(12-10-2019 02:30 PM)RamDawg Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:57 PM)Dukester Wrote:  

(12-10-2019 01:24 PM)RamDawg Wrote:  A post from the UD board: "recruiting recruiting recruiting...It ain't rocket science....We need better more athletic players...That simple....

Yes, it really is that simple. Success breeds Success.

Success allows us to not only recruit FBS talent but it allows us to recruit specific talent. We need a TE, we go out and recruit a TE. We don't need to go out and find a big, athletic HS QB to play TE. We don't need to try to drive a square peg in a round hole.

Successful "lower level" programs like us are very attractive to transfers that may be 2nd or third string FBS. They work hard here and they have a reasonable opportunity to play a lot.

Unlike basketball where recruits make decisions based on who the HC is, recruits make decisions based more on position coaches and support staff such as trainers, condition coaches and less on the HC.

Modern day recruits look hard at facilities, fan support, success of other sports.

We're not a school where a recruit is expected to only play football. They are expected to get an education. These type of recruits look at the university as a place to not only play sports but to also get a education, live and play for 4 or 5 years. Mom & Dad need to feel comfortable sending their babies off on their own.

NDSU offers similar opportunities, but they also have a lot less choices for the local quality recruits to choose from. That area of the country isn't exactly a basketball "hotbed" so those good basketball players tend to travels out of state to play but if NDSU continues to build their BB program, we could see them making some noise in the future.

Recruiting certainly is a big part of the equation, but I give more value to coaching than others.

For example - Look at what Houston did with roughly the same players as Withers. I think JMU was 3 touchdowns better under Houston than Withers. Look at the difference what Mathews got from Woods players. I think if Larranga coached our present Men's basket ball team they would easily be a to 100 team.

It's like the chicken and the egg thing (pun intended) Does a good football coach make bad players good or do good football players make bad coaches appear better than the are?

With football I think it's 70% talent and 30% coaching. Basketball it's like 80% players and 20% coaching. We could hire Coach K this week to take over for Coach Rowe and we still aren't winning a NCAAT game. Changing culture doesn't happen over night.

Where does culture come from talent, or coaching?

I could not disagree with you more. So you think our basketball players are not talented and just play with a bad culture. I think our freshman class is impressive - but you think it will take years to improve their culture?

Houston talked about how he changed the culture in 2016. Did it really not happen in one season/overnight?

To clarify (unless you are in the playin game) you are roughly a top 32 team if you win a game in the NCAAT. I'm not saying a coaching change with the same players can make a #250 team a top 32 team. But in basketball Coach K or L could make this current top 250 team a top hundred or perhaps 75 team.