I think what gillispie is saying is by far and away most useful for the midlevel BCS teams.  that C+ to B+ is hard because your trying to get better recruits to move up, but the A schools know they can squash you in an instant,  so like GILL said you have to be very careful of how you are perceived.  To get the players u need to make the NT results in you a B stepping into As recruiting territory.  You need to show like you have all your budget for an  "in their eyes" marginal player because these players will be the ones that take will help u compete.  
It took awhile for me to see the benefit of spending to lose but after getting attacked late in recruiting season after season after season you end up getting the point.  I lost battles for my big recruit while getting attacked on my mid level recruits yr after yr because I appeared to be weak.  now if your in an un-populated area its no biggie but if you in the middle of the east coast where you have 50+ teams with B- or better prestige within 360 miles of you its very very important to "look" strong.

alot of the unexperienced/new/struggling D1 coaches should be on here thanking Gill for his insight because he knows what hes talking about.  You can learn a ton reading thru his posts,  I know I have 

   -all2matt/waykbordr

Here's another example . B plus school has 6 openings . First cycle goes after 5 all clear except one your worst recruit .had bad evaluation on scouting but would still take him at the right cost . U spent 3k more after the initial couple k. He falls off at 11 . U also go after another player to found out your class for 5 or 6 since he's a cheap option at this point. The new guy another school shows up another b prestige school ..u spent enough to knock him complelty off . Few cycles go by 1 or 2 ....same school comes back at said worst recruit ...u r losing now . Decide to let it sit see what else develops. U still have a boatload of cash prestige adv by full letter grade on such school distance didn't matter much and had more openings . Obv not worried about iowa st the wots say he clearly leading all the way to signing day never showed I made any effort of such player cause I didn't . Okay back to the new player I went after he's very tight with me for like 24 hours then a lower prestige school comes on your biggest recruit he has advantage on distance bot money or prestige so pretty close considering . This was at like the 2pm cycle day before signing ...I let that sit I get knocked off compl3lty ..again u have a healthy investment thwe already seems even so u go for it at 5 pm signing day. Ur back on back in the game with still a good chunk of money to protect a recruit if needed ... signing come up and u sign 2 rest are now in a battle or since iowa st shows no interest in spending money grt back the worst recruit ..now all this matters 0 when 4 different schools show up ... I however don't believe I misplayed this . I guess most cannot understand how wots can work and how to use common sense and logic to see all of that .. all of that info was right there in wots as iowa st was clearly leading and it never budged . Who here would fall off a recruit when u r o battles against a full letter grade adv and cash adv.. nobody would in fact I'd argue most would chase off iowa st instead and leave. O cash to fight ppl for my other recruits which all were very tight ...

O another point was all the schools that jumped or poached in was similar in prestige on better 1 3 grade other was same or worse so not like a big prestige came in

Every time I see a player post about "poaching", I'm going to post 1,000 articles related to top teams swooping in at the last minute to snag a recruit... I swear, if I continue to see the "poaching" argument, I'm going to start blasting the forum post with REAL LIFE evidence of "poaching"... 

When people get sick and tired of siphoning through the real life articles, maybe they'll stop posting about poaching. 

Edit: I'm not expert. Far from it. However; it makes it extremely frustrating and difficult to follow any forum posts the minute someone starts crying about poaching. I don't care about it, I don't care who does it or doesn't do it. Good for them if they wanna roll the dice. It's essentially complaining that you're not a better coach. Get better. Period. 

Prolly need to be more specific spike on who u r talking to

"Poaching" is part of this game for good or bad. I have no problem with it. But the "poaching" that occurs in this game, and recruiting as a whole bears very little resemblance to real life recruiting for many reasons. So post away, it won't prove a thing but it sounds like it will make you feel better. On a side