Most HS athletes and parents have no idea what the rules are as far as when and how Division One college coaches can contact their son or daughter. I am talking strictly in regards to basketball and their recruiting rules. The rules are a little bit different for every sport, so I'll be specific to just basketball. I'll go down the list of what is allowed for each year an athlete is in school.
Athletes can take unofficial visits at any point of time in high school. Athletes can take as many unofficial visits as they want or need to take (aka unlimited). An unofficial visit is when the athlete and their family provide the arrangements for the athlete to visit the school, aka the family pays for everything including travel expenses, food, etc.
Athletes are also allowed to contact coaches as much as they want. They can call or text a coach or coaches as much as they want. A coach can not return the call or text at any point (in their freshmen or sophomore year) or it's a violation.
As a freshmen, athletes can only receive a questionnaire and a camp brochure. So, if you hear that a freshman was invited to a school's camp then it usually means that the athlete received a camp brochure in the mail. Coaches are NOT allowed to a make a phone call or text message the athlete directly.
As a sophomore, the same rules apply as a freshmen. There are two legitimate differences is that once June 15th hits, coaches can have unlimited contact (calls and texts) with the athlete. Coaches can also send recruiting material in the mail once the June 15th date is hit. For most athletes, it's June 15th AFTER their sophomore year but some states haven't completed school by that date but it could be during their sophomore year if school is still in session.
If a college coach REALLY wants to talk to an athlete during their freshmen or sophomore year there are ways around this rule. The way to get around it is to contact the high school or AAU coach on the phone. The athlete just happens to "be around" when the call happens and is allowed to talk to the coaches because the call is not directly with the athlete.
As a junior, contact with coaches is unlimited. Once January 1 hits of this year, athletes are allowed to take official visits to a university. It is not always the case, but that option is available if the athlete AND the university want it. An official visit is when the university pays for all the expenses for a visit.
As a senior, this is usually the time that athletes take their official visits (after Jan. 1 of junior year is an option but most, if not all, are done during senior year). You only get FIVE official visits before choosing a school. If an athlete's school list is at seven schools, they can only make five official visits and the other two visits have to be unofficial.
Coaches are now allowed to make home visits with athletes and their families starting in the spring of their junior year (after January 1). They can meet with the athlete at school or at their home. This is considered a contact. Coaches are only allowed to have a total of seven contacts and evaluations (just watching the player play but no talking) anyway they want.
Freshmen - 7 Evaluations
Sophomore - 7 Evaluations
Junior - 7 Total with both Contacts and Evaluations (Contacts can start Jan. 1)
Senior - 7 Total between Contacts and Evaluations (any combination of the two)
Division One college coaches only get 130 "days" per academic year to go out and recruit. That means they have less than 20 recruits they are recruiting in ALL classes in order for all players to get seven contacts and evaluations. If a coaching staff comes and sees you seven times in one calendar year then they REALLY want you. Even if they see you and/or meet with you more than twice, you have to think you are considered a priority for that particular program. Not all schools can be as selective in their recruiting as Kentucky or Duke.
In closing, know the rules regarding coaches contacting athletes. You don't want to be a part of a NCAA investigation and you don't want to put your eligibility in jeopardy.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Bad Scheduling Leads to Bad Basketball at HS/AAU levels
Most states have different restrictions when it comes to practice starting, when games start, how many games you can play, etc. Every place is a little different and I want to look into how some states do it completely wrong. I say they do it wrong and they'll say everyone is in the same situation so there is no advantage. It's not advantageous for the coaches AND the kids.
In Minnesota, we have approximately two weeks (sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more) of practice before our first game. Puts coaches and players at a huge disadvantage if the coach was hired after July. Coaches only have access to coach in June and July for the offseason. They can have open gym throughout the offseason but can't specifically work the kids during those open gyms.
Minnesota is actually somewhat similar to the AAU season. Two weeks of limited practice and then play games. It rarely gives the coaches and the kids an opportunity to learn about each other and to install some sort of offense and defense in order for everyone to be on the same page.
The third week is generally the live period. So college coaches are seeing coaches and players still trying to figure each other out. It just doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be great for the college coaches to see the the kids and their teams at their best or close to it? Wouldn't it be great if the live period for college coaches got moved to the end of April and the beginning of May? More times for teams to practice together and get on the same page. Those first couple of weekends of play are usually nothing but bad basketball. In bad basketball, how exactly do college coaches evaluate properly?
