Taking a break from the weekly matchup banter for a bit...
With a child in HS, I follow a lot of the local recruiting scene and find myself scratching my head on a lot of what I see. I see a lot of players who pass the eye test but aren't even in the top 5 of production on either side of the ball on their HS team. Yet, they have immense recruiting interest. These are kids who given their natural attributes should be dominating at the HS level and their impact on their HS game is not there.
Do these kids who fit the size mold of what most colleges are looking for all of a sudden turn it on in college? If you look like Tarzan and play like Jane in HS, do these colleges really have success transforming these kids? On the flip side, the kid who is outside the physical mold but produces week in and week out rarely gets through the filter of the cookie cutter D1 mold.
It would be interesting to see an analysis (that probably does not exist) of the college level contributions and attrition rate of the Tarzan/Jane vs. the undersized HS production guy. Who sticks it out 4 years? Who actually ends up being more of an asset to the program? Ultimately in college, would as many of the smaller production guys see the field just as much as your looks great plays not up to his size guys.
My guess is that it is ultimately a numbers game in recruiting. Take our chances with the kids who fit objective size parameters and throw it against the wall and hope we can develop some of them. The kids that don't fit that mold, assume they have reached their potential already and they are what they are.
With a child in HS, I follow a lot of the local recruiting scene and find myself scratching my head on a lot of what I see. I see a lot of players who pass the eye test but aren't even in the top 5 of production on either side of the ball on their HS team. Yet, they have immense recruiting interest. These are kids who given their natural attributes should be dominating at the HS level and their impact on their HS game is not there.
Do these kids who fit the size mold of what most colleges are looking for all of a sudden turn it on in college? If you look like Tarzan and play like Jane in HS, do these colleges really have success transforming these kids? On the flip side, the kid who is outside the physical mold but produces week in and week out rarely gets through the filter of the cookie cutter D1 mold.
It would be interesting to see an analysis (that probably does not exist) of the college level contributions and attrition rate of the Tarzan/Jane vs. the undersized HS production guy. Who sticks it out 4 years? Who actually ends up being more of an asset to the program? Ultimately in college, would as many of the smaller production guys see the field just as much as your looks great plays not up to his size guys.
My guess is that it is ultimately a numbers game in recruiting. Take our chances with the kids who fit objective size parameters and throw it against the wall and hope we can develop some of them. The kids that don't fit that mold, assume they have reached their potential already and they are what they are.