Re: UNH Wildcats 2017/2018 - Umile's Last Stand - The Grand Finale
Dan, many thanks for your informed insight on my previous questions and the link to the NCAA recruiting guidelines; I'll have to take a look when I have a bit more time/energy to wade through it. But I do have some followup questions prompted by your replies:
But isn't that only partially true? Yes, Michigan may only be able to initiate contact with each of their potential recruits just 7 times, same as UNH, but with a larger budget (that BiGTen $$ doesn't just buy shoulder pads) they can target many MORE recruits than UNH, each for the permitted 7 times. Obviously not all of them will end up matriculating in Ann Arbor, but a bigger budget means you can cast a wider net, take in more tournaments, sit in more living rooms, letting that many more players become aware of Michigan's interest in them. Isn't this essentially what Wisconsin now does under Granato et al., OVER-recruiting to the point where talented players begin to suspect that maybe they'd be better off someplace else (xf Gildon, Max) where there isn't such a logjam for playing time? I doubt UNH would ever have the financial resources to emulate what Wisconsin's doing (never mind if that's even a strategy WORTH emulating), but I can't help but think that budget constraints DO hamstring UNH to some extent; less money means fewer trips, fewer kids seen/evaluated in person, a smaller pool of actively recruited kids from which to eventually choose/make offers. Whatever UNH's hockey budget is, I've no doubt it's smaller than EVERY team in the BigTen, yet at the same time likely larger than Merrimac's, or perhaps UConn. Who gets the most bang for their buck is still an open question ...
Look, in theory the bigger and richer schools are always going to have slight advantages – not just in terms of money, what they can afford and how much easier it fits in their budget to recruit, but also in terms of convenience, brand and awareness. However, the NCAA rules do a good enough job leveling the playing field that there is NOTHING prohibitive to UNH’s recruiting efforts in targeting top players. The easiest way to see that is to understand that nothing has changed in that regard since the 90’s. UNH was always poorer, always a lesser brand and always a slight underdog and it didn’t stop Kullen, Serino or McCloskey from crushing the recruiting trail and putting UNH in a position to compete on a national level. It is only once UNH started losing – through their own recruiting mistakes – that people have begun to put forth ideas of why they’re behind the eight-ball. They don’t deserve the bail out – they’ve beaten themselves…
Evaluations and contact don’t really work the way you laid them out. First, evaluations and contacts are only allowed during specific times of the year and even during allowable contact periods there are quiet and dead periods that prohibit or limit recruiting efforts. It is not a free for all. Additionally, and somewhat contradictorily, evaluations/contacts both add up quickly and teams very rarely will use all seven.
For example, a prospect may end up on a team’s radar through connections, statistical evaluation, personal email and then a recruiter might head West to view the player. They may take in a practice, a couple of games and meet with the player (usually at the rink – the idea of coaches sitting in living rooms is pretty much an antiquated one outside of football and basketball, where recruiting at HS games is still a thing and budgets are truly extravagant) – that’s four right away and likely enough to make a decision.
As a background, evaluations begin to count when a player becomes a prospective student athlete – which essentially means when they become a freshman in HS. Contacts are not allowed until they finish their sophomore year. This is important because we all know how impactful hockey’s early recruiting calendar has become. The best young players often commit before contact is even allowed! So contacts often occur in conjunction with an evaluation (not separate trips) and often young players commit after an eval or two (not seven) and before contact is even allowed. The older players are on the market for everyone to see much longer - and all the coaches know who they are, with their eyes on the players they think might turn into late bloomers...
Most recruiting these days takes place at showcase events – this is another factor that levels the playing field for both the coaches and the student-athletes. There are large numbers of teams and prospects to watch on one trip. It saves a lot of money. Most schools will build their recruiting lists at events like this, through word of mouth (connections) and the emails they receive from prospects. Many will offer at these events, too. If they do not, recruiting really becomes about cross checking or getting extra looks at whomever you really like.