One top of bad basketball, kids generally don't get a break that their body needs. All basketball players should take a week off between their high school and AAU seasons. Their body AND mind need it.
So what do we need to do to fix these issues?
In high school, I think it's a simple solution. Give the teams more times to practice before playing their first game, which would mean taking away a few games. Imagine if all coaches had three to four weeks to practice before their first game. The games would be better and the kids would be more prepared. Two weeks isn't enough time to install man offense, zone offense, man defense, zone defense, press, how to handle different presses, and everything else. Another option is to give schools two different scrimmage dates where schools can scrimmage each other and go through a bunch of different situations that they'll see over the first couple of weeks of the season.
In AAU, give each player a complete week off after the high school season. All teams have to have at least 8-10 practices before playing in their first tournament. An idea that would be good for all is to have teams play single games against each other at a neutral site. It's basically essentially scrimmaging against each other but also forces teams to play against other teams as work on the same things HS teams have to work on. Wouldn't it be fun if the sneaker company teams would play each other as well as other teams?
All in all, two weeks isn't enough time for high school and AAU to have the kids be where they should be. It's a huge disservice to the kids and isn't all of this "all about the kids?"
In Minnesota, we have approximately two weeks (sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more) of practice before our first game. Puts coaches and players at a huge disadvantage if the coach was hired after July. Coaches only have access to coach in June and July for the offseason. They can have open gym throughout the offseason but can't specifically work the kids during those open gyms.
Minnesota is actually somewhat similar to the AAU season. Two weeks of limited practice and then play games. It rarely gives the coaches and the kids an opportunity to learn about each other and to install some sort of offense and defense in order for everyone to be on the same page.
The third week is generally the live period. So college coaches are seeing coaches and players still trying to figure each other out. It just doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be great for the college coaches to see the the kids and their teams at their best or close to it? Wouldn't it be great if the live period for college coaches got moved to the end of April and the beginning of May? More times for teams to practice together and get on the same page. Those first couple of weekends of play are usually nothing but bad basketball. In bad basketball, how exactly do college coaches evaluate properly?
One top of bad basketball, kids generally don't get a break that their body needs. All basketball players should take a week off between their high school and AAU seasons. Their body AND mind need it.
So what do we need to do to fix these issues?
In high school, I think it's a simple solution. Give the teams more times to practice before playing their first game, which would mean taking away a few games. Imagine if all coaches had three to four weeks to practice before their first game. The games would be better and the kids would be more prepared. Two weeks isn't enough time to install man offense, zone offense, man defense, zone defense, press, how to handle different presses, and everything else. Another option is to give schools two different scrimmage dates where schools can scrimmage each other and go through a bunch of different situations that they'll see over the first couple of weeks of the season.
In AAU, give each player a complete week off after the high school season. All teams have to have at least 8-10 practices before playing in their first tournament. An idea that would be good for all is to have teams play single games against each other at a neutral site. It's basically essentially scrimmaging against each other but also forces teams to play against other teams as work on the same things HS teams have to work on. Wouldn't it be fun if the sneaker company teams would play each other as well as other teams?
All in all, two weeks isn't enough time for high school and AAU to have the kids be where they should be. It's a huge disservice to the kids and isn't all of this "all about the kids?"
Friday, April 3, 2015
Why we can't score????
There has been a ton of talk lately in regards to scoring or the lack thereof in college basketball. There are a ton of problems but there are very simple solutions to these problems. The solutions are simple but they aren't easy to implement because huge changes have to occur at all levels.
There is very little emphasis on shooting at the lower levels. With the limited practice times these travel teams and school ball teams have there coaches are most concerned about putting in sets and defense rather than fixing or refining shooting mechanics. Every player at the lower levels should should get at least 200 shots in a practice. It's such an important part of the game that many youth coaches neglect. What happens when someone is just as athletic as you and you can't get to the rim? Have to be able to make an open jump shot.
There is very little emphasis on shooting at the lower levels. With the limited practice times these travel teams and school ball teams have there coaches are most concerned about putting in sets and defense rather than fixing or refining shooting mechanics. Every player at the lower levels should should get at least 200 shots in a practice. It's such an important part of the game that many youth coaches neglect. What happens when someone is just as athletic as you and you can't get to the rim? Have to be able to make an open jump shot.
Offenses aren't creative enough. In some instances this is the case. As the US' scoring doctor Jay Bilas says that teams like Virginia are killing scoring. I think Virginia's offense is very creative and quite a few teams run similar stuff including Notre Dame and Ohio State. I wouldn't say that either of those teams are killing scoring. Virginia is probably a little more deliberate with the action they run.
