Wednesday, February 17, 2010


I saw the story about a new recruiting rule that assistant coaches designated as the head coach in waiting are subject to the same recruiting restrictions as head coaches. The most notable restriction is the head coach can make only one in house visit to a recruit.

This has conspiracy written all over it. What evidence was presented to prove that this was a distinct recruiting advantage? What study was done that shows that high school recruits choose a school based on how long the coach will be there? Coaches change schools so fast now that most high school students probably expect a coaching change while they are at their school. Is there evidence that assistant coaches were using the head coach in waiting label as a successful recruiting tactic? Texas and Maryland are the only schools with designated head coaches in waiting. I don't think anyone is worried about Maryland, but Texas is a perennial power. Something tells me that having a head coach in waiting is not what made the Longhorns so good.

I understood that schools used the head coach in waiting designation as an attempt to secure a good assistant coach, but that coach is still free to leave and coach another school. Do the contracts for these assistant coaches penalize them if they leave to coach another school?

Texas and Maryland have united to fight this case and they will use ex post facto laws to defend themselves. I think on those grounds alone they will win. I think the rule could get wipped out of the books if someone demands answers to the questions I just asked, because I don't think the evidence exists to support such a rule.

No comments:

Post a Comment