Recruiting stories

Why is it that nearly every recruiting story quotes only the player, his parents and/or coach? They're only going to say good stuff about him ... wouldn't something from an opposing player or coach be more meaningful?

 

Point taken. But I'm sick of reading stories where the only quotes are from Daddy saying, "Johnny's going to be great!" They're painfully biased.

 

Deadline considerations could be the reason why only the kid and parents are quoted. And the comments from the parents should center on why the kid chose the school, not how good he or she will be.

 

Recruiting is stupid. Unless the guy is local or he is a big-time All American recruit, then I don't think you need a commitment story, especially in football.

Case in point how meaningless: Team I cover got a recruit, though it wasn't confirmed. Of course rivals and scout went nuts over the verbal. I didn't write anything. A month later, he switches his verbal to another school. This happened from October to November.

I don't think there should be anything more than a brief until the guy signs on the dotted line unless it is a high profile recruit. I wouldn't even bother with recruiting if the guy is just visiting.

Who determined that this is news? Just because rivals made this an industry suddenly you have to GET every recruit commit?

How many times have we done stories on a recruit who commits, how great he will be, and then he never makes it to school, never plays, or just plain flames out.

It's a joke.

 

In my opinion, readers don't want to hear it if the kid sucks. They want to know if their school wants him, if rival schools want him, and where he wants to go. Unfortunately, NCAA rules prohibit the schools from telling reporters how much they do or don't want a kid. In short, recruiting stories don't talk to other coaches, etc, because, strangely, that's not what most people care about.

 

I never said somebody should be saying he/she sucks ... I'm just saying a quote about how good the kid will be coming from someone who isn't biased (his/her coach and/or parents) would carry more weight. It doesn't just have to be opposing coaches or players, it could be a recruiting "expert" or someone of that sort.

I'm not supporting recruiting stories, either -- I'm sick of them. But if you're going to do them, do them right.

 

On recruiting stories, the news is that the kid has committed. You need to get that from the kid, player or coach.

If you want to get a sense of how good he is, you can get some rivals rating or some guru guy to give the rundown that might be a bit critical.

But why would you call another coach? A college coach couldn't talk. A high school coach isn't likely to rip an opposing player.

 

If you cover a major college, you learn very quickly that recruiting commitments are very often the most-read story in the paper that day. And it's often not even close, even in midseason.

 

A quote from an opposing high school coach saying, "Billy tore us up for 50 points, he's going to be amazing" would carry more weight than his father saying "Billy can do everything," wouldn't it?

 

Perhaps, but Billy's dad saying, "Florida, Ohio State and USC all sent Billy scholarship offers in the mail last week," says it all.

The point I would make is that objective facts about how much the kid is "wanted" are more important than any subjective quote you might get about how "good" he is, whether they are from Billy, Billy's dad, Billy's coach or Billy's school's rival's coach.

Reliable objective information is what a "good" recruiting story should have. That information is best obtained through the kid, or whomever is closest to the kid.

 

I realize you need to get those type of quotes from the parent, coach or kid ... it just bothers me when I see quotes about how good he/she will be from those same people.

I'm not saying those people shouldn't be quoted -- just that those type of quotes probably shouldn't be used.