The biggest issue when it comes to scoring with different offenses is that teams tend to get directly into isolation plays for their best players. I really like isolation basketball, but not the way most people see it. I think isolation is the key to good basketball. You have to be able to find ways to put your best players into isolation positions to score. What I mean by this is, run action to get a player some type of isolation. Basically, what every set is meant to do. I just think players and coaches want to get to the isolation play right away and I don't think that's good basketball. You have to have moving parts that could potentially lead to scores with the idea that the final action is what you are looking for.
More players are taking harder shots and that's why field goal percentages are down and why scoring is down. Players are taking pull-up jump shots off of no passes, threes that aren't inside-out, and off balance shots when they aren't necessary. Basically, players are taking shots that can get anytime they want and forcing them early in the shot clock (if there is one) rather than waiting for a great shot. Why do players take these shots? They see the best players in the world take these shots in NBA games. The difference is, the NBA players that are taking these shots actually practice them while non-NBA players jokingly take them in their spare time.
I think that pull-up jumps shots can be a good shot. I just don't like them early in a possession. Usually by the end of a possession the defense has shifted enough to get an uncontested pull-up rather than a contest shot early in a possession. A lot of it depends on who is shooting as well. Some players you never want them to take a pull-up, others more because they've consistently knocked down the shot during practice.
Over the last several years we've looked at inside-out stats for the team I coach. We shoot a little over 60% from the floor when we get the ball in the paint at some point in the possession. We have shot under 30% each of the last years when we didn't. Simple solution would be to make sure more shots are inside-out, percentages would go up. On top of that, most teams practice shooting while passing from near the hoop. It's what you practice, and it would make more sense to shoot that way during games.
Defenses have adjusted to all the new dribble drive type offenses by going to the pack line defense in hopes of keeping players out of the paint. This might be where Virginia decreases scoring. What they do is, force the offense to really work and take early and easy shots away. Thus forcing more shots later in the shot clock. A simple fix to the pack line is skip passes. The skip passes forces the defense into having longer close-outs which makes it easier for the offense to get in the lane.
One of the last reasons why scoring is down is because of officiating. There are uniform rules in the US without uniform interpretation of those rules. Some games are wrestling matches while others every time down the floor there is a whistle. If you want scoring to go up, referees will have to make foul calls consistently. And by consistently, I don't mean just at the beginning of the year. Last season all referees called a hand check every time a defender put both of their hands on the dribbler. By the end of the year, it wasn't called anymore. If it was consistently called for a whole year, the players would have to adjust, thus making the game more free flowing, which usually leads to higher scoring games. Players will adjust as long as the referees are consistent EVERY time they go on the floor. Players and coaches don't know what a foul or what a travel truly are because those violations are interpreted differently every game and by every official.
More players are taking harder shots and that's why field goal percentages are down and why scoring is down. Players are taking pull-up jump shots off of no passes, threes that aren't inside-out, and off balance shots when they aren't necessary. Basically, players are taking shots that can get anytime they want and forcing them early in the shot clock (if there is one) rather than waiting for a great shot. Why do players take these shots? They see the best players in the world take these shots in NBA games. The difference is, the NBA players that are taking these shots actually practice them while non-NBA players jokingly take them in their spare time.
I think that pull-up jumps shots can be a good shot. I just don't like them early in a possession. Usually by the end of a possession the defense has shifted enough to get an uncontested pull-up rather than a contest shot early in a possession. A lot of it depends on who is shooting as well. Some players you never want them to take a pull-up, others more because they've consistently knocked down the shot during practice.
Over the last several years we've looked at inside-out stats for the team I coach. We shoot a little over 60% from the floor when we get the ball in the paint at some point in the possession. We have shot under 30% each of the last years when we didn't. Simple solution would be to make sure more shots are inside-out, percentages would go up. On top of that, most teams practice shooting while passing from near the hoop. It's what you practice, and it would make more sense to shoot that way during games.
Defenses have adjusted to all the new dribble drive type offenses by going to the pack line defense in hopes of keeping players out of the paint. This might be where Virginia decreases scoring. What they do is, force the offense to really work and take early and easy shots away. Thus forcing more shots later in the shot clock. A simple fix to the pack line is skip passes. The skip passes forces the defense into having longer close-outs which makes it easier for the offense to get in the lane.
