Posted by emy1013 on 2/2/2016 1:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/1/2016 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/1/2016 6:44:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, its a real shame when you  have to spend to get the guy you want.....

dont take me wrong... i have no problem with a real battle. when you have **** like a guy a prestige grade lower fight you at distance... you want to murder someone. everyone who has played d1 long enough even at an intermediate level can relate to that.

***Read the whole post first before commenting Gill, it rambles and jumps all over the place but by the end I think I get across what I meant to say***


I think what TJ is saying here is that regardless of whether Team Little Guy is going to get crushed or not, there just isn't much sympathy for Team A+ Badass having to spend a little extra coin instead of Team Little Guy laying down and licking his nuts and going away tail tucked as per the usual, whether it makes sense or not or whether it screws Team A+ Badass from signing that fifth 5* for a pittance, also as per the usual.

This thread really comes off as a Team Big Boy whine disguised as a bit of "recruiting summary advice".  Yes, as experienced coaches we all get a bit peeved when a team decides to battle that doesn't really have any chance to win that battle.  But if that dude causes Team A+ Badass to have to spend more money than he wanted to and in the process stops him from signing that fourth or fifth stud, then it's real hard to feel bad for that experienced coach, whether it was a stupid move or not.

This smells of BCS level, A+ prestige, first world HD problems.

You often tell of an incident when you at B-something prestige South Carolina out-recruited A+ prestige me at Duke for a five star player.  That, in fact, is true and you DID beat me in that battle.  What you always fail to mention, however, is that the player in question would have been my fourth five star recruit that season (along with a four star as well) and that to land that five star recruit, you had to take not one, not two, but three walk-ons to get him signed.  Is that not the very essence of what you're talking about, with the slight exception being that you signed the player but then had to take multiple walk-ons to fill your roster?  By your logic in the initial post, it would have been better for you to back off and sign some slightly lower rated players in order not to wreck your own recruiting class, correct?

Now you were able to get away with doing that because you're an exceptional coach and recruiter and got things lined out the following couple of seasons but to anyone watching from afar, they would have been calling you every synonym for knucklehead in the book.  Sometimes a coach has to be on the "losing" end of that battle in order to learn how and when to be on the "winning" end of those battles.  That's just how some people learn.  Yes, it's annoying to the winning coach but it's also part of the experience of learning how to play the game.

the part about the winning school was an afterthought - that's why it was thrown in at the end. the main part of it, 0 whining. i did not mean to whine in the last paragraph, not at all about that - but i can see how its read that way. i think the top 75% cannot be construed as whining at all... its all about the strategy.

the reality is, i use this to drop off of players on my a+ schools ALL THE TIME. if people thought this was advice for B prestige schools only, to get off of players i have them beat on, they are sorely mistaken. i use this on d1 school at every level, d+ b a+ all in recent times. its a super useful tactic that a large population of d1 coaches could benefit from, to some degree. not sure how this got so far off the rails, i guess it was that one line in the last paragraph. i've backed off on that already, not sure why it can't move on to a discussion about an actual strategy point that could actually really help a lot of d1 coaches who struggle in recruiting.

the logic of the initial topic was nothing about, when you should or should not back off. i thought i made that clear, when i said - "its hard, to know when to push, when to fold. this isn't about making that decision. its about what to do once you've made that decision to fold."

that is what this is about - no more, no less.

i shouldn't even reply, because its not even related, but i will anyway. the B prestige move you discuss, no, it wasn't a bad move. i was prepared for 4 walkons. look, i wouldn't tell other people to do it, in the same spot - but i can leverage my ability to coach my way out of a hole, and start pushing for some room sooner than i'd recommend in general. not boasting, just a reality, you can only take the gambles you can afford to lose, and i started gambling as soon as i could afford to lose. i was playing the long game, territory wise, it wasn't about that 1 guy, and frankly, my long game pretty clearly paid off. by the end, SC was mostly mine, and south carolina was performing as well (over the short run i stayed) as any other program, in a pretty tough situation. i'm not saying it doesn't make sense to fight up, i do it all the time in those situations. that's not what this is about. like i said - its about what to do AFTER you realize you are done in a battle, to protect the rest of your class. really, its a shame how off the rails this has gone because its an incredibly valuable tactic. how often do you see other teams get lit up because they have a couple cheap battles on their list? i see it basically every season. that is what this is about. i use this all the time as an a+ school, its not about "kissing the ring" or anything silly like that. its about defending your class using every tool available to you.

being seen as in battles can get people interested in whether you may be vulnerable to an attack - raises the question - does not answer the question - but raises the question whether your resources may be low.

