Is it safe to say there is something fishy going on?

Here is an example - whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Ratings.aspx

I've been the go to choice for this guy since the first cycle and now all of a sudden....a D1 program comes sniffing around?  Surely there are better lower D1 options out there as well as upper D2 options.

there might be limited recruits available for that class and a D1 coach, wanting some balance, can sign a lower division juco / transfer for pennies, even if the recruit is considering a d3 team.

Seeing who the coach of that D1 team is, no it's not fishy. He does stuff like that all the time. It's quite annoying really, but he's not doing anything against the rules.

Tanner just started back playing HD (either that or he was VERY quiet for a long period of time) and has about 20 teams between his two ID's. Well, the two obvious ID's, I suppose there could be more. He usually takes over reclamation projects and will jump on a bunch of lower division players during recruiting, usually holding them as "back-ups" in case his primary target ends up somewhere else. It screws all the lower division coaches, sure, but I also suspect that he just likes messing with other coaches too. But that's beside the point. Point is, there's nothing fishy going on, this is SOP for Tanner.

If his roster and his recruits hold up...he'll have about 8 Centers on his team next year.

Best of luck to him.

Posted by sullytoo on 12/17/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
there might be limited recruits available for that class and a D1 coach, wanting some balance, can sign a lower division juco / transfer for pennies, even if the recruit is considering a d3 team.

Except he does **** like that with every team he's got, every recruiting session Sully. I've been the D2 victim on more than one occasion recently when he's done the same crap. It's not a coincidence, there aren't limited recruits, and he's not trying to balance his classes. And before anyone accuses me of whining, I know as well as anyone that that is part of the game and just another way for coaches to recruit. Doesn't mean that everyone has to like it, but it IS within the rules.

He does it to keep them as back-ups in case he loses out on his primary targets, plain and simple. There's nothing illegal about it, it's certainly not against the rules, and many people would probably agree that it's a viable recruiting tactic. Of course, it really jacks up the division below his and "their" recruiting, but that's part of the game.

Of course, if you want to use BillyG's theory on making the gaming experience as enjoyable as possible for the average coach, then this probably "isn't" the way to go about doing it. But it's not illegal and it's not fishy. Just annoying as hell.

Two options, move on to another recruit or wait him out and see if he eventually lets the guy go. It usually tends to be the latter.

Yeah, this is SOP for tanner. I have also had D3 recruits of mine taken away by non-tanner D1 schools at least twice in the past. In both cases, they were good D2 players or possibly competent low-level D1 players that I was lucky enough to find before anyone else did. Or unlucky enough, since I didn't sign either one. Both were recruits from Colorado, interestingly enough. One when I coached Colorado in Phelan, and one when I coached Dallas in Rupp. 

Actually, the Rupp one was just this year. This guy started out considering only me, but Denver came on hard

I should note this player is a JUCO player.

I have 7 open scholarships.

I don't want to spend money. This player is 120 miles from campus.

In addition I like that emy thinks i do this as to have backups. Not the case at all.

*EDIT* Also, this player projects to being a C with at least 80 ath, 80 reb and 80 def. In comparison to the rest of my conference? There are 9 other players with over 80 reb, none of them have over 70 def or 70 ath. So to me this is a legit D1 player for this conference.

Maybe that D3 team should go intk that conference then.....goodness thats weak.

i didn't bother checking who the coach is. yes, he is a perennial under-recruiter that often targets recruits that are already considering others, even when there are closer / better recruits. 

To me, this is a solid D2 level recruit. Getting him at D3 would be awesome, but would require luck. If the potentials are as reported, I wouldn't be surprised a low D1 showed interest. The 99 WE means he'll be a pretty decent bench player (in low D1) by the end of the year. Especially if the player had some IQ foundation coming in, this is not an unattractive recruit. That's one of the things you have to navigate at lower levels - if you reach too high, you're at risk of a bigger fish coming along. It's awesome when those guys do fall to you, but it takes some luck.

It's not the kind of guy I would expect to go after if I'm in the hunt for a D1 championship, obviously. But for a low D1 rebuild, he can be useful by the CT this year, and a real contributor next year.

Not to come to Tanner defense but I think the JUCO can give him some help until he sets up his team well. The debate is not the decision he made, IMO, the debate should be : are D1 teams aloud to get DIII prospects? I think they should not be aloud since DII teams already go for DIII players... and it's tough as it is for DIII teams to build a contender.

If feel for Toonarmy : but recruiting can be really disappointing sometimes, you need plan B, plan C etc.

For Grambling State, I don't use projected level at all. It can be helpful for DII and DIII schools to help figure out who is going to take x amount of effort. But I don't care if the guy I like will talk to lower level schools. If I like him, I like him. 

If I'm not mistaken, there are cases where an AD vetoes a scholarship offer. So to some extent anyway, there is already a "guard rail" at least in extreme cases. Personally, I think that's unnecessary (except perhaps as an anti-aggrieving rule). I don't know that any low-level DI coaches in real life are precluded from recruiting who they like by their ADs, just because the recruit isn't projected high enough.

Posted by tannermcc1 on 12/17/2014 5:28:00 PM (view original):
I should note this player is a JUCO player.

I have 7 open scholarships.

I don't want to spend money. This player is 120 miles from campus.

In addition I like that emy thinks i do this as to have backups. Not the case at all.

*EDIT* Also, this player projects to being a C with at least 80 ath, 80 reb and 80 def. In comparison to the rest of my conference? There are 9 other players with over 80 reb, none of them have over 70 def or 70 ath. So to me this is a legit D1 player for this conference.

So myself and two other relatively long time coaches have noticed the same thing about your recruiting strategy, yet somehow we're all off base? If you don't do that to have back-ups Tanner, then why do you consistently have many more players considering your team than you have open schollies? In every world that we're in together (and that's A LOT of worlds), you do the same thing. Every time. You just did it in Crum a few days ago. You did it in Knight very recently. I don't really care because I got the players I wanted anyway, even though both of my teams were D2 and both of yours lower-level D1.

If you don't do it to hold them as possible fall-back options (i.e., back-ups), then you're doing it to lock them up from other lower level coaches just to be an ***. The only reason for a coach to have a dozen guys considering them for three or four spots is to hope to get one off them on the cheap or to have them as a fall-back plan in case they miss out on their primary targets.

There's nothing against the rules about it, it's as legal as can be. It's just a ****** move.

Posted by sullytoo on 12/18/2014 12:16:00 PM (view original):
i didn't bother checking who the coach is. yes, he is a perennial under-recruiter that often targets recruits that are already considering others, even when there are closer / better recruits. 

This about sums it up.

Tanner, didn't Seble threaten to ban you one time because you got ****** off and ran up over 1500 recruiting violations at Duke in ONE recruiting session back when there were booster gifts available? You slipped up and made it known that you were going to wreck the team for whoever had to follow you after you left but when the admin put you on the spot, your weak *** excuse was that you were just trying an "experiment" to see what would happen? Don't bother, I already know the answer, I was right there when you did it. You've pulled ****** moves like this all the way back to the days when you used to intentionally torment Tmacfan and think it was comical.