One of the last reasons why scoring is down is because of officiating. There are uniform rules in the US without uniform interpretation of those rules. Some games are wrestling matches while others every time down the floor there is a whistle. If you want scoring to go up, referees will have to make foul calls consistently. And by consistently, I don't mean just at the beginning of the year. Last season all referees called a hand check every time a defender put both of their hands on the dribbler. By the end of the year, it wasn't called anymore. If it was consistently called for a whole year, the players would have to adjust, thus making the game more free flowing, which usually leads to higher scoring games. Players will adjust as long as the referees are consistent EVERY time they go on the floor. Players and coaches don't know what a foul or what a travel truly are because those violations are interpreted differently every game and by every official.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
The Coaching Carousel and How it Affects Recruiting
We live in a world where everyone wants things to happen right away. Players transfer when things don't go their way instead of toughing it out. Athletic directors don't give coaches enough time to legitimately build their program. To add to the instability, many coaches are looking to move jobs in order to win more and/or make more money.
Coaches like any human want to better themselves and their families. When an opportunity arises after being really good at what they currently do, they would be doing themselves a disservice by not at least looking into another position at another school that would be willing to give the coach more resources to recruit and win. This potential new position usually offers more money as well. You as a recruit or a recruit's parent, have to understand that this is part of the business and it happens EVERY year.
From a recruiting standpoint you have to look at a lot of things. When a coaching staff is young and has been successful they are prime candidates to move on to "the next level." That is definitely something to think about before making your college decision. And it happens at all levels as well.
Another thing to look at is the changing of assistant coaches. Assistants are much more likely to be on the move than the head coach. Head coaches' contracts are generally long term (more than three years) while most assistants are on a year to year contract. So, the (assistant) coach that you developed the best relationship with could easily be at another place by the time you make it to campus.
You'll see this type of movement a little more in football where coaches won't leave for another opportunity until after the signing period. It makes it really tough for the recruits because they've spent a ton of time communicating with that assistant and by them leaving, the comfort isn't there as much.
All of these different scenarios are some of the reasons why I believe it is the best for a recruit to decide later in the process. I understand if a "dream school" offers you a spot and you have to take it immediately but I don't think that happens as often as people believe. As a recruit, you have to protect yourself and put yourself in the best situation possible.
To go along with all of this I'll tell a story. My first staff meeting while working at WVU. Coach Beilein told all of us that we should be looking for new jobs every year. His contract was the only one that was guaranteed. If he was to get fired, he would get the remaining amount of his contract (or most of it) and we would be out of luck. If he was to leave, there were no guarantees that he would take all of us with him. And then he didn't when he left for Michigan. Pretty eye opening for a young assistant that thought he knew it all.
Coaches like any human want to better themselves and their families. When an opportunity arises after being really good at what they currently do, they would be doing themselves a disservice by not at least looking into another position at another school that would be willing to give the coach more resources to recruit and win. This potential new position usually offers more money as well. You as a recruit or a recruit's parent, have to understand that this is part of the business and it happens EVERY year.
From a recruiting standpoint you have to look at a lot of things. When a coaching staff is young and has been successful they are prime candidates to move on to "the next level." That is definitely something to think about before making your college decision. And it happens at all levels as well.
Another thing to look at is the changing of assistant coaches. Assistants are much more likely to be on the move than the head coach. Head coaches' contracts are generally long term (more than three years) while most assistants are on a year to year contract. So, the (assistant) coach that you developed the best relationship with could easily be at another place by the time you make it to campus.
You'll see this type of movement a little more in football where coaches won't leave for another opportunity until after the signing period. It makes it really tough for the recruits because they've spent a ton of time communicating with that assistant and by them leaving, the comfort isn't there as much.
All of these different scenarios are some of the reasons why I believe it is the best for a recruit to decide later in the process. I understand if a "dream school" offers you a spot and you have to take it immediately but I don't think that happens as often as people believe. As a recruit, you have to protect yourself and put yourself in the best situation possible.
To go along with all of this I'll tell a story. My first staff meeting while working at WVU. Coach Beilein told all of us that we should be looking for new jobs every year. His contract was the only one that was guaranteed. If he was to get fired, he would get the remaining amount of his contract (or most of it) and we would be out of luck. If he was to leave, there were no guarantees that he would take all of us with him. And then he didn't when he left for Michigan. Pretty eye opening for a young assistant that thought he knew it all.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Code Word "Exposure"
Name a spring and summer team that doesn't talk about "exposure" and I'd call you a liar. The word exposure is a be all, end all by players and parents that want to feel important. Parents believe that you get exposure by going to a tournament out of state when the players are 12 or 13 years old. Smaller AAU programs will sell the exposure in order to get players but none of those players will never play in college or leave the state to play in college.