I pretty much never post on the forums, but I find this topic to be very interesting. As far as I am concerned, gillispie hit it right on when talking about strategy of managing your considering list and there don't seem to be a lot of people that understand this. In my opinion, this very well may be the most important aspect of the entire game (at D1 at least). I have redshirted players dozens of times just to get off their list and then came back on their list at a later time. Sometimes if you are in a battle against a very aggressive recruiting coach, you are best to drop off the list until right before signings. Recruiting is about how strong or weak you look to an outsider and you want to make yourself look as strong as possible after the second or third cycle.

Posted by taniajane on 2/2/2016 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Perhaps it is early morning fuzzy brain, but I see no advantage to putting in any effort to "pull someone off my consideration list". The WOS pretty much tells anyone your battling with where you stand, and anyone that "comes snooping" at my list either has WOS for that state or will have to guess where I stand with players. If I quit a battle I simply quit...the extremely slim chance the player I quit dumping money into signs (taken for granted that I have offered a scholarship) with me is OK with me.

If it is a Div 1 that jumps on any Div 2 team's recruit, it is a fair bet they have out spent the Div 2 player. The question for a snooper is when did they do it?

What am I missing on the "courtesy" of making an effort if even $10 to remove someone from the consideration list as a strategy for me?

don't look at the courtesy. i shouldn't have used that word, but as i said originally, i just like to think of it that way - its not why you should do it. only do it for your own benefit.

let me walk you through the scenario, assuming two d1 schools. d1 vs d2 is a bad example, because typically nobody thinks the d1 spent much (although the d2 school would do well to get off that list if he was backing down, so other d2 schools didn't poach him). suppose a d1 C+ school is battling a d1 B school, and for whatever reason, the C+ school decides he is going to back down. now, the WOTS might say - "recruit X is struggling between B school and C+ school" - or, it might say "recruit X is definitely leaning towards B school". ok, you are right - we all know the B school is winning.

but, that says nothing about how much was spent! is it, 5k vs 3k? is it, 50k vs 35k? its impossible to tell that from the WOTS, the message is the same in both cases! also, you might say, people should use their brain. ok, if i'm using my brain - if i am winning a battle 5k to 3k, im going to spend the 1-2k to knock the other guy off, so that nobody even sees there was a battle, and so that people think that battle was resolved quickly and cheaply. i'm NEVER leaving a dime battle on my list, winning, i'm always knocking them off. ok, so now people see this battle 2 days later, still B school leading. well, its probably not a 5k vs 3k, if the B coach is thinking clearly. is it a 15k vs 10k? 50k vs 35? impossible to say, but that's more along what i would be thinking.

the bottom line is, don't leave it up to interpretation. you want other people to see you, say ok that guy has a player i like, but he's got no battles, he's probably a tough nut to crack. better move on. not, hey, there's a battle. well, if hes 10k in, i still lose, but if hes 30k in, i could win! time to roll those dice! that happens literally all the time. don't assume other people know what the situation is, when the information to understand the situation, absolutely does not exist. besides - you are assuming the other guy has FSS on the state! he might not even have that! all he might see is hey, in some random state i didn't scout, B school is battling C+ school for 2 days. what the heck does that mean? anyone who knows for sure, must know the two coaches in question, and their recruiting behaviors, with ridiculous and probably impossible detail, assuming no collusion. 

maybe you aren't more likely, to battle a guy who shows a couple battles, than a guy who shows none. if so, that makes you fairly unique among d1 coaches! most people do gauge things that way, which is why managing perceptions is so critical. perceptions > reality, in d1 recruiting, in so many situations (not always, but, i would say usually). how often do big battles go down to the wire, versus one coach decided to walk away? i think at most 20% go to the wire, 80% are decided on perceptions - which would mean perceptions are all that matters 4 times out of 5, and reality only matters 1 out of 5!

Here's an example.  In Wooden, just this recruiting cycle.  I'm at Stanford.  I never win battles with Cal - better team, better prestige, more openings, better coach.

I rarely fight Cal because I know I will lose.  Now and then, I think he wont want a guy and he does and I usually walk away.

This season, Cal had four great recruits considering them.  But, there were battles showing with Washington State for three of them.  I watched and those battles continued.  So, I started putting some effort into the fourth guy.  A little, then some more, then more.  Then I tried to grab him.  

