recruiting versus x's and o's

ltf

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
861
Reaction score
96
Points
28
Obviously, recruiting and game strategies are both important, but thought it would be interesting to to hear what people think is more important. Would you rather have a coaching staff that is great recruiters or one that is great at teaching good offense and defense? Don't know that we want to turn this into a Pitino debate, but are there any other coaching staffs out there that you think excel at one but fall short in the other?
 

My personal preference is for a good x's and o's guy. You are almost never going to have the exact team you want to, but a good coach should be able to find ways to exploit opponents' weaknesses and leverage his team's strengths. At the end of the day though, it shouldn't matter. If coach A gets to a certain postseason result by recruiting an impressive roster but underperforming with it, and coach B gets us to the same result with an unimpressive roster but overperforming, I consider it a wash.
 

At the end of the day, you need talent to win. You can have seasons which are exceptions but talent trumps everything 95+% of the time.
 

Recruiters, all the way.

This will really tick off the coaches out there, but means almost nothing in basketball unless the teams are very closely matched talent-wise. Take Kentucky, for example, over the last 5 years. You could take any coach in the country, put him in charge of that group of players, and I'd be willing to bet the results would be nearly identical.

Often, the line between great coaches and great players get blurred. Phil Jackson, for example, is considered a great coach. In reality, he had absolutely nothing to do with any of the championships he was. The Bulls Dynasty and the Lakers with Shaq/Kobe/etc could've literally been coached by an inanimate object to those results. You can't tell me the Warriors would be hurt if they lose Steve Kerr. We saw what happened to Popvich this year when his team wasn't loaded (first round sweep). These are MBA examples, and coaching means even less as you go down to D1 level. It's all about players.

There are occasional outliers, like Brad Stevens at Butler (but, at the same time, the talent still has to be there to run a system successfully). But, I'll take great players 10 times out of 10.
 

Personal preference is Xs & Os. Understand that you still have to have some good players. But it's much less frustrating to watch a well-coached team.
 


Big Ten #1 X and O guy - Beilein - used to be Ryan
Big Ten #1 Recruiter- Izzo (he then adds toughness)
Big Ten combo coach- Painter - upper tier on both
 

Big Ten #1 X and O guy - Beilein - used to be Ryan
Big Ten #1 Recruiter- Izzo (he then adds toughness)
Big Ten combo coach- Painter - upper tier on both

How is Beilein not the best combo coach? He lands multiple 4* guys every year, with the occasional 5* guy. His 2018 class was 11th in the country.

You need a combination of both, but talent wins out the majority of the time.
 

Big Ten #1 X and O guy - Beilein - used to be Ryan
Big Ten #1 Recruiter- Izzo (he then adds toughness)
Big Ten combo coach- Painter - upper tier on both

Intersting. Hard to argue with this, I think. Maybe a bit too much credit to Painter.
 

In basketball, recruiting all the way, no question. In football I'd consider taking the x's and o's guy.

Reality is, to be a champion you need to be good in both. But if you're reeling in 5* recruits in basketball you're always going to have at least a "good" team even if you're a lousy coach.

The only twist to answering your question is, if you have a great x's and o's guy, eventually he's going to get good recruits too because the program is going to consistently overachieve and develop players, and that's eventually going to get noticed even if he's not a "good recruiter."
 



How is Beilein not the best combo coach? He lands multiple 4* guys every year, with the occasional 5* guy. His 2018 class was 11th in the country.

You need a combination of both, but talent wins out the majority of the time.

It's also worth noting that both skills are connected. Part of recruiting is identifying kids that have a specific skill set that fit into your x's and o's, and identifying players that you think the market is undervaluing and finding a way to leverage them. Just landing highly sought after recruits doesn't make you a good recruiter, it's also about selecting the right targets.
 

To build a champion you need an X & O coach. Once you build that success, you need great recruiting to sustain and elevate success. Great recruiting alone will not cut it. Guys who bring in great players are first good coaches (even if they are pricks). [emoji41]
 

Recruiting is important. X's and O's are important.

But I'm starting to believe that the most important trait for a coach to possess is the ability to handle people and relate to people.

If you can relate to the players on your team, you have a much better chance of getting them to play at their potential. Sure, you need a baseline level of talent - and the X's and O's matter to some extent. but if I have to choose one trait, give me the coach who can get inside players' heads and motivate them.

