Besides the academics, one of the first things a prospective athlete should do is look at the roster of the team. How many upperclassmen are on the roster? What position do they play? What are the chances that the prospective athlete plays right away? Do freshmen play right away or do they have to wait their turn? Does this coach have a tendency to recruit junior college athletes and/or get transfers? They don't recruit those type of players to sit the bench.
Depending on what each athlete is looking for, is playing right away important? Or is competing for those minutes very important? Different places provide different opportunities and you have to be able to figure out which is the best fit for each individual athlete.
Another important thing to research is what kind of system does the program run? Offensively, do they push the ball, do they slow it down, or do they do a little bit of both? On defense, do they press, do they trap, or do they play in the gaps in the half court?
Again, these are all things that are important when making a decision for the next four or five years of life.
I am going to run through a few examples of what I talked about above. I won't name players or schools (besides the last one) but I'll give the rundown.
My college choice was based a lot of academics and the fact that I wanted to win. I choose SUNY Brockport because they had physical education as a major and the program was on the rise. Theu played fast and a point guard, I wanted that. They had a point guard that played a lot as a sophomore and I figured I would be his backup as a freshmen. It didn't happen. Why? The team played fast, and I wasn't athletic enough to get the playing time I thought I deserved. It also didn't help (me, not the team) that a fifth year senior decided to come back and play after tearing his ACL the previous year. I didn't play again as a sophomore but I played significant minutes as a junior and senior. I didn't truly realize what I signed up for. I did have a great experience and wouldn't change it for anything. I realized that not everything would go my way and if I didn't work, I wouldn't play.
A few years ago, I gave three different D1 schools (yep, humble brag) a heads up on player here in Minnesota. All three schools were able to watch the player in July and all of them gave me a little feedback on the prospect. The two schools I thought were on a lower level (all the schools were mid or low major schools) didn't think he was good enough. Yet, the team that I thought was the best of the three loved him. He fit what they were looking for that particular year.
While I was at West Virginia, I told a high academic school about a WV prospect. They really liked his game and then got his transcript and backed off. He was a very good student according to his GPA and his above 1300 SAT (two parts). The schooling in WV is ranked extremely low in the country and that certainly played a role in the head coach pulling the plug on that particular athlete's recruitment. It wasn't worth the fight with Admissions to get him in school.
Certain coaches really like to stagger their scholarship offers for certain positions. For example, John Beilein has used this theory while at West Virginia and then again at Michigan. He specifically does this with point guards. Every two years he wants to get one. The reasoning behind this recruiting philosophy is that the upperclassmen can show the underclassmen the ropes. The younger PG is then forced to compete for playing time his first two years and hopefully the last two years, where he is the older PG, gives him a huge edge.
At WVU, the first one was JD Collins, next up was Darris Nichols, and his last point guard was Joe Mazzulla. Darris came in when JD was a junior and Joe came in when Darris was a junior. He continued this at Michigan with Darius Morris, Trey Burke, and Derrick Walton. The only issue that he has had is that each one of those guards (Walton is still there) left early for the NBA. This has forced freshmen to handle the ball a majority of the time in his complicated system.
A few years ago, I gave three different D1 schools (yep, humble brag) a heads up on player here in Minnesota. All three schools were able to watch the player in July and all of them gave me a little feedback on the prospect. The two schools I thought were on a lower level (all the schools were mid or low major schools) didn't think he was good enough. Yet, the team that I thought was the best of the three loved him. He fit what they were looking for that particular year.
While I was at West Virginia, I told a high academic school about a WV prospect. They really liked his game and then got his transcript and backed off. He was a very good student according to his GPA and his above 1300 SAT (two parts). The schooling in WV is ranked extremely low in the country and that certainly played a role in the head coach pulling the plug on that particular athlete's recruitment. It wasn't worth the fight with Admissions to get him in school.
Certain coaches really like to stagger their scholarship offers for certain positions. For example, John Beilein has used this theory while at West Virginia and then again at Michigan. He specifically does this with point guards. Every two years he wants to get one. The reasoning behind this recruiting philosophy is that the upperclassmen can show the underclassmen the ropes. The younger PG is then forced to compete for playing time his first two years and hopefully the last two years, where he is the older PG, gives him a huge edge.
At WVU, the first one was JD Collins, next up was Darris Nichols, and his last point guard was Joe Mazzulla. Darris came in when JD was a junior and Joe came in when Darris was a junior. He continued this at Michigan with Darius Morris, Trey Burke, and Derrick Walton. The only issue that he has had is that each one of those guards (Walton is still there) left early for the NBA. This has forced freshmen to handle the ball a majority of the time in his complicated system.
