Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 13:10:25 GMT -5
I've got nothing against people deciding that some sport is their chosen profession. It's just that college isn't really the right place to learn it. Nothing is stopping USA kids from signing up with a pro team somewhere rather than going to college (except, I guess, quotas for foreign players). And that coach you mentioned is nowhere near the first coach to be more interested in optimizing their own team than in training up players for somebody else's team. I mean, every minor league baseball coach knows his real job is to train his players for the next level, but typically he's also working for the MLB club himself. There's no conflict of interest there. But a college coach gets paid according to how much the college team wins, so what do you expect? In the long run it can work out if, for instance, you get a reputation for training up future pro athletes. That's got to make it easier to recruit. But at most schools, developing great pro athletes isn't going to earn you a penny from your AD, while winning at the college level will. Yeah, I agree with the majority of this. John Calipari is a good example of a coach who uses his history of coaching future NBA players to his advantage. But as you indicate, he's using it as a recruiting tool. He could have the top five picks in the NBA draft every year, but he's still going to get fired if they flame out in the second round of the NCAA Tournament each season ( especially in that case, since they have so much talent). His job isn't really to train future pros. His job is to win SEC titles, be ranked high in the polls, regularly go to the Final Four, and win national championships. But having future pros on his team makes it more likely to accomplish the goals that his employers actually judge success on. They wouldn't care if he had zero NBA players, as long as they still won. How would it harm a coach's win % to bring in some former/current pros to give their insights on playing pro to current collegiate athletes at a school? The NBA is a poor example. I'm talking about players going overseas with literally no idea of the situation they're walking into. MBH actually quit playing VB after her first pro experience in PR. She went into coaching for a year.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 17, 2020 13:18:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with the majority of this. John Calipari is a good example of a coach who uses his history of coaching future NBA players to his advantage. But as you indicate, he's using it as a recruiting tool. He could have the top five picks in the NBA draft every year, but he's still going to get fired if they flame out in the second round of the NCAA Tournament each season ( especially in that case, since they have so much talent). His job isn't really to train future pros. His job is to win SEC titles, be ranked high in the polls, regularly go to the Final Four, and win national championships. But having future pros on his team makes it more likely to accomplish the goals that his employers actually judge success on. They wouldn't care if he had zero NBA players, as long as they still won. How would it harm a coach's win % to bring in some former/current pros to give their insights on playing pro to current collegiate athletes at a school? The NBA is a poor example. I'm talking about players going overseas with literally no idea of the situation they're walking into. MBH actually quit playing VB after her first pro experience in PR. She went into coaching for a year. Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. How many college players go pro in the first place? I don't know what the stats are for volleyball, but judging by other sports, we're talking single digit percentages and likely low single digits.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Apr 17, 2020 13:20:10 GMT -5
You know you described hentz She's not yet strong enough in SR (Lake is currently better) and we know that Karch requires great ball control first and foremost. Hentz's greatest strength is her floor coverage (32% of all defensive touches for Stanford this year) but that's just not as important at the Olympic level when there are other fantastic athletes. I'm not saying she can't be a great Libero, but she has to refine her game. I actually completely agree. As long as Karch is the head coach our USA Libero will be whoever SR's the best. I still think Hill is our OH1 so whoever loses that battles Larson/Robo I could see being the Lib. I was commenting on the fact libro said if we have Larson/Robo on the OH a defensive libero would pair well with them.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 17, 2020 13:22:17 GMT -5
How would it harm a coach's win % to bring in some former/current pros to give their insights on playing pro to current collegiate athletes at a school? The NBA is a poor example. I'm talking about players going overseas with literally no idea of the situation they're walking into. MBH actually quit playing VB after her first pro experience in PR. She went into coaching for a year. Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of former pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. What are the significant differences in training that you'd see from a coach if it was? Playing with a different ball? But wait, FIVB just switched the ball so all of that would've been for naught. What else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 13:32:14 GMT -5
How would it harm a coach's win % to bring in some former/current pros to give their insights on playing pro to current collegiate athletes at a school? The NBA is a poor example. I'm talking about players going overseas with literally no idea of the situation they're walking into. MBH actually quit playing VB after her first pro experience in PR. She went into coaching for a year. Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of former pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. How many college players go pro in the first place? I don't know what the stats are for volleyball, but judging by other sports, we're talking single digits and likely low single digits. Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes in their final season that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo?