It can be really frustrating for people in the know when programs sell "exposure." Exposure means you play in front of college coaches and if you think that college coaches are going to go out of their way to see 12 or 13 year olds you are completely out of your mind. Are there times when they sit down and watch a game? Yes. That's because the game they are supposed to watch is starting late.
The out of town trip for any AAU team is always an adventure. It can be a lot of fun and you get to spend a lot of time together. Definitely a good time. While I was coaching AAU, we went on a trip to Iowa during the "live period." There was one college coach that stayed for less than a half of one of our games. Even one of my players, who had hopes of playing college ball, tweeted out some of his frustration. Not exactly a great way to get "exposure."
There are a lot of AAU programs that decide that it's a good idea to have half of their tournaments be out of the state where they are located. Some of these programs have a whole team of guys/girls that will basketball out of state in college. It makes sense for them to travel and I don't blame these programs at all.
Then there are the other teams. The other teams "sell" that going out of state gets their kids "exposure." Exposure to what? Exposure to another program that does the same thing. They end up getting put in the same pool and or play in the first round of the silver "championship" division. On top of that, none of the kids on the team will ever leave the state to play college ball. What sense does it make to have families spend a boatload of money on travel, food, and lodging for no other reason than to play someplace different?
But keep selling "exposure." Great marketing.
It can be really frustrating for people in the know when programs sell "exposure." Exposure means you play in front of college coaches and if you think that college coaches are going to go out of their way to see 12 or 13 year olds you are completely out of your mind. Are there times when they sit down and watch a game? Yes. That's because the game they are supposed to watch is starting late.
The out of town trip for any AAU team is always an adventure. It can be a lot of fun and you get to spend a lot of time together. Definitely a good time. While I was coaching AAU, we went on a trip to Iowa during the "live period." There was one college coach that stayed for less than a half of one of our games. Even one of my players, who had hopes of playing college ball, tweeted out some of his frustration. Not exactly a great way to get "exposure."
There are a lot of AAU programs that decide that it's a good idea to have half of their tournaments be out of the state where they are located. Some of these programs have a whole team of guys/girls that will basketball out of state in college. It makes sense for them to travel and I don't blame these programs at all.
Then there are the other teams. The other teams "sell" that going out of state gets their kids "exposure." Exposure to what? Exposure to another program that does the same thing. They end up getting put in the same pool and or play in the first round of the silver "championship" division. On top of that, none of the kids on the team will ever leave the state to play college ball. What sense does it make to have families spend a boatload of money on travel, food, and lodging for no other reason than to play someplace different?
But keep selling "exposure." Great marketing.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
College Decision Days Ahead
Right about now is when a lot of kids will be making their decisions to attend a (one, hopefully) college or university for the next four or five years. There are many things that go into the decision making process. There is a list of things that should be priorities for you and your family before making a decision.
1) The top priority for most families is cost. How many money can the family afford per year and/or over the course of four years? What kind of financial aid can the school provided? It's good to find out how much each school's endowment is, because that usually translates to better (high endowment) or worse (low endowment) financial aid packages. Basically, does the school meet 100% of need or is the percentage much lower.
Some schools do a pretty good job of getting out academic scholarship packages after the application process. Others schools wait until they've gathered all of their applicants and then send out financial aid packages all at the same time. Knowing what the timeline looks like is very important. Sometimes, the school that you want to go to the most will make you wait the most.
There are also other times that money isn't an issue. If that's the case, the admission process is a bit different. Why? The family doesn't have to worry about comparing financial aid packages from different schools. What also could happen is the admission department knows the applicant is a "full pay" applicant and they will get into school even if their grades/test scores aren't what they need to normally get into school. That's called "private school economics." More on this in a bit.
While I was coaching in college there was a prominent "recruiting guru" that came and spoke. He had some really useful information and some really interesting ideas. One thing he said that if the financial aid package came out $4,000 on the wrong end (another school had a better package) and the recruit didn't come then the coach didn't sell the school hard enough. I laughed out loud when he said that. $4,000 is a lot money over the course of four years. That's a mid-size car or $16,000. When families are making decisions based off $1,000-$2,000 then $4,000 is going to be a big deal (for most families).
