Most college coaches have similar priorities when recruiting. In short, they want student-athletes who have the skills to improve their team and intangibles that fit the culture of their program. When they evaluate, they want to see someone who has the potential to be an upgrade in terms of the player, but also possesses the character traits to persevere through adversity.
In the past, this process could be summarized as coaches seeking people who fit “who we are and who we want to be.” Unfortunately, that is not enough today; once coaches successfully recruit players to their program, they may have to “re-recruit” them to stay.
The new transfer and NIL rules give unprecedented power to players who can transfer without losing eligibility for more playing time, scholarship or NIL money. This monetizing mindset can begin at the youth levels, as many players obsessively train and play sports year-round chasing trophies and championships. For some, athletic skill development supersedes the development of every other part of life. When it comes time to choose a college (or a high school in some cases), they may simply go with the “highest bidder,” which becomes a topic of discussion and the most important deciding factor.
Yet to become truly elite, we all know that you must train for many hours outside of a sport that you may specialize in earlier than others. There are only so many hours in a day. Is there a better approach?
What if a student-athlete participated in their number-one sport for four months, held a job (for three days a week) and trained as an athlete (for three days a week) for four months, and spent an equivalent amount of time in the remaining four months of the year mastering other skills—advanced schooling, fine arts, charity work, etc.?
I wonder if a model like this would result in players having a more stable development system. I wonder if they would choose a college with the proper priorities in line. It may be a huge advantage in the recruiting process if you can look your prospective coach in the eye when you tell them your intentions of choosing a school for academics first, and regardless of what happens on the field, you are not leaving the school.
Coaches talk all the time that they have many choices of players with relatively equal tangible skills, but the deciding factors are the intangibles. Is there a more powerful and potentially decisive recruiting factor than for a player to tell a coach they are not going to transfer no matter what?