Texas Recruiting - WAM Appetizer
Comments
-
LOL you are on such tilt.Tequilla said:
Fuck offFremontTroll said:
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...Tequilla said:If you think you’re going to lecture me on what opportunity cost is you’re insane
People talk about opportunity cost because Dennis talks about it ...
There are parts of what Dennis says that I absolutely agree with in terms of opportunity cost
There are parts where I completely disagree
Opportunity cost is most applicable where you are boundless ... but recruiting is finite
If there are no scholarship limits you recruit everybody in state and then let them earn their spot, flame out, whatever.
But with limits we have to be selective. You have to target the best players possible that fit what it is that you want to do.
Again, the resources spent in Texas really only matter if we are missing on West Coast based players BECAUSE OF the efforts that we are spending in Texas. There is no material effort that that is the case.
Texas at this point is a CapEx investment that we are making for long term benefit. We are getting some short term returns but probably not at a break even versus the effort.
IMO, expanding our geographic footprint is critical if we want to compete nationally long term. You can freely disagree with me on that as we are all entitled to opinions. This is all about supplementing and adding to our recruiting base ... not taking away from it.
The reality is that if you don’t get ahead of trends it’s too late to react when they become obvious
You have 20 guys you are getting every year
The whole point of opportunity cost is maximizing return ... and ideally doing so while minimizing cost
If that’s your plan you focus locally and call it a day
Here’s the thing though, you offer kids like Carson Bruener and they commit immediately. So you better be damn sure that they are the best you can get it or you just limited yourself.
When you know you can flip kids like Bruener, Jaxson Kirkland, and Joe Tryon late in the game, then you’re a fool to take them early if you have higher targets.
Some of you are such fucking lemmings
In your hypo (which is a huge strawman) you are just counting every commit equally in terms of return which makes no fucking sense.
The return is not how many commits we get it is the talent and potential of those commits (best measured vs a replacement-level recruit for you sabermetrics nerds.)
This idea that nobody can prove that we are missing on West Coast kids because of Texas is ridiculous. There is no way to make that connection directly. But you (unlike Ballz) acknowledge that recruiting is a game of limited resources so its common fucking sense that we had to cut time recruiting other kids in order to increase our presence in Texas. There is no way that can't have an effect- we just don't know where the effect occurred because this isn't a fucking simulation. -
If you want idiotic specific and definitive "predictions" on the future based on nothing why dont you spend your time talking to SAC, the resident village idiot that agrees with you.Tequilla said:
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT changeHouhusky said:
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.Tequilla said:
When names are applied in reference to suggesting more times should have been spent recruiting them, then it’s between implied or suggested that spending more time recruiting those players would have changed the outcomeUW_Doog_Bot said:
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.Tequilla said:
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable timednc said:
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...Tequilla said:The question always comes down to what the cost is
The argument against recruiting Texas is that we can be doing better in California. But who in California are we really missing on?
I get all the arguments but the reality is that culture and fit matter a lot to this staff. Those that receive what we are about will gravitate towards us. Those that don’t wont.
Ultimately the key in Texas is gaining traction. Getting a player like Levi is huge. As the Texas players on our roster produce and get to the league our reputation will only further grow there.
Until there’s tangible evidence that our efforts in Texas are wasted, then it’s a worthwhile INVESTMENT for the program to make if they deem that they have the resources to devote to it
Flower by all outward appearances wasn’t interested in us
Ricks is all about the SEC
Milton likewise thought the grass was greener elsewhere
Jordan Banks still is an outstanding item
This idea that you’re going to get everything you target is insanely flawed
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
Also, while debatable obviously to what extent of a return we are having, but we are getting at least some results of Texas.
So if you are wanting me to change course, you better be able to convince me that you are going to replicate what I’m already getting with certainty ... and the reality is you have to convince me that I’m getting a higher return
You're creating a straw-man... a discussion on general strategy cant guarantee an individual recruits results. Are you fucking retarded?
Clear blackeye for TCU
Its a discussion about the efficiency, cost/benefit and opportunity cost you chromosome collecting mongoloid. -
Except that the way that recruiting works is that you really start recruiting kids (regardless of offers) is when they are freshmen/sophomoresFremontTroll said:
LOL you are on such tilt.Tequilla said:
Fuck offFremontTroll said:
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...Tequilla said:If you think you’re going to lecture me on what opportunity cost is you’re insane
People talk about opportunity cost because Dennis talks about it ...
There are parts of what Dennis says that I absolutely agree with in terms of opportunity cost
There are parts where I completely disagree
Opportunity cost is most applicable where you are boundless ... but recruiting is finite
If there are no scholarship limits you recruit everybody in state and then let them earn their spot, flame out, whatever.
But with limits we have to be selective. You have to target the best players possible that fit what it is that you want to do.
Again, the resources spent in Texas really only matter if we are missing on West Coast based players BECAUSE OF the efforts that we are spending in Texas. There is no material effort that that is the case.
Texas at this point is a CapEx investment that we are making for long term benefit. We are getting some short term returns but probably not at a break even versus the effort.
IMO, expanding our geographic footprint is critical if we want to compete nationally long term. You can freely disagree with me on that as we are all entitled to opinions. This is all about supplementing and adding to our recruiting base ... not taking away from it.
The reality is that if you don’t get ahead of trends it’s too late to react when they become obvious
You have 20 guys you are getting every year
The whole point of opportunity cost is maximizing return ... and ideally doing so while minimizing cost
If that’s your plan you focus locally and call it a day
Here’s the thing though, you offer kids like Carson Bruener and they commit immediately. So you better be damn sure that they are the best you can get it or you just limited yourself.
When you know you can flip kids like Bruener, Jaxson Kirkland, and Joe Tryon late in the game, then you’re a fool to take them early if you have higher targets.
Some of you are such fucking lemmings
In your hypo (which is a huge strawman) you are just counting every commit equally in terms of return which makes no fucking sense.
The return is not how many commits we get it is the talent and potential of those commits (best measured vs a replacement-level recruit for you sabermetrics nerds.)
This idea that nobody can prove that we are missing on West Coast kids because of Texas is ridiculous. There is no way to make that connection directly. But you (unlike Ballz) acknowledge that recruiting is a game of limited resources so its common fucking sense that we had to cut time recruiting other kids in order to increase our presence in Texas. There is no way that can't have an effect- we just don't know where the effect occurred because this isn't a fucking simulation.
So by the time you really are starting to recruit guys, you have a pretty good sense of the interest levels on both sides -
Look what you have created @DoogCourics
-
Houhusky said:
If you want idiotic specific and definitive "predictions" on the future based on nothing why dont you spend your time talking to SAC, the resident village idiot that agrees with you.Tequilla said:
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT changeHouhusky said:
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.Tequilla said:
When names are applied in reference to suggesting more times should have been spent recruiting them, then it’s between implied or suggested that spending more time recruiting those players would have changed the outcomeUW_Doog_Bot said:
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.Tequilla said:
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable timednc said:
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...Tequilla said:The question always comes down to what the cost is
The argument against recruiting Texas is that we can be doing better in California. But who in California are we really missing on?
I get all the arguments but the reality is that culture and fit matter a lot to this staff. Those that receive what we are about will gravitate towards us. Those that don’t wont.
Ultimately the key in Texas is gaining traction. Getting a player like Levi is huge. As the Texas players on our roster produce and get to the league our reputation will only further grow there.
Until there’s tangible evidence that our efforts in Texas are wasted, then it’s a worthwhile INVESTMENT for the program to make if they deem that they have the resources to devote to it
Flower by all outward appearances wasn’t interested in us
Ricks is all about the SEC
Milton likewise thought the grass was greener elsewhere
Jordan Banks still is an outstanding item
This idea that you’re going to get everything you target is insanely flawed
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
Also, while debatable obviously to what extent of a return we are having, but we are getting at least some results of Texas.
So if you are wanting me to change course, you better be able to convince me that you are going to replicate what I’m already getting with certainty ... and the reality is you have to convince me that I’m getting a higher return
You're creating a straw-man... a discussion on general strategy cant guarantee an individual recruits results. Are you fucking retarded?
