Contact attribution when coach territories overlap

Question and scope

This review asks a narrow operational question: when two college coaches appear to cover the same recruiting area, how can a family record which person owns the next action? The unit is one open question tied to one athlete and one program. The review does not attempt to measure coach quality, territory design, or an athlete's recruiting chances. It looks only at whether the written record points to a person who can answer the question, and it builds on the contact record decay review without repeating its departure measure.

The scope is fixed before any case is read so the result cannot be steered by a convenient example. Eligible cases must contain at least two coach names tied to the same program and at least one open question that requires a reply. A case with only one named coach is excluded because there is no overlap to test. A case with no open question is also excluded because attribution has no consequence for the family.

The family record is the object of study because the program's internal territory map is not usually public. A program may publish one recruiting contact while several assistants work the same region. The review therefore treats the family's dated observation as the primary evidence and the program's directory as a check. That order prevents a slow directory update from being mistaken for a family error.

Population and unit

The population is the set of open recruiting questions a family or support assistant tracked during one recruiting cycle. Each question must name a program, at least one coach, a topic, and a next action. Questions that name only a program are excluded because they cannot test attribution. The same athlete may contribute several questions if the questions belong to different programs or different topics.

The unit stays the question, not the athlete, because attribution happens one decision at a time. A question that is reassigned after a coach change remains in the set under its original key. That rule prevents a repaired record from disappearing and making the process look cleaner than it was. Every removal from the set carries a written reason and the date of the decision.

Definitions and measures

An overlap exists when two coaches are both plausibly connected to the same open question. The connection can come from a direct message, a program directory, a visit itinerary, or a referral from another coach. A name that appears only in a forwarded thread does not create an overlap unless that person is asked to act. The definition is deliberately practical because the family can observe these signals without access to internal maps.

The primary measure is the number of days between the first ambiguous contact and the date an owner is named. A second measure records whether the owner was confirmed by the program or only inferred by the family. Both measures are reported with the eligible count and the number of questions that could not be resolved. A ratio without those counts would hide the shape of the sample.

Evidence standard

Each question is tagged attributed, ambiguous, or unassigned using the source that was open at the time of review. An attributed question has a named owner and a written confirmation from the program. An ambiguous question has two plausible names and no confirmation. An unassigned question has no usable contact path at all. The tag describes the record, not the family's confidence.

When two sources disagree, both stay in the file until the program's directory or a written staff message settles the question. A directory page that lists both coaches is not proof that either owns the question. The reviewer records the page, the retrieval date, and the specific line that supports the tag. An empty field is never treated as a clearance.

A current source must have been published or retrieved inside the review window. A page with no visible update date is treated as undated and cannot by itself confirm ownership. The reviewer saves the page and the retrieval time with the tag so a later reader can repeat the check. This rule does not assume that an undated page is wrong, only that it is not enough.

Collection

The sample is drawn from live questions that entered an active recruiting queue during the declared window. Collection uses a fixed interval and a written stopping point so the reviewer cannot keep adding cases until a pattern appears. Questions are included whether or not the family liked the coach, because a friendly relationship can hide a broken path. The note states how many questions were eligible, how many were read, and where reading stopped.

Late additions are refused after the results become visible. A question added at that point would be selected with knowledge of the outcome and would weaken the comparison. If a question is discovered after the stop, it is logged as out of scope and kept for the next window. The reviewer also notes any program that published no usable contact path, because that absence is itself an operational finding.

Every program with no usable contact path is listed in the collection note even when no question was tested. That list shows whether the sample is limited by the family's records or by the program's public information. A reviewer who cannot find a path should not silently drop the program from the frame. Listing the gap keeps the denominator visible and gives the next cycle a concrete place to start.

Attribution test

The attribution test asks three questions of each record. First, does the named owner appear in a source the family can show? Second, has that person been asked to act on this specific question? Third, is there a fallback path if the owner does not reply? A record that fails the first test is a guess, and a record that fails the third is fragile even when the first two pass.

The test is applied before any message is sent, not after a reply arrives. Applying it afterward invites the reviewer to credit whichever coach happened to answer. The order matters because a fast reply can make an ambiguous record look correct. The reviewer records the test result and the date so a second reader can see the sequence.

A question that fails all three tests is moved to a separate unresolved list rather than assigned to the most convenient coach. The family then knows that the next step is to ask the program, not to send another message into the same ambiguity. The unresolved list is reported with the main result instead of being hidden in an appendix. That visibility keeps the family from mistaking an open question for a closed one.

Replay and disagreement

A second reviewer reads the same protected questions against the same written definitions. The comparison checks the named owner, the evidence tag, and the fallback path for each question. Where the two reviewers disagree, the recruiting coordinator decides and records the reasoning. The exercise judges the written rule, not the person who maintained the record.

Replay is not a search for a perfect match. It is a test of whether the definitions are clear enough for two people to apply them the same way. A high disagreement rate is a finding about the protocol, not proof that one reviewer was careless. The dated note stays with the case until the review window closes.

Limits and next step

The conclusion is tied to the cycle, the mix of programs, and the source access available during the window. A shorter window or a set of questions concentrated in one sport may produce a different result. Re-running the review after the next staff-change season shows whether the pattern holds. Where the second run differs, the report shows both outcomes and names the operational decision that depends on the choice.

The output supports one process fix and a scheduled retest, not a ranking of coaches or programs. A reasonable next step is to require a named owner and a fallback path on every open question before a message is sent. A second step is to review unresolved overlaps at the weekly recruiting meeting. Neither step requires a new platform, and both can be checked without collecting more personal data.

A conclusion would change if the review window overlapped a major staff-change period or if most questions came from one program. A larger sample with more programs would test whether the pattern is local or general. A second reviewer with less recruiting experience would test whether the definitions depend on insider knowledge. The report names those conditions instead of treating the current result as final.

Sources

• NCAA Recruiting Rules
• NCAA Division I and II Recruiting Calendars
• BLS Occupational Outlook: Coaches and Scouts
• NCAA Eligibility Center