Work with me here as I’m weaving together three very good articles to discuss a false notion that mid majors do a better job recruiting than their major conference counterparts.

They don’t.

What they do is a far smarter job recruiting.

For reference: it began with this ridiculously smart piece by Basketball Prospectus writer Drew Cannon. That prompted ESPNs Eamonn Brennan to write this piece, then this one with a great Bill Self quote.

My overarching viewpoint: this is far simpler, and far more difficult, than we’re making it out to be.

The reason I believe Cannon’s piece is so intelligent is that it blows up the conventional thinking of traditional positions and those stupid numbers 1-5. Position flexibility, to me, is how mid majors coaches have always looked at players. They need skilled players who don’t fit, as Brennan said, the model of:

Coach X’s point guard graduated, so Coach X needs a point guard. Is that guy a point guard? Maybe? Well, maybe’s not good enough. We need a point guard.

It’s how we ended up with “combo guards” and “face up four men” and other silly terms. (And I admit to using these terms.) As to stocking your rosters with players, better known as recruiting, let me spell it out this way. Hopefully this explains it a little more clearly.

Major coaches always seem to be talking about concepts like chemistry, teamwork, and selfless play, but they never seem to actually recruit that way. They want the best player. They default to talent, and they should. No matter the level of play, every coach will tell you need talent to win games.

Here’s where it falls apart for me.

Now, I admit this is mostly anecdotal evidence because I don’t follow recruiting closely and major college recruiting even less so. However I frequently talk to those who do so I feel informed. (Needed to say that.)

My belief is that majors are recruiting to the chinks. “He can’t guard the 1,” “He’s too small to play power forward,” “He can’t shoot well enough to play three.” Those kinds of things. These top 50 kids can all play. They dominate the AAU circuit. So major coaches are looking for what’s wrong with their game. The de facto position is the talent level is there, so they are best served understanding what these players cannot do rather than what they can do.

It’s the other way around for mid majors, and to an extent that second tier major school Brennan wrote about. They see what a kid is capable of doing for them. It could be shooting, defense, hustle, etc.

The differentiator resides in recruiting the intangibles. One CAA coach is determined to find kids from winning programs and know how to win; another doesn’t like kids who display a sense of entitlement. If you already believe you are very good, the thought goes, how can you improve much? You can teach skills; you cannot change character.

Or, let’s get technical. Maybe a kid can’t guard the point, but if he can shoot well enough to score 15 ppg and you have a complementary wing that can help you gameplan against that weaknesses, I think you have all conference material.

Bruiser Flint admits Chris Fouch couldn’t guard anybody. But Fouch was the freshman of the year because he can shoot and score with anybody. Let’s go the other way. Larry Sanders was a horrible offensive player when he entered VCU. However his length and athleticism convinced Anthony Grant to give him a chance because Sanders could at least make a difference on defense. Three years and probably 100,000 shots later, Sanders was drafted 15th in the NBA draft.

To me, the four-year-kid excuse promulgated by Self is at best a crutch, at worst a dodge. First, if you want them then recruit them. It isn’t like it’s a surprise that most of these kids are going leave early.

I admit the lure of supreme talent is too shiny to avoid. But I don’t buy the “we don’t have four year kids” not even if you are John Calipari.

In this summer’s NBA draft, the number of Big Six major conference players that were underclassmen to be drafted was 25. Let’s pile on kids who made bad decisions and were undrafted. Without looking, that’s maybe 10?

So now we’re at 35 underclassmen that leave school early and deprive their schools of that “four year player.” In the Big Six major conferences there are 73 teams with roughly 13 players recruited and given scholarships. You do the math.

Here’s Self’s quote (thanks to Brennan) that matters:

“The best recruiters in the business from an evaluation standpoint are at the mid-majors,” Self said. “They do a great job evaluating their talent level when they (players) are 16, 17 and projecting them out to when they are age 21. At Kansas, we don’t get the opportunity to do that. The majority of kids we recruit want to be in school goal-wise, one, two, three years. Very rarely do the best of the best stay all four years in college basketball the way the landscape is. The real talent of recruiting is being able to dig those guys out who at age 21, 22 can whip those kids who are 18. The people getting that done are the ones having success.”

I buy Self’s assertion that 21 year olds are whipping 18 year olds. And I’m willing to stipulate that those 35 kids who left school early made a huge difference. (To do this I’ll look past guys like Willie Warren. Ask Jeff Capel if Warren’s absence will help or hurt his team.)

I give you I’m off bsae by a little. Now consider this: 10 of those 20 were juniors, meaning Self’s point falls to 21 year olds beating 20 year olds (with theoretically three years of development).

I wonder if the true problem is that these coaches don’t focus on development with these kids, not because they don’t want to but because they cannot. On one hand you have these kids who are already full of themselves. I’d wager they cannot or will not be taught.

On the other, as a coach, you are compelled to spend your time maximizing current skills and crossing your fingers on the weaknesses. The pressure to win also dictates you game plan your butt off. Not being prepared is the scarlet letter in this business.

It’s an economic thing, too. Let’s use baseball as an example. How hard is it for the Yankees or a big market team to develop into a winner? Not that hard, really: draft a couple of kids, sign a few big name free agents, use your money to sign international talent and reap the benefits of your bulging bank account.

Sure, you’re going to bring in the home run hitter who refuses to take batting practice, or the lefty pitcher who spends as much time in a bar than watching film, but they are the most talented at their position. Your massive fan base demands that kind of investment, and demands that you win.

But sometimes spending that money doesn’t equate into a title, does it? Why? Teams are transient, there’s not enough time for team chemistry, development of relationships and intangibles. There is a cut-throat mentality.

Alternately, it’s a little more difficult for Tampa or Minnesota. They have to get lucky in the draft, consistently, and develop and grow their talent into a cohesive unit. The teams that do succeed, they have guys who have grown up in their farm systems together, grew together, developed together – they understand the system that the team runs, and they run it well.

They may not have the same offensive or defensive approaches as the big market boys, but they drive the big boys nuts because typically they’re fundamentally strong, and they do things (take the extra base, go first to third all the time, force the defense to consistently make plays) that the big boys often times overlook.

The summary: because the pool of talent is so incredibly close, these intangibles are the differentiators.

Smarter.

I’ll tell you this: I’d rather be Kansas, North Carolina, VCU or Creighton. Jobs like Auburn, Miami, and Iowa State must stink. You get killed on both sides.