Irish Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 So the entire discussion is over an average of about 2 kids per recruiting year from North Dakota and 1 from South Dakota. The other part of the discussion should be, as siouxperseven brings up, is how much playing time are those recruits getting. Are they all getting significant time, part of them getting significant time, just roster filler? Not exactly - I get the fact that the Bison may be a bigger recruiting draw right now for local kids - What I don't like is the loss of good will that seems to be happening because of this coaching staff. I think we are losing some of our fan presence in many areas of North Dakota because of the attitude of our coaches. That, I think, is a big deal and will be noticable in the future unless we wake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Not exactly - I get the fact that the Bison may be a bigger recruiting draw right now for local kids - What I don't like is the loss of good will that seems to be happening because of this coaching staff. I think we are losing some of our fan presence in many areas of North Dakota because of the attitude of our coaches. That, I think, is a big deal and will be noticable in the future unless we wake up. I have no idea what the relationships are like between UND coaches and area high school coaches. And I doubt that most of the posters here actually know from first hand experience. I'm not overly concerned about it long term. Kids pick schools for a lot of different reasons. What high school coaches think about UND coaches will only be one part of the equation and the high school coaches would be doing a disservice to their students if they boycotted a college because of personal reasons. The relationship between the kid and the recruiting coach is a much bigger factor. Most of the fans that have swayed to supporting NDSU are fair weather fan types that will sway back to UND when UND is up and NDSU is down. Long term, performance on the field by UND will be much more important to both recruiting and fan support than how well the UND coaches get along with high school coaches. We've seen this cycle through more than once over the past 50 years as both NDSU and UND's fortunes rise and fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-FB-FAN Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I have no idea what the relationships are like between UND coaches and area high school coaches. And I doubt that most of the posters here actually know from first hand experience. I'm not overly concerned about it long term. Kids pick schools for a lot of different reasons. What high school coaches think about UND coaches will only be one part of the equation and the high school coaches would be doing a disservice to their students if they boycotted a college because of personal reasons. The relationship between the kid and the recruiting coach is a much bigger factor. Most of the fans that have swayed to supporting NDSU are fair weather fan types that will sway back to UND when UND is up and NDSU is down. Long term, performance on the field by UND will be much more important to both recruiting and fan support than how well the UND coaches get along with high school coaches. We've seen this cycle through more than once over the past 50 years as both NDSU and UND's fortunes rise and fall. I agree. In order to get top recruits, including those from North Dakota, UND needs to consistently win. In order for that to happen with the current mediocre talent on this roster, we need good coaching. For that, we need to relieve this current staff of their duties at the conclusion of this season and hire a proven winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bidago Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 so what came first, the chicken or the egg? have to win to get recruits, have to have good recruits to win. internal ability to develop good players into a defined, organized, disciplined program seems to be a possible missing link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSIOUXFAN1 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 so what came first, the chicken or the egg? have to win to get recruits, have to have good recruits to win. internal ability to develop good players into a defined, organized, disciplined program seems to be a possible missing link? Recruits come 1st. The best coaches in the world couldn't teach someone to run a 4.3 40, to have a 35 inch vertical jump. Long term successful programs are built by bringing in the best talent possible (that fit your scheme) and developing those players over their 4-5 years in the program. If you honestly think Nick Saben and his entire staff could come to UND and win a national championship with the current players, you are seriously mistaken. Great coaches only look great because of the talent around them (players and asst. coaches). I am sure many will want to argue this with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Recruits come 1st. The best coaches in the world couldn't teach someone to run a 4.3 40, to have a 35 inch vertical jump. Long term successful programs are built by bringing in the best talent possible (that fit your scheme) and developing those players over their 4-5 years in the program. If you honestly think Nick Saben and his entire staff could come to UND and win a national championship with the current players, you are seriously mistaken. Great coaches only look great because of the talent around them (players and asst. coaches). I am sure many will want to argue this with me. They wouldn't win a national championship, but they'd make