Clear blackeye for TCU
Its a discussion about the efficiency, cost/benefit and opportunity cost you chromosome collecting mongoloid.
Investments don’t necessarily generate immediate returns
Failure to invest in the future often dooms those that aren’t forward looking
If you can convince me that redirecting resources out of Texas materially improves returns in California, Utah, Arizona, Hawaii, etc, then I’m ALL ears
Problem is that you can’t ...
It’s a far better argument to me to argue that we need to upgrade the back half of our recruiters ... which is something I’m 100% behind talking about -
If "A Candle in the Wind" is theee AIDS song then this thread needs...
-
@Tequilla is on his A game today and destroying you fuckers.
-
Of course I can't convince someone who has already made up their mind.Tequilla said:Houhusky said:
If you want idiotic specific and definitive "predictions" on the future based on nothing why dont you spend your time talking to SAC, the resident village idiot that agrees with you.Tequilla said:
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT changeHouhusky said:
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.Tequilla said:
When names are applied in reference to suggesting more times should have been spent recruiting them, then it’s between implied or suggested that spending more time recruiting those players would have changed the outcomeUW_Doog_Bot said:
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.Tequilla said:
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable timednc said:
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...Tequilla said:The question always comes down to what the cost is
The argument against recruiting Texas is that we can be doing better in California. But who in California are we really missing on?
I get all the arguments but the reality is that culture and fit matter a lot to this staff. Those that receive what we are about will gravitate towards us. Those that don’t wont.
Ultimately the key in Texas is gaining traction. Getting a player like Levi is huge. As the Texas players on our roster produce and get to the league our reputation will only further grow there.
Until there’s tangible evidence that our efforts in Texas are wasted, then it’s a worthwhile INVESTMENT for the program to make if they deem that they have the resources to devote to it
Flower by all outward appearances wasn’t interested in us
Ricks is all about the SEC
Milton likewise thought the grass was greener elsewhere
Jordan Banks still is an outstanding item
This idea that you’re going to get everything you target is insanely flawed
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
Also, while debatable obviously to what extent of a return we are having, but we are getting at least some results of Texas.
So if you are wanting me to change course, you better be able to convince me that you are going to replicate what I’m already getting with certainty ... and the reality is you have to convince me that I’m getting a higher return
You're creating a straw-man... a discussion on general strategy cant guarantee an individual recruits results. Are you fucking retarded?
Clear blackeye for TCU
Its a discussion about the efficiency, cost/benefit and opportunity cost you chromosome collecting mongoloid.
Investments don’t necessarily generate immediate returns
Failure to invest in the future often dooms those that aren’t forward looking
If you can convince me that redirecting resources out of Texas materially improves returns in California, Utah, Arizona, Hawaii, etc, then I’m ALL ears
Problem is that you can’t ...
It’s a far better argument to me to argue that we need to upgrade the back half of our recruiters ... which is something I’m 100% behind talking about
I can say we had this exact same conversation when Choate and Pease were recruiting Texas hard. How did those investments work out?
Investing in the future to become the next Amazon is also an excuse for money-losing companies that are either in a bad business or bad at business or both. -
Sure.gifStrongArmCobra said:@Tequilla is on his game today and destroying you fuckers.
-
UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure.gifStrongArmCobra said:@Tequilla is on his game today and destroying you fuckers.
-
How have I made up my mind?
If you can’t provide me evidence that shows me the current strategy isn’t working, then why would I dispute the vision?
It’s clearly provided some returns and some quite strong ones.
There’s zero evidence that the coaches are stretched to the point it’s impacting other focus areas.
$$$ isn’t a material concern here
From my viewpoint it’s relatively low risk and high reward. It’s getting ahead of potential issues that may arise.
There’s way more merit discussing our bottom half recruiters as having a greater impact on our recruiting performance than this. -
Donate.FremontTroll said:
LOL you are on such tilt.Tequilla said:
Fuck offFremontTroll said:
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...Tequilla said:If you think you’re going to lecture me on what opportunity cost is you’re insane
People talk about opportunity cost because Dennis talks about it ...
