BigRedWolf
New member
In the last three years USC has been number one as far as recruiting has gone.
The recent trends for the top 30 or so schools is for a replacement national championship team.
A team that no longer has to rely on building the players into good ones.
The idea is to get the best at high school and doing the least to keep them that way.
So, coaching, training, and execution have all become secondary to the best recruiting strategies.
Now what does a 17 year old want in a college?
What attracts a 17 year old?
Are those the same things that we want a young mind to aspire to achieving?
Recent trends have also served to make teams at the very top more successful at recruiting every year.
Meaning less and less competition throughout the system.
Can a team like Kansas compete against a team like USC. A team that has spent so much on recruiting that it has become the largest part of their success.
NCAA rules say that you can't pay a college athlete for the income that is derived from the program.
Yet, if a school keeps on pumping more and more into recruiting isn't that the same thing as paying the athletes?
I really think new rules need to be considered for a maximum possible benefit from recruiting. Emphasis in a sholastic sport really should be on coaching, training, and execution. The recruiting program that USC has been carrying out has tainted the whole NCAA system. Football is about the game and not the greed of television markets.
Thanks.
The recent trends for the top 30 or so schools is for a replacement national championship team.
A team that no longer has to rely on building the players into good ones.
The idea is to get the best at high school and doing the least to keep them that way.
So, coaching, training, and execution have all become secondary to the best recruiting strategies.
Now what does a 17 year old want in a college?
What attracts a 17 year old?
Are those the same things that we want a young mind to aspire to achieving?
Recent trends have also served to make teams at the very top more successful at recruiting every year.
Meaning less and less competition throughout the system.
Can a team like Kansas compete against a team like USC. A team that has spent so much on recruiting that it has become the largest part of their success.
NCAA rules say that you can't pay a college athlete for the income that is derived from the program.
Yet, if a school keeps on pumping more and more into recruiting isn't that the same thing as paying the athletes?
I really think new rules need to be considered for a maximum possible benefit from recruiting. Emphasis in a sholastic sport really should be on coaching, training, and execution. The recruiting program that USC has been carrying out has tainted the whole NCAA system. Football is about the game and not the greed of television markets.
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator: