ride a bike. The good ones got all their relatives in as their brain trust. I don’t think they get the culture differences and they are skeptical first. Where they don’t trust I think they fall back on brand.

Seems MM has a really honest recruiting style...I agree. Maybe he could wait a little longer, seems he just doesn’t like the length and dirtyness of process for the kids sake. I hate those other coaches who promise kids something and then immediately start planning how to talk the kid down from that once they get on campus. I think you can make false representations and appear to be a good recruiter on paper.

 

[CarmelBuff]

Trust me when I tell you that I know salespeople who would kick Nike's ass selling Sketchers if they were on the same corner.

Cmon man we are dealing with kids here...So you sold the kid a pair of sketchers and he commits only to un-commit as soon as you walk out the door and puts the Nike's back on. The Sketchers get thrown in the back of the closet. That kid isn't gonna get caught dead wearing sketchers.

Point is the brand makes a lot of difference. I'm a long time Buff fan and I have to tell you the CU brand is not close to what it used to be. When CU was the B12 at least it got a lot more primetime positions on TV and played to a more recognizable brand. Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska eve Kansas is more of a household name then Washington, Washington state, Arizona, Cal. Now I struggle to stay up and watch these late games that are on till 2 in the morning. That limits recruiting to west coast (from a brand outlook). All the east coast kids are out doing other things or have already received their SEC, Big10, ACC, and B12 dosage for the day. Call it what you will and I don't care how you try to spin it thats why the east coast has such a strong media bias.

This was hashed and re-hashed before the Pac move on plenty of forums and I argued till I couldn't and now it is what I knew it would become an uninteresting, lost in the muck and the mire situation. There is no excitement and the Pac games have dead rivalries to CU. The Nebraska CU game will re-energize some CU luster as it was not that long ago and people even kids may remember that Thanksgiving day matchup. Nobody gives a rats a$$ about Utah.

I have no idea how CU can change its brand perception. Oregon did it with uniforms (very important to young kids) and a coach (Chip Kelly) that made it fun with hurry up and speed. A few years back when Kelly was coaching and my kid was in pee wee football Oregon was one of the peewee teams. It was never a peewee team before because nobody knew about Oregon but every kid wanted to play for Oregon back here in Indiana. Now its not even a peewee team anymore. Bama, Clemson, and many of the teams you see on the chart are in the peewee leagues. Hell Indiana and Purdue are not even teams and this is Indiana.

That brand perception is huge!

 

[Buffnik]

Except we recruit on the west coast, not the east. Nobody outside the Big 12 region thinks the Big 12 is cool.

 

[CarmelBuff]

Except we recruit on the west coast, not the east. Nobody outside the Big 12 region thinks the Big 12 is cool.

Not trying to argue nik or pick a fight.

CU used to have a pretty good Texas pipe is that still there? Its tougher recruiting there now because its not just the Big12 anymore, A&M is in the SEC. Point is "Brand Perception". What is the brand perception on the west coast? I guarantee you years ago the CU brand was big in Texas and even Florida when the Big 12 played in the OB every year.

Without the natural rivalries CU used to have where does the brand sit? Don't tell me the juices get flowing over ANY pac team because it doesn't. The most excitement CU will have in football for the 1st time in years will be September 8th 2018 and I hope they get the prime spot and Gameday shows up!

 

[Buffnik]

Not trying to argue nik or pick a fight.

CU used to have a pretty good Texas pipe is that still there? Its tougher recruiting there now because its not just the Big12 anymore, A&M is in the SEC. Point is "Brand Perception". What is the brand perception on the west coast? I guarantee you years ago the CU brand was big in Texas and even Florida when the Big 12 played in the OB every year!

Without the natural rivalries CU used to have where does the brand sit? Don't tell me the juices get flowing over ANY pac team because it doesn't! The most excitement CU will have in football for the 1st time in years will be September 8th 2018 and I hope they get the prime spot and Gameday shows up!

Actually, we’re recruiting TX better than any time since Coach Mac other than the GB era (and we didn’t recruit CA well under GB).

 

[Always BUFF]

Ralphie & the view from Folsom as it stands currently do more for the brand than just about anything. Playing in the P12 there's nothing to differentiate one game from another because there's no history for me to get excited about. Until CU plays in a game that really matters to both teams ie. CU/knu late 80's/90's. '16' P12 CCG was a big game but I didn't believe CU could win it to begin with.

 

[DBT]

The most successful salesmen are the ones who offer “incentives” to their customers.