There are parts of what Dennis says that I absolutely agree with in terms of opportunity cost
There are parts where I completely disagree
Opportunity cost is most applicable where you are boundless ... but recruiting is finite
If there are no scholarship limits you recruit everybody in state and then let them earn their spot, flame out, whatever.
But with limits we have to be selective. You have to target the best players possible that fit what it is that you want to do.
Again, the resources spent in Texas really only matter if we are missing on West Coast based players BECAUSE OF the efforts that we are spending in Texas. There is no material effort that that is the case.
Texas at this point is a CapEx investment that we are making for long term benefit. We are getting some short term returns but probably not at a break even versus the effort.
IMO, expanding our geographic footprint is critical if we want to compete nationally long term. You can freely disagree with me on that as we are all entitled to opinions. This is all about supplementing and adding to our recruiting base ... not taking away from it.
The reality is that if you don’t get ahead of trends it’s too late to react when they become obvious
You have 20 guys you are getting every year
The whole point of opportunity cost is maximizing return ... and ideally doing so while minimizing cost
If that’s your plan you focus locally and call it a day
Here’s the thing though, you offer kids like Carson Bruener and they commit immediately. So you better be damn sure that they are the best you can get it or you just limited yourself.
When you know you can flip kids like Bruener, Jaxson Kirkland, and Joe Tryon late in the game, then you’re a fool to take them early if you have higher targets.
Some of you are such fucking lemmings
In your hypo (which is a huge strawman) you are just counting every commit equally in terms of return which makes no fucking sense.
The return is not how many commits we get it is the talent and potential of those commits (best measured vs a replacement-level recruit for you sabermetrics nerds.)
This idea that nobody can prove that we are missing on West Coast kids because of Texas is ridiculous. There is no way to make that connection directly. But you (unlike Ballz) acknowledge that recruiting is a game of limited resources so its common fucking sense that we had to cut time recruiting other kids in order to increase our presence in Texas. There is no way that can't have an effect- we just don't know where the effect occurred because this isn't a fucking simulation. -
Donate.Houhusky said:
If you want idiotic specific and definitive "predictions" on the future based on nothing why dont you spend your time talking to SAC, the resident village idiot that agrees with you.Tequilla said:
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT changeHouhusky said:
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.Tequilla said:
When names are applied in reference to suggesting more times should have been spent recruiting them, then it’s between implied or suggested that spending more time recruiting those players would have changed the outcomeUW_Doog_Bot said:
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.Tequilla said:
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable timednc said:
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...Tequilla said:The question always comes down to what the cost is
The argument against recruiting Texas is that we can be doing better in California. But who in California are we really missing on?
I get all the arguments but the reality is that culture and fit matter a lot to this staff. Those that receive what we are about will gravitate towards us. Those that don’t wont.
Ultimately the key in Texas is gaining traction. Getting a player like Levi is huge. As the Texas players on our roster produce and get to the league our reputation will only further grow there.
Until there’s tangible evidence that our efforts in Texas are wasted, then it’s a worthwhile INVESTMENT for the program to make if they deem that they have the resources to devote to it
Flower by all outward appearances wasn’t interested in us
Ricks is all about the SEC
Milton likewise thought the grass was greener elsewhere
Jordan Banks still is an outstanding item
This idea that you’re going to get everything you target is insanely flawed
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
Also, while debatable obviously to what extent of a return we are having, but we are getting at least some results of Texas.
So if you are wanting me to change course, you better be able to convince me that you are going to replicate what I’m already getting with certainty ... and the reality is you have to convince me that I’m getting a higher return
You're creating a straw-man... a discussion on general strategy cant guarantee an individual recruits results. Are you fucking retarded?
Clear blackeye for TCU
Its a discussion about the efficiency, cost/benefit and opportunity cost you chromosome collecting mongoloid. -
Donate.Tequilla said:
Except that the way that recruiting works is that you really start recruiting kids (regardless of offers) is when they are freshmen/sophomoresFremontTroll said:
LOL you are on such tilt.Tequilla said:
Fuck offFremontTroll said:
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...Tequilla said:If you think you’re going to lecture me on what opportunity cost is you’re insane
People talk about opportunity cost because Dennis talks about it ...