The days of spending weeks on the road, in far off arenas not really knowing who your looking for or discovering a diamond are for the most part long gone. There are SO many ways to discover players these days without even leaving your office. After that you just need to get eyes on the ones you really like.
UNH has no problem getting to the showcases and they have access to scouting services, contacts, coaches and more – just like the bigger schools – and they can absolutely afford to cross-check at the same level in the USHL, BCHL and other Canadian junior leagues. Money has never been an issue for them in recruiting – even if spending it hurts a bit more. If that has changed, I’d love to hear from someone with specifics and I’ll be the first to fire off an email to Scarano that he cannot hamstring the program. I just don’t believe that this is in anyway the case.
For a player like Filip Suchy, who UNH may not be familiar with. It's this simple:
They know they need scoring and they've seen his numbers in the USHL. They can research his history of scoring at every level as I have. They'll reach out to his coach and other contacts around the league. Perhaps they ask Bahn, Verrier or Green (UNH commits who have had to defend him). If it all adds up they go see him. They watch a practice, they meet him, they watch a game or two and they decide whether or not to offer - if it's budget stretching (its not, but hypothetically) then use hotel points or air miles, sleep in the car, pay for your own hotel. Set it up to see Suchy/Valach on one trip - where UM may be able to afford two...
UNH has landed some very good players recently – just not nearly enough. This is where the excuses die on the vine. How come the facilities are good enough for Poturalski and Kelleher but not other top commits? How come UNH can afford to travel to Minnesota to unearth an unknown talent still playing HS but can’t afford to leave New England otherwise? How come UNH can win (initial) battles with big schools for Commesso, but nobody else? How come schools with far less are more successful? The pieces are there for the recruiters to use – they’re just not consistently aggressive enough in targeting or good enough at closing prospects and far too often they have settled for replacement level talents. It’s a recruiter problem – not a financial/facility/location problem…
--
Wisconsin is not maximizing their budget when they reel in huge recruiting classes. They are abandoning recruiting ethics. Here is what Wisconsin is doing – call it the bird in the hand strategy.
Wisconsin throws offers at kids they minute they see something they like. They gobble these kids up and get them into their pipeline. Now these kids are committed to Wisconsin and UW doesn’t have to worry about other schools approaching them with offers – because many coaches will still (rightly) recognize the ‘gentleman’s agreement’.
Now Wisconsin has commitments for future classes – but they don’t view these prospects as their future – they basically view them as investments or perhaps even insurance. They don’t have to go out and watch/evaluate/contact excessively to find these kids – because if they end up not living up to expectations they’re replaced anyway. If the kid pays off great – if not, they’re just a safety net while UW keeps looking. UW continues their search. If they find someone better commit to them and drop one of their initial pick-ups. Then they search for someone better than their newest pick-up. Its not right, no matter what adults want to say about kids having advisors or not developing the way they were expected to (through no fault of their own).
UNH could do this – anyone could. It is not difficult. You simply have to ask yourself how much you are willing to knowingly and aggressively manipulate the lives of 14-20 year olds for your own gain or how easily you can rationalize a couple of kids decommitting into you treating all kids like commodities. Wisconsin is willing to mistreat teenagers and sell its soul to win – F that.
Early recruiting and this sort of strategy are problems in softball too. Everyone is focused on changing early recruiting – while major schools dangle kids futures every summer. I had a kid at one school who was committed to an SEC school for four years – before they dumped her months before her FR year would have began. Luckily she could afford to walk-on. Many cannot.
As far as early recruiting goes – the University of Florida just committed an 11 year old. I don’t have a problem with this (everyone else does, perhaps rightly so), because here’s what I know about UF – they stick with the kids they verbal. Tim Walton won’t renege on this player. He doesn’t stoop to the level of the competition and it’s a big reason why UF is always the favorite (no advisors in softball, FYI – just adults abusing their authority)…