[Redrum]

from OUR necessary larger, more-inclusive development of an interested pool of recruits.

So what if, picking someone at random...say, Rasheem Green, showed no interest despite an offer.  OK, next man up.  Porter Gustin? No interest? OK, next man up.  In a sense, you want those guys to self-select.  Their opting out is a necessary advantage, allowing us to spend quality recruiting time on those who do show legit interest...but in the hunt we want to turn over as many gems or worthwhile risks as we can .  Of the top 100 players, will it yield one commit at the end? Is that worth the effort?  Is the number 1 in 200?  300?.  If I understand it,  Flemming's point is if we arbitrarily cut off efforts early in the game we limit our options when the final class comes together.  The selection process will do its own winnowing. Some of the big fish will tell us in understandable, unequivocal ways they're not interested.  OK. Time saved there if one knows that early in the cycle.  Some might have interest and a look at the grades / test scores will sort them out.  Mostly out if the laws of statistics still apply.  And on goes the winnowing process.

I think Flemming's point is:  talk about a "sweet spot" of effort vs. results  makes one wonder:  If  recruiting is running efficiently [ effort per recruit] are we then failing to optimize (or missing) opportunities?  I don't think number of Montag rejections is the proper metric on which to focus. We don't want to burn our admissions bridges by sending up too many rejection-bait apps.  But if there are players out there who could have been interested and arguably could have been admitted,  that's the offer number we want to optimize.  Flemming thinks we're not doing that.  I'm sure Shaw and Anderson disagree.

[Redrum]

from OUR necessary larger, more-inclusive development of an interested pool of recruits.

So what if, picking someone at random...say, Rasheem Green, showed no interest despite an offer.  OK, next man up.  Porter Gustin? No interest? OK, next man up.  In a sense, you want those guys to self-select.  Their opting out is a necessary advantage, allowing us to spend quality recruiting time on those who do show legit interest...but in the hunt we want to turn over as many gems or worthwhile risks as we can .  Of the top 100 players, will it yield one commit at the end? Is that worth the effort?  Is the number 1 in 200?  300?.  If I understand it,  Flemming's point is if we arbitrarily cut off efforts early in the game we limit our options when the final class comes together.  The selection process will do its own winnowing. Some of the big fish will tell us in understandable, unequivocal ways they're not interested.  OK. Time saved there if one knows that early in the cycle.  Some might have interest and a look at the grades / test scores will sort them out.  Mostly out if the laws of statistics still apply.  And on goes the winnowing process.

I think Flemming's point is:  talk about a "sweet spot" of effort vs. results  makes one wonder:  If  recruiting is running efficiently [ effort per recruit] are we then failing to optimize (or missing) opportunities?  I don't think number of Montag rejections is the proper metric on which to focus. We don't want to burn our admissions bridges by sending up too many rejection-bait apps.  But if there are players out there who could have been interested and arguably could have been admitted,  that's the offer number we want to optimize.  Flemming thinks we're not doing that.  I'm sure Shaw and Anderson disagree.