There are parts of what Dennis says that I absolutely agree with in terms of opportunity cost
There are parts where I completely disagree
Opportunity cost is most applicable where you are boundless ... but recruiting is finite
If there are no scholarship limits you recruit everybody in state and then let them earn their spot, flame out, whatever.
But with limits we have to be selective. You have to target the best players possible that fit what it is that you want to do.
Again, the resources spent in Texas really only matter if we are missing on West Coast based players BECAUSE OF the efforts that we are spending in Texas. There is no material effort that that is the case.
Texas at this point is a CapEx investment that we are making for long term benefit. We are getting some short term returns but probably not at a break even versus the effort.
IMO, expanding our geographic footprint is critical if we want to compete nationally long term. You can freely disagree with me on that as we are all entitled to opinions. This is all about supplementing and adding to our recruiting base ... not taking away from it.
The reality is that if you don’t get ahead of trends it’s too late to react when they become obvious
You have 20 guys you are getting every year
The whole point of opportunity cost is maximizing return ... and ideally doing so while minimizing cost
If that’s your plan you focus locally and call it a day
Here’s the thing though, you offer kids like Carson Bruener and they commit immediately. So you better be damn sure that they are the best you can get it or you just limited yourself.
When you know you can flip kids like Bruener, Jaxson Kirkland, and Joe Tryon late in the game, then you’re a fool to take them early if you have higher targets.
Some of you are such fucking lemmings
In your hypo (which is a huge strawman) you are just counting every commit equally in terms of return which makes no fucking sense.
The return is not how many commits we get it is the talent and potential of those commits (best measured vs a replacement-level recruit for you sabermetrics nerds.)
This idea that nobody can prove that we are missing on West Coast kids because of Texas is ridiculous. There is no way to make that connection directly. But you (unlike Ballz) acknowledge that recruiting is a game of limited resources so its common fucking sense that we had to cut time recruiting other kids in order to increase our presence in Texas. There is no way that can't have an effect- we just don't know where the effect occurred because this isn't a fucking simulation.
So by the time you really are starting to recruit guys, you have a pretty good sense of the interest levels on both sides -
-
Key takeaway from OP is that the coaches have rationalized why they recruit Texas and that they're going to continue it.GrundleStiltzkin said:Look what you have created @DoogCourics
-
I understand the reservations when it comes to Texas recruiting but I don't see the issue. The notion that we are wasting resources in Texas is wrong. Most of recruiting is texting and face time which doesn't take a lot of time or effort, it allows us to offer more recruits because of our strict criteria for offering and we aren't neglecting California for Texas. California is the first state the coaches evaluate for recruits and once they have done that along with Washington then they move on to other states. Us recruiting Texas hasn't prevented us from getting California recruits, it's just given us more opportunity for UW caliber recruits.
-
whatshouldicareabout said:
Key takeaway from OP is that the coaches have rationalized why they recruit Texas and that they're going to continue it.GrundleStiltzkin said:Look what you have created @DoogCourics
-
If there is benefit to adding a bit of Texas HS football culture to our locker room then it makes more sense to me.
Otherwise I am struggling to see not going all in on California while USC/UCLA are down. -
You have to remember a lot of the Cali kids Oregon is getting, UW doesn't want. There aren't that many Cali kids that fit what UW is looking for.whlinder said:If there is benefit to adding a bit of Texas HS football culture to our locker room then it makes more sense to me.
Otherwise I am struggling to see not going all in on California while USC/UCLA are down. -
Shortest nonstop on Orbitz is 3:45 minutes. Longest is about 4:10. Safe to say average is 3:55ish.Tequilla said:The fundamental problem is this idea that going to Texas is taking away resources from elsewhere
If you check most of the Texas trips are also combined with Utah, Arizona, etc ..
For those not aware of flight times, SEA ➡️ DFW is about 3:15 to 3:30 ... LAX and Phoenix are more in the 2:30 to 3:00 range ... it’s really not material
As for Texas, the question for me is what/how are we doing what we’re doing. Forming strong relationships with schools like Allen HS is a good use of our time ... just like having ins with St John Bosco is for us in LA. Doesn’t mean that we get everybody from those schools. But when there is a good fit and interest, the results can be really good.
