I think this question and the athletic department's inability to figure that out (at least for football) is why we're constantly a "sleeping giant" and also why the pendulum swings to opposite types of hires every coaching change. It doesn't seem like anyone in the ICA has fully figured out who we are (or should be) and then made a hiring plan consistent with who ASU football is (and isn't).
In a lot of ways, I like the NLM and many of the things attempted when the new staff started. Some things I like:
- Hiring a bunch of staffers to do the heavy lifting in recruiting evaluation to remove that burden from the coaches so they can better focus on what's happening on the field is a good idea. In fact, I'd expand this to include a person or two that just focuses on the transfer market, both for those that enter the portal and for those that expressed interest in ASU in the past and may be open to coming here if they knew there was mutual interest. Adding in an NIL number projection to land a recruit is also a good idea. It's similar to how schools project a scholarship dollar amount they'll need to offer top academic prospects to get them to attend. This model addresses who we are by acknowledging that we aren't the type of place that is going to be able to rely on name recognition or in state pull to land our classes. We're going to need to work smarter and harder than our competitors to raise recruiting to the level we want. Adding in an NIL number projection to land a recruit is also a good idea.
- We are So Cal recruiting dependent. We MUST have strong SoCal connections on the staff. It would help to also have connections in Vegas. Those two places and AZ are going to be where we get most of our recruits. Putting the Texas strategy in the dumpster and focusing on CA was one of the best things done when Herm was hired.
- We need to prioritize recruiting prowess over position coaching for a few spots on the staff and bring in young guys with connections where we want to build relationships. This is another positive aspect of what was done when Herm was hired.
- We need to be a player development focused program. This may sound like it's opposite the previous bullet, but I don't think it is. We need good recruiters to win more battles with the UCLA, UW, and Utah's of the world and not really focus on nationally recruited players. Of course, if a nationally recruited guy shows interest when you contact them, go for it. But don't spend a ton of time on those guys while building the program.
- Basically, we should be Utah with better weather and more things to do. They have the model we should be trying to build.
- Our strength is our scale. There is power in numbers. Nobody has figured out a way to truly capitalize on this. It's really hard. Raising money $50 at a time vs. big checks is really difficult. I don't blame them from not figuring out how to do it. But sometimes I wonder if they even accept that scale is a positive instead of trying to fight it. The game day experience is another manifestation of not buying into this.
- And, finally, the controversial bullet. We need to understand that AZ has a stigma with some people outside the state that can impact recruiting. Before anyone FTFO, I'm not opining on whether that is fair or if the state needs to change. I love it here. I'm simply stating what I view as a fact from my years recruiting students to ASU and the questions they and their families ask. We need to choose how we're going to handle this fact. There are a few strategies I can think of, but we need to have a cohesive strategy. The current staff was constructed to address it by having a strong presence on the staff of people from the same backgrounds as many of our recruits to give comfort to families that their kids will be treated fairly in AZ.
So why did Herm fail? They seem to have done a lot right with the structure when he was hired. I think the answer is probably a combination of Herm/the CEO model not being a good fit for managing all of the pieces that need to be managed and also there being no clear responsible admin person for football below Ray. There are a lot of administrators overseeing football (we just added another recently) but no clear chain of command/responsibility. At least there isn't a clear one for me and the people I talk to who are more connected to athletics than I am.
Until we figure out who we are and commit to a philosophy for a prolonged period of time, I don't think we'll really raise the program beyond what it's been historically. Crow has done this on the academic side of the house, but athletics doesn't seem to have been able to form that same sense of direction/purpose/identity.
So that's my $.02 on who we are from an athletics/football perspective. I'm sure many of you disagree with me. Tell me why I'm wrong, dumb, a clown, or whatever else you've got for me.
In a lot of ways, I like the NLM and many of the things attempted when the new staff started. Some things I like:
- Hiring a bunch of staffers to do the heavy lifting in recruiting evaluation to remove that burden from the coaches so they can better focus on what's happening on the field is a good idea. In fact, I'd expand this to include a person or two that just focuses on the transfer market, both for those that enter the portal and for those that expressed interest in ASU in the past and may be open to coming here if they knew there was mutual interest. Adding in an NIL number projection to land a recruit is also a good idea. It's similar to how schools project a scholarship dollar amount they'll need to offer top academic prospects to get them to attend. This model addresses who we are by acknowledging that we aren't the type of place that is going to be able to rely on name recognition or in state pull to land our classes. We're going to need to work smarter and harder than our competitors to raise recruiting to the level we want. Adding in an NIL number projection to land a recruit is also a good idea.
- We are So Cal recruiting dependent. We MUST have strong SoCal connections on the staff. It would help to also have connections in Vegas. Those two places and AZ are going to be where we get most of our recruits. Putting the Texas strategy in the dumpster and focusing on CA was one of the best things done when Herm was hired.
- We need to prioritize recruiting prowess over position coaching for a few spots on the staff and bring in young guys with connections where we want to build relationships. This is another positive aspect of what was done when Herm was hired.
- We need to be a player development focused program. This may sound like it's opposite the previous bullet, but I don't think it is. We need good recruiters to win more battles with the UCLA, UW, and Utah's of the world and not really focus on nationally recruited players. Of course, if a nationally recruited guy shows interest when you contact them, go for it. But don't spend a ton of time on those guys while building the program.
- Basically, we should be Utah with better weather and more things to do. They have the model we should be trying to build.
- Our strength is our scale. There is power in numbers. Nobody has figured out a way to truly capitalize on this. It's really hard. Raising money $50 at a time vs. big checks is really difficult. I don't blame them from not figuring out how to do it. But sometimes I wonder if they even accept that scale is a positive instead of trying to fight it. The game day experience is another manifestation of not buying into this.
- And, finally, the controversial bullet. We need to understand that AZ has a stigma with some people outside the state that can impact recruiting. Before anyone FTFO, I'm not opining on whether that is fair or if the state needs to change. I love it here. I'm simply stating what I view as a fact from my years recruiting students to ASU and the questions they and their families ask. We need to choose how we're going to handle this fact. There are a few strategies I can think of, but we need to have a cohesive strategy. The current staff was constructed to address it by having a strong presence on the staff of people from the same backgrounds as many of our recruits to give comfort to families that their kids will be treated fairly in AZ.
So why did Herm fail? They seem to have done a lot right with the structure when he was hired. I think the answer is probably a combination of Herm/the CEO model not being a good fit for managing all of the pieces that need to be managed and also there being no clear responsible admin person for football below Ray. There are a lot of administrators overseeing football (we just added another recently) but no clear chain of command/responsibility. At least there isn't a clear one for me and the people I talk to who are more connected to athletics than I am.
Until we figure out who we are and commit to a philosophy for a prolonged period of time, I don't think we'll really raise the program beyond what it's been historically. Crow has done this on the academic side of the house, but athletics doesn't seem to have been able to form that same sense of direction/purpose/identity.
So that's my $.02 on who we are from an athletics/football perspective. I'm sure many of you disagree with me. Tell me why I'm wrong, dumb, a clown, or whatever else you've got for me.
Last edited:
