Recruiting or X's and O's?

[slufan13]

I think the answer can differ depending on what school you're at, but I'm curious to what this board thinks is more important at a school like SLU in a conference like the A10? The ability to recruit and bring in the most talented players in the conference or being a strong gameplaner/X's and O's guy?

Also interested in people's reasoning for why they voted the way they did. I lean towards X's and O's but could be swayed

[Dwayne's_World]

I voted X's and O's because for a school like SLU, you need to have a solid coach before you can even begin to pick up better recruits. Still, the reality is that we will only be able to recruit 3 star guys, maybe some 4 stars after having an established tactician.

[Bizziken]

In my opinion if a school can't get elite players they're better off with an Xs and Os coach.

Outside of the Top 100 or so recruits (probably less) they are all relatively similar talent-wise...so, what can you do to separate yourself as a program? Get a superior tactician.

[3star_recruit]

At a high mid major school like SLU, I think you have to be at least an 8/10 coach and a 7/10 recruiter (consistent top 300-500 guys). If you can figure out how to get top 100 recruits to come here, then you only have to be 6/10 on the coaching scale.

[brianstl]

For the most part it is about the Jimmy and Joes and not the X and O's.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Both characteristics are very important, but I think the ability to evaluate and successfully recruit quality talent is most important. Another important factor is the ability to develop that talent and inject chemistry among the recruited players so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Also, at a school like SLU, the charisma and integrity to instill good values into the young men while being an impeccable ambassador for the university is a significant consideration.

[Schasz]

I think the SLU HC to be successful better be able to do both. There is still talented players after the Top 100. We never seem to be in the running for those players so we need a HC who has an eye for the under the radar kids. The the HC must mold and develop the recruits.

I was thinking while watching Wisky last night what a really good job that Bo Ryan did with his team. A friend of mine from MI who follows Sparty said he remembered Kaminsky in his Frosh and Soph years and how he really developed in his last 2 years. Now he should be a NBA 1st rounder. OK I understand the Badgers play in the Big 10 but we need a HC who can recruit kids who have good basketball skills and are very coachable.

[Box and Won]

For the most part it is about the Jimmy and Joes and not the X and O's.

Bros before Os.

[Cowboy]

-imo UB was a good game coach, maybe very good, his downfall was evaluating/recruiting, so using that experience to pick one or the other, i voted recruiting

-obviously there needs to be both, but the question was asked the way it was

[GOSLU68]

in my opinion Romar could recruit but pretty much let the team play and they won some games they should not have.

Recruiting less important if you have a Kwamain point guard or a team enforcer like Conklin or ball thief like Bonner or Jet-someone has to instill the permission to win.

Over the years we have seen some well regarded recruits never get that permission and that leaves everyone flat

[cgeldmacher]

I assume that you are talking about a head coach. That is why I voted for recruiting.

A head coach that is good at Xs and Os, but can't recruit can lean on assistant coaches to recruit. A head coach that can recruit, but isn't the best at Xs and Os can also get assistants that take care of game planning and strategy. To me, the bigger drop off occurs when a head coach relies on assistants to recruit compared to relying on assistants for Xs and Os. For a program to be able to truly recruit the talent necessary to succeed, the head coach has to be the guy who can command a living room.

[thetorch]

The name of the game is evaluating talent.

Its not just recruiting the best athletes or players. It is about recruiting the best players for your system who want to play for you. At our level we have to find guys like Evans and Jett, perfect for our system but underrecruited.

While there are some master tacticians out there, we had one with Majerus. Basketball is still 5 players on each side, trying to get the ball in the basket. The difference between Majerus with talented players and a mediocre coach with talented players can be great, but that difference with poor players is minuscule.

For me it always comes down to evaluating talent and getting the right players for your system, no matter how simple or complex it may be.