See, I'd tend to say the best coach is the one who can get the most out of five random human beings who may or may not have ever seen a basketball. I give recruiting zero influence inn my decisions. Obviously wins reflect recruiting to some extent, but recruiting is definitely my least favorite part of d3hoops.
But, like, all those teams we end up voting for in the Top 25, or the ones we talk about as Pool C candidates, or those we enjoy watching in Fort Wayne...they all got there because of recruiting more than anything. You can't be a good team without good players.
But you can be a good coach without good players. That's my point.
I completely disagree. Being a good college basketball coach means acquiring good players. As Bob said, you're reducing the job of coaching to its constituent parts and only selecting some of them (teacher, motivator, etc.) as "coaching," while dismissing another constituent part (recruiting) as something outside of coaching.
Let me ask you this, Ryan: When you've seen job notices for D3 coaches, as I'm sure you have, do they say that the school is seeking a "Head Coach of Men's Basketball"
and a "Head Recruiter of Men's Basketball"? No. The job posting is always for a "Head Coach of Men's Basketball," plain and simple. Recruiting men's basketball student-athletes is one of the requirements for that position; even if specific aspects of recruiting are then assigned by the head coach to an assistant or assistants, as head coach he is still responsible for recruitment.
It's not "teacher, motivator, etc." = coach, with recruiting outside of the equation. It's "teacher, motivator, etc." + recruiter = coach.
See, I'd tend to say the best coach is the one who can get the most out of five random human beings who may or may not have ever seen a basketball.
In terms of college basketball, you've just described the best
bench coach, or the best
practice coach, or the best
skills instructor, or the best combination of the three. But they don't add up to the word "coach" on this level; you need to add recruiting to the mix as well in order to fill out the job description.
You like the ice cream, the sprinkles, and the napkin. You don't like the cone as well? OK. But without the cone it's not an ice cream cone. Instead, you've just got a sticky mess on your hands.
I give recruiting zero influence inn my decisions. Obviously wins reflect recruiting to some extent, but recruiting is definitely my least favorite part of d3hoops.
I'm sure that it's the least favorite part of D3 hoops for a lot of fans, perhaps even most of them. Recruiting is obscure, subjective, has relatively low visibility, is dependent upon such non-basketball arcana as financial aid packages, campus location, majors, etc., and it's oftentimes a bit unsavory with regard to tactics. It doesn't involve the actual game of basketball itself at all. But I would say that the first clause in your sentence, "Obviously, wins reflect recruiting to some extent," should be amended to read, "Obviously, wins reflect recruiting to
a vast extent."
It doesn't always happen, but, usually, it's the team that takes the floor with the best players that wins the game. And if the team with the lesser talent isn't at least within shouting distance of the more talented opponent in terms of collective ability, you're much more likely to see a massacre than an upset. And you can only improve an 18-to-22-year-old basketball player just so much in terms of skills instruction, practice reps, tactics, mandatory weight-room work, psychological influence, etc. The most important components, by far, of what that 18-to-22-year-old brings to your team when he's on the floor are the components that he already had when you walked into his living room and shook hands with his parents for the first time. If he's good enough to make your program better, getting him from his living room into your locker room is, therefore, the most important part of your job.
