All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Inter-conference Recruiting Battles?
4/29/2013 3:21 PM
I'll battle whomever I need to so I can get my recruits. At MU last year I lost out to Kansas for 2 recruits. I've lost of OU and OSU and KSU as well. Would I rather battle MO state? sure. But if Nebraska has the guy I want, I'm going to go get him. Nebraska can do the same to me. 
4/29/2013 3:34 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I mean this in the nicest possible way....I don't give a **** about my conference mates.  I recruit the best possible guy I think I will sign.
As TJ's conference mate, I generally agree with this sentiment.  I do think that there is some balancing of your own team's best interests in the sense that crippling a conference mate for a season or two will adversely affect your future postseason recruiting cash, so if you can find a similar player elsewhere it's obviously better.  I also think the human population of the conference is a big factor in the weighting.  If your conference is mostly sims, you're likely not going to have the budget to fight other human coaches anyway, so you have to be a little more egocentric and not worry about who you run over on your way to the best class.  In a full conference, you might want to give your fellow coaches a little more leeway.  I know some coaches would make the exact opposite argument - you hurt one team in a full conference it shouldn't matter much - but I tend to approach things quite differently and more selfishly in an empty conference than a full one.  And TJ and I have definitely battled for recruits more than once since he joined the Knight Upstate.  Which is not to say I haven't battled my conference-mates in the Tark USA South, but I've had more battles with TJ in his 11 seasons in the Upstate than I have with narcotico and helloflyers combined in my 25 seasons in the USAS.
4/29/2013 3:34 PM
Posted by craigcoug on 4/29/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Unrelated to battling other conference coaches.... But as for D3 battling in general:

I get that avoiding battles can be a good policy. Yes, there are many players of equal value if you look hard enough. However, I find it funny that so many coaches who have been around for a long time are advising new coaches to avoid battles. That is convenient advice when your recruiting strategy is to mark your territory early with your high prestige so that nobody dares touch your recruit.

A lot of times coaches might have a prestige advantage and maybe even a slight proximity advantage... a conference advantage, more money.... it doesn't matter. If a bunch of really good players are considering that school early on and you watch other schools pop up on those recruits' lists of schools being considered, that coach is spread too thin.

Just my opinion here, but it's so important in recruiting to target specific players to meet the exact need of your team. That means finding a player that is the right class with the right skills, etc. And no, sometimes there is not another player out there who fits as well as the one guy you've marked that you need. My point is you CAN win that battle. Not always. But if the other coach is spread too thin and you can budget spending less money on a few other recruits to drop your bank on that one guy you need... do it. And don't listen to advice of every other coach telling you not to battle "especially at D3".

In theory you’re right. But you're assuming a few things here:

That a newbie coach can tell which battles are truly winnable, and which ones aren’t, and will know when to bail on a battle.
That a newbie coach can tell the difference between a difference-making recruit, and one who’s just, say, 2% better than others available without battles.
That most newbie coaches know how to tell if a veteran coach is spread too thin or not. This may seem obvious to you or I, but I don’t think it is for many newer coaches.

The reason I generally discourage newbies from battles is not because they’re unwinnable. (And it’s certainly not because I want to give self-serving “convenient advice”.) It’s because battles are all about information and playing the percentages, and newbies simply go into a battle knowing less about those things than most veteran coaches.

4/29/2013 3:59 PM
I'm a pretty new coach, bhansalid and maybe I'd advise newbies to avoid these battles the first couple of times. But if you pay attention, there are definitely battles worth fighting.
4/29/2013 4:11 PM
Posted by craigcoug on 4/29/2013 3:59:00 PM (view original):
I'm a pretty new coach, bhansalid and maybe I'd advise newbies to avoid these battles the first couple of times. But if you pay attention, there are definitely battles worth fighting.
I think it's smart to avoid battles when possible, especially at DIII and even DII. Too many similar players to waste $ on a battle.?
4/29/2013 4:22 PM
Posted by trobone on 4/29/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by craigcoug on 4/29/2013 3:59:00 PM (view original):
I'm a pretty new coach, bhansalid and maybe I'd advise newbies to avoid these battles the first couple of times. But if you pay attention, there are definitely battles worth fighting.
I think it's smart to avoid battles when possible, especially at DIII and even DII. Too many similar players to waste $ on a battle.?
Not if you're planning your team right. If you're looking at the exact hole you need to fill there will be 2-3 options to BEST fit that hole. You'll only get one out of those 2-3 options and if you have to get in a battle that you have a good chance to win, do it!

Avoiding battles is a good rule of thumb. But if you recruit to avoid battles always that is playing not to lose. You'll get decent players with decent abilities when you could have battled for a player that could carry you in a NT.