the playoffs and would never be blown out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-FB-FAN Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Recruits come 1st. The best coaches in the world couldn't teach someone to run a 4.3 40, to have a 35 inch vertical jump. Long term successful programs are built by bringing in the best talent possible (that fit your scheme) and developing those players over their 4-5 years in the program. If you honestly think Nick Saben and his entire staff could come to UND and win a national championship with the current players, you are seriously mistaken. Great coaches only look great because of the talent around them (players and asst. coaches). I am sure many will want to argue this with me. I certainly agree talent is very important to winning games - I mean, it's hard not to agree with that. However, teaching discipline along with a quality regiment that includes training and technique is also very important. Coaches are the ones who put the players in the best possible position to succeed. Without quality coaches, you can't develop talented players into winners. You hear it all the time; there's a difference between being talented and just being a winner. I'll take a winner each and every time. Without good coaches, you're not gonna get that disciplined, hard working winner because they wouldn't be in the best possible position to succeed. UND is never gonna get more talented recruits than Montana, Montana State, and even North Dakota State unless they consistently win. So how do they start consistently winning? By turning the players they can get into winners. That starts with the coaches teaching discipline and technique, putting the players in the best position possible, and exuberating confidence. Coaches cannot win games, but they can lose them. In summary, the winning coaches are the ones who can best motivate their players and put them in the best possible position to succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Recruits come 1st. The best coaches in the world couldn't teach someone to run a 4.3 40, to have a 35 inch vertical jump. Long term successful programs are built by bringing in the best talent possible (that fit your scheme) and developing those players over their 4-5 years in the program. If you honestly think Nick Saben and his entire staff could come to UND and win a national championship with the current players, you are seriously mistaken. Great coaches only look great because of the talent around them (players and asst. coaches). I am sure many will want to argue this with me. I agree that great coaches look great because THEY assemble talent both in coaches and players. That is their responsibility as head coach. However, I believe that it is also true that a poor coach could screw up a talented team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSIOUXFAN1 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I agree that great coaches look great because THEY assemble talent both in coaches and players. That is their responsibility as head coach. However, I believe that it is also true that a poor coach could screw up a talented team. Isn't that a given? I am sure a blind driver would crash a race car too. I understand that people like to play devils advocate, but the fact is that you can't win without talent. The "best" coaches in college athletics are also great recruiters. They have the ability to bring in solid talent across the board, but also have the knack for pulling those 1 or 2 special athletes away from someone else. They don't have a magic play or formation that nobody else knows, because most coaches at this level are extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of the game. But then there are a few coaches that have so much passion for the game, their school, team and "the dream", that they can sell it, assemble it and build it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Isn't that a given? I am sure a blind driver would crash a race car too. I understand that people like to play devils advocate, but the fact is that you can't win without talent. The "best" coaches in college athletics are also great recruiters. They have the ability to bring in solid talent across the board, but also have the knack for pulling those 1 or 2 special athletes away from someone else. They don't have a magic play or formation that nobody else knows, because most coaches at this level are extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of the game. But then there are a few coaches that have so much passion for the game, their school, team and "the dream", that they can sell it, assemble it and build it. Tim Brewster begs to differ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSIOUXFAN1 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I would like to know how Brewster fits into this? He recruited very few quality players that made any impact and many that shouldn't have been playing in the Big 10. His practices looked like chaos, players didn't listen and it showed on the field. I felt bad for the players that Mason had recruited, to have to deal with possibly the worst Head Coach EVER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I would like to know how Brewster fits into this? He recruited very few quality players that made any impact and many that shouldn't have been playing in the Big 10. His practices looked like chaos, players didn't listen and it showed on the field. I felt bad for the players that Mason had recruited, to have to deal with possibly the worst Head Coach EVER. Brewster was a very good recruiter. His 2008 class was a top 15-20 nationally