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
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...
Fuck off
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
LOL you are on such tilt.
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.
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
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable time
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
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.
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 outcome
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT change
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
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.
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.
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
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...
Fuck off
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
LOL you are on such tilt.
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.
Except that the way that recruiting works is that you really start recruiting kids (regardless of offers) is when they are freshmen/sophomores
So by the time you really are starting to recruit guys, you have a pretty good sense of the interest levels on both sides
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
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable time
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
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.
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 outcome
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT change
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
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.
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.
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
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
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable time
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
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.
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 outcome
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT change
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
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.
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.
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
Of course I can't convince someone who has already made up their mind.
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.
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
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...
Fuck off
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
LOL you are on such tilt.
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.
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
Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Clark Phillips, Kendall Milton, Jordan Banks...
You can put the time and effort into situations but that doesn’t mean it’s valuable time
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
Literally no one has said or implied that. JFC.
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 outcome
Which goes to my point that just because you target something doesn’t mean you will get it
A named example isnt an indication that the outcome definitely would have been changed... Its an example that might possibly have been changed.
JFC this is SAC level of retard...
So you are recommending to me to change strategy not because something WILL change but because it MIGHT change
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
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.
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.
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
Yeah, I think I'm gonna need to lecture you on opportunity cost...
Fuck off
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
LOL you are on such tilt.
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.
Except that the way that recruiting works is that you really start recruiting kids (regardless of offers) is when they are freshmen/sophomores
So by the time you really are starting to recruit guys, you have a pretty good sense of the interest levels on both sides
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.
Comments
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.
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.
So by the time you really are starting to recruit guys, you have a pretty good sense of the interest levels on both sides
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.
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.
Otherwise I am struggling to see not going all in on California while USC/UCLA are down.