Great article in The Athletic on recruiting. They spoke to several coaches (on the condition of anonymity) from various conferences on what works and doesn’t in recruiting, how COVID impacted them, etc. The article is behind a paywall, but I have included a few excerpts from the first question including some quotes that should tame our fans’ expectations in both directions (losses don’t matter as much as we think, school history has a lot less influence than we might hope).
In general I find the Athletic great and very much worth the ~$40 per year…
What is the biggest misconception in recruiting?
SEC-1: “Simple. That recruits watch the outcome of games and think that they’re going to go to the place that wins. It’s the converse that is many times true. Because when we lose a game, we’ll have recruits call us and say, ‘If I were out there, you guys would have won that game.’ They don’t care about wins and losses.
Pac-12-1: “Probably that the history of a school and tradition and anything they have done previously in their history outside of the past five years matters to recruits.”
Big Ten-1: “The biggest misconception about recruiting is the role that we play. Recruiters recruit, coaches coach. It’s actually the recruiters who do the groundwork. Coaches may come in and close or have a big conversation, but it isn’t like that. Most of these dudes don’t even want to recruit. A lot of people think it is the same way it used to be. There are guys like me who energize and do things of that nature and build relationships. That’s a lost art amongst coaches. They just want to blow the whistle.”
While I understand that recruiting has changed dramatically in 10, 20 years with no better example than the creation of the recruiting departments. And coaches have never been fans of recruiting, even when it was all on them. But I think this quote downplays the importance of the assistant coach, which is still a Top 3 factor in the recruitment decision.
And I’d change this statement to “the history of a school and tradition and anything they have done previously in their history…matters to recruits”. I’d confidently say that the memory of a football recruit is about 12 months old.
Finally, “It is hard to say no to Nick Saban”…this protect the brand nonsense from college football and those in it has gotten old. I’m very aware that I’m more vocal and cynical on this topic because I (i) have the history of being involved, (ii) use to really love following recruitments and perhaps most important, (iii) don’t have funds going to my bank account related to recruiting. But you want to know when recruiting went from petty larceny to full on felony? November 26, 2011.
What’s that? The Iron Bowl were Cam Newton, who everyone knew was a bought recruit, came back on Alabama, and Saban’s team lost three games. And worse, the NCAA did NOTHING about Newton. From that point, Alabama went to work with player family deals, player paying player payrolls, official visit payouts, hiring handlers, extra benefits, etc.
No longer was there a couple of high end kids; Saban’s program was piling up money, and he was going to use it for players rather than risk losses on the field.
And whatever your stance is on paying players in this multi-billion business, the issue became the fact that certain programs decided unilaterally that it was time to start paying for an advantage. Over time that list of programs has gotten larger and earlier, Alabama set-up Juedy as a sophomore; where you realize the duck is a duck, and decide how to handle it from expectations, interest level and commitment.
At this point, the majority would be in favor of paying the players, but I think there is real fear in what an “open minor league” perception will do to the business (and the cynic part of me believes why the hell would Saban and Co want a level playing field). Therefore, we get “full cost of attendance” and the new “image” rules to not only keep the perception but add competitiveness to smaller programs.
Sorry, everyone once and awhile these type of articles, get to me.
It is painfully clear this is happening. The biggest question, why haven’t the Feds jumped on this? The number of national champions has dropped by a larger number.
My only hope is the pay to play opens things back up. Pretty sick of seeing Bama vs Clemson vs OSU vs UGA
The feds haven’t jumped on it because the cash isn’t big enough to worry about, and a lot of family members have “real jobs” with taxes and everything above board. The only rules being broken are dumb NCAA rules.
If that was the case, why did the Feds jump on the basketball stuff that was minor compared to the large volume of funds being handed out under the table?
I think there are several things that played into it that made it different than your typical booster stuff:
They came across it accidentally while investigating other crimes and had a willing participant (sounds familiar). It’s a lot easier to get an investigation going when you have a bunch of information given to you.
Coaches were taking money as part of the deal and since many of those coaches are representing schools that get federal funding, there is a federal law being broken
Corporations were involved. This wasnt just some wealthy booster, but the likes of Adidas and Nike funding these efforts. Also, I imagine that since both of those companies are publicly traded and they likely aren’t putting ‘basketball bribes’ on their ledgers, that there would be some fishy stuff going on with their books…
I get it and no need to apologize. I think I speak for most that we appreciate when you post.
