***SNIP***
2. Ultimately, what matters is whether you get the recruits you want. Whether your closer is the head coach or an assistant is irrelevant in the end - it's whether the team got the guy they were after.
***SNIP***
2. Disagree. He is supposed to be the leader, the CEO, the face of the program, the man calling the shots. Should the CEO of a major corporation send in a shift manager to close the deals for him? No, and the head coach should be the person that closes the deal on a recruit, IMO.
I don't see the logic. The ultimate issue is whether the deal gets closed. A good CEO will utilize the best talents for that. If it's the CEO, fine. If it isn't, the CEO should select whomeever is the best talent.
The role of a head coach, first and foremost, is to set the tone for the program. Among his other duties is finding the right coaches to implement the program he wants to run, then to assign them to the tasks they perform best.
In another post, you stated:
***SNIP***
I certainly think that using your resources and getting a kid to bond w/ his possible position coach, but again the HC calls the shots, he HAS to be the one who can close the deal.
Why? Why does the head coach have to be the one to close the deal, if there is an assistant who is better at it?
Granted, if there isn't an assistant who is a "closer", or if a significant number of recruits won't commit unless the program's head coach is the "closer", then the head coach has to be able to perform that task. But in the first instance, that's not the case. In the second instance, there's no proof at all. Given that, to say that the head coach
has to be the closer doesn't seem to be based on any logical basis, and is simply a preference you have.