FB: American Rivers Conference

[the_mayne_event]

i dont think it's unethical to recruit all the players you can.  if you can get every kid in the state to go to your school, obvioulsy your going to have a good chance at winning over the next couple of years.  it is ultimately up to the player to decide if he wants to sit for a few years at a school paying 25-35K/year.  although coaches blow smoke up everyone's @$$es.  or after they go to school, realize there are 75 other players exactly like him, is he going to transfer to a different iowa conference school (probably not, becuase he figures every school has that many players) or go to the UofI or something?
i think that if you have 45-60 incoming freshmen a year, and keep 45-60% of those players over 4 years, 90% of them will turn into players, or have all ready been players by their junior/senior year.

[Purple Heys]

s_t65: 
The one thing I find a little suprizing is the relative small size of Wartburg's freshman class. (49)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would expect Coach Willis will have more new Knights next year. 

I wouldn;t be too concerned. I spoke with Coach Koehler last Christmas and the plan for this year was to specifically target top recruits, rather than toss out a net and see how many they could haul in. WHen I golfed with him again in May, he was very happy with the quality of guys that had sent in their deposits. (as close to a NLI signing that you will get at the D3 level)

Oh, and I will verify that SK is indeed a prick.
I won't call him an a-hole though because I've been called and a-hole before and equating myself with SK would give me a bad name.

Funny...I would have thought to be Kanigget fan, being an a$$hole was a prerequisite.

     

[sportsknight]

OK, this board needs to get going to get to 1200.
What clubs/other activities were you guys (and df1) involved in in college.

-  Wartburg Television staff for 4 years (3 as Sports Director and 1 as Co-Station Manager)
-  KWAR staff for 3 years (Did mostly basketball/baseball/softball play-by-play as well as hosting or co-hosting a weekly show most semesters.  Was also the in-studio host for the Knights Radio Network for a couple years)
-  Wrote a column for the Trumpet, the student newspaper, for a couple years
-  Was an on- and off-member of the Catholic Knights for a while
-  Also a member of the Society of Collegiate Journalists
-  Spent a year on Student Senate (colossal waste of time)
-  Part-time jobs or internships at KWWL-TV, KCRG-TV, the Iowa Conference, KCNZ Radio, Cumulus Media, the Waterloo Courier, and Joe's KnightHawk
-  Was a member of the underground Kappa Tappa Kegga fraternity
-  And I went to class every once in a while

[Klopenhiemer]

I fully agree with you about recruiting 90+ freshmen. I think its "unethical" do such. Your not only "monopolizing" on the market, your by taking players away from programs they could actually impact. Your also doing those players a disservice by having quality players just sit. With the suspensions thing I was only talking worse case scenario type situations. As a coach you never take that into consideration, but you do try to think about EVERY situation, when planning your season.Because you really never know.

But as i was saying if you look at the two top teams in the conference Wartburg and Central. they both have too things in common. Lots of wins and lots of players. Now look at Cornell, struggling in the win column and small roster. I don't think those correlations are by chance.

I do not think that it is unethical or monopolizing the market to recruit 90+ freshman into camp.  I think you need to look at it from a different angle.  There is no binding contract between the player and school at the d3 level.  Thus the recruiting process really never ends and you can never count you chicken until he shows up at camp to hatch.  Secondly if you are a kid want to play at a Wartburg or Central, and are willing to stick it out, then more power to kid.  The coaches know who is going to make an impact and who is not.  Lets also not forgett that Central and Wartburg target certain kids and go after them.  Who knows how many kids actually come knocking on their doors.  Lastly if a kid goes to a school and gets lied to about the size of the freshman class then shame on the school.  If the kids knows full well there is a large recruiting class coming in and then quits for that reason, shame on him.  

[Klopenhiemer]

Besides football and I took part in duck hunting, goose hunting, pheasent hunting, deer hunting, nickle pitchers on Wednesday night, Gin Night at Brewsters on Thursday, Friday and Saturday were toss ups.  I also worked in a tire shop changing semi tires to pay the bills.  That was pretty cool.  Oh yeah I did go to class and receive a degree in 4 years.  Pretty impressive considering "being a student" was not one of my strong suits

[DutchFan2004]

I fully agree with you about recruiting 90+ freshmen. I think its "unethical" do such. Your not only "monopolizing" on the market, your by taking players away from programs they could actually impact. Your also doing those players a disservice by having quality players just sit. With the suspensions thing I was only talking worse case scenario type situations. As a coach you never take that into consideration, but you do try to think about EVERY situation, when planning your season.Because you really never know.