I failed because Cal seemingly cared more about that guy than the other 3.  But, I never ever would have tried had there not been three battles showing.  Cal lost the other three to WSU.  I wasted 30K but ya gotta try sometimes.

A key aspect of this game is that people will adopt different tactics.  Some will never give up, never surrender (Galaxy Quest).  Some will know when to fold em. (The Gambler)

I learned something from gil - didnt realize that during a cycle one could offer a schollie and withdraw it repeatedly and create increased negative effect - which may for some tactical situations be useful.

Posted by taniajane on 2/2/2016 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 2/2/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Here's an example.  In Wooden, just this recruiting cycle.  I'm at Stanford.  I never win battles with Cal - better team, better prestige, more openings, better coach.

I rarely fight Cal because I know I will lose.  Now and then, I think he wont want a guy and he does and I usually walk away.

This season, Cal had four great recruits considering them.  But, there were battles showing with Washington State for three of them.  I watched and those battles continued.  So, I started putting some effort into the fourth guy.  A little, then some more, then more.  Then I tried to grab him.  

I failed because Cal seemingly cared more about that guy than the other 3.  But, I never ever would have tried had there not been three battles showing.  Cal lost the other three to WSU.  I wasted 30K but ya gotta try sometimes.

So maybe Cal should have dropped the other recruits? This theory makes no sense. You assume, we all assume, what a worth of a player is to another recruiting team (money, distance. prestige, and needs, all can be fairly judged) but you have no clue how much is spent..or when it was spent. You can assume, and guess, if it appears to be in WOS close for several cycles between 1 or more schools..but not all recruits are the same. I honestly think some are easy and some try to encourage a battle and I believe WIS has confirmed that.

Gillespie's theory runs into a problem when he complains he has to pay more cause he does not know how much has been spent (he can somewhat accurately guess given the above) but he doesnt know. Thats why 'its smart to drop out so he knows'.

Sorry, YES you will lose some battles...and win a few others..I SEE no sense in folding a "hand" when it costs me even a 'meager' $10 or $100 to drop a scholarship offer to do it.

complaining i have to pay more? i'm not sure what you are talking about. i said, in response to your post, that when someone is considering stealing one of your players (not the one in the battle), that they don't know how much you have into the other guy, whom you are battling for. it could be 5k it could be 50k.

also, if you don't see the value in spending 10 dollars to redshirt and pull scholarship (its free to pull a scholarship), don't do it. but, you are also aren't a d1 coach. this was mostly a thread directed to d1 coaches - why? because recruiting is ultra competitive and cut throat up there. its what makes d1 different, more than anything else. in d1, you would understand the damage of showing a battle REAL quick. its pretty obvious. its like i said half way through - maybe some folks don't realize the damage of having battles on their list causes. but, to all experienced successful d1 coaches, the damage is very real and extremely obvious. it follows from there, that removing a battle, would have value. you see zero value, fine. i pretty much guarantee you won't have that same stance if you ever make it to a+ prestige in d1.

Posted by emy1013 on 2/2/2016 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by lwbraun on 2/2/2016 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I pretty much never post on the forums, but I find this topic to be very interesting. As far as I am concerned, gillispie hit it right on when talking about strategy of managing your considering list and there don't seem to be a lot of people that understand this. In my opinion, this very well may be the most important aspect of the entire game (at D1 at least). I have redshirted players dozens of times just to get off their list and then came back on their list at a later time. Sometimes if you are in a battle against a very aggressive recruiting coach, you are best to drop off the list until right before signings. Recruiting is about how strong or weak you look to an outsider and you want to make yourself look as strong as possible after the second or third cycle.

Not sure if "there don't seem to be a lot of people that understands this" is just a statement about coaches in general or if it's directed towards those of us that have commented in this thread but I can assure you that I myself have no problem in understanding how to manage my list of players who are considering me.  In fact, since each coach has their own individual ways of coaching their teams, with their own different strategies and methods (some that you may agree with and some which you may not), it comes off as a bit arrogant to say that there are a lot of coaches who don't understand what they're doing.  Perhaps they know "exactly" what they want to do and because other coaches don't agree with their strategies or methods they think that the coach doesn't understand.  Recruiting is not about how you "look".  Recruiting is about signing the best players for your team that you can, regardless of how you have to do it.

