GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Even by your standards this is some fine rambling with plenty of statements of fact that lack the fact part. Throw in some grand false dichotomies, a heap of impatience and freak out, add a pinch of delusion of grandeur (comparing us to Michigan? Really?) and serve with a side of hot air. Bon apatite.
Agree, and this is an obvious detail that some are missing.Coach Kill always intended to recruit highly ranked players as is evidenced by the offer sheet we already know about.
First off, how is this waiting to do a post mortum after the season? You're doing it right now and unless you have some interview info that no one else has you're doing it with pure conjecture. You also ignore a host of other factors that come into play. Like, previous relationships with the player. Many of the guys Kill is recruiting are guys he never interacted with before. And he's going against teams that have been showing interest for a lot longer/interacting for a lot longer. Could that be playing a factor? Or is the ONLY possible explanation "salesmanship"?We are losing out for one reason and one reason alone -- salesmanship.
This seems like a good point, but it isn't clear that it's relevant to his current situation.They did not have to sell at SIU because they could develop the players into something that would win at that level.
This is clearly false, even within the B1G (1990's Northwestern would like to talk to you). Having the top level talent makes it much more likely, but it is not a required element. You don't have to have OSU's roster to win the B1G.We will NEVER enter the top tier without top talent. 4 years is an insufficient time frame to develop top talent for a run at a championship -- any championship that Minnesota competes for.
Are you kidding me? Did you just posit that it is impossible to win without top talent and then go on to say "if you take lower level talent and really get it to a championship caliber in 4 years you have two disastrous realities to overcome." Wha??? You just said it couldn't be done! Why are you talking about it then?If you take lower level talent and really get it to a championship caliber in 4 years you have two disastrous realities to overcome.
Assuming this is true (where you get the 50% number I have no idea) could you be bothered to explain why this is a bad thing? In the scenario you note this development style would have just gottent the team to a B1G title game.One, half of the team will always be in development at any given year.
Then you go on to claim that academic training will get sacrificed. Do you have anything, anything at all to back this up? And how would this not be true of a team with top tier athletes? Last time I checked many schools with star football players had problems with their team academics.Two, academic training will get sacrificed for the time sacrifice of athletics. It is very difficult to be a champion at two things simultaneously without major sacrifices. These are undeniable truths.
What does time or manpower have to do with this? We have the same amount of recruiting time as every other team and have the same amount of manpower (at least when it comes to assistant coaches who do the bulk of the recruitment).Kill is losing the war for 4 star athletes now and other schools are already loading up on them. Relationship selling is great if you have 10 years to do it and build a rapport with hundreds of high schools. But, we don't have the recruiting time or manpower to sustain those.
So this is why all schools do a great job of recruiting in all 50 states right? I mean, if any coach can walk into a state/region and all they need is information wouldn't this be true? Or could it be that a familiarity with a region is a help in recruiting there? And wouldn't have a relationship with coaches/leaders in an area mean you are a known quantity and thus not a complete enigma to the new HS coaches when they come in?25 years in the business suggests to me major turnover of staffing at high schools and new relationships to build and by God every college coach of the DI level has established similar relationships, and sometimes with the same coaches as Jerry Kill. These relationships are only good for information and not closing the sale. The only benefit of relationship management is information, which will most likely get shared with any interested coach, and not just those with the best relationships. A good coaching relationship is good to have but not a necessary component of good recruiting.
Right now there is zero evidence that salesmanship is the reason they haven't signed these guys. But feel free to state it like its a fact.The other approach, cold calling, is in general the opening of relationship management and that can land you just as many prospects and signees as not having an existing relationship. In that light, any 4 or 5 star athlete should almost automatically get targeted and the battle joined for their heart and soul. Jerry Kill and staff need to overcome objections by targeted athletes like any solid salesman knows how to do. This takes substantial preparation and must be executed flawlessly by the recruiter. Right now, there is zero evidence that there is this preparation to recruit because we are landing a disproportionately minor share of these athletes. Offers have been made and no movement has occurred.
First, great false dichotomy. Second, if Kill going to Wharton would make you happier then you are an idiot.I would be happier to learn that the coaching staff went to a short course at the Wharton School for sales development than another round of chit chatting it up with Patterson or Peterson.
This is a great made up number. I think you are 97% full of BS. See, I can do it too! Also, we're back to you making factual claims with nothing to back them up. Your opinion is that he can't relate.We are losing recruits because Jerry's natural style does not work with 75% of athletes. It fits the 1/4 that share his style. Jerry needs to understand who that student is within 30 seconds of the first conversation or the battle is lost.
Ok, now you are just getting asinine. First, consistent message is a good thing. Changing the message doesn't suggests you don't believe in it and are telling people what they want to hear. It's possible you're trying to say that he should be tailoring his message to his audience (i.e. delivering the same message in different ways)/ If so, I'd agree...to a point. Tailoring a message to RW, Owatonna, Faribault, DL, Duluth, Minneapolis, etc is taking it a bit far. If you think coaches across the country are tailoring their "rah rah" speeches community by community on a regular basis then I think you need your head examined.From what I have heard of Jerry Kill, he is unwilling to actually change his style to meet his audience. By speaking the same message to every single audience the same message with the same lines, suggests a lack of ground work and preparation. Red Wing has a different culture than does Owatonna than does Minneapolis.
Do you have proof that he doesn't? Can you show examples of a successful school that has exactly what you are talking about? Or are you just painting opinion as fact for the 100th time?Kill needs an assistant who understands selling and marketing and the psychology of good selling. His guy from NIU may be a great guy, but he has targeted the same pony with the same problems as at NIU.
What the hell did any of this mean? Word salads are tasty.We are a different U with greater selling points than NIU and the message isn't generating any more interest than the "great recruiter" who didn't out recruit anybody.
Because you get such a large sample size in just a few months. Also, I'm glad to know national signing day was yesterday and we missed out on all of our targets for this year already.We can already see that many recruits enjoyed talking with him, but never connected to committing to the U.
Some of what you put here is very true of sales (I recall several of these points from my own time in sales). So good for you on telling the world about selling stuff. Now can you show me the coaches who are getting recruits to verbal after their first visit with them the majority of the time? Because I seem to recall most high level players taking time to weigh their options.Successful sales people get most of their sales on the first visit and not later visits, unless the client is risk averse and needs greater time to make up their mind. The first thing to identify in the first 30 seconds is the student athlete the decision maker. What style of decision making does he prefer? Am I mirroring his style? What is his real need in this decision? There are statements and questions that can get this information quickly and easily.
When did we become the equal with Michigan? Do we have some B1G titles in the last 40 years that have been hidden from me?The current benchmark is this years Michigan team recruiting. 3 and 4 stars across the board and a superior number to ours.
Probably and likely based on history. Impossible to tell based on a nowhere near complete recruiting class.4 years from now, Michigan will have a stronger team than Minnesota.
Possible reasons for concern are out there right now. Failure requires actually failing. Which we haven't done yet.The indicators of our failure are there right now.
More word salad. Can you please pass the dressing?February we might look better, but then so will all the other also rans in the B1G.