Re: Viewing Tournaments


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ SoCalHoops Womens Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ok on June 28, 2017 at 21:24:21:

In Reply to: Re: Viewing Tournaments posted by pdog on June 28, 2017 at 19:36:55:

: : : : There are multiple issues with switching the model to high school over club.

: : : : First, they can go to viewing tournaments and see many more quality players. For instance, on my daughter's high school team, there are 2 of them that can play at the next level. On her club team, there are 10. Multiply that over many teams and the numbers are obvious that viewing tourneys are a better deal for college coaches.

: : : : Second, most high school coaches are average at best. They don't get paid much. Some are teachers making a little extra cash. Also, if high school becomes the primary recruiting tool, the disparity between public an private schools will only grow larger as they pay their coaches more. And yes, I know there are plenty of clown club coaches, but I know many more competent club coaches than high school coaches.

: : : : Third, how many kids end up playing out of position in high school. Kids forced to play center because they are the tallest, but on their club team they are a 2 or a 3? Or the shooter/scorer that has to play PG on their high school team because they are the best dribbler?

: : : : Also, many high schools, because of lack of talent/height/coaching just sit in simple zones. Good club teams play mostly man, and when they do play zone, it is usually some kind of match-up and/or trapping zone.

: : : : And I know you can find examples on both sides where the above isn't true. But in the majority of cases, viewing environments are better for the colleges.

: : : : What I do agree with is stop rewarding "athletes" and recruit "players". Ideally, you recruit athletic players. But many schools feel they have to recruit what and who everyone else is, then when they don't get players 1-10, they are stuck with players 30-40 because that is what is left. Had they gone after 10-20 initially, they would be better off.

: : :
: : : I agree with #1 above which is the biggest reason D1 coaches prefer to recruit through club ball. Also the level of competition is much higher at the AAU level. College coaches are wary of offering a kid who can score 20 against subpar competition but is unable to get her shot off against higher level players.

: : : #2 is true however club coaches are also mostly terrible even at the big clubs. Most EYBL franchises have 2 teams that they showcase, but the rest of their teams are coached by guys or ladies who are just getting a paycheck. Independent teams are a mixed bag too, with some genuinely good coaches but also some Rec League dads and lots of in between.

: : : Also I disagree with #3. Kids play out of position in club also - someone who might be a natural 1 plays 2 because there's already a good 1 who has the starting spot locked up. Or a natural 4 whose daddy thinks she's a 1 and the coach is willing to indulge. Kids who want to attend college should be versatile, able to play on or off the ball, in the post or out on the perimeter. Learn skills and be able to play multiple offensive and defensive sets. The more you can help a school, the more likely they are to offer you.

: : : So with Athletes vs Players, players might have more value to colleges than raw athletes although some programs prefer one over the other. If you have two kids with the same skills of course you take the one with better length and speed. But rarely is the choice so obvious. Schools don't really recruit "1-10" or "30-40". They are looking for a specific need and they are looking for it 2-3 years ahead of when they need it.

: : : Talking with coaches the story is always the same: they want kids who will come in the door with minimal expectations, willing to work hard and learn, have a passion for the game, stay out of trouble, get good grades, and give 100% when they get an opportunity. They can teach a kid how to correct their jump shot. They can't teach a kid how not to be a head case.

: :
: : We are pretty much on the same page.

: : Of course we are basically talking here about kids with D1 potential. Most kids are not at that level.

: : I have surrounded my kid with quality coaches - regardless of level of team, etc. But good coaches who teach fundamentals and the proper way to play and also some life skills.

: : She happens to be blessed with some size and skill, and hopefully she will reach her goal. But if she does, it will have little to do with high school, and she is on a pretty good high school team. It has everything to do with her club team and coaches who not only help her on the court but off of it.

: : And there are no shoes involved. LOL. We had offers from a couple of the shoe teams, but she didn't like the fit.

: : So, I go back to what I said to OP - find a situation that works best for YOUR daughter - regardless of if it is a shoe team or not. It's better to learn the game and be a better player than wear a certain club's t-shirts.

: Size over 6 feet they will look at. You kid must have grades. Those white girls who pass and move around and have a decent game they will recruit while those atletic players shooting out of control get nothing. My daughter was shunned for her rebounding and defensive mind set until all the letters and coaches talking to her after games. We had parents contacting these coaches and saying there kid was better and mind need more training. The coaches were right about my daughter in college she is a stud and avereage 7 points a game and 13 rebounds and 6 block shots. She is a undersize nightmare !!!!

:Is that so, who's your daughter?




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ SoCalHoops Womens Forum ] [ FAQ ]