How high can I target for recruiting

Depends on a gizillion factors, but realistically you might be able to snag a bad two star player.

I am not sure this is right. I took over a team with D prestige, and the highest ranked player I could get to be "recruitable" was ranked #43. I am recruiting tonight for a D- prestige team, (Fordham)  and I am going to see how high I can go. I deleted any ranked above #30. It is probably as close to a "F" prestige as you can get, after going 1-26 last year.

I was a B prestige at LMU and let a conference mate(D) end up with a #53 SG because I got to wrapped up in "stars"..... As a junior he's now at 848 and still growing....he is a stud in the WCC and could play for any team in D1. I've since moved on to Washington but still havent gotten over that kid. That one taught me lesson....I've recruited several 3 stars that end up on the bench for 4 years. Look for the diamonds because their out there.......just have to look hard

Though I only have 3 seasons of D1 under my belt...the only recruits that I could get to consider me were actually worse than the pulldowns I could get at an A or B prestiged D2 school.  It's rough the first couple of years at D1 I would imagine (looking to perhaps get there again soon) but I got a lot of "you don't have a chance emails, again simply chasing guys I could get at D2...maybe I'm just a ****** recruiter though, who knows.  I think given the right amount of experience, I could blossom into a decent, low-level D1 coach...which is I guess what I really am only inspired to be...teams that have never had human coaches intrigue me currently.

With d prestige you should get 70+ at their position. If you aren't getting players as good as d2 pull downs you are doing something wrong.

I'm just telling you what happened, bruh

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/26/2012 10:49:00 PM (view original):
Depends on a gizillion factors, but realistically you might be able to snag a bad two star player.

i think two stars will not even let you pull them down, with a d-.

low end d1 schools (up to a b-) have to pull down high end players, just like d2/d3. and low d1 schools CANT even TALK to the high end recruits. recruiting on a d+, i find that 2 stars wont even TALK to you, and 1 stars are mostly pulldown material. ive never played below a D+, maybe i had a D at an experimental school but i dont think so, so im not sure how different d+ and d- are. but at best, you are looking at 1 stars for pulldowns, and 2 stars as impossible to talk to. its hard to pull a guy down in d1, usually those players go to better schools.

the star system and ranking system are both basically useless. even for a+ d1 schools, you should ignore those metrics and go purely off ratings. 

colonels comment about not being able to get as good of players as d2 schools is way off though. if you cant pull the same quality recruits, with 3x the money, and higher prestige, you are doing something SERIOUSLY wrong. at d1, i will sometimes takes players i think should reside on championship level d2 schools, and sometimes i take players way beyond what i can get with a top of the line d2 school. but the bare minimum standard has to be championship caliber d2 players, or else, why even be in d1??

Posted by gillispie on 2/17/2013 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/26/2012 10:49:00 PM (view original):
Depends on a gizillion factors, but realistically you might be able to snag a bad two star player.

i think two stars will not even let you pull them down, with a d-.

low end d1 schools (up to a b-) have to pull down high end players, just like d2/d3. and low d1 schools CANT even TALK to the high end recruits. recruiting on a d+, i find that 2 stars wont even TALK to you, and 1 stars are mostly pulldown material. ive never played below a D+, maybe i had a D at an experimental school but i dont think so, so im not sure how different d+ and d- are. but at best, you are looking at 1 stars for pulldowns, and 2 stars as impossible to talk to. its hard to pull a guy down in d1, usually those players go to better schools.

the star system and ranking system are both basically useless. even for a+ d1 schools, you should ignore those metrics and go purely off ratings. 

colonels comment about not being able to get as good of players as d2 schools is way off though. if you cant pull the same quality recruits, with 3x the money, and higher prestige, you are doing something SERIOUSLY wrong. at d1, i will sometimes takes players i think should reside on championship level d2 schools, and sometimes i take players way beyond what i can get with a top of the line d2 school. but the bare minimum standard has to be championship caliber d2 players, or else, why even be in d1??

bingo! If the player is not going to be at the same level as the players on a D2 championship team, then you should not recruit him. 

When I was a D prestige at DI, I couldn't get MANY of the players I can now as a C. It's been a very significant number of players at higher starting ratings available now as opposed to before.

For example, this last recruiting season I was able to get this guy without even having to pull him down - he was already receptive. His starting rating was 585 during recruiting, with high/high in both ATH and BH. A couple seasons ago, the highest rated player - that I noticed - I could recruit was this guy, who started out at 548 with high/high def and high in LP and ATH and I had to pull him down first and then battle another D prestige DI school to get him.

As a D- at D1 you really just have to be smart and not go for the top players - you are just wasting your money. The best advice that I ever got when I joined D1 was to target one player who is within reasonable reach and fill in around that player with high potential guys. I have taken sub 500 overall players with little effort that became 800+ with 90+ core skills. I also have taken sub 500 players that became 650 with no demonstrable skills whatsoever. It is a roll of the dice, but a relatively cheap one. 

+1.

I've never had a sub-500 player get anywhere near 800 overall.  In fact the highest rated player I have on my team now is the guy I mentioned in my last post who started out at 548 and is pretty much maxed out as a senior at 790.

I am looking back now on the recruiting I just did for D- Fordham, in the Ivy League. I had one backup option that was listed as #34 PG. I had #53, #56, #58 as well. I am sure these were probably backup options. The highest ranked player I landed was #70.

On another note, I disagree with the strategy of going hard after just one guy. I had 2 open scholarships on a very bad team, that had gone 1-26 the year before. I was able to take the money from the 2 scholarships, cut 4 players and land 6 recruits which are not that great now, but that have high potential. I am starting 3 freshmen this year. While this year may be rough, it probably will be better than 1-26, and by the time these guys get to their Junior and Senior year, we should have the prestige up to at least a D+. At that point, I will focus more on quality, when I can recruit with a better prestige. I have had good success using this method. It improves your team faster than if you hold on to the crummy players for longer. This is especially true if you are changing the offense and defense (I am not doing that in this case).

How much does it kill your reputation to do that strategy, chapelhillne?