• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coaches leaving after signing day discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Drayton did what coaches do, if he said anything that would Affect recruiting negatively ..his reputation in the coaching world be shot. Assistants are not beholden to the player but to the program..I'm not saying it's right just that's the way it is done. I doubt college coaches will criticize this...,they understand this is what is done.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
No I didn't say anything of that sort. I gave three dates after signing day that would cause people to feel differently about the exact same situation: Weber signing with a coach that isn't going to coach him at all.

Obviously he could have chosen Michigan if Drayton broadcasted his aspirations to leave before signing day. Will you now answer my question? Yet again, is that how Drayton should go about his business as a recruiter, warning kids like BKB did above? When is it his obligation to warn recruits that he wants to leave? Is that a smart way to go about his business? Will Urban continue to employ him?

Herman has been on the fast track for a head gig since the day he walked in the door.
Ed has tried to get a head coaching gig the last two offseasons.
Zach Smith is a rising star and will get a big time gig in the near future.
Chris Ash is not here to coach for years. He is here to turn around a top program and land a big time gig elsewhere.

So when should those coaches be warning their recruits about their plans?
Click to expand...
When would I warn kids about a potential move? When that potential move begins right before the kid signs the dotted line and ends right after. So literally only one case of when he should tell him, and this is it. If he has an interview two weeks before signing day and will know (positive or negative), then no need to tell him. If the opportunity came up 2 weeks after signing day, no need to tell him. But clearly he knew about this before, and knew it would be resolved after.

Let's say you have a daughter, and she meets a guy. This guy finds out on Thursday that he MAY have an STD. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. He'll find out Monday. And he has the chance to sleep with your daughter on Saturday night. Now, there's a CHANCE he doesn't have an STD, so what's the harm? I guess using your logic, he's cool not letting her know. I mean, he didn't LIE to her. She didn't ask "do you have an STD?" And she knew that in the business of sleeping with people, STD's happen. So your daughter shouldn't be upset with her life altering decision due to unknown facts. Or perhaps she would decide to go elsewhere if she had this knowledge?
 
Upvote 0
UpNorth_Buckeye said:
When would I warn kids about a potential move? When that potential move begins right before the kid signs the dotted line and ends right after. So literally only one case of when he should tell him, and this is it. If he has an interview two weeks before signing day and will know (positive or negative), then no need to tell him. If the opportunity came up 2 weeks after signing day, no need to tell him. But clearly he knew about this before, and knew it would be resolved after.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but Mike is still going to feel betrayed if Drayton was in final talks to bolt during those last two weeks, regardless of which day he received the formal job offer, including this weekend. Harbaugh and countless local forces were leaning on him to stay home and Drayton was telling him to stay the course with him. I'm sure he's replaying all of those empty words Drayton was uttering, realizing that he was hoping to not follow through on them if the job came through (or already had).

You can either serve the kid - and lose the kid and probably your job, or you can serve your job - and keep the kid and improve your job. It's a giant crap basket but it's a necessity in this profession.
Let's say you have a daughter, and she meets a guy. This guy finds out on Thursday that he MAY have an STD. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. He'll find out Monday. And he has the chance to sleep with your daughter on Saturday night. Now, there's a CHANCE he doesn't have an STD, so what's the harm? I guess using your logic, he's cool not letting her know. I mean, he didn't LIE to her. She didn't ask "do you have an STD?" And she knew that in the business of sleeping with people, STD's happen. So your daughter shouldn't be upset with her life altering decision due to unknown facts.
Click to expand...
What my kid should do has no relevance to what a college coach should do in a ruthless, cutthroat, exploitation crazed profession. My child should be honest, forthright and respectful and be well above board and beyond reproach in much less devastating situations than transmitting STDs. College coaching does not even allow you to be a proper spouse to the only person you are truly committed to during those years. It's a ruthless business and we all lose sight of that most of the time.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
Absolutely not, but you don't make professional decisions based on how it will make people feel.
Click to expand...

Eh, it depends. If making one recruit now makes you lose three with comparable talent later maybe you do. Is coaching not supposedly a relationship-based business? Has OSU not been selling its program as a "family"? Leaving morality aside, it may be really stupid to give high school coaches and future recruits the impression, true or not, that all that stuff is just bullshit. Maybe I'm naive and no harm is done by ignoring feelings in this context: I've got nothing more and will "trust the coaches."
 
