Semi-OT: ESPN Article on Vetting Recuits
Very interesting article from ESPN on vetting recruits.
As most MGoBloggers probably know, the NFL is very good at probing and poking and getting a full picture of prospects' background and character. NCAA coaches do not have that luxury because the players get to choose. If you offend a talented recruit by asking a personal question, chances are you miss out on what could be a key piece of your team's puzzle. Additionally, it isn't always easy to conduct searches covertly because, as the article mentions, many juvenile records are sealed.
All in all, it's a very difficult but important balance to strike. I'll note that the SEC coaches who were interviewed were -- by and large -- more willing to take on question marks. The exception is Bret Bielema....who just happens to have been raised in B1G country.
EDIT: To be clear, I don't actually respect Bielema. However, he seems to actually give a damn about a recruit's background vs. the other SEC coaches who were interviewed.
February 18th, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^
February 18th, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^
Maybe even a wet fart?
February 18th, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^
Perhaps a juicy wet fart?
February 18th, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^
He's a shart.
There I said it.
February 18th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^
He is an "I just ate a Chipotle burrito with extra hot sauce and chased it down with a bowl of jalapeno peppers" power shart.
February 18th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^
Power Shart. I'm using that, and I won't even cite you as a reference when I do.
February 18th, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^
Just like the honey badger, Bret Bielema doesn't give a fuck... about anything.
February 18th, 2016 at 11:04 AM ^
I've been watching this for far too long
February 18th, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
Bert's been working out.
February 18th, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^
Goddammit, man. You just made me choke on the granola I was eating.
February 18th, 2016 at 11:31 AM ^
Fortunately for me, there are eyewash stations around the building as we do occasionally deal with things which might be hazardous if splattered all over your eyes, and as that is exactly what happened with this image, my very next stop - before lunch, which I may now be unable to eat - will be one of those stations.
I did find this interesting though:
A recruiting assistant from a Group of 5 program estimated that they stop recruiting 3 to 5 percent of prospects because of "criminal activities or rumors of [past activity]." A Pac-12 recruiting assistant put the number as high as 10 percent.
I wonder what that number is like across schools within conferences too and if they would use that to benchmark a more unified, formal policy, even if it left the school some individual discretion. I have a suspicion that 10% might be on the high end in a lot of cases, but I could be wrong there.
February 18th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^
I can't un-see this.....
February 18th, 2016 at 12:09 PM ^
My Eyes! The goggles do nothing!
February 18th, 2016 at 11:11 PM ^
February 18th, 2016 at 2:32 PM ^
Is that from the one where he channels the Vietnamese prostitute?
February 18th, 2016 at 10:51 AM ^
February 18th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^
Sidenote - any update on Dytarious Johnson?
Still having trouble with the transcript/NCAA Clearinghouse?
February 18th, 2016 at 10:59 AM ^
Wouldn't it make sense for him to be a greyshirt? I never got why he was never considered an option as one.
February 18th, 2016 at 11:13 AM ^
tuition?
February 18th, 2016 at 11:17 AM ^
No, because Greyshirts go to the school they are committed too. If the issue is academics, and not fitting a player into this class, then greyshirtting would do nothing to help that situation. Usually in this scenario he would have to go the JuCo route to get his grades up.
February 18th, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 18th, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
Exactly. Tuition would be a much smaller problem if he went the JC/CC route for a semester or so. Come in for fall or maybe even the following spring. That seems logical to me, although I have no clue the entirety of his situation.
February 18th, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^
Sorry, you're right. Never realized they could go to another school for that first semester. To me, grayshirtting as always been synonymous with over-signing, and not a practice to get a players academics in order.
Athletes who grayshirt are allowed to enroll as students. They go to class for the first semester as part-time students, either at the school or at a junior college, without starting their eligibility clocks. Then they begin as full-time students on scholarship.
February 18th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^
Bret cares about one thing.
Stuffing as much pork in his mouth as he can without asphyxiating.
February 18th, 2016 at 1:36 PM ^
But when asked what it would take to prompt meaningful change, an ACC recruiting coordinator responded with a question of his own: "When's the last time you saw someone get fired that's winning 10 games a year?"
Bo Pelini and Frank Solich
#TheNebraskaDifference
February 18th, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^
February 18th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^
Isn't this what in home visits are all about? It doesn't get much more intimate than visiting someones house and spending time with their family. Seems to me that a coach would have a pretty good picture of what a kid is going to be like just from that.
February 18th, 2016 at 2:40 PM ^
An in-house visit is fine, but it won't give you any information about when they've gotten in trouble, what their reputation is around the community, or how they react to tough coaching (i.e. yelling).
The coach is selling at an in-house visit. NFL scouts are buying. Completely different power dynamic.