Vespidae
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,346
- Location
- Auburn, AL
Money lines up better with recruiting better than it does performance on the field. BUT being perennial top performer seems to need top recruiting.
All this data indicates to me is if we want better recruiting we need to pay more.
Just playing devils advocate. Yes, you need good talent and whether that’s recruiting or development, you need it.
But you can spend $$$ and still get nothing. And let’s face it, we should spend less than our peers. Why? The available pool is smaller.
Assume 2500 kids entering D1 yearly. The candidate pool available to Tech is what, 10% of that based on grades? So while our peers are pursuing 2500, we are pursuing 250. Our spend per available target candidate should be higher even though total spend is less.
The goal imo is to increase the conversion rate of the candidates from Awareness to Consideration. T ch has the stats, it only takes data analysis to sort it out. Which we have in spades.
Fun discussion.