|
Post by notpriddy (COIF) on Dec 19, 2021 6:10:21 GMT -5
How much does coaching come into the equation for winning it all?
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Dec 19, 2021 6:29:55 GMT -5
How much does coaching come into the equation for winning it all? Quite a bit, I think. Louisville was the top seed and came very close to the final without a ton of top recruits coming out of high school. Kentucky had some top 10 recruits but also some in the top 20-40 range in its title team. Obviously, top recruits help, but you also have to develop them and form a cohesive whole.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Dec 19, 2021 8:00:11 GMT -5
You cant coach 6'7", 6'8", or 6'9"... Georgia Tech, Louisville & Pitt showed that a well-trained team can get you to the mountain... but you need some special recruiting to take you all the way to the promised land
|
|
|
Post by milkmandan on Dec 19, 2021 8:41:08 GMT -5
You cant coach 6'7", 6'8", or 6'9"... Georgia Tech, Louisville & Pitt showed that a well-trained team can get you to the mountain... but you need some special recruiting to take you all the way to the promised land Which is the way it's been in every sport forever. Each championship team is both well coached and has a few elite differencemakers. Wisconsin had the whole package this year. Recruit your butt off, coach your butt off. It all matters.
|
|
|
Post by PostPrime on Dec 19, 2021 8:52:20 GMT -5
I’ve seen some great talent make a poor coach look good. I’ve seen some great coaching make a average team look good. But mostly I’ve seen great talent make anyone look good.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 19, 2021 9:07:18 GMT -5
I’ve seen some great talent make a poor coach look good. I’ve seen some great coaching make a average team look good. But mostly I’ve seen great talent make anyone look good. It is about 95% recruiting and 5% coaching. There are a lot of coaches that could have "coached" the talent on Wisconsin to the championship but there was only one coaching staff that recruited the talent that won the championship.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Dec 19, 2021 9:20:25 GMT -5
The amount of "coaching up" the Nebraska staff did to this team from September until last night shows that coaching is at least half the equation.
Recruiting is key. You can't turn awful players into Dana Rettke. But if you can get your team to buy in, trust the process and believe in themselves and each other, you can coach a team with seven losses into the Final Four.
|
|
|
Post by notpriddy (COIF) on Dec 19, 2021 9:35:11 GMT -5
I think the difference in this year's Wisconsin team was the 6'9" freshman Anna Smrek. 4 years with Dana Rettke could get the Badgers up the mountain. The freshman Smrek put them on top of the mountain.
This recruiting question also comes to mind when I think of Hambly coaching Stanford to two national championships with superior talent. Hambly is a good coach, the players on the Stanford team made him a 'historic' coach.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Dec 19, 2021 9:59:39 GMT -5
I think the difference in this year's Wisconsin team was the 6'9" freshman Anna Smrek. 4 years with Dana Rettke could get the Badgers up the mountain. The freshman Smrek put them on top of the mountain. Mmmmm, I’m gonna go with Orzol as an impact as well… didn’t watch them a lot, but she is so solid all around. That and 5 Sr/Grads! Glad to see it for the Badgers!
|
|
|
Post by vbkahuna on Dec 19, 2021 10:43:48 GMT -5
A much more interesting question is, "Who or what exactly does the recruiting?" The coach? A particular assistant coach? Sure, the head coach is a major factor in finally landing the top recruits. And one or more assistants do the scouting, rating, initial contacts, building the network of club and high school "friendly feeder coaches/contacts". So those are the givens. But that's not all. So saying that a certain coach or staff aren't good recruiters is naive.
Here's "the rest of the story" you can use as a checklist to compare how your team ranks recruiting-wise versus the current recruiting powers (Nebraska, Texas, Stanford) for top talent: 1. Recent NC wins (but at least 1) plus multiple Final Fours/Sweet 16s (bluepenquin could probably build a mathematical table on this, an RPI-Recruiting Power Index). 2. Current team has key player(s) to optimize your performance (setter/libero/etc.), and few(er) at your position so you'll start/play a lot. 3. Team reputation for team culture/personality/acceptance 4. Large, enthusiastic fan base (game attendance/TV/NIL$$) 5. Quality arena/gym/workout/locker facilities 6. University academic/career reputation/grade requirements/future options 7. University location +/- list 8. Closeness to (or enough distance from) parents/family
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Dec 19, 2021 12:44:44 GMT -5
Recruiting is the lifeblood of any collegiate team - does not matter the sport of the level.
|
|
|
Post by vbjustice on Dec 19, 2021 12:49:01 GMT -5
You cant coach 6'7", 6'8", or 6'9"... Georgia Tech, Louisville & Pitt showed that a well-trained team can get you to the mountain... but you need some special recruiting to take you all the way to the promised land smreck improved a ton since her later club years. Those coaches did work on her. They saw the potential.
|
|
|
Post by Pipe Attack on Dec 19, 2021 12:56:15 GMT -5
Yes it is! I like everyone's contributions. But it also highlights why it is now so tough for mid majors to compete with the P5s! They get all the top recruits, and then probably if a coach does well, they might move into a P5 job. It's all about the $$$. The college landscape is definitely interesting though for coaches to manage - with transfer portals, 5th year seniors, etc ...
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Dec 19, 2021 14:29:43 GMT -5
It was more about having 5th year seniors, than anything else. Still don’t agree with the extra year of eligibility but it is what it is.
Look at the roster of the teams that are in the final 4, most teams have at least two 5th year players starting… except of course to the National Champs Wisconsin who had Rettke, Loberg, Hilley, Barnes and Civita - all 5th year seniors.
|
|
|
Post by jackson5vb on Dec 19, 2021 19:19:40 GMT -5
You cant coach 6'7", 6'8", or 6'9"... Georgia Tech, Louisville & Pitt showed that a well-trained team can get you to the mountain... but you need some special recruiting to take you all the way to the promised land So what you're saying is the ACC players are less talented than the B1G players. Is that in terms of physicality or in terms of volleyball IQ coming in as freshmen?
|
|