There’s a ton of talent in Texas ... it’s good for us to have a presence.
A couple other considerations:
1) West Coast participation is potentially declining and on top of that there’s a P12 perception issue
2) Tech is becoming a BIG DEAL in Texas and the presence of companies like Amazon, Microsoft, etc is increasing ... there’s definitely tie in opportunities there
3) The way Texas recruiting works there are really good players that Texas/Oklahoma never even sniff at ... players like Sunday are great examples
Return trip is longer with 4:10 the low end and 4:30 the high end. Average about 4:20.
LAX shortest is 2:40, longest is 3:02. Average is probably 2:50ish.
Back is slightly shorter with only one flight at 3:00 even and a couple under 2:40. Basically the same.
So about an hour and five minutes longer there and an hour and a half longer back.
So it's a bigger difference than being stated here but still not as big of a difference as one would think. -
USC and UCLA won’t be down foreverwhlinder said:If there is benefit to adding a bit of Texas HS football culture to our locker room then it makes more sense to me.
Otherwise I am struggling to see not going all in on California while USC/UCLA are down. -
There’s listed and reality ... I fly the route often ... I should knowdnc said:
Shortest nonstop on Orbitz is 3:45 minutes. Longest is about 4:10. Safe to say average is 3:55ish.Tequilla said:The fundamental problem is this idea that going to Texas is taking away resources from elsewhere
If you check most of the Texas trips are also combined with Utah, Arizona, etc ..
For those not aware of flight times, SEA ➡️ DFW is about 3:15 to 3:30 ... LAX and Phoenix are more in the 2:30 to 3:00 range ... it’s really not material
As for Texas, the question for me is what/how are we doing what we’re doing. Forming strong relationships with schools like Allen HS is a good use of our time ... just like having ins with St John Bosco is for us in LA. Doesn’t mean that we get everybody from those schools. But when there is a good fit and interest, the results can be really good.
There’s a ton of talent in Texas ... it’s good for us to have a presence.
A couple other considerations:
1) West Coast participation is potentially declining and on top of that there’s a P12 perception issue
2) Tech is becoming a BIG DEAL in Texas and the presence of companies like Amazon, Microsoft, etc is increasing ... there’s definitely tie in opportunities there
3) The way Texas recruiting works there are really good players that Texas/Oklahoma never even sniff at ... players like Sunday are great examples
Return trip is longer with 4:10 the low end and 4:30 the high end. Average about 4:20.
LAX shortest is 2:40, longest is 3:02. Average is probably 2:50ish.
Back is slightly shorter with only one flight at 3:00 even and a couple under 2:40. Basically the same.
So about an hour and five minutes longer there and an hour and a half longer back.
So it's a bigger difference than being stated here but still not as big of a difference as one would think. -
So the DFW flights are thirty minutes faster than listed but the LAX ones are listed correctly?Tequilla said:
There’s listed and reality ... I fly the route often ... I should knowdnc said:
Shortest nonstop on Orbitz is 3:45 minutes. Longest is about 4:10. Safe to say average is 3:55ish.Tequilla said:The fundamental problem is this idea that going to Texas is taking away resources from elsewhere
If you check most of the Texas trips are also combined with Utah, Arizona, etc ..
For those not aware of flight times, SEA ➡️ DFW is about 3:15 to 3:30 ... LAX and Phoenix are more in the 2:30 to 3:00 range ... it’s really not material
As for Texas, the question for me is what/how are we doing what we’re doing. Forming strong relationships with schools like Allen HS is a good use of our time ... just like having ins with St John Bosco is for us in LA. Doesn’t mean that we get everybody from those schools. But when there is a good fit and interest, the results can be really good.
There’s a ton of talent in Texas ... it’s good for us to have a presence.
A couple other considerations:
1) West Coast participation is potentially declining and on top of that there’s a P12 perception issue
2) Tech is becoming a BIG DEAL in Texas and the presence of companies like Amazon, Microsoft, etc is increasing ... there’s definitely tie in opportunities there
3) The way Texas recruiting works there are really good players that Texas/Oklahoma never even sniff at ... players like Sunday are great examples
Return trip is longer with 4:10 the low end and 4:30 the high end. Average about 4:20.