Upvote 0
Jagdaddy said:
Eh, it depends. If making one recruit now makes you lose three with comparable talent later maybe you do. Is coaching not supposedly a relationship-based business? Has OSU not been selling its program as a "family"? Leaving morality aside, it may be really stupid to give high school coaches and future recruits the impression, true or not, that all that stuff is just bull[Mark May]. Maybe I'm naive and no harm is done by ignoring feelings in this context: I've got nothing more and will "trust the coaches."
Click to expand...
Eh, you may have a solid rebuttal there, but how do you act out your hypothetical?

Tell the kid last week that Drayton is leaving, watch him go to UM, break your cass tech pipeline, and watch Wilcher still trash your program for leaving Weber at the alter and praising his back for going to a classy program where he can trust the coaches?

Ask Drayton to wait a week or four so that it looks better but the end result is the same for Weber?


It still boils down to whether you choose to serve the kid or your occupation. It may be classless but you're doing yourself and your program a disservice if you opt for class. They could have handled the optics differently.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
The point is you'd lose your job in a heartbeat and probably wouldn't get the next one, especially if all employers talked like college coaches do.

You have tunnel vision for what is right for the kid with little interest in what's right for the occupation. Stan Drayton never gets the OSU gig or any other major job if he's out there warning kids about his hopes to bolt on them.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this at all. I you're not good enough to recruit without being deceitful, then you suck as a recruiter. And he doesn't suck as a recruiter. He can be honest with the kid and then sell the millions of other good reasons why Ohio State is a great fit for him.



*copied from the Weber thread
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
I don't agree with this at all. I you're not good enough to recruit without being deceitful, then you suck as a recruiter. And he doesn't suck as a recruiter. He can be honest with the kid and then sell the millions of other good reasons why Ohio State is a great fit for him.



*copied from the Weber thread
Click to expand...
you're going to suck as a recruiter if your goal is honesty.

Hey Mike, osu is totally awesome, here is why. Also, as always during these convos, don't forget that I had another interview with another team and plan to leave If I get the offer. But seriously, if that falls through, it would be awesome to coach you up until another one does. Obviously I'm trumping things up but there is no way to be honest and successful with that approach.



You could tell him if you are officially gone but he will still feel betrayed.
 
Upvote 0
The Drayton/Weber situation happened at 50 schools this offseason. The only time it is a story is when a butthurt HS HC with an axe to grind can't keep his deceitful mouth shut.

There were a group of people trying to undermine Ohio State in the most deceitful manner possible down the homestretch of the Weber recruitment.

Those same people are the ones raising the most hell right now. They doth protest too much, me thinks.
 
Upvote 0
kujirakira said:
How many of the coaches interviewed for jobs in the last 2 years?
Withers, Fickell, Herman, Drayton, Warriner, Vrabel just off the top of my head. If you need to inform every recruit about every job opening and interview in this career field... you'll be doing it all the time.
This is a non-issue everywhere else.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are understanding what has people upset.

It has nothing to do with anyone interviewing, or accepting, any type of position. That's an understood risk. The issue here is the manner in it was done due to the fact it seems extremely far fetched to say Drayton did not expect to land the job. Informing every recruit of every interview is one thing; informing the guy you've recruited, and his family, on the pitches and promises you've given that family only to take a job most believe he was fully aware he was going to accept is another. Yes this is commonly done but that doesn't make it right or something many of us support.
 
Upvote 0
UpNorth_Buckeye said:
Let's say you have a daughter, and she meets a guy. This guy finds out on Thursday that he MAY have an STD. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. He'll find out Monday. And he has the chance to sleep with your daughter on Saturday night. Now, there's a CHANCE he doesn't have an STD, so what's the harm? I guess using your logic, he's cool not letting her know. I mean, he didn't LIE to her. She didn't ask "do you have an STD?" And she knew that in the business of sleeping with people, STD's happen. So your daughter shouldn't be upset with her life altering decision due to unknown facts. Or perhaps she would decide to go elsewhere if she had this knowledge?
Click to expand...

So now Michael Weber is a girl - our daughter even (you know just to skew the emotional connection) - and Drayton is giving her/him STDs?

homer-jump-shark.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top