depending on which rankings you look at. There is also a reason he is currently the recruiting coordinator at Florida State. The guy can get people to buy in, but can't execute the X's and O's. Need both and I think the coaching part is more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperman8 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 The other problem Brewster had was the kids he brought in couldn't stay elibible. I heard through a person close to the UM program that he got kids into school with ACT scores of 10 and 11. None of them lasted very long and almost all of them were gone within 2-3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Brewster was a very good recruiter. His 2008 class was a top 15-20 nationally depending on which rankings you look at. There is also a reason he is currently the recruiting coordinator at Florida State. The guy can get people to buy in, but can't execute the X's and O's. Need both and I think the coaching part is more important. I disagree that Brewster was a good recruiter. He's a great talker but nothing else. If he a great recruiter why is Kill losing all his B1G games? Have you seen MN play? Very few good fb players. Brewster went south with his recruiting and didn't recruit MN very hard and it shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I disagree that Brewster was a good recruiter. He's a great talker but nothing else. If he a great recruiter why is Kill losing all his B1G games? Have you seen MN play? Very few good fb players. Brewster went south with his recruiting and didn't recruit MN very hard and it shows. He got talented kids to UM. I'm not sure how you can say he didn't when he had a top 15-20 recruiting class at UM. As a few others have said, a portion of them ended up not being eligible or leaving and he was not a good head coach and didn't know how to use the players he had (or at least those that actually saw the field). I don't think it was the talent that Brewster had, it was that he didn't know how to use it. And yes, he is a great talker. You don't think that plays a large part into being a good recruiter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 He got talented kids to UM. I'm not sure how you can say he didn't when he had a top 15-20 recruiting class at UM. As a few others have said, a portion of them ended up not being eligible or leaving and he was not a good head coach and didn't know how to use the players he had (or at least those that actually saw the field). I don't think it was the talent that Brewster had, it was that he didn't know how to use it. And yes, he is a great talker. You don't think that plays a large part into being a good recruiter? I wouldn't put much stock in a rating of any recruiting class. I guess we agree to disagress, but I wish Brewster was still there as we got some of our best recruiting classes when he was the MN head coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSIOUXFAN1 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 If you think Brewster was/is a good recruiter, you are obviously WAY out of touch with reality. Being a recruiter for Texas or Florida is a job that very few could fail at since the largest volume of D-1 players come from those 2 states. As far as being a head coach, he had absolutely no clue what he was doing! Not only did he lose to NDSU and USD, but got embarrassed by nearly every team he faced. Mason left him a reasonable group that had been to bowl games and he proceeded to wreck that so badly it will take 4-5 years to rebuild the program. Oh, by the way, bringing in recruits that can't stay eligible does not make you a good recruiter, it makes you a idiot. Do you honestly think a kid that can't get better than a 10 on his ACT is going to study a playbook or comprehend schemes and then execute? Also, "ratings" of recruiting classes are very skewed from reality. Coaches are trying to bring in players that fit into the teams offense or defense, they aren't really too worried about someones "star rating". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 If you think Brewster was/is a good recruiter, you are obviously WAY out of touch with reality. Being a recruiter for Texas or Florida is a job that very few could fail at since the largest volume of D-1 players come from those 2 states. As far as being a head coach, he had absolutely no clue what he was doing! Not only did he lose to NDSU and USD, but got embarrassed by nearly every team he faced. Mason left him a reasonable group that had been to bowl games and he proceeded to wreck that so badly it will take 4-5 years to rebuild the program. Oh, by the way, bringing in recruits that can't stay eligible does not make you a good recruiter, it makes you a idiot. Do you honestly think a kid that can't get better than a 10 on his ACT is going to study a playbook or comprehend schemes and then execute? Also, "ratings" of recruiting classes are very skewed from reality. Coaches are trying to bring in players that fit into the teams offense or defense, they aren't really too worried about someones "star rating". I don't put a ton of stock in the ranking of recruiting classes but that is about all there is to measure and when all the recruiting services seem to concur that he had a great class, it is tough to argue. I guess your view of it is more accurate somehow? He wasn't successful because he was a bad coach and couldn't get anything out of those kids and/or keep them on the field or at the school, not because he couldn't bring talent in. Watching how he handled MarQueis Gray (who was the #3 QB recruit in the nation) should be proof enough that is was his