If you were to place a value on recruiting and coaching, I’d weight it about 60% recruiting and 40% coaching.
If we are, in fact, going away from a tactical advantage (the option), then I want GT to hire someone who comes with established relationships for recruiting.
Curious what a former player thinks?
I agree that recruiting is more important than coaching. The best tactician can only do so much unless he has the athletes to do it with.
But I'd say recruiting is 90% the school, brand, facilities, recruiting assistants, budget. etc. The coach/recruiter can only do so much. The recruiter makes a difference in getting a particular kid to choose the school vs his other offers. But the school has to be among the kid's choices for that to matter. Tech isn't even on the radar for the top recruits. So, while a good recruiter is a plus, give me a great coach instead.
More important than if a coach can sell 18-year olds, is if the coach can sell the boosters on his program. A million dollars buys a lot of recruiting staff salary. Dabo didn't build his program by getting 5* recruits to start. He got the Clemson community to buy in, the facilities and staff they paid for brought in the recruits. We have to improve our facilities, budget and school
before we can compete for the top talent.