(this is partially a reaction to what's happening with the T-Wolves. from all accounts, Thibs and the players simply do not communicate, leading to the rumors about KAT wanting out.)
 

Recruiting. In the vast majority of cases, by the time a guy is hired to be a D1 college coach, he has already proven that he has the basic Xs and Os skills. Thus, the real differentiator is recruiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Tic-tac-toe, you'd win with Xs & Os provided you have enough talent and a good disciplined team play instead of simply just a collection of superstars. But, disciplined superstars will win more often than not.
 

I think that Xs & Os are equal in importance to recruiting. I’m yet undecided on whether the O is more important than the X or vice versa.
B259219D-FBE4-41C9-BF80-E8DDAADB62FC.jpeg
 

That's an interesting question and I am not sure there is a right answer. For clarification, where does "player development" fall in to the equation? If you want to be in the mix for National Titles year in and year out, I think you would prefer recruiting. I think the biggest unknown is what level recruiting are you going to get? If you guarantee me Kentucky/Duke type recruiting, I'd take the recruiter every day but if you are only talking about upgrading recruiting (say Minnesota gets Ohio State level classes) I would take the X's and O's marvel (assuming that means he's clearly a top 3 coach in the conference). I think the better coach probably has the advantage with a mixture of mainly top 150 kids and a few top 50ish types (which is where Minnesota's roster is now) over an inferior coach with mainly top 100 kids with maybe a few top 50 types and a top 25 kid. I am far from sure this is the right answer, and I even wonder if "today's" college basketball makes either recruiting or coaching more important? With a lot of elite kids going to the draft after just one year, is it more important to just have a good coach? Or does the ever increasing roster turnover (players leaving for the draft, transfers and grad transfers in larger numbers) just magnify the need to always be acquiring top talent?
 

How is Beilein not the best combo coach? He lands multiple 4* guys every year, with the occasional 5* guy. His 2018 class was 11th in the country.

You need a combination of both, but talent wins out the majority of the time.

He might be. I guess my thinking there is that the talent pool is so rich in Michigan and they have been a borderline blue blood program so recruiting 4 stars should not be tough there. I think MSU, OSU, Indiana and maybe Purdue all out recruit Beilein. But regardless, Beilein is terrific.
 

Big 10 coach's strengths:
Recruiters - Miles, Collins, Pitino, Underwood, Izzo, Turgeon, McCaffrey, Miller
x's and o's - Beilein, Painter, Gard, Chambers, Pikiell, Holtmann
A few of these it's kind of hard to know which way to go, but my best guess. Some could certainly be both.
 

He might be. I guess my thinking there is that the talent pool is so rich in Michigan and they have been a borderline blue blood program so recruiting 4 stars should not be tough there. I think MSU, OSU, Indiana and maybe Purdue all out recruit Beilein. But regardless, Beilein is terrific.

Purdue's recruiting has not been incredible. From what I can tell, Caleb Swanigan is the only top 50 commit they've had since JaJuan Johnson and E'Twaun Moore (and some guy named Scott Martin?) in 2007, but they've had a decent handful of those guys ranked like 70-130, the low 4 star, high 3 star guys. Indiana, Michigan State, and Ohio State's recruiting has certainly been a cut above Purdue's. Thad Matta seemed like he was bringing in a 5 star or two every other year.

I think the "good recuiter/poor in-game coach" combination earns more ire than the other way around. Tom Crean seemed to recruit pretty well, though maybe not up to Indiana's full potential, and winning the Big Ten and going to the Sweet Sixteen was considered an underachievement with a really talented roster. Seems to be a similar deal with Mark Turgeon, there are Maryland fans who want him gone. MSU fans have even gotten a little antsy with Izzo. Sparty hasn't been to the Sweet Sixteen since going to the 2015 Final Four. They've finished ranked 2, 5, and 1 in the Big Ten in that time span, including a Big Ten Tournament championship, but the increase in quality of recruiting hasn't helped fan perception of him much because he's been underachieving in the tournament. These coaches don't get a great deal of credit for getting highly ranked recruits, but take heat for underachieving with them. On the other side, I don't feel there was ever a great deal of ill will toward Bo Ryan at Wisconsin for finishing toward the top of the conference but only getting past the Sweet Sixteen once in the first decade he was there, and never really capitalizing on the on-court success to elevate the program's long-term recruiting profile. It feels like if you can consistently hit your team's ceiling, you won't get dinged too much for not raising the ceiling.
 




Top Bottom