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 17, 2020 13:32:23 GMT -5
Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of former pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. What are the significant differences in training that you'd see from a coach if it was? Playing with a different ball? But wait, FIVB just switched the ball so all of that would've been for naught. What else? The different ball is waaaaaaaaaaay overblown. Players at that level adjust pretty fast. It’s not like it’s a different shape.
|
|
|
Post by eazy on Apr 17, 2020 14:14:37 GMT -5
How would it harm a coach's win % to bring in some former/current pros to give their insights on playing pro to current collegiate athletes at a school? The NBA is a poor example. I'm talking about players going overseas with literally no idea of the situation they're walking into. MBH actually quit playing VB after her first pro experience in PR. She went into coaching for a year. Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. How many college players go pro in the first place? I don't know what the stats are for volleyball, but judging by other sports, we're talking single digit percentages and likely low single digits. Is there one primary job? Some might say winning. Some might say preparing their student athletes to be the best people they can be. So many college coaches talk about preparing their players for the rest of their lives. That should not only apply to future doctors, lawyers, etc. If a player expressed an interest in coaching after college, their coach should help set them up for success there. If they expressed an interest in playing professionally, their coach should help set them up for success there.
|
|
|
Post by cbrown1709 on Apr 17, 2020 14:17:36 GMT -5
Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of former pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. How many college players go pro in the first place? I don't know what the stats are for volleyball, but judging by other sports, we're talking single digits and likely low single digits. Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes in their final season that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo? Do you think if we had a professional league here, the coaches would eventually change their sales pitch?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 17, 2020 14:20:36 GMT -5
Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. How many college players go pro in the first place? I don't know what the stats are for volleyball, but judging by other sports, we're talking single digit percentages and likely low single digits. Is there one primary job? Some might say winning. Some might say preparing their student athletes to be the best people they can be. So many college coaches talk about preparing their players for the rest of their lives. That should not only apply to future doctors, lawyers, etc. If a player expressed an interest in coaching after college, their coach should help set them up for success there. If they expressed an interest in playing professionally, their coach should help set them up for success there. Yes, there is one primary job, and it's naive to think that there isn't. "Primary job" ≠ "only job." I agree that the coach should also help the player with their future after college, as well as their non-volleyball life during college. But that doesn't change the fact that they have a primary job.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Apr 17, 2020 14:20:42 GMT -5
I do not see many coaches changing their pitch. Even if a league was in place. How many teams would we be talking about...12 maybe?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 17, 2020 14:20:46 GMT -5
Respectfully, I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with that I said. There's nothing wrong with bringing in pros to talk to your team, and I don't think I ever suggested that there was (again, if you happen to have a bunch of former pros who are alumni, that's an excellent recruiting tool). You just have to realize that the job of college coaches is not primarily to train players for pro careers. It just isn't. How many college players go pro in the first place? I don't know what the stats are for volleyball, but judging by other sports, we're talking single digits and likely low single digits. Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo? Okay, I understand what you're saying about Calipari. Personally, I think he's "focused on helping the players" because that helps him recruit and go to the Final Four, but perhaps I'm too cynical (Calipari is a very good coach and an incredible recruiter/salesman, but he's never struck me as a selfless individual). My main point was that it wouldn't matter how many pros Kentucky had on its roster if they got bounced in the second round every year, and it wouldn't matter if they had zero NBA players if they were making deep tournament runs every year. Calipari's success or failure is judged by how Kentucky basketball performs at the NCAA level. Obviously, winning is correlated to some degree with talent, so it makes sense that he'd recruit as many top prospects as he can. I will be interested to