Posted by emy1013 on 12/18/2014 4:42:00 PM (view original):

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.

Or he throws scouting trips at a bunch of marginal guys, they consider his school, and he never bumps them off his list?  It's not necessarily the *smartest* thing to do, but it's a plausible non-evil explanation.

Posted by llamanunts on 12/18/2014 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/18/2014 4:42:00 PM (view original):

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.

Or he throws scouting trips at a bunch of marginal guys, they consider his school, and he never bumps them off his list?  It's not necessarily the *smartest* thing to do, but it's a plausible non-evil explanation.

Hey!! A person with logic and reason!

Posted by tannermcc on 12/18/2014 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 12/18/2014 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/18/2014 4:42:00 PM (view original):

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.

Or he throws scouting trips at a bunch of marginal guys, they consider his school, and he never bumps them off his list?  It's not necessarily the *smartest* thing to do, but it's a plausible non-evil explanation.

Hey!! A person with logic and reason!

Yeah, except he's doing it for long distance recruits. Lots of them. It's the old $120 special, start, minutes or a phone call, schollie. If he's wasting as many scouting trips that are causing these long distance guys to start considering him as he HAS long distance guys considering him, then he's the most iinefficient recruiter the game has ever seen, bar none.

But hey, to each their own. Like I said, it's not hard at all to get the recruit you want anyway, he's normally very easy to outrecruit. It's the newer coaches that don't realize this that end up dicking up their recruiting because they're scared to death to even try when they see a D1 school show up on a recruit, so they move on and end up recruiting some garbage instead of waiting it out and being aggressive and just going to get their guy anyway. As they gain more experience with recruiting, they'll start to figure out very quickly who is dangerous and who is more of a peter gnat.

Posted by llamanunts on 12/18/2014 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/18/2014 4:42:00 PM (view original):

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.

Or he throws scouting trips at a bunch of marginal guys, they consider his school, and he never bumps them off his list?  It's not necessarily the *smartest* thing to do, but it's a plausible non-evil explanation.

Sheesh Llama.  You could have let him provide his own excuse, I mean reason, before providing him with the one legitimate explanation.  Of course it is just a tactic.  Like Emy said it is completely legal but it is a tactic.  

I actually dont mind it.  It is good to look for the coaches that do this and just wait while other coaches spend their resources on lesser but unconsidered recruits.

http://i.imgur.com/5iaa6JS.png

YAWN

Tell me more about how I recruit!

I, for one, have no problem with this recruiting tactic. I can see how emy thinks its a dick move and I can't deny that it has irritated me before, but it's part of the game. Recruiting would be a lot less interesting if you didn't have to spend some extra time figuring out what other coach's priorities are and track how their battles are going. 

Well that picture about wraps that whole debate up.  We'll see how many "sorry tanner, I was wrong" posts there are.  

Posted by tkimble on 12/18/2014 9:06:00 PM (view original):
Well that picture about wraps that whole debate up.  We'll see how many "sorry tanner, I was wrong" posts there are.  

My sarcasm meter is broke right now, but I'd assume that this comment would rate in the "A whole lot of" range.

Posted by tannermcc1 on 12/18/2014 7:46:00 PM (view original):
YAWN

Tell me more about how I recruit!

Don't need to, you just did.

Posted by trail on 12/18/2014 8:51:00 PM (view original):
I, for one, have no problem with this recruiting tactic. I can see how emy thinks its a dick move and I can't deny that it has irritated me before, but it's part of the game. Recruiting would be a lot less interesting if you didn't have to spend some extra time figuring out what other coach's priorities are and track how their battles are going. 

It's part of the game, I'm not even going to attempt to argue that it's not. It's a legal recruiting tactic, not even arguing that either. It's just a weak and irritating tactic that's used "more" to mess with other people than it is to recruit the players you actually want.

Oh, and that thing about figuring out a coach's priorities and tracking their battles? You can find the answer to that most times after you use FSS. It's call Word on the Street.

Emy you see like an angry fellow, is there anything you need to vent about? You can pm me if its too personal. I'm a good listener.

Angry? Nope, not even a little bit. I appreciate your concern although, it's, well, it's a bit creepy and stalker-ish actually. So, uh, thanks but no thanks Dr. Phil.

There are really only a handful of people on here that I truly dislike. One of them just happens to be you. But you I only kind of dislike, others I detest. It happens. Even to the best of us. The walrus was Paul.

Emy and Tanner, aren't you guys going against each others in RUPP? It's time to settle this and put it in the past : once the game is over, all the dust will have settled it!