Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.

only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.

I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.

You should've let go on all but ONE of those as soon as they became a battle. And multiple people have now given you the same advice as to saving some of your FSS money until after signings, and scouting a bunch of states. You really shouldn't ignore that advice.

So is everyone else letting go on one all but one of their battles too? In that case shouldn't I be able to win more of them by not letting go?

Basically a guessing game at that point. 

I don't think i would have gotten better players than Crawford and Godina after signings, based on what I saw. I could maybe have added another player like Grow who you don't like so not sure why you would advocate that. Would having 6 scholarship players rather than 4 make me a PTT team? That's the only way I can see that being worth it.

You can land decent potential freshman after signings that would not help you be "a PIT team", but would help you in the long run. But do what you want, man. I'm tired of the merry-go-round.

Just don't see where signing guys to sit on the bench in this scenario would really have helped in the short or long run. Seems more likely that I'll be able to do better with that scholarship next year. If I get the same number of guys next year as this year, I should be in good shape, right? 

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:00:00 AM (view original):
and for what its worth, i spend half the time i spend talking to coaches about low-mid d1, telling coaches to widen the scope of players they are considering... so its not just you i give this advice...

Seems like recruiting there would be easier, not having to deal with all this pulldown horsecrap. 

It's not. Recruiting at division 1 is MUCH more cutthroat than the lower two levels. It's not even close.

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.

only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.

I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.

You should've let go on all but ONE of those as soon as they became a battle. And multiple people have now given you the same advice as to saving some of your FSS money until after signings, and scouting a bunch of states. You really shouldn't ignore that advice.

So is everyone else letting go on one all but one of their battles too? In that case shouldn't I be able to win more of them by not letting go?

Basically a guessing game at that point. 

I don't think i would have gotten better players than Crawford and Godina after signings, based on what I saw. I could maybe have added another player like Grow who you don't like so not sure why you would advocate that. Would having 6 scholarship players rather than 4 make me a PTT team? That's the only way I can see that being worth it.

You can land decent potential freshman after signings that would not help you be "a PIT team", but would help you in the long run. But do what you want, man. I'm tired of the merry-go-round.

Just don't see where signing guys to sit on the bench in this scenario would really have helped in the short or long run. Seems more likely that I'll be able to do better with that scholarship next year. If I get the same number of guys next year as this year, I should be in good shape, right? 

They wouldn't have sat on the bench. If you'd landed 1 stud (potential) freshman, filled in around him with a decent juco (or 2) and 2 other decent freshmen, you'd have been able to give all 5 loads of playing time this season. And you'd still have had 6 schollies worth of money next season, with 6 open spots to fill. As it stands now, you'll have 6 schollies worth of money with SEVEN to fill.

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.

I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:00:00 AM (view original):
and for what its worth, i spend half the time i spend talking to coaches about low-mid d1, telling coaches to widen the scope of players they are considering... so its not just you i give this advice...

Seems like recruiting there would be easier, not having to deal with all this pulldown horsecrap. 

It's not. Recruiting at division 1 is MUCH more cutthroat than the lower two levels. It's not even close.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't find it easier and it make more sense to me. Seems to me you'd have a lot more possible strategies. But it's an unanswerable question right now.

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.

I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".

Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.

only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.

I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.

You should've let go on all but ONE of those as soon as they became a battle. And multiple people have now given you the same advice as to saving some of your FSS money until after signings, and scouting a bunch of states. You really shouldn't ignore that advice.

So is everyone else letting go on one all but one of their battles too? In that case shouldn't I be able to win more of them by not letting go?

Basically a guessing game at that point. 

I don't think i would have gotten better players than Crawford and Godina after signings, based on what I saw. I could maybe have added another player like Grow who you don't like so not sure why you would advocate that. Would having 6 scholarship players rather than 4 make me a PTT team? That's the only way I can see that being worth it.

You can land decent potential freshman after signings that would not help you be "a PIT team", but would help you in the long run. But do what you want, man. I'm tired of the merry-go-round.

Just don't see where signing guys to sit on the bench in this scenario would really have helped in the short or long run. Seems more likely that I'll be able to do better with that scholarship next year. If I get the same number of guys next year as this year, I should be in good shape, right? 

They wouldn't have sat on the bench. If you'd landed 1 stud (potential) freshman, filled in around him with a decent juco (or 2) and 2 other decent freshmen, you'd have been able to give all 5 loads of playing time this season. And you'd still have had 6 schollies worth of money next season, with 6 open spots to fill. As it stands now, you'll have 6 schollies worth of money with SEVEN to fill.

