The State of Recruiting

Another National Signing Day has come and gone and while many are pleased with the result, others continue to question the process.

Those Were The Days

Recruiting life was so much simpler twenty years ago. In those days, the recruiting season began in September and ended in the first week of February. “Rough” boosters would purchase top players, then sequester them in an undisclosed place 48 hours before signing day to ensure that “rough” boosters from others schools couldn’t up the ante. After all the smoke cleared, the athletic program of $$U would simply raise their hands, say they have no control over these rowdies, but there was NO “lack of institutional control” and that NO ONE wanted to comply with NCAA regulations MORE than they did. Simple. Today, recruiting is a bit more complex.

Coaches Cry Foul

Head coaches from three Pac-10 schools, Rick Neuheisel, Bob Toledo and John Mackovic have been in the news recently, all complaining about this past recruiting year. Allegations of negative recruiting, statements that some head coaches would soon be fired, rival staffs continuing to recruit committed players, etc., etc. Real nasty stuff. Negative recruiting in D-I college football has been around since the invention of the wheel. You can scream to the NCAA all you want, but five will get you ten that it basically falls on deaf ears. Of course when a head coach loses a top player like Lorenzo Booker, heck, you’ve got to blame someone. Why not one of your opponents?

The Old Switch-A-Roo

The definition of the word Commit according to Webster:

v. 1. To be responsible for. 2. To entrust 3. To place officially in custody or confinement. 4. To pledge (oneself) to a position.

It’s difficult to determine if players are switching more now than they did twenty years ago, but you can see why they would be tempted. Today, with summer camps and recruiting being a 365 days-a-year business, more and more pressure is being put on these 17-year olds to make early commitments. Coaches squeeze these kids in the spring or summer before their senior seasons, coax them into making a pledge, then except them to only take the one official visit to their school, all the well knowing this is probably the biggest decision they’ll make in their lifetime. Once December and January roll around, and a committed player sees all of his teammates or players he’s befriended in All-Star Games making visits, you can see why he may have some second thoughts.

It’s not always a player or college coach that can be blamed for a switch. Only last week, a top tailback had committed to a school on SEVEN different occasions. The reason? Every time he committed to that particular school, his high school coach would raise questions about particular issues involving that school, the source of some of those questions even coming from the internet. To make a long story short, the high school coach and the player’s parents finally won out, with the young man eventually deciding on a school closer to home. But did he really make the choice or was it made for him? In recruiting, this is not an uncommon occurrence.

Recruiting and The Internet

It’s humorous to witness college head coaches crawl up on their soapbox and preach about the evils of the world wide web. Many are the same coaches that instruct all their assistants (and wife)not to not miss any morsel of information that may come from a recruits’ mouth and is subsequently posted on a message board or uttered in a chat room. Smart head coaches know information told to a recruiting analyst may be much more accurate than what the same recruit just told one of his assistants.

The internet has changed recruiting in a big way. Now, everyone has a voice or opinion. And, like everything else that is of public consumption, you’re dealing with 90% that are good, decent people that are pursuing a form of entertainment with the remaining 10% simply being Kooks. Don’t believe for one second these 10% are only high school or college age students. There are 50-year-olds in this group that run over to an opponents’ message board, post some hideous drivel, be banned, and then return to their home base to boast about it, like they’ve just been awarded the Purple Heart. The internet is now a fact of life and coaches are simply going to have to deal with this distraction if they want to survive in this business.

The Price of Fame is a Two-Edged Sword

Thirteen years ago this past February, two top linebackers players from Dallas Carter signed letters of intent with top D-I programs. One signed his at the most prestigious hotel in Dallas after he’d called a press conference; the other signed his while relaxing in a hot tub. Thirteen years later, one is still playing in the NFL, the other did time in prison for robbery, never making it to the school he signed with on that day. So much for notoriety.

Thirteen years later, not much has changed. Kids now become famous at 17 and many want their place in the sun, but there are drawbacks. The mother of a top recruit said this only two weeks ago: “When my son eliminated a particular school, I read on one of their sites that he really wasn’t that good, the coaches had backed off and he hadn’t actually been offered. All of those things are not true. The staff did want him and he was offered. It really hurts when you read things like that. I felt like responding, but it would have only made matters worse.” The comment from his lady is more the rule than the exception when a player spurns one school for another. But that’s what happens when you become a public figure, not matter what the age.

So Where is Recruiting Headed?

No one knows the answer, but let’s be honest. It’s big business. It’s a nasty business and, with as many coaching jobs and $$ at stake, it always will be. It’s survival of the fittest. And those rough boosters mentioned at the beginning of the story? They’re still alive and well, with their dorsal fins continuing to slice through those recruiting waters. Better beware.

What's Happening with Recruiting? Click Here to Discuss.