coaching, not the recruiting, that was his issue. And all schools take chances on kids with low ACT scores/grades and hope they turn it around when they get to college, from the top of the FBS all through the college ranks. You're an idiot if you don't. There are examples on rosters across the country of players who got a chance to turn it around and did. A couple of the best players down at NDSU are good examples of this. Even if he was a bad recruiter, his teams still had more talent than NDSU or USD did when they lost to them. Why do you think he lost those games? Bad coaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSIOUXFAN1 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I don't put a ton of stock in the ranking of recruiting classes but that is about all there is to measure and when all the recruiting services seem to concur that he had a great class, it is tough to argue. I guess your view of it is more accurate somehow? He wasn't successful because he was a bad coach and couldn't get anything out of those kids and/or keep them on the field or at the school, not because he couldn't bring talent in. Watching how he handled MarQueis Gray (who was the #3 QB recruit in the nation) should be proof enough that is was his coaching, not the recruiting, that was his issue. And all schools take chances on kids with low ACT scores/grades and hope they turn it around when they get to college, from the top of the FBS all through the college ranks. You or the recruiting services obviously never saw MarQueis throw a football. Don't get me wrong, he is a very good athlete, but if he was a great QB, he wouldn't be playing TE in the NFL. By the way, wasn't it MarQuieis that lost his starting job to a true FR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 You or the recruiting services obviously never saw MarQueis throw a football. Don't get me wrong, he is a very good athlete, but if he was a great QB, he wouldn't be playing TE in the NFL. By the way, wasn't it MarQuieis that lost his starting job to a true FR? Big difference between a good college QB and a good NFL QB. With that much talent, he should have been on the field in some way, shape or form. Brewster got him there and didn't know how to use him. Again, bad coaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I don't put a ton of stock in the ranking of recruiting classes but that is about all there is to measure and when all the recruiting services seem to concur that he had a great class, it is tough to argue. I guess your view of it is more accurate somehow? He wasn't successful because he was a bad coach and couldn't get anything out of those kids and/or keep them on the field or at the school, not because he couldn't bring talent in. Watching how he handled MarQueis Gray (who was the #3 QB recruit in the nation) should be proof enough that is was his coaching, not the recruiting, that was his issue. And all schools take chances on kids with low ACT scores/grades and hope they turn it around when they get to college, from the top of the FBS all through the college ranks. You're an idiot if you don't. There are examples on rosters across the country of players who got a chance to turn it around and did. A couple of the best players down at NDSU are good examples of this. Even if he was a bad recruiter, his teams still had more talent than NDSU or USD did when they lost to them. Why do you think he lost those games? Bad coaching. Really name some players that were better? Hell no one on their D could catch Roehl when we played them and he was a full back the year before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Really name some players that were better? Hell no one on their D could catch Roehl when we played them and he was a full back the year before. Eric Decker, Dom Barber and Marcus Sherels come to mind right off the top of my head. I said the UM had more talent, I didn't say they were a better team. Which is exactly my point, Brewster isn't a good head coach. There are multiple articles/sources/sites that back up the thought that Brewster is a good recruiter. Would you like a different example? Lane Kiffin. Good recruiter, not much of a coach though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Hell no one on their D could catch Roehl when we played them and he was a full back the year before. And why would that matter. He was an athlete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 And why would that matter. He was an athlete. So you think it's no big deal that on one on a B1G defense can't out run a ex. full back from the FCS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewUNDAlum Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Yes, recruiting is very important in making a winner. However, I would argue that player development is even more important than recruitment. Why? Because at this time we don't have a shot at getting the guys we want like NDSU does. We have to go a different route and get a coach that can truly develop talent and make his players perform at a higher level than their recruitment would suggest. I see it going in this order: 1. Recruit the best we can get (not very good at the moment) 2. Develop those players 3. Start to compete and win 4. Get the attention of better recruits 5. Start to win more 6. Now your in a position to start recruiting the athletes we truly want What we currently have: 1. Recruit the best we can get (not very good at the moment) 2. Poor player development 3. Lose 4. Off top recruits radar, continue to get lesser talent 5. Poor player development 6. Lose and the cycle continues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.