4/29/2013 4:46 PM
I'm sure it happens that people have cautioned n00bs not to battle, but I've personally only ever done or witnesses the type the comes with the added "until you know what you're doing"

You win some, you lose some. That's the way it goes, but I think it can be a critical piece of advice to a new coach. The major difference is of course that while I think Craig's statement is valid, it's also missing something important.  And that would be that if you battle (wisely or not) and lose, you not only don't get "recruited not to lose type players", you get yourself a bunch of walkons and a bad season or 2.

I think too many people argue this (and many other) point(s) from the perspective of where they are now, rather than the full spectrum of where you have been, where you are, and where you are going. A brand new coach should be extremely cautious of any battle and they should also have a good solid idea of what happens when you lose 1 or more battles. They should be taught to be willing to battle, not to be afraid of battling, but they should certainly be cautioned about the drawbacks that come with the territory.

4/29/2013 4:51 PM
And I say this not only as an experienced coach, but as a coach who experienced a major recruiting debacle against a sim team that I wasn't expecting and 1 that is still making itself felt with my Emmanuel Team. I also not saying that it wasn't my fault, but rather that it's easy to get caught up in the moment, even when you know something is going terribly wrong.
4/29/2013 5:54 PM
Yep, illini! I think the best teaching tool is to fall flat on your face. So go for the battle... you'll probably fall on your face the first time or two. But it's worth it to go for it so you know how to handle it the next time it comes around.
4/29/2013 11:23 PM
Posted by bhansalid00 on 4/29/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ezekialstarr on 4/29/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
I am a new coach (2nd season) but I love my conference a lot!  Everyone is really kind and helpful, and some very skilled coaches there.  I don't think I would ever want to take recruits from them.  In this game, the ultimate goal is to win the championships.  Various strategies are employed- I think this is a great and ethical strategy.  Avoiding in-conference battling will potentially help my entire conference, and in turn also help me :)  But also, I would not feel good to take a recruit from a conference mate, even if the recruit was really good.  I am in DIII and to me so far it seems battling in-conference mates for players is not a necessity, unless they engage you first.  The cool thing is everyone has this opportunity, so no one conference necessarily has an advantage over another one, in that sense.  

All this said, I really have a fond attachment to my conference, and seeing them do well is almost as important to me as doing well myself.  That may sway my opinion a little.  Also, I had a recruit taken from me last minute by a conference mate this last recruiting period... so even if some players feel avoiding conference battles is a good tactic (like me), the conference really won't have much of an advantage unless ALL players in the conference do not battle each other.  I think it is very kind to your conference, and it promotes a friendly atmosphere :D  
First, welcome to the forums. Second, I respectfully disagree. :) The problem is that while you may feel you're promoting a friendly atmosphere by not battling, your conf mates aren't likely to feel the same way. And if they have no hesitation in battling you, you're going to lose players you want if you refuse to engage when you feel it's necessary. That's just going to weaken your team and foster resentment. Plus, if you decide to verbally share your nice strategy with your mates to get their buy-in, you've now crossed over from "friendliness" to "collusion".

However, I do agree with your statement in the middle there - at D3, battles are usually unnecessary, because so many players are of approx equal quality.
Thank you for the warm welcome :)  You make some very good points.
4/30/2013 9:10 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 4/29/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I mean this in the nicest possible way....I don't give a **** about my conference mates.  I recruit the best possible guy I think I will sign.
As TJ's conference mate, I generally agree with this sentiment.  I do think that there is some balancing of your own team's best interests in the sense that crippling a conference mate for a season or two will adversely affect your future postseason recruiting cash, so if you can find a similar player elsewhere it's obviously better.  I also think the human population of the conference is a big factor in the weighting.  If your conference is mostly sims, you're likely not going to have the budget to fight other human coaches anyway, so you have to be a little more egocentric and not worry about who you run over on your way to the best class.  In a full conference, you might want to give your fellow coaches a little more leeway.  I know some coaches would make the exact opposite argument - you hurt one team in a full conference it shouldn't matter much - but I tend to approach things quite differently and more selfishly in an empty conference than a full one.  And TJ and I have definitely battled for recruits more than once since he joined the Knight Upstate.  Which is not to say I haven't battled my conference-mates in the Tark USA South, but I've had more battles with TJ in his 11 seasons in the Upstate than I have with narcotico and helloflyers combined in my 25 seasons in the USAS.
I found your comments pretty funny dahs.   I thought I was pretty tame around you, you actually scare me.   Your recruitng style is not condusive to battle and I only do it if I can commit myself whole heartedly to the battle.

You should see me in the CAA in D2 Tark.   That place is a damn blood bath.  The good CA recruits go for 12k+ each season.   I spent 18k on a local kid and lost.  

4/30/2013 3:29 PM
I really think this is one of the most unrealistic aspects of this game. Think about a real life recruiting situation with a player from the Carolinas. Do you think Duke would ever pass up a guy because Carolina wanted him? In fact it would be quite the opposite. I could certainly see Duke recruiting a guy largely to keep him away from Carolina. By keeping the better players away from your conference mates it gives you a competitive advantage, especially with teams in your own division that you play twice a year.