But as i was saying if you look at the two top teams in the conference Wartburg and Central. they both have too things in common. Lots of wins and lots of players. Now look at Cornell, struggling in the win column and small roster. I don't think those correlations are by chance.

DF1 had some great comments and well said.  With injuries and other problems that can arise through time why would you not want to get players to also fill those holes.  At the D3 level how is it unethical to over recruit.  The underlying reason for these kids to be at the school is to get their degree.  With that in mind if these kids get their degree then the school has done their job.  The main focus is to be a student athlete not become a pro.  With as many as 44 positions on a football team (offense, defense, kick off, and kick return)  would it not be nice to have all fourth year seniors doing these jobs.  We all know that is not going to happen but with those numbers you could have as many as 132 players vying for PT.  It takes a level of commitment to play at any level of college athletics.  A certain amount of kids are not willing to put forth the effort.  They are studs in HS and they didn't have to work.  When they get to college they see the effort that it requires and decide it is not for them.  That is a great reason for "over recruiting"  you never know what the kids will do when they come on to campus.  There are many players that come on to campus and think they will be playing a certain position as well and they find out they are more suited for a different position.  Numbers IMHO equate to success.  

[Purple Heys]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

It isn't necessarily unethical to recruit a large batch of kids...it is questionably ethical to promise an opportunity to a kid that a coach can only see as a practice fodder kid.

In D1, they have a cateogory for this type of kid, it's called a walk-on.  Although, yes, kids get strung along in every level...

In D3, I would think a coach should be "sensitive" enough to be honest with a kid an his chances.  There are no scholarships, no big money.  Kids playing D3, in many cases, don't want to stop playing.  Since it's a kid's family's money not the school's money paying his way, I think a kid is entitled to a bit more transparency from a D3 coach.

Not that will ever happen...

[doolittledog]

D3 is a tricky deal.  There are no letters of intent.  So you have to recruit a bunch of players and then hope a decent number actually show up.  As WH has said before, when 80 freshmen show up it's a good chance not all of them were actively recruited by the coaching staff, but they won't turn kids away that want to give it a try.  

Another thing to consider is these kids, for the most part, know they aren't going to be playing in the NFL.  They may be choosing a school that offers a major they want, offers the best finantial aid package, or just want to be associated with a winning program...playing time be damned.  

As far as their football potential, it would make more sense to go to a team with lower player counts because they will get more practice reps and have a better shot at playing time.  But in D3 they aren't always thinking of their football potential.  Can't fault them for that, though being a Dubuque fan, I would have liked to see some of these kids that sat on the bench 4 years at other schools come to Dubuque and see if that would have helped the program years ago.  

[DutchFan2004]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

It isn't necessarily unethical to recruit a large batch of kids...it is questionably ethical to promise an opportunity to a kid that a coach can only see as a practice fodder kid.

In D1, they have a cateogory for this type of kid, it's called a walk-on.  Although, yes, kids get strung along in every level...

In D3, I would think a coach should be "sensitive" enough to be honest with a kid an his chances.  There are no scholarships, no big money.  Kids playing D3, in many cases, don't want to stop playing.  Since it's a kid's family's money not the school's money paying his way, I think a kid is entitled to a bit more transparency from a D3 coach.

Not that will ever happen...

you make a good point but in the case of Coach Mc it was always told to my son that you will have the chance to compete and the best player will get the PT.  I think the student has to take the time to evaluate his position.  Is he good enough to earn PT? Is he dedicated to earning the PT?  Those are only questions that the student can answer. 

[Ram2]

Ok unethical is a bad word, a bit harsh.

"Monopolizing" is much better. Your right giving away impact players that you know will help your program would be stupid. What coach in there right mind would do that. But when you have a situation when you have a kid that's very good, but you know he will not fit with your system/program and has no potential to do so you should back off. Cause as I said your doing him a disservice by recruiting him any way.

i'm a coach and I know what is to recruit. If i have a kid that will not fit in my program what good is he to me and what good am i to him? You back up and find a kid who will fit in your system/program. When a team is getting 90+ players  a year that "backing off" can't be going on!!! Now I can't blame coaches for doing so, I mean it is a dog eat dog world, but I don't agree with it.

[Purple Heys]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

I really can't agree, if I understand your point, that every player that Central recruits and adds to their roster makes an impact.  Further I think its fair to speculate that the have a fairly good feel who will pan out...allowing that there always are suprises.

The real point is that among the available pool of good players to be recruited, who are likely to choose an IIAC school...a kid from that pool will tend toward the Wartburgs and Centrals all else being equal.

