Recruiting: What service coaches prefer.

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
11,686
Reaction score
5,919
Points
113
Coaches 'Recruiting / Technology' survey - results
Last week we placed a survey on the site for coaches to take. The focus of the survey was on recruiting and technology issues. While we didn't quite reach our stretch goal of 3,000 respondents, we still got a very statistically valid sample.

Coaches were asked to identify the level at which they coached. 15% coached at the FBS level, 8% at FCS, 11% at D-II, 18% at D-III, 4% at JCs and 5% at NAIA programs... thus roughly 60% of respondents coached at the college level. About 38% coached high school ball and 1% coached in the NFL.

The first question we asked was "Which recruiting network's information do you value / trust the most?".

Overall, 54% of respondents chose "I don't value / trust any of these". 29% chose Rivals. 7% chose ESPN. 6% chose Scout and 3% chose 24/7.

When looking only at FBS coaches' responses however, the answers were significantly different with only 36% choosing "I don't value / trust any of these", 45% choosing Rivals, 9% choosing Scout, 7% choosing ESPN and 4% choosing 24/7.

High school coaches' responses were: 49% "I don't value / trust any of these", 29% Rivals, 10% ESPN, 6% Scout and 4% 24/7.

We asked coaches "How has the recruiting budget for your program changed over the last two years?":

Overall, 14% responded that the budget has been reduced, 60% stated it remains about the same, 22% said it has grown between 5-25% and 3% say it has grown more than 25%.

When looking only at FBS coaches' responses, 13% say it has been reduced, 28% say it remains about the same, 47% say it has grown between 5-25% and 12% say it has grown over 25%.

Regarding Twitter use amongst the staff, we asked coaches "What percentage of your staff uses Twitter today?".

Overall, 11% said 0% uses Twitter today, 40% chose "greater than 20% of our staff", 30% chose "between 20% and 50%" and 19% chose "greater than 50%".

However, when looking only at responses from FBS coaches, only 5% said "0% of our staff uses Twitter", 22% chose "greater than 20%", 37% chose "between 20% and 50%" and 37% chose "greater than 50%".

High school coaches responses were, 15% said "0% of our staff uses Twitter", 46% chose "greater than 20%", 25% chose "between 20% and 50%" and 13% chose "greater than 50%".

We also asked coaches "Two years ago, what percentage of your staff used Twitter?"

Overall, 61% of coaches said no one on their staff used Twitter two years ago. 35% chose "greater than 20%", 3% chose "between 20% and 50%" and less than 1% chose "greater than 50%".

When looking only at responses from FBS coaches, only 42% said "0% of our staff uses Twitter", 50% chose "greater than 20%", 6% chose "between 20% and 50%" and 2% chose "greater than 50%".

High school coaches responses were, 70% said "0% of our staff uses Twitter", 29% chose "greater than 20%", 1% chose "between 20% and 50%" and no one chose "greater than 50%".

We also asked coaches, "Regarding Facebook, compared with two years ago, how much would you say you use Facebook now?"

Overall, 36% chose "about the same", 37% chose "use Facebook more now than 2 years ago" and 27% chose "use Facebook less than two years ago".

FBS coaches responded as follows: 25% chose "about the same", 54% chose "use Facebook more now than 2 years ago" and 21% chose "use Facebook less now than two years ago".

High school coaches responses were: 37% chose "about the same", 27% chose "use Facebook more now than 2 years ago" and 29% chose "use Facebook less than 2 years ago".

We asked coaches "How many hours per day, on average, would you estimate you spend on "social media?".

Overal responses were:

0-1 Hour - 39%

1-2 Hours - 35%

2-3 Hours - 15%

3-4 Hours - 6%

4+ Hours - 5%

FBS coaches responses were:

0-1 Hour - 19%

1-2 Hours - 46%

2-3 Hours - 17%

3-4 Hours - 11%

4+ Hours - 7%

High school coaches responses were:

0-1 Hour - 52%

1-2 Hours - 29%

2-3 Hours - 14%

3-4 Hours - 3%

4+ Hours - 2%

We asked coaches "Would you be in favor of an early signing period?"

Overall responses were 72% yes, 28% no.

FBS coaches responses were 72% yes, 28% no.

High school coaches responses were 73% yes, 27% no.

We asked coaches "What other apps do you have on your phone that you use as part of your job and do you like the way it works?"

25 coaches responded stating that they have Hudl on their phones and nearly all of them responded that they like it. Five coaches mentioned Front Rush and one coach mentioned MaxPreps.

11% of all survey respondents replied that they have The Coach Tracker app on their phone.

We thank everyone who replied for taking the time to do so. If anyone has more specific questions about the responses, please feel free to email [email protected].
 

54% of respondents chose "I don't value / trust any of these"

I'm liking Kill's class more and more all the time.
 

I think sites like Rivals and Scout and good tools to get an idea of who is out there. But, ultimately you as a coach need to evaluate them yourself with film, camp invites, etc. It's also good to look at what teams have offers on the table already with a recruit to get a gauge on where they're at.
 

I think sites like Rivals and Scout and good tools to get an idea of who is out there. But, ultimately you as a coach need to evaluate them yourself with film, camp invites, etc. It's also good to look at what teams have offers on the table already with a recruit to get a gauge on where they're at.

The services don't discover players. They either feature idiots/players dumb enough to pay to be featured on a site or players discovered by coaches who become known to the sites. Sometime both occur coincidently.
 

Any coach that uses a recruiting service is a LAZY BASTARD. Nothing more, nothing less.
 


Any coach that uses a recruiting service is a LAZY BASTARD. Nothing more, nothing less.

Any coach that relies ONLY on a recruiting service is a lazy bastard. Ignoring them is foolish though because it is just another tool to use in order to find video and information on players. I don't buy for a second that there are staffs that don't use the recruiting sites at all no matter what they say in the survey.

The people that hate the sites will latch onto this survey and use it to prove that Kill's class is significantly better than its ranking would indicate. None of us will know the answer to that question for sure for another year or so but it will be pretty clear starting this year if Kill's players can compete in the Big Ten.

It gets said over and over again but although the stars don't matter in the grand scheme of things they do seem to correspond with team performance to some degree so we are banking on Kill being one of the exceptions as it relates to recruiting rankings and on field performance.
 




Top Bottom