There are many, many ways to play this game and to say that a coach or coaches don't know what they're doing just because they don't subscribe to your, his, hers, or the majority's methods could very easily be construed as being arrogant and condescending.  Some of the best strategies in this game were found because that coach took the dumb route, the fail to understand route, the road less traveled and that, that made all the difference.


****And to all the damn cry babies, there is NO SUCH THING AS "POACHING" in this game.  You poach an egg.  A recruit is not "yours" until he signs with you.  Just because you got him to consider you first doesn't mean you have "dibs" on him.****

Okay, that was enough air for now.  Back under my rock for six months or so.  It was fun, take care, may good fortune shine upon you all, drive safe, and don't look directly into the sun.  And always remember, there are two kinds of people in this world...........so save your money! 

i see zero arrogance in his post. look, you know d1. this is not a controversial topic. massive amounts of d1 coaches get in way over their heads, get into way too many battles, and get wrecked. i can't imagine you dispute that, it happens all the time. some of that damage could be mitigated by getting the hell out of the losing battles so its not so obvious how incredibly F'd those guys are. its really no more complicated than that. he's not saying YOU don't understand. but for the coaches trapped at mid majors, who get into these fierce sets of battles season after season - yes - the statement applies. nobody is saying there is only 1 way to win. that doesn't mean there aren't good and bad strategies and ways to improve. straw men, for the lose. 

if you are looking for me to say, a lot of coaches in d1 suck at managing perceptions of their recruiting season, ill say it. a lot of coaches suck at that - and its super important. not sure if that is what you are getting at or what problem you see with that statement, its dead obvious. its not an insult. its just one of the tough parts of d1 that a lot of people could use to improve at. the attempt is to offer advice to those folks to improve their standing in that area - its not the only way (you can be more careful in recruit selection, etc). but it is ONE way. i'm not sure what you are trying to fight over, really.

Posted by fd343ny on 2/2/2016 4:38:00 PM (view original):
A key aspect of this game is that people will adopt different tactics.  Some will never give up, never surrender (Galaxy Quest).  Some will know when to fold em. (The Gambler)

I learned something from gil - didnt realize that during a cycle one could offer a schollie and withdraw it repeatedly and create increased negative effect - which may for some tactical situations be useful.

i've only used it twice i believe but i found it useful in those two situations :) i hate when you are stuck in a situation where NEITHER coach wants a recruit, like an international where both people scouted and were like, yuck. nobody is going to knock anybody off. sitting there looking like you are in a battle there, that really sucks. i think that is both situations where i've used the scholarship offer/pull cycle to unwind. 

I also wish there were ways to encourage players to quit your team - without having to rescind a schollie.

I'm thinking a dropdown menu

- require player to do laundry for a week
- inform player his minutes will not go up
- inform player his minutes will not go up next season
- date players mom
- date players girlfriend

Gil, 

I think the original advice was fine and dandy, but it seems that there's an issue you've left out, or are not considering, in the original scenario of A+ school fighting lower school for a recruit. If you (A+) drop off the list to avoid semblance of battle, planning to come back and kill him later, aren't you inviting other big schools to come in and take him from the little guy first? Or are you counting on awesome territorial integrity, where nobody will come in? alternately, did I read this wrong? 

Posted by wronoj on 2/3/2016 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Gil, 

I think the original advice was fine and dandy, but it seems that there's an issue you've left out, or are not considering, in the original scenario of A+ school fighting lower school for a recruit. If you (A+) drop off the list to avoid semblance of battle, planning to come back and kill him later, aren't you inviting other big schools to come in and take him from the little guy first? Or are you counting on awesome territorial integrity, where nobody will come in? alternately, did I read this wrong? 

you are absolutely right. just recently, i went after an international, with the best A+ i ever had. a B school showed up, and surprisingly, spent a boat load in cycle 2. if it was a local area that i had dominance over, i would have backed off, to protect the rest of my class. but in that case, if i dumped off, then i figured someone else would jump in. so i stayed on board.

really, that is the edge case... dumping off as the winner. the 90% case is dumping off as the loser, which i do regularly even with A+ bcs schools. i think the applicability of the dumping as winner thing is definitely situational. a lot of times it wouldn't work at all, but sometimes it does. i've used it in crowded areas, east coast, when the other likely suspects (under 200 mile a/a+ programs) were all busy and i didn't expect them to interfere. plus, a lot of folks will have noticed the A+ school got knocked off, and will be wondering if they come back. i definitely will use it if i have the natural advantage (dist/prestige) over every other school, but in some cases, that situation never arises. so, just depends. totally agree with you though.