A random thought just occurred.  Consider USC..over the last several years, they have phenomenal recruiting classes...top RB after top RB for example.  At some point you'd think a kid would not want to look up a depth chart that is 5 deep with HS All-everythings...but they keep coming.

Good teams attract kids with a sort of magnetic pull from all the winning.

To compete, a coach from the opposition has to offer a pretty compelling argument.

[coocooforcoekohawk]

Funny...I would have thought to be Kanigget fan, being an a$$hole was a prerequisite.

     

Heys, you beat every Kohawk on the board to the punch.  Maybe every non-Knight IIAC'er.

[DutchFan2004]

D3 is a tricky deal.  There are no letters of intent.  So you have to recruit a bunch of players and then hope a decent number actually show up.  As WH has said before, when 80 freshmen show up it's a good chance not all of them were actively recruited by the coaching staff, but they won't turn kids away that want to give it a try.  

Another thing to consider is these kids, for the most part, know they aren't going to be playing in the NFL.  They may be choosing a school that offers a major they want, offers the best finantial aid package, or just want to be associated with a winning program...playing time be damned.  

As far as their football potential, it would make more sense to go to a team with lower player counts because they will get more practice reps and have a better shot at playing time.  But in D3 they aren't always thinking of their football potential.  Can't fault them for that, though being a Dubuque fan, I would have liked to see some of these kids that sat on the bench 4 years at other schools come to Dubuque and see if that would have helped the program years ago.  

You bring up a good point about some kids that sit on benches at other schools that might be able to make a team at UD, Cornell, Loras but as mentioned here there is another consideration the degree.  Not all the schools have the same programs.  WH mentioned the music programs at Wartburg and Luther were interesting to him.  That let the other schools behind in recruiting.  

[doolittledog]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

I really can't agree, if I understand your point, that every player that Central recruits and adds to their roster makes an impact.  Further I think its fair to speculate that the have a fairly good feel who will pan out...allowing that there always are suprises.

The real point is that among the available pool of good players to be recruited, who are likely to choose an IIAC school...a kid from that pool will tend toward the Wartburgs and Centrals all else being equal.

A random thought just occurred.  Consider USC..over the last several years, they have phenomenal recruiting classes...top RB after top RB for example.  At some point you'd think a kid would not want to look up a depth chart that is 5 deep with HS All-everythings...but they keep coming.

Good teams attract kids with a sort of magnetic pull from all the winning.

To compete, a coach from the opposition has to offer a pretty compelling argument.

Lake Okoboji boat rides loaded with booze and babes...oh wait, that's ICCC that offers that...not IIAC coaches trying to get that great recruit.  As far as I know!!!

[Purple Heys]

OK, Ram2, my question is -- if we've worked to recruit them, why would we want to give your our impact players? If someone can come into a Wartburg or Central knowing that they will probably sit the first couple of years, but make impacts later on, why wouldn't we want them? We want the dedicated athletes that will stick it out and work on their games. I don't think it's unethical at all to recruit these players.

It isn't necessarily unethical to recruit a large batch of kids...it is questionably ethical to promise an opportunity to a kid that a coach can only see as a practice fodder kid.

In D1, they have a cateogory for this type of kid, it's called a walk-on.  Although, yes, kids get strung along in every level...

In D3, I would think a coach should be "sensitive" enough to be honest with a kid an his chances.  There are no scholarships, no big money.  Kids playing D3, in many cases, don't want to stop playing.  Since it's a kid's family's money not the school's money paying his way, I think a kid is entitled to a bit more transparency from a D3 coach.

Not that will ever happen...

you make a good point but in the case of Coach Mc it was always told to my son that you will have the chance to compete and the best player will get the PT.  I think the student has to take the time to evaluate his position.  Is he good enough to earn PT? Is he dedicated to earning the PT?  Those are only questions that the student can answer. 

We can debate this next week in person.  

I can't many kids being honests evaluators of their own ability.  As W-H mentioned, coaches have the benefit of film.  They can tell a kid that they will get the "opportunity" to compete.  Who doesn't say that?

Realistically coaches estsablish a recruiting list and rank them.  They'll string as many as they can along hoping to get all on their list.  When number 1 drops commits elsewhere, he drops off and #2 moves up.

In many cases kids aspiring to continue to play D3 recruit themselves, filling in online forms and sending tape.  If after evaluting this the receiving coach, in my opinion, ought to be up front as to the kids place in the pecking order...to the extent that the coach would divulge, "you are the 3rd QB on our list"...giving the kid the opportunity to keep looking to find some school that he is number 1 on their list...provided it also meets his academic needs.

This will NEVER happen