1) The top priority for most families is cost. How many money can the family afford per year and/or over the course of four years? What kind of financial aid can the school provided? It's good to find out how much each school's endowment is, because that usually translates to better (high endowment) or worse (low endowment) financial aid packages. Basically, does the school meet 100% of need or is the percentage much lower.
Some schools do a pretty good job of getting out academic scholarship packages after the application process. Others schools wait until they've gathered all of their applicants and then send out financial aid packages all at the same time. Knowing what the timeline looks like is very important. Sometimes, the school that you want to go to the most will make you wait the most.
There are also other times that money isn't an issue. If that's the case, the admission process is a bit different. Why? The family doesn't have to worry about comparing financial aid packages from different schools. What also could happen is the admission department knows the applicant is a "full pay" applicant and they will get into school even if their grades/test scores aren't what they need to normally get into school. That's called "private school economics." More on this in a bit.
While I was coaching in college there was a prominent "recruiting guru" that came and spoke. He had some really useful information and some really interesting ideas. One thing he said that if the financial aid package came out $4,000 on the wrong end (another school had a better package) and the recruit didn't come then the coach didn't sell the school hard enough. I laughed out loud when he said that. $4,000 is a lot money over the course of four years. That's a mid-size car or $16,000. When families are making decisions based off $1,000-$2,000 then $4,000 is going to be a big deal (for most families).
2) You are going to college to get an education, why would you go to a college that doesn't have your preferred major? When kids transfer and say "they didn't have my major," didn't the kid know that going in? The education is the reason why you are going to school, even though athletics are a big reason why you are interested in a certain school. 18-22 year olds change their minds on a daily basis, it would be a good idea to go somewhere that has a lot of options as far as majors, if your original thoughts on the major you want isn't what you thought it would be.
There are some schools that give you the option to "major" in multiple things. Not exactly a double major but the school gives you opportunities in multiple disciplines to figure out what you are truly looking for. Some schools will have "interdisciplinary studies" as a major, which is code word for having three minors that you emphasize in because the full major doesn't make a ton of sense in what you want to do.
3) If a coach tells you that they play fast, look at the team's box scores. There aren't many players in high school that want to go to college and play in a grind it out type offense and defense. Coaches will say, "we want to play fast," and then call out plays every time down the floor. Majority of the coaches don't play fast and don't want to play fast because they don't have control.
Teams that play fast have the tendency to turn the ball over (on offense) a good amount and they also score a lot. If you watch West Virginia play, they play fast but they generally don't score a ton. If you can't watch a team that is recruiting you in person, watch them on a webcast since most schools have that capability now.
4) A head or assistant coach tells you they play a lot of players and in reality they only play seven or eight players. Please look at the team's box scores in their perceived rivalry games and/or postseason games (if they've made it) to see if they play that many players. Playing five players 30+ minutes and then having one player play 15 minutes and two more guys play between 5 and 8 minutes means they don't play a lot of players. If they have 9 or 10 guys average above 12 minutes a game, that means the coach plays a lot of players.
Coaches tend to shorten their bench toward the end of the year because they want to win and they'll only play the players they trust. If you look at stats at the beginning of the year, more players will play. Why? The coaching staff is trying to figure out who fits where, who plays better with other players, and who does better with the lights on.
5) Know the recruiting philosophy of the school and the program. There are certain schools that want coaches to recruit and get as many players as they can. This is another example of "private school economics." The more bodies the better the bottom line is for the school. So they'll have a lot of players on their roster but very few play, even with a JV team.
There are many schools that have the ability to give out good financial aid packages to a lot of kids. It will give the coaches the ability to "load up" in consecutive years in order to make a run at a championship. What happens ends up being a disservice to the kids. Why? There are a lot of very good players that could probably start or play significant minutes at other schools, get stuck on the bench of the school those chose. Basically, it's buyer beware when you are choosing a school.
When push comes to shove, cost and academics should be the number 1 and 1a when it comes to picking a school. The athletic side is super important but shouldn't be the priority because what happens when the "ball stops bouncing?" You and your family have to make the correct decision for life.
There are some schools that give you the option to "major" in multiple things. Not exactly a double major but the school gives you opportunities in multiple disciplines to figure out what you are truly looking for. Some schools will have "interdisciplinary studies" as a major, which is code word for having three minors that you emphasize in because the full major doesn't make a ton of sense in what you want to do.
