AFTER the first recruiting cycle??

Sure appears that way in recent Smith recruiting. A recruit only 160 miles away seems to have been unoticed by me and also by an outstanding fellow conference coach who was also less than 200 miles away. 

Recruit seems to not have appeared until the 3rd cycle or later. He was a very good recruit and would have been hard for more than one coach to miss (IMO).

Does this happen??

Or is it theoretically impossible??

If it can happen, sure will change my recruiting habits. I usually go thru all the D1 and D2 recruits and put a "watch" on anyone I think I may be interested in(or have a chance at). After that homework, all i really ever search for periodically is new transfer players. But if a recruit can suddenly appear after recruiting starts, will need to be checking and re-checking all lists in case a gem appears "out of nowhere".

I don't think it's supposed to happen, other than transfers who only show up when their scholarships are rescinded.  The only time it's happened was a few months ago in Knight (i'm pretty sure it was knight) when everyone complained there were not enough recruits in certain states.  But when they did it there was an announcement made on the coaches corner of all worlds.  So I don't think it would happen without you knowing about it.
But I could be wrong.

I noticed that you asked if they "still" were?  I guess my question is, were they ever (not be a smartass, very interested here)?

Could he have been a dropdown?

Perhaps. I'm pretty thorough (least thought I was!) about any D1 recruits within 200 miles that are possible pulldowns. Would've just chalked it up to"I just missed" if another coach (johfoppe-CalPP) hadn't posted on the coaches corner just what I had been thinking. Where did that recruit come from and how did i miss him.

FWIW- the coach that signed him believes he was there before the first cycle, so maybe johnfoppe and i both just "missed him".

I was just curious if there was any known history of this happening ... and it appears there is not.

But i will start going thru the search options again instead of just relying on my "watch" lists. 

Thanks for the responses.

Posted by angmar on 6/3/2013 2:03:00 AM (view original):
I noticed that you asked if they "still" were?  I guess my question is, were they ever (not be a smartass, very interested here)?

My bad. Should have just left "still" out.

Posted by TRrrr on 6/4/2013 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by angmar on 6/3/2013 2:03:00 AM (view original):
I noticed that you asked if they "still" were?  I guess my question is, were they ever (not be a smartass, very interested here)?

My bad. Should have just left "still" out.

just a simple misunderstanding over two correct, but different, possible interpretations of the usage of "still"