Re: Best Recruiting Tool
Rugrats brought up an interesting thought in the Wisconsin thread and it got me to thinking. What is the best recruiting tool? Is it winning tradition? Is it regional? The coach? The promise of playing time? Is it the amenities like a weight room or nice rink? Or maybe, God forbid, the academic reputation
? It would be interesting to hear from ex-players or parents as to why a school was chosen.
I've actually asked this question to literally dozens of kids who've successfully gone through the process, and of course, the ultimate choice does depend on what their options were, as most don't have the opportunity to actually go to their "dream school"--even many top tier recruits. I've had a couple kids of my own go through the process too, one actually was lucky enough to end up at her dream school.
For many players, winning tradition is a really big part of it. That often seems to trump academics, at least for the kids who tend not to think of the longer term after hockey is over--depends on how much influence the parents/advisors have, how mature the kid is, and how knowledgable/confident they are in the process. In any case, if schools are roughly comparable academically, a program much below .500 is usually a tough sell unless a student always wanted to go there. Dream schools are usually selected on the basis of past visits, past family/friend connections with a school, or even somewhat irrational ideas based on books and TV shows (lol). And these ideas can be hard to dislodge.
Don't think playing time plays a big part for most, as they all think they will play lots based on their past experiences, and pretty much every coach is notorious for promising lots of playing time anyway, whether it is likely to happen or not. If it is a factor, playing time is more likely to be somewhat a consideration for second/third tier recruits.
While the coach *may* be a consideration, usually it's more in a negative sense: virtually all coaches are extraordinarily charming throughout the process when wearing their recruiting hats, so it is generally hard to differentiate much on that basis, except in rare cases where a recruit and a coach just don't hit it off at all. However, for those who do a lot of research (which surprisingly is relatively few), either because of a coach's past reputation for histrionics, inordinately short bench tactics, mixed assessments from former players, or other personal styles that may not appeal, coaches and their programs are often discounted too on that basis.
Actually, I think probably what may be the biggest factor in the majority of cases, for Ontario kids anyway, is how long, how often, how aggressively and how personally they were courted by the program, especially by the head coach. Everyone wants to feel wanted and needed. The most overt expressions of being shown they were really wanted (at least more than other programs showing interest), often is enough to create a positive halo effect on their assessments of other aspects of the school. Some coaches are fantastic as this, and it can often overcome other potential negatives (eg. location, facilities, academic reputation/programs, etc). I guess you could say that, in that sense, the coach(es) can make a big difference.
So I think it's no accident that programs that spend more time on the recruiting trail are appropriately rewarded--and in cases where the head coach is directly involved as much as/more than the assistants, there seems to be particularly strong conversion rates. The Eastern schools have relied to a significant extent on players from Ontario. Head coaches Doug Derraugh of Cornell has been a regular fixture in Ontario rinks for the past few years, as has Rick Sealey of Quinnipiac, and the Desrosiers of Clarkson--and all have had successive strong classes of incoming recruits the past few years, despite a lack of significant winning traditions prior to that. Mike Sisti of Mercyhurst and Mark Johnson of Wisconsin are also seen with some frequency every year. I believe John Burke's regular presence on the recruiting trail has played a significant role in the respectable performance of RPI in short order since their change to D1 status. In some other programs, the head coaches rarely if ever get directly involved with recruiting off-campus, and are now seeing difficulties sustaining their historical strength.
Choice of schools can be a highly emotional rather than rational process. Loving a particular atmosphere/campus at first sight can happen. I've actually heard of players rejecting schools even before actually visiting for basically random, inconsequential and sometime irrational reasons or misperceptions. I didn't like the sound of the name of the school. I hated their website. The school didn't do Recycling. The coach there never sent me a thank you after I visited. The head coach was away when I did an unofficial. The head coach has never seen me play (I don't think that one's irrational at all, by the way). They took too long to respond to my email. Their campus is too scary (never visited, ended up going someplace statistically worse). They didn't call me on July 1. I didn't like their letter, it sounded arrogant.
Despite the fact that prospective recruits should be proactive in the process to ensure the best fit--and more and more they know enough to actually do this, a great many still say they ultimately chose the one that had showed the most interest and persistence.