3) If a coach tells you that they play fast, look at the team's box scores. There aren't many players in high school that want to go to college and play in a grind it out type offense and defense. Coaches will say, "we want to play fast," and then call out plays every time down the floor. Majority of the coaches don't play fast and don't want to play fast because they don't have control.
Teams that play fast have the tendency to turn the ball over (on offense) a good amount and they also score a lot. If you watch West Virginia play, they play fast but they generally don't score a ton. If you can't watch a team that is recruiting you in person, watch them on a webcast since most schools have that capability now.
4) A head or assistant coach tells you they play a lot of players and in reality they only play seven or eight players. Please look at the team's box scores in their perceived rivalry games and/or postseason games (if they've made it) to see if they play that many players. Playing five players 30+ minutes and then having one player play 15 minutes and two more guys play between 5 and 8 minutes means they don't play a lot of players. If they have 9 or 10 guys average above 12 minutes a game, that means the coach plays a lot of players.
Coaches tend to shorten their bench toward the end of the year because they want to win and they'll only play the players they trust. If you look at stats at the beginning of the year, more players will play. Why? The coaching staff is trying to figure out who fits where, who plays better with other players, and who does better with the lights on.
5) Know the recruiting philosophy of the school and the program. There are certain schools that want coaches to recruit and get as many players as they can. This is another example of "private school economics." The more bodies the better the bottom line is for the school. So they'll have a lot of players on their roster but very few play, even with a JV team.
There are many schools that have the ability to give out good financial aid packages to a lot of kids. It will give the coaches the ability to "load up" in consecutive years in order to make a run at a championship. What happens ends up being a disservice to the kids. Why? There are a lot of very good players that could probably start or play significant minutes at other schools, get stuck on the bench of the school those chose. Basically, it's buyer beware when you are choosing a school.
When push comes to shove, cost and academics should be the number 1 and 1a when it comes to picking a school. The athletic side is super important but shouldn't be the priority because what happens when the "ball stops bouncing?" You and your family have to make the correct decision for life.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Exploited Student-Athlete, I Think Not
As I am sitting here watching the NCAA Tourney I am thinking about all the student-athletes on all these teams and how hard it is to juggle being a student and being an athlete with all the time that these guys are away from campus. These networks (particularly CBS) are paying an absurd amount of money to the NCAA to televise these games.
For many of the players at the high major level they are traveling all the time and it takes it's toll. Let's take a look at the Big 12 and their conference tournament. Iowa State and Kansas both played in the championship game on Saturday, March 14 after playing on the 12th and the 13th. They probably arrived on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning for the tournament. Unless they were on spring break they've missed class Wednesday through Friday. All because their games need to be on TV.
The above is typical for most high major teams. If they make the NCAA tourney then there is more missed classes because the NCAA mandates that teams arrive two days before games start. An example is that teams that play in the Thursday/Saturday set have to arrive on Tuesday all for the TV and media. Friday/Sunday games will miss Thursday and Friday class but will have another dilemma because they'll probably miss class on Monday depending on where they travel to/from.
With all of that being said, these student-athletes don't have a lot of opportunities to be students and whose fault is it? I will go with TV and college presidents. TV does what they want because all the college presidents want more money. The more the games are on tv, the bottom line looks A LOT better for college presidents. That is why you'll see football games on all throughout the week during the fall.
Hang with me here:
I've sent out some feelers to a bunch of different college coaches at a bunch of different levels and this is what I've gathered. Student-athletes that are on a full scholarship will get various levels of scholarships based off of what level school each coach is at.
High Major Mid Major
*Roughly $1200 check every month *$840 check every month
Unlimited meals meals/snacks 30 meals per semester in dining hall + snacks
Free Tutoring Free Tutoring
Potential free iPads Postseason gifts (budget won't allow $500, but get something)
Postseason gifts (up to $500)
Free printing for papers, etc
*If student-athletes live off campus they'll get that amount. Not sure what the amount they are given if they live on campus.
A Pell Grant is available for all students if their family qualifies financially. A full Pell Grant for the year is $5,500. If the athlete is on full scholarship they'll get a $5,500 every year without having to pay it back. Yes, that's potentially $22,000 over the course of four years. That number could be a lot less or nothing at all depending on the finances of the family.
On top of all of that the student-athletes get major exposure through TV and everything that potentially goes with it. Looking at a high major "non-revenue" sport the school spent roughly $32,000 per year per athlete (walk-ons included) on top of any athletic scholarship. This money includes athletic training, medical costs, sport psychologists, tutoring/advising, massage/chiropractic, travel, gear, meals, and coaching. If you want to look at some "revenue" sports, that number is WAY higher because of charter flights, nicer hotels, more (and nicer) gear, and more meals.