LAX shortest is 2:40, longest is 3:02. Average is probably 2:50ish.
Back is slightly shorter with only one flight at 3:00 even and a couple under 2:40. Basically the same.
So about an hour and five minutes longer there and an hour and a half longer back.
So it's a bigger difference than being stated here but still not as big of a difference as one would think.
Sure.gif -
We recruit the West Coast and the coaches think and have already gotten good players from Texas. They target some guys there and go after the ones that show interest. It’s not a big deal and is being made out to be a way bigger deal than it is.
-
This, except the exact opposite.Tequilla said:If you think you’re going to lecture me on what opportunity cost is you’re insane
People talk about opportunity cost because Dennis talks about it ...
There are parts of what Dennis says that I absolutely agree with in terms of opportunity cost
There are parts where I completely disagree
Opportunity cost is most applicable where you are boundless ... but recruiting is finite
If there are no scholarship limits you recruit everybody in state and then let them earn their spot, flame out, whatever.
But with limits we have to be selective. You have to target the best players possible that fit what it is that you want to do.
Again, the resources spent in Texas really only matter if we are missing on West Coast based players BECAUSE OF the efforts that we are spending in Texas. There is no material effort that that is the case.
Texas at this point is a CapEx investment that we are making for long term benefit. We are getting some short term returns but probably not at a break even versus the effort.
IMO, expanding our geographic footprint is critical if we want to compete nationally long term. You can freely disagree with me on that as we are all entitled to opinions. This is all about supplementing and adding to our recruiting base ... not taking away from it.
The reality is that if you don’t get ahead of trends it’s too late to react when they become obvious -
This is a sensible question. Everyone is guessing at the answer.whlinder said:If there is benefit to adding a bit of Texas HS football culture to our locker room then it makes more sense to me.
Otherwise I am struggling to see not going all in on California while USC/UCLA are down.
This is the real issue. If you think it’s tough keeping top West Coast kids in the P12, try moving outside the footprint, where you can’t even seen most P12 games on TV, except for the handful that start at 9:00 p.m. CT or later.Tequilla said:West Coast participation is potentially declining and on top of that there’s a P12 perception issue
The cord-cutting trend will only worsen UW’s TV disadvantage nationally. Until the P12 shitcans Larry Scott and unfucks its ludicrous TV/streaming contracts, the only Texan players available to UW will continue to be guys the bluebloods don’t want. Which just isn’t a sound strategy for enhancing your Blue Chip Ratio and positioning yourself to win a National Championship. -
@Tequila wins. Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Let’s be clear on opportunity cost ...
It’s applicable when I have a finite amount of resources (usually in the form of $$$) and I’m making decisions on how to maximize bang for my buck (usually customers)
The limiting agent in CFB recruiting is amount of time on the road recruiting. Coaches have to be smart at where they travel, who they visit, and most importantly and not really talked about here are the HS programs/coaches they want to build pipelines with.
The flaw in how most of you are talking about opportunity cost is that the recruiting game isn’t about maximizing customers (recruits). The recruiting game is finite and in any given class it’s about being able to secure the top targets that you can.
Road Dawg is spot on in his assessment. Texas is all about building out infrastructure and pipelines for the future. 1 to 3 kids don’t sound like a lot but it’s 5-15% of our class. In the last 5 years we’ve gone from being blown out in Hawaii to very successful by investing, time, energy, and resources. Same with Utah. Texas is no different. -
Dialed in. Welcome.sonics1993 said:I understand the reservations when it comes to Texas recruiting but I don't see the issue. The notion that we are wasting resources in Texas is wrong. Most of recruiting is texting and face time which doesn't take a lot of time or effort, it allows us to offer more recruits because of our strict criteria for offering and we aren't neglecting California for Texas. California is the first state the coaches evaluate for recruits and once they have done that along with Washington then they move on to other states. Us recruiting Texas hasn't prevented us from getting California recruits, it's just given us more opportunity for UW caliber recruits.
