Have digital media and other factors lessened the importance of in-state recruiting?

[BruisedOrange]

I'm posing this as a broad, "philosophy of recruiting" question.

I'm presupposing (and this is up for correcting) that the importance of recruiting the best players in your own state was based primarily on logistics and expenses: the phone and travel expenses required to build relationships with HS coaching staffs as well as each player. Back in the day, you had to drive to build those relationships. Air travel for recruiting was limited for only very the top recruits, the 5-stars of that era.

Signing the best in-state talent was also (and may still be) a measure of your school's or your program's brand loyalty among competing regional schools.

To whatever degree the above was once true, today digital media, facetime apps, and the amount of money available to the top 50-70 programs for air travel has at least lessened the relative cost of recruiting beyond state borders. There is plenty of evidence also that todays teenagers identify more as world citizens or North Americans, rather than Tennesseans or Iowans.

Is in-state recruiting now an issue mostly for poor and lower middle class families who cannot afford to travel long distances to see their sons play live?

As an aspect, branding is thoroughly without borders for young people. Graduates going directly into their careers are now as likely to choose a location for its internet network capacity and reliability than its climate or regional values.

It's a worthwhile argument whether Deon's limited success so far is coming from his up-front belief that college football is purely entertainment, just the same as NFL football. He knows how to create and massage personal branding---and that, I believe, is what he's selling to recruits. Geography and school history are (in his perspective) irrelevant afterthoughts.

So what today is the importance of in-state recruiting? Has it changed?
----------------

I'm not saying I 100% believe all of the above, but these are the thoughts I'm juggling as the new landscape unfolds before us. Does anyone doubt that we are only a year or two away from some sports program recruiting on the basis of its campus mRNA development program for performance actualization---or the NCAA regulating the same?

I love tradition. And there are eternal values for which I would (and expect to) die. But if we learned anything from the world wars, it's that you cannot prepare for the future following yesterday's script.

 

[VolNash17]

I'm posing this as a broad, "philosophy of recruiting" question.

I'm presupposing (and this is up for correcting) that the importance of recruiting the best players in your own state was based primarily on logistics and expenses: the phone and travel expenses required to build relationships with HS coaching staffs as well as each player. Back in the day, you had to drive to build those relationships. Air travel for recruiting was limited for only very the top recruits, the 5-stars of that era.

Signing the best in-state talent was also (and may still be) a measure of your school's or your program's brand loyalty among competing regional schools.

To whatever degree the above was once true, today digital media, facetime apps, and the amount of money available to the top 50-70 programs for air travel has at least lessened the relative cost of recruiting beyond state borders. There is plenty of evidence also that todays teenagers identify more as world citizens or North Americans, rather than Tennesseans or Iowans.

Is in-state recruiting now an issue mostly for poor and lower middle class families who cannot afford to travel long distances to see their sons play live?

As an aspect, branding is thoroughly without borders for young people. Graduates going directly into their careers are now as likely to choose a location for its internet network capacity and reliability than its climate or regional values.

It's a worthwhile argument whether Deon's limited success so far is coming from his up-front belief that college football is purely entertainment, just the same as NFL football. He knows how to create and massage personal branding---and that, I believe, is what he's selling to recruits. Geography and school history are (in his perspective) irrelevant afterthoughts.

So what today is the importance of in-state recruiting? Has it changed?
----------------

I'm not saying I 100% believe all of the above, but these are the thoughts I'm juggling as the new landscape unfolds before us. Does anyone doubt that we are only a year or two away from some sports program recruiting on the basis of its campus mRNA development program for performance actualization---or the NCAA regulating the same?

I love tradition. And there are eternal values for which I would (and expect to) die. But if we learned anything from the world wars, it's that you cannot prepare for the future following yesterday's script.

Most coaches these days don’t go by “instate recruiting”. It’s lip service. You recruit nationally as a big program but mainly within a radius around your campus. For UT that’s North Carolina, DMV area, Ohio, Georgia, etc. In this new age in state doesn’t hardly mean anything