Recruiting, Player Development, and Team Systems
Recruiting, Player Development, and Team Systems
I went to a state tournament, watched a number of college-bound players, and spoke to several current and former high-school and college coaches. I saw Power 5 players who looked like low NCAA Division 1 players and low D1 players who looked like Power 5 players, and D1 players who were indistinguishable from D3 players. Coaches have reasons for signing specific players; my point is not to criticize any player or decision, but coaches often fixate on specific requirements (often height) for specific positions, overlooking players who can clearly play. They focus on reasons not to recruit or sign players, not the skills and abilities they want or the ones that enable the player to excel
I sat with a number of NCAA D1 coaches at a high-school event between two top teams one summer. The coaches hardly paid attention, as they were there to show their faces at the game because of the name talent (referred to as babysitting recruits by some). I watched and realized nobody was paying attention to the point guard who was the best player on the court because she was only 5’3. She dominated a game with numerous high-major recruits, and not one coach appeared to notice. She did not fit their archetype for their program. She was deemed a borderline D2/D1 recruit because of her height, and no amount of brilliance was going to change the evaluation.
Coaches constantly quibble over players who are essentially the same in terms of abilities, skills, and potential. Differences between players are marginal outside the top 10-20 players. Each level flattens out. The 80th best player is virtually indistinguishable from the 200th best player. One is an inch taller or may appear to have a nicer shot; maybe one wears a knee brace suggesting a previous injury, and another played multiple sports and is less refined (over-coached). Nobody is losing his or her job by attracting the 250th best player, not the 100th best player. Ultimately, what happens after signing day determines who performs better.
I am not privy to internal discussions, as I no longer coach potential recruits, nor recruit. I see only the basketball side, the on-court skills, qualities, and abilities. There are very good non-basketball reasons to favor one player over another or to wait on a specific player. The player who may look like a D3 player in a high-school system may have started late or played three-sports or have an outlier desire to be a great player, and the right D1 coach may prefer this player to a more polished high-school player who does not love to play, has a bad attitude, or questionable grades.
Recruiting is not just on-court talent selection; I know some players would not perform their best on my teams, whether because they do not fit my playing style or my personality, and others likely excel more for these reasons than they might with another coach. One is not better than the other, but there are differences, and players and coaches must acknowledge and be aware of these differences during the decision-making process.
College coaches spend as much or more time wooing future players as they do developing the players already on campus. Coaches go to great lengths, investing time, money, and energy to text, call, visit, watch games, and more. They sign players after months or years of conversations, texts, and phone calls, then all but ignore players once they arrive, especially when they do not contribute immediately. They play seven or eight players and question the lack of improvement from the out-of-rotation players.
College performance has less to do with rankings, height, or perceived skills and abilities prior to matriculation, and more to do with the environment, coaching, individual desire, teammates, love of the game, and more. Coaches recruit height, speed, and shooting percentages, but these rarely differentiate future performance. A 7’0 center certainly differs from a 6’6 center, and a 45% three-point shooter on a large volume of attempts is significantly different than a 25% shooter, but most quibbling is between players who are 6’8 or 6’9 or 32% and 34% shooters on a relatively small volume of attempts. Does the inch matter? Is a 2% difference on 100 attempts meaningful?
I contacted several coaches last year about a player. These coaches tweeted during the season about the importance of defense and rebounding. The player was mature, had played in a European professional league, was known for his defense and rebounding, and shot over 85% from the free-throw line. The feedback, almost without exception, was either, “We want someone taller” or “Can he shoot?”
He is a 6’8 post player who capably defended seven-foot men on the film that was sent, but he was not 6’10, so they were not sure if he was good enough for their sub .500 program. He shot 85% from the free-throw line, and they asked if he could shoot! I understand coaches want different things, have different needs and more; he is not the right fit for every program, regardless of roster, need, or competitive level. He is not an instant NBA player. I am realistic. I just think we ask the wrong questions when a player has demonstrated, at a reasonably high level, the traits and skills the coach believes determine team success.
I worried less about who I signed when I was a college coach because I trusted player development, and I recruited players who appeared to love to play. I believe strongly in my ability to develop players’ skills and identify players to fit my desired playing style, but most important was finding players who loved to play and work out. Signing the absolute best possible player is no longer imperative when coaches trust their player development and sign players who are internally motivated.
One of the first players who contacted me when I was hired ended up at a much higher-ranked program. She introduced me on to another player. The first player played two years, played in the national tournament, and signed with an NCAA D2. The player I signed played two years, was all-conference and all-region both years, was called the best point guard in the country by a mid-major D1 coach, and signed with a Power 5. She was first in the gym and last to leave. She signed up for voluntary individual workouts twice as often as anyone else. She left junior college as the better, more skilled, more heralded, more highly-recruited player. I am not worried about who is the better player or who has more potential when I recruit players; I focus on the players performing better when the season starts.
Talent identification, recruitment, player development, the environment, and coaching must work together. One cannot evaluate the success of one element without accounting for the others. Players who struggle may have been evaluated poorly, or they may be at the right level, but playing in the wrong style of play. They may not demonstrate improvement because the coach does not emphasize skill development, they did not get any playing time, or they never work out on their own beyond team practices. Talent and performance are multifactorial and ever-evolving; the player who may not have been as good as expected this season may need more time to develop, and/or may just need a coach to believe in him or her rather than giving up on the player to find a new one in the portal.
Programs often sign players with clear weaknesses, but lack the process or environment to develop those weaknesses or the system of play to hide them, so they return to recruiting or the transfer portal to replace the player. Each element from the identification to the development to the coaching must fit together to maximize the potential of each player, the team, and the program.
Too often, we focus only on one element, and we hear the player is not good enough to play at a certain level or the player never improved or the coach did not like the player or never gave the player a chance. Identifying talent, developing players, maximizing players within a style of play, and more are not separate silos. Coaches should think of these as one thing, not separate elements. Player development and team success are complex, and we must acknowledge the complexity and the interconnectedness to maximize talent and create team success.
Recruiting — the act of wooing and signing players — is a weird part of the college game. I rarely concerned myself with the decisions — I was not personally affected when a player signed elsewhere — because teenagers make decisions for a variety of reasons, and many are far outside the control of the coach. I picked my college because of the weather. I know players who picked schools because of the sneaker brand or the school’s colors. I had a player pick a school due to its proximity to an airport compared to her second choice.
Coaches have much more control over the other aspects, from identifying talent to visualizing their fit within the desired system and with their expected teammates to determining whether or not weaknesses can be improved. I recruited some players who did not shoot three-pointers who I knew would be able to increase their distance, while I passed on some who may have had slightly better percentages, but I did not believe in the small sample sizes or the ability to improve because of something physical, technical, or motivational. Some players I signed because of their high floors, and others because I bet on their high ceilings, while acknowledging the risk.
The key from my standpoint is self-awareness of one’s coaching, style of play, and program’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as focusing more on the psychology and motivation of the recruits. It is much more than the extra inch or the slightly higher high-school shooting percentages. Players who love to play and love to work out generally will succeed if given the opportunity, and they tend to be more fun to coach too. Recruiting good people who love the game makes coaching easier.