PalmettoHawkFan
Well-Known Member
Well that is pretty much 100% wrong. By that logic any player that commits is a gain, so if you never recruited anyone you would have no gains, no loses and be neutral, but after doing that for long you wouldn't have a team. To say we didn't get Atwood is a setback to me is silly. It would be nice to have him but it's not setting this team back to Lickliter days, and it doesn't mean Fran can't recruit. Atwood just preferred ASU.
You've never seen a head coach in his office after a priority recruit goes elsewhere, have you?
For a coaching staff, getting a desired player to commit is a gain -- the player may not pan out, which is a different issue, but if you target a guy and you get a guy, you're happy about that (I've been around two D1 athletic programs, and every time a priority recruit was signed, it was seen as a gain; every time they missed out on someone they wanted or needed, there were negative rumblings -- and this was in non-revenue sports, not basketball and football where the egos and the stakes are greater). Conversely, when you lose a guy you needed/wanted, that's a loss. If there is a pattern with one staff member, s/he gets the message.
I never argued it was a regression to Lick or that Fran can't recruit. They lost a guy that filled an immediate need, and that they were all in on. When that happens, that's a recruiting loss.