I had assumed that $1000 spent on recruiting is 2x as effective s spending $500.  Also, do you get more bang for your recruiting buck spending $1600 once a day, or $200 once each 3-hour cycle of the entire day?

Love to hear input on this, as it's been hazy to me.

Yes, it is related, but it is not equal.  It depends on what you do with it.  If you spend $1k on phone calls or letters, it won't be nearly as good as if it was spent on home visits or campus visits.  Most everyone agrees that campus visits are the best bang for your buck... outside of promised starts/playtime at least.

Also, your $1k might be completely different than my $1k.  Distance is a huge factor that you can see.  Coaching prestige is also a big factor that you cannot directly judge.  If you are a constant top 10 team, and I'm a new bottomdweller, your $1k will mean a lot more than mine.

Recruiting "effort" is more important than recruiting "$".

Posted by bhouska on 6/29/2012 10:42:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting "effort" is more important than recruiting "$".

Exactly.

10 Campus visits worth of effort is the same no matter the cost.  (So if you are closer, it costs less and if you are further away it costs more).

The total effort is then added to with a multiplier for things like prestige ... so a very high prestige team would get 10% more than a lower prestige team for that campus visit ... meaning that they would get the equivalent of 11 campus visits for every 10 of the lower prestige team if both made 10 visits. etc.

Prestige plays a large role and team history if a team is consistency in the playoffs for the last 20 years and you've been in say 10 years it's a lot harder to battle. I've spent large amounts of money  (more than I know was sane or reasonable)on guys before just to lose to a team with a better rep.

Again, effort is THE key. If team "A" makes 10 CV's and spends $10,000 and team "B" makes 9 CV's and spends $12,000 (because they are further away) team "A" is winning the battle (assuming prestige is equal).