Recruiting, Traditional factors vs NIL?

[homer]

This goes for all revenue sports, basketball, football, gymnastics. . .

Broadly speaking, and with the understanding that each situation is unique, how much of signing a player is related to the listed factors influencing a recruits’ decision?

1- NIL $$
2- Playing time
3- coaches
4- School major fit
5- Family proximity
6- a school’s reputation in the sport
7- Other athletes; a sense of inclusiveness/belonging
8 Other

In the not distant past, IMO coaches were primarily responsible for recruiting and maintaining a team. Now, I wonder how much is their responsibility? Is the Crimson Collective more important now than coaches selling a program?

[FountainofUte]

By the way it’s looking, I’d slice the pie like this:
NIL 48%
Playing time 47%
Some blend of coach and school rep 5%

[MDUte]

Without question, NIL is the #1 priority for top tier talented recruits. Whitt has gone on record saying that it’s the first thing out of every recruit’s mouth nowadays…”how much $ can I get if I come to Utah?”

[krindor]

I think the issue is that NIL doesn’t just represent $$$ (which everyone wants), but also commitment and feeling valued.

It’s not as clear-cut as professional athletes (who often have more $ than they could ever use, but want the respect/credit with a huge contract), but I do think (for many) a big NIL deal is also a proxy for “how much do you want me” and “how important am I to your plans”

[homer]

Until University of Utah controls NIL and player compensation coaches better be recruiting Crimson Collective if they want to keep their jobs?

Considering next season’s current bb team roster, Smith best be kissing some CC a$$.

Is this system screwed up or what?

[UteNamedOg]

Good stuff homer

[Eggers]

NIL, playing time, coaches, team vibe, all play a part. Coaches still matter, but it’s more about the whole package now the school, the team culture, everything.