That said, the fact that conference success contributes to your individual recruiting budget throws a big wrench in that logic. I tend to land at the point of not battling my conference mates if there is a roughly equivalent alternative, but I certainly don't have a problem battling if I feel it is the best available option and I should be able to win.

And before yanks gets in on this, I foolishly pursued a battle I couldn't win against him a few seasons ago, mostly because he complained about it on the CC. So if anybody wants to trick me into wasting money just complain about me battling you 
4/30/2013 3:44 PM
i think people, by nature, try to reach a certain "peaceful coexistence" with nearby coaches - in conference and out. we all are pretty aware that major battles can have a tsunami effect on your whole class, and generally, try to limit our major battles to the end, when we have a solid group already on the books. coaches often state this as a gentelemans rule in conference, but i really dont think its limited to conference. coaches mention all the time how they look at their really big neighbors (regardless of if they are a big fish or a medium fish themselves), and try to guess who they might want, or at least look at how big man needs and guard needs stack up to big men and guards generated in the area. if you watch pairs of big schools, the % of time they get in on a recruit in the first cycle, its really low, its way lower (in general) than you would expect from a random assignment of top teams to top recruits. i take that two ways. either 1) everyone is cheating and im too naive to realize it, or more likely, 2) over time, the big dogs get a feel for who they can go for without getting in a major battle (which is directly related to who the other big dogs go for), and try to go for those guys, consistently.

i think that effect is why there are a lot fewer battles to start recruiting than i would expect, mathematically, and i know i do it all the time. further, i dont just try to avoid gruesome battles with conference mates. ill take a battle over a guy far away over a battle with Duke a hundred miles north, any day of the week (unless the coach at Duke poached me recently, then i have to go with Duke). i mean, i poach at the end of recruiting like most other coaches, but i try to do so in a manner that doesnt kill me later. im not poaching the same guy over and over, or really kicking someone when they are down. ill usually try to poach a guy from someone who already has a decent class, who KNOWS they over extended and sort of half to blame themselves. or ill poach an international, so the other coach, if offended, has a lessened ability to pay me back. 

anyway, i really think all of this type of stuff is fine, as long as nobody is doing it via explicit agreement. i think people get hurt when they THINK they have an implicit peaceful agreement with certain coaches, say, a conference mate, and they get jumped. its normal, but i think people often go overboard with it. its one thing to hope another coach gives you the courtesy of trying to avoid battling you, but its an irrational leap to expect a battle will never happen. i dont think its fair to get upset at a conference mate for battling you, no matter how long you avoided battling them for.
5/1/2013 11:25 AM
Posted by theploww on 4/30/2013 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I really think this is one of the most unrealistic aspects of this game. Think about a real life recruiting situation with a player from the Carolinas. Do you think Duke would ever pass up a guy because Carolina wanted him? In fact it would be quite the opposite. I could certainly see Duke recruiting a guy largely to keep him away from Carolina. By keeping the better players away from your conference mates it gives you a competitive advantage, especially with teams in your own division that you play twice a year.

That said, the fact that conference success contributes to your individual recruiting budget throws a big wrench in that logic. I tend to land at the point of not battling my conference mates if there is a roughly equivalent alternative, but I certainly don't have a problem battling if I feel it is the best available option and I should be able to win.

And before yanks gets in on this, I foolishly pursued a battle I couldn't win against him a few seasons ago, mostly because he complained about it on the CC. So if anybody wants to trick me into wasting money just complain about me battling you 
The thing is, in RL, Duke would never pass up on a guy considering UNC because in RL it's not about how many home visits you set up. In WhatIf, challenging UNC would take a huge part of your budget (and UNC's) and hurt the rest of your recruiting efforts.
5/1/2013 12:30 PM
Posted by theploww on 4/30/2013 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I really think this is one of the most unrealistic aspects of this game. Think about a real life recruiting situation with a player from the Carolinas. Do you think Duke would ever pass up a guy because Carolina wanted him? In fact it would be quite the opposite. I could certainly see Duke recruiting a guy largely to keep him away from Carolina. By keeping the better players away from your conference mates it gives you a competitive advantage, especially with teams in your own division that you play twice a year.

That said, the fact that conference success contributes to your individual recruiting budget throws a big wrench in that logic. I tend to land at the point of not battling my conference mates if there is a roughly equivalent alternative, but I certainly don't have a problem battling if I feel it is the best available option and I should be able to win.

And before yanks gets in on this, I foolishly pursued a battle I couldn't win against him a few seasons ago, mostly because he complained about it on the CC. So if anybody wants to trick me into wasting money just complain about me battling you 
lol i was waiting for u to post here. i thought it was dumb to try to take him when we had the same prestige and he was much closer to me. stine just stole a guy from me but i couldn't do anything about it since his prestige is much better. he knew i couldn't compete
of 5
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Inter-conference Recruiting Battles?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.