If you look in the closets of these same student-athletes you'll see about two weeks of wardrobes given to them EVERY year through the contract the school has with an apparel company. Let's take a look at Oregon (I know they are different than everyone else but it's fun). Every one of their players have received four pairs of Kevin Durant's signature shoes (retail $150, customized $195) in different colors. Here is a link showing their different jersey combos as well as some of the shoes that are available to them. I could show you a bunch of pictures from all the gear my wife's team gets but I don't want to be a creeper through their Twitter and Instagram.
Did I mention that these same student-athletes get their education paid for as well? Tuition at these schools range anywhere from $6,000 to $50,000 (just tuition, not tuition & room and board). With that being said, athletic department probably are spending over $100,000 per athlete per year in certain sports.
I'll ask this question to my four regular readers, Would you be willing to "be exploited" by the NCAA and college presidents to get all the things that you get by being a student-athlete? I would say an extreme majority would say, "Where do I sign?"
For many of the players at the high major level they are traveling all the time and it takes it's toll. Let's take a look at the Big 12 and their conference tournament. Iowa State and Kansas both played in the championship game on Saturday, March 14 after playing on the 12th and the 13th. They probably arrived on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning for the tournament. Unless they were on spring break they've missed class Wednesday through Friday. All because their games need to be on TV.
The above is typical for most high major teams. If they make the NCAA tourney then there is more missed classes because the NCAA mandates that teams arrive two days before games start. An example is that teams that play in the Thursday/Saturday set have to arrive on Tuesday all for the TV and media. Friday/Sunday games will miss Thursday and Friday class but will have another dilemma because they'll probably miss class on Monday depending on where they travel to/from.
With all of that being said, these student-athletes don't have a lot of opportunities to be students and whose fault is it? I will go with TV and college presidents. TV does what they want because all the college presidents want more money. The more the games are on tv, the bottom line looks A LOT better for college presidents. That is why you'll see football games on all throughout the week during the fall.
Hang with me here:
I've sent out some feelers to a bunch of different college coaches at a bunch of different levels and this is what I've gathered. Student-athletes that are on a full scholarship will get various levels of scholarships based off of what level school each coach is at.
High Major Mid Major
*Roughly $1200 check every month *$840 check every month
Unlimited meals meals/snacks 30 meals per semester in dining hall + snacks
Free Tutoring Free Tutoring
Potential free iPads Postseason gifts (budget won't allow $500, but get something)
Postseason gifts (up to $500)
Free printing for papers, etc
*If student-athletes live off campus they'll get that amount. Not sure what the amount they are given if they live on campus.
A Pell Grant is available for all students if their family qualifies financially. A full Pell Grant for the year is $5,500. If the athlete is on full scholarship they'll get a $5,500 every year without having to pay it back. Yes, that's potentially $22,000 over the course of four years. That number could be a lot less or nothing at all depending on the finances of the family.
On top of all of that the student-athletes get major exposure through TV and everything that potentially goes with it. Looking at a high major "non-revenue" sport the school spent roughly $32,000 per year per athlete (walk-ons included) on top of any athletic scholarship. This money includes athletic training, medical costs, sport psychologists, tutoring/advising, massage/chiropractic, travel, gear, meals, and coaching. If you want to look at some "revenue" sports, that number is WAY higher because of charter flights, nicer hotels, more (and nicer) gear, and more meals.
If you look in the closets of these same student-athletes you'll see about two weeks of wardrobes given to them EVERY year through the contract the school has with an apparel company. Let's take a look at Oregon (I know they are different than everyone else but it's fun). Every one of their players have received four pairs of Kevin Durant's signature shoes (retail $150, customized $195) in different colors. Here is a link showing their different jersey combos as well as some of the shoes that are available to them. I could show you a bunch of pictures from all the gear my wife's team gets but I don't want to be a creeper through their Twitter and Instagram.
Did I mention that these same student-athletes get their education paid for as well? Tuition at these schools range anywhere from $6,000 to $50,000 (just tuition, not tuition & room and board). With that being said, athletic department probably are spending over $100,000 per athlete per year in certain sports.
I'll ask this question to my four regular readers, Would you be willing to "be exploited" by the NCAA and college presidents to get all the things that you get by being a student-athlete? I would say an extreme majority would say, "Where do I sign?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)