 

[8Jah]

In the early part of this decade our brand was like Chipotle after Salmonella poisoning - it got tainted. Time is erasing all of that, now what we really have to do is make it to bowls. We have to dispel that smell.

 

[goalline]

Dude. Just stop.

Why? Lot's of posters hold up the activities (particularly on twitter) of a couple of coaches and think they're able to do magical things. Perhaps, 8-jah is going a little overboard here, but he's got a point. The counter point is that the article doesn't delve into whether a particular school does better with certain positions. It would be interesting to see how much the ranking might vary.

Obviously, recruiters / coaches need to build a relationship with each player, but since all programs do that, it's going to tilt the occasional player but not be a significant factor over several classes or a significant time period. The fact is that CU's brand has taken a major hit since Barnett that hasn't been repaired. I'm really bothered that the ranking in the article (based on potential recruits) puts CU behind Baylor despite everything that's happened at either school. It's partially an image issue and partially an administration support issue. It takes a while, and investment, to build a brand, and I'm not sure CU even understood that was necessary. RG might get it.

 

[Highlander]

Also, there are businesses where salespeople make a sale solely on their hustle and those other industries where salespeople just align interested folks with their product and guide them through the process. I think when the importance of that being sold gets big, the sales people are the latter.

I think deciding where to be a college athlete is about alot of things: the brand, the facilities, the education, positioning for next level, the other guys, match of playing style, the coaching staff, etc.. The coach callin you all the time and twittering you is just there to let you know you are important. It's more comparable to a job interview than selling an insurance policy or somethin, and your recruiter more like the HR lady. You don't decide to to take a job because the HR lady had mad hustle, you take it because you like what it will do for your career, you think you would like to live there and you can see yourself fitting in...and the HR lady was nice too.

Why? Lot's of posters hold up the activities (particularly on twitter) of a couple of coaches and think they're able to do magical things. Perhaps, 8-jah is going a little overboard here, but he's got a point. The counter point is that the article doesn't delve into whether a particular school does better with certain positions. It would be interesting to see how much the ranking might vary.

Obviously, recruiters / coaches need to build a relationship with each player, but since all programs do that, it's going to tilt the occasional player but not be a significant factor over several classes or a significant time period. The fact is that CU's brand has taken a major hit since Barnett that hasn't been repaired. I'm really bothered that the ranking in the article (based on potential recruits) puts CU behind Baylor despite everything that's happened at either school. It's partially an image issue and partially an administration support issue. It takes a while, and investment, to build a brand, and I'm not sure CU even understood that was necessary. RG might get it.

This is my read on 8Jah's post:
It doesn't matter if Tom Brady or Trevor Simeon is your quarterback. The franchise's foundation and brand will determine your outcome.

A good sales person with a good sales process will beat his competition more often than not. If he trades products with his competition, he will STILL beat his competition (now former employer) more often than not. Those people don't grow on trees (they are the top 10%).

If you want to improve your on field performance, you have to out recruit your peers for the better athletes to achieve a better record and improve your brand. This isn't easy, but it isn't impossible. And it is what we have to do to be successful.

 

[JMBuffs]

What the F*** is wrong with Sketchers?!?!

 

[8Jah]

This is my read on 8Jah's post:
It doesn't matter if Tom Brady or Trevor Simeon is your quarterback. The franchise's foundation and brand will determine your outcome.

If that is what you think I am saying you have trouble reading. We are talking narrowly about college recruiting.

I realize many of you are sales professionals and you see the world only through that prism, but salesman does not equal college recruiter. If you want a better comparison probably the best is corporate recruiter. If you are considering a job between Google, Yahoo or some start-up called Duck-Duck-Go the recruiter for each of those companies has a marginal affect on your decision. You care about the position offered, the people you will work with, how it will affect your career and the brand of the company. You care that your friends and family will recognize and be amazed by where you work, and even more so when you are younger.

Kids who want to play college football are the same if not more so. The on-the-field record, the style of football played, your potential teammates, your shot at making it to the next level, the whole coaching staff, the facilities, the academics...all together that is your brand. You also have the recruiter that calls you and shows you the love. That guy has to be very competent, but above a certain level, I just don't think it moves the needle that much.

If you want to improve your on field performance, you have to out recruit your peers for the better athletes to achieve a better record and improve your brand. This isn't easy, but it isn't impossible. And it is what we have to do to be successful.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, agrees that recruiting is a massively important ingredient to building a successful program. So don't try an pretend that I am somehow arguing that recruiting isn't important. I am simply pointing out that brand comes first and this fantasy that many of you have that we can hire some magical recruiter position coach who will overcome the brand problem with super-amazing levels of inhuman persuasion is going to keep disappointing you.