see how he and others adapt now that the NBA has increased its G-League compensation for top prospects to $500K. That's interesting what you describe about the dynamics of volleyball recruiting. I suspect that, "You can play for your country at the Olympics," is a more attractive recruiting pitch than, "You may be able to play pro in Europe," to many US recruits, but perhaps coaches should use both. It's a lot easier for basketball, baseball, football, and hockey coaches to talk about the pros because the top pro leagues are all based in the US, unlike volleyball. Also, without the college system, some current pros probably never would have made it. Jordan Thompson was the No. 44 recruit in her class. I doubt she was on many pro clubs' radar when she was in high school, but she had two of the best statistical seasons ever as a junior and senior in college.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 14:23:28 GMT -5
Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes in their final season that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo? Do you think if we had a professional league here, the coaches would eventually change their sales pitch? Yes, very much so. I think the fact that is a big part of it: out of sight out of mind. If players, coaches and parents had visible examples of pro volleyball in U.S. sports culture, it'd make it much easier to help the athletes achieve those objectives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 14:26:49 GMT -5
Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo? Okay, I understand what you're saying about Calipari. Personally, I think he's "focused on helping the players" because that helps him recruit and go to the Final Four, but perhaps I'm too cynical (Calipari is a very good coach and an incredible recruiter/salesman, but he's never struck me as a selfless individual). My main point was that it wouldn't matter how many pros Kentucky had on its roster if they got bounced in the second round every year, and it wouldn't matter if they had zero NBA players if they were making deep tournament runs every year. Calipari's success or failure is judged by how Kentucky basketball performs at the NCAA level. Obviously, winning is correlated to some degree with talent, so it makes sense that he'd recruit as many top prospects as he can. I will be interested to see how he and others adapt now that the NBA has increased its G-League compensation for top prospects to $500K. That's interesting what you describe about the dynamics of volleyball recruiting. I suspect that, "You can play for your country at the Olympics," is a more attractive recruiting pitch than, "You may be able to play pro in Europe," to many US recruits, but perhaps coaches should use both. It's a lot easier for basketball, baseball, football, and hockey coaches to talk about the pros because the top pro leagues are all based in the US, unlike volleyball. Also, without the college system, some current pros probably never would have made it. Jordan Thompson was the No. 44 recruit in her class. I doubt she was on many pro clubs' radar when she was in high school, but she had two of the best statistical seasons ever as a junior and senior in college. Yeah, I am with you on virtually all of this. I guess my angle here is that we'd produce better Olympians if we were producing better professionals and we'd produce better professionals if we actually prepared them for the experience.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Apr 17, 2020 14:28:33 GMT -5
Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes in their final season that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo? Do you think if we had a professional league here, the coaches would eventually change their sales pitch? Yes
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 17, 2020 14:31:13 GMT -5
Well the Coach Cal comparison just isn't a good one. He advocates 1 and done for the players (and their families) to make money. That gives him a recruiting advantage, which helps him win games and reload. But if you hear him talk on the subject (there's an ESPN 30 for 30 on it), I think he's focused on helping the players. In my experience with volleyball recruiting, coaches don't sell players on their record of helping top players go pro. Certain coaches DO emphasize their associations with the USWNT, which is definitely a recruiting edge with some kids/parents, but I've never heard anyone discuss pro prospects. And again, I'm not even talking about it from a recruitment perspective. I mean helping the athletes in their final season that intend to go pro at the end of their collegiate careers. I've seen precious little support for that & I think, with a little more help, we'd get improved results when it translated to the National Team. Sure, it wouldn't directly benefit the college (although having successful alums obviously helps the program) but why does everything with collegiate sports have to be quid pro quo? Do you think if we had a professional league here, the coaches would eventually change their sales pitch? I do think it would help, as I suspect that women's college basketball coaches do talk about the WNBA during recruiting pitches.
|
|