They published a part 2 where they asked specifically about cheating and it’s pretty interesting to see the range of responses (note some of them are coaches and others are support). This is one of the questions and the answer to it:
How often do you encounter cheating in recruiting?
MAC: “A lot. A lot. And it’s not like I don’t think some of them are harmless. They don’t even know they’re breaking the rule. But some are just ridiculous.”
SEC-1: “I’m in the Southeastern Conference. I see cheating all the fucking time.”
Big Ten-1: “All the time. It’s always something. Two weeks ago, a kid called me on the phone and says the only reason he committed to another school was because of promises made. It pissed me off with that because I thought this was an outstanding program and individual, so I had to give the kid advice. I couldn’t take him, but I told him to go somewhere else.
“You don’t want to be mentored by men who got you by cheating. You’ll be a cheater your whole life then. I want these young men to be mentored by great people, not cheaters.”
SEC-2: “I do work in the SEC, so …”
Big 12-1: “In my role and with a lot of coaches, the cheating is kept away from us. That is all booster stuff, I think, and it really isn’t ever something that reaches the staff or the coaches.”
Big 12-2: “Minimally, honestly. At least with who we recruit against and where we recruit, we don’t see much.”
ACC-1: “Very limited, honestly. Just like small infractions, like seeing kids in school, interacting with coaches when they’re not supposed to. Stuff like that.”
Pac-12-2: “Daily. It’s really very, very minute things, whether it be like a phone call. Here’s an example: We’ll be talking to a kid and there are those weird rules where we can’t call them but we can message them to call us or send us a Zoom link. Well, we’ll get kids who ask us why we do that when the other coaches just call or send Zoom links on their own. I complain about those to our compliance group all the time. Those aren’t going to make a difference, but if you follow the rules and do everything the right way, the nice guy is going to finish last.”
AAC: “I probably hear more about it than I encounter it specifically. For a lot of coaches, they probably would have varying degrees of seriousness as to what they consider to be cheating, whether it be speeding ticket vs. a homicide.”
ACC-2: “All the time, but not so much the big stuff. Kids will say, ‘Why do you text me to call you? Other coaches call me all the time.’ It doesn’t come up really much for me outside of that, but that happens all the time.”
Big Ten-2: “Minimally. Maybe percentage-wise, maybe 5 percent.”
SEC-3: “You hear about it frequently, in our conference anyways.”
I would say that this is the likely reason it hasn’t reach football more than 2 and 3.
100% chance coaches are getting money and paying players just not at the level that play to player or booster to player happens.
I have to imagine that corporations are involved since they want to win in football just as much as basketball. Now maybe they do it above the table to massive deals that send funds to these colleges to pay for support staff.
I admittedly don’t follow college basketball very closely, but my understanding is that it is a whole other beast vs college football recruiting due to the things like the AAU teams. That’s not to say that football doesn’t have just as much cheating, it’s just the players (those paying, not the athletes) are different and the way the cheating is done is different.
Combined with the following and I think the risk and ROI on basketball players is just so much higher for companies like Nike and Adidas:
Players don’t wear helmets and are therefore generally more recognizable
Only 5 players on the floor means more exposure for each player
Much smaller rosters mean that money can be concentrated into fewer players
Players are ready to compete straight out of high school a lot more often the football players
A great basketball recruit is likely to spend less time in college since they only need to be 1 year out of high school and it is easier for basketball player to contribute in the NBA as well.
A great basketball player can almost always have a bigger impact on a team than a great football player (QB can sometimes be an exception, but unless you are the UNC QB turned LB, they aren’t playing defense)
Fewer ‘busts’, it’s a lot more likely that a superstar basketball recruit is going to be successful in college and make it to the NBA
Basketball shoes are perceived to help a player more than football equipment (kids generally aren’t going out and buying their own football equipment).
I am sure there are other reasons and obviously some of those things weigh more than others, but if I am Nike or Adidas and I am going to be doing potentially illegal stuff, I would not get involved with the football side.