 

[Highlander]

If that is what you think I am saying you have trouble reading. We are talking narrowly about college recruiting.

I realize many of you are sales professionals and you see the world only through that prism, but salesman does not equal college recruiter. If you want a better comparison probably the best is corporate recruiter. If you are considering a job between Google, Yahoo or some start-up called Duck-Duck-Go the recruiter for each of those companies has a marginal affect on your decision. You care about the position offered, the people you will work with, how it will affect your career and the brand of the company. You care that your friends and family will recognize and be amazed by where you work, and even more so when you are younger.

Kids who want to play college football are the same if not more so. The on-the-field record, the style of football played, your potential teammates, your shot at making it to the next level, the whole coaching staff, the facilities, the academics...all together that is your brand. You also have the recruiter that calls you and shows you the love. That guy has to be very competent, but above a certain level, I just don't think it moves the needle that much.



Everyone, and I mean everyone, agrees that recruiting is a massively important ingredient to building a successful program. So don't try an pretend that I am somehow arguing that recruiting isn't important. I am simply pointing out that brand comes first and this fantasy that many of you have that we can hire some magical recruiter position coach who will overcome the brand problem with super-amazing levels of inhuman persuasion is going to keep disappointing you.

Did Chiv instantly have an impact in recruiting when he joined our staff?

Was Jeffcount completely ineffective in recruiting while he was here?

I'm utterly stunned that you don't believe the skill set of individual coaches to recruit (sell) matters.

PS - I almost hired a sales guy that was a former Michigan State basketball assistant coach for a few years under Tom Izzo. His entire pitch was built around the fact that his best sales training was recruiting for a major D1 basketball program and that selling in that environment was way harder than any product he had sold since converting to technology sales.

 

[Duff Man]

Did Chiv instantly have an impact in recruiting when he joined our staff?

Was Jeffcount completely ineffective in recruiting while he was here?

I'm utterly stunned that you don't believe the skill set of individual coaches to recruit (sell) matters.

PS - I almost hired a sales guy that was a former Michigan State basketball assistant coach for a few years under Tom Izzo. His entire pitch was built around the fact that his best sales training was recruiting for a major D1 basketball program and that selling in that environment was way harder than any product he had sold since converting to technology sales.

@ your second question. Have you read his posts?

 

[8Jah]

Did Chiv instantly have an impact in recruiting when he joined our staff?

Was Jeffcount completely ineffective in recruiting while he was here?

I'm utterly stunned that you don't believe the skill set of individual coaches to recruit (sell) matters.

PS - I almost hired a sales guy that was a former Michigan State basketball assistant coach for a few years under Tom Izzo. His entire pitch was built around the fact that his best sales training was recruiting for a major D1 basketball program and that selling in that environment was way harder than any product he had sold since converting to technology sales.

I didn't say recruiters don't matter and neither did the article that started this dialogue. The article and I both said individual recruiters have to be very competent, but better recruiting beyond that level of competence just doesn't buy you much nowadays.

I mean no disrespect to Chiv, whom I love and think was a great buff, but I don't associate the uptick in recruiting with him. We had brand new facilities in 2016 and time was starting to erase the memories of 2012-2014 in the minds of these high school kids. It is also very much easier to recruit skill players than lineman, and 3-4 defensive linemen especially. There are so so few 300lb nose tackles that already look the part in high school and the competition for them is vastly greater than for a wide receiver. So I don't think you can compare Chiv's and JJ's recruiting like you do.

 

[Buffnik]

I didn't say recruiters don't matter and neither did the article that started this dialogue. The article and I both said individual recruiters have to be very competent, but better recruiting beyond that level of competence just doesn't buy you much nowadays.

I mean no disrespect to Chiv, whom I love and think was a great buff, but I don't associate the uptick in recruiting with him. We had brand new facilities in 2016 and time was starting to erase the memories of 2012-2014 in the minds of these high school kids. It is also very much easier to recruit skill players than lineman, and 3-4 defensive linemen especially. There are so so few 300lb nose tackles that already look the part in high school and the competition for them is vastly greater than for a wide receiver. So I don't think you can compare Chiv's and JJ's recruiting like you do.

It's both the facilities and Chev.

Do you honestly think that you could put any D1 coach in Chev's job and there would be no impact on recruiting success?

Someone made reference to the old Jerry Krause quote (Chicago Bulls GM) at the time when Michael Jordan, Phil Jackson and others were leaving after the 6th championship. ''Players and coaches don't win championships; organizations win championships.'' That seems to be an opinion you share. I disagree. I'd say that "Players and coaches almost never overcome a bad organization to win championships, but organizations can never overcome bad players and coaches to even deliver a competitive team."

 

[Highlander]

Someone made reference to the old Jerry Krause quote (Chicago Bulls GM) at the time when Michael Jordan, Phil Jackson and others were leaving after the 6th championship. ''Players and coaches don't win championships; organizations win championships.'' That seems to be an opinion you share. I disagree. I'd say that "Players and coaches almost never overcome a bad organization to win championships, but organizations can never overcome bad players and coaches to even deliver a competitive team."

And just to be clear, Jerry Krause was GM for 5 more years after Phil and MJ left. The Bulls record in those 5 years?
1998-99: 13-37 (last in the East) (note - strike shortened season)
1999-00: 17-65 (last in the East)
2000-01: 15-67 (last in the East)
2001-02: 21-61 (last in the East)
2002-03: 30-52 (13th in the East)

Yep, organizations win championships!

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I didn't say recruiters don't matter and neither did the article that started this dialogue. The article and I both said individual recruiters have to be very competent, but better recruiting beyond that level of competence just doesn't buy you much nowadays.

I mean no disrespect to Chiv, whom I love and think was a great buff, but I don't associate the uptick in recruiting with him. We had brand new facilities in 2016 and time was starting to erase the memories of 2012-2014 in the minds of these high school kids. It is also very much easier to recruit skill players than lineman, and 3-4 defensive linemen especially. There are so so few 300lb nose tackles that already look the part in high school and the competition for them is vastly greater than for a wide receiver. So I don't think you can compare Chiv's and JJ's recruiting like you do.

This is such a weird hill to die on. The facilities were a great tool to show recruits when they came on their UV/OV, but someone had to actually, you know, get the recruits on campus. The recruiting success in the 2017 cycle and Chev arriving as Recruiting Coordinator was not a coincidence like you're trying to make it out to be.

"Time was starting to erase the memories of 2012-2014 in the minds of these high school kids" makes absolutely zero sense. It wasn't just 2012-2014. It was 2008-2015 where they didn't make a bowl game and never won more than 5 games. Did these high school kids just forget about the 4-9 season in 2015? Of course not, but Chev brought with him a dominant social media presence, a [fire emoji] tag line/brand, and he brought a recruiting strategy and connections to get back into some of the best Texas high schools, and then his natural charisma and ability to close. Facilities and new uniforms were the icing on the cake once the leg work by the staff had been done.

 

[8Jah]

Someone made reference to the old Jerry Krause quote (Chicago Bulls GM) at the time when Michael Jordan, Phil Jackson and others were leaving after the 6th championship. ''Players and coaches don't win championships; organizations win championships.'' That seems to be an opinion you share.

NCAA football is a team sport. All I am really saying is recruiting is a team effort, and that team extends even beyond the players and coaches and also extends backward in time to what that whole team was doing years ago. So if your asking me if it is the extended team (aka organization) that wins championships I would say of course and that Krause wasn't even wrong, he was incoherent.

I disagree. I'd say that "Players and coaches almost never overcome a bad organization to win championships, but organizations can never overcome bad players and coaches to even deliver a competitive team."

I don't see the players/coaches and the organization as separate pieces as you do. I suppose that you mean by "organization" the AD staff, chancellor, regents, etc. I do very much believe that our coaches and players had NO HOPE of delivering a competitive team from roughly 2003 to 2012 with that "organization." Our coaches during that era where $hitty in their own right, but that's what you find with a $hitty "organization." I don't see how you could cleave that holistic suck into suck and non-suck parts, and I guess the "holistic" notion here is you folks disagreement with me. Now we have been trying to erase that 2012 brand in the minds of recruits.

There has to be a long-term strategy to build up a NCAA football team with a bad history and bad image. I think the soundness of that strategy and how well it is executed is the most important part of building a successful program. This strategy includes a recruiting strategy and foremost within the recruiting strategy is how to build the brand, whether or not brand is the actual word used in NCAA sports. Therefore, I think the most important person within the organization is the head coach; thus the outsized paycheck. Its important to have energetic recruiters who can develop trust with young men, but that should be the standard for position coaches. It's great if recruiters are even more energetic and personable than their competition, but if they are competing with a poor brand they are fighting an uphill battle.

So this is how I would FIFY

"A good brand almost never overcomes bad recruiters to win championships, but recruiters can never overcome a bad brand to even deliver a competitive team."