Instead I got 2 top D-II juniors and a couple of decent freshmen. So you're quibbling over 1 player difference? 

I doubt I'll get 6 players good enough to sign next year, so not sure why signing an extra player and losing that money is such an advantage.

Godina isn't a top D-2 junior. And you don't have even one potentially stud freshman. You have two freshman that could be decent to above average by their senior years. So it's about more than a "1 player difference." It's about doing nearly everything different than what you did:

1) Pick 1 battle, not multiple.
2) Save money for after signings start.
3) Widen your FSS base post-signings starting.
4) Listen when Gillispie talks.

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.

I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".

Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.

You mean like you and Villanova? Doesn't seem your way works all that great either. IRL you'd probably be fired from there this year if you don't make the NT.

etta, d1 recruiting is vastly more difficult. guys who romp d2/d3 - i mean who rattle off 2, 3, 4, 5 championships in no time flat - come to d1 and fall on their faces, because of the recruiting. plus, d1 has loads of coaches who could easily maintain A prestige type programs in lower divisions. its way harder, there is really no question among those who have succeeded at both (i put in that qualifier because a lot of people who never played d1 disagree...)

i personally think the top of d2/d3 are actually pretty tough, and get a bad wrap, the gap between them and top of d1 isn't as big as people make it out to be, IMO. but for say, a normal a to low a+ d2/d3 team, competing on that level (making the NT every year with an average of a NT win or two) isn't even close to as hard as d1. its so different that HDers talk about "best coaches" and "best d2/d3 coaches" because its almost impossible to compare coaches who made it in d1 with those who have not. 

that said, i am curious, what is the potential of the guys you signed? i have no idea, i haven't even looked. i know you said you only have 4 players, which means you really should have been signing guys who are decent to fill spots, not holding out for greats... so just to make it clear, the quality of those guys doesn't really weigh in on the discussion of if there were other guys worth signing who you missed. on 30k, spending 10k on scouting is not unreasonable at all, to find more options, and even if you battled locally, you definitely should be able to win more freshman. but outside that, im kind of curious about the guys you got. i just checked them out, they actually look like they *could* be good, depending on their potential. and that juco sg can contribute right now, even if his potential sucks, the other guys, they need growth (like all freshman d2 recruits and most jucos), so i am reserving judgement.

edit: fyi, d1 also has pulldowns

And, there it is. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you speak like you think you do. You don't want to listen to advice, so you lash out at me, insulting me, when I'm in a BCS conference, in a huge rebuild, and have built my team back to competitiveness in three seasons. I'm not CLOSE to the best coach in this game. But I'm much better at it (objectively speaking) than you are. And you choose to insult me?

You know what? I've tried to deal with you respectfully, and to give you the best advice I have. You've decided you know better, after your 25-30 record over two D3 seasons. Have fun with that.

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.

I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".

Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.

You mean like you and Villanova? Doesn't seem your way works all that great either. IRL you'd probably be fired from there this year if you don't make the NT.

making the NT with a bottom feeder BCS team is the hardest situation to make the NT with in the whole game, its incomparably harder than doing so at d2/d3. championship coaches try and fail all the time. wildcat is doing just fine.

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:21:00 AM (view original):
Godina isn't a top D-2 junior. And you don't have even one potentially stud freshman. You have two freshman that could be decent to above average by their senior years. So it's about more than a "1 player difference." It's about doing nearly everything different than what you did:

1) Pick 1 battle, not multiple.
2) Save money for after signings start.
3) Widen your FSS base post-signings starting.
4) Listen when Gillispie talks.

Fine you don't like him, i get it. But he did rate well over 600 which puts him in the top junior recruits in D-II, and it's not like that's inflated by something that isn't useful. How many guys above 70 from PE, 60 from LP and have a Ath above 50? I'm glad you don't like him. I hope others don't either because then I can get more like him. Call me crazy but I think a guy that was an effective scorer in a major D-I conference will be fine in D-II.

They'll be two of the top 5 talents in the conference next year. I don't know if Crawford will ever be as good as his talent but he should still be plenty good. Another guy I was recruiting will probably be top 10. 

5) Basically, you can just ignore overall ratings. They don't really matter.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.

I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".

Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.

You mean like you and Villanova? Doesn't seem your way works all that great either. IRL you'd probably be fired from there this year if you don't make the NT.

making the NT with a bottom feeder BCS team is the hardest situation to make the NT with in the whole game, its incomparably harder than doing so at d2/d3. championship coaches try and fail all the time. wildcat is doing just fine.

Thanks for this, Gillispie. This Nova build has been the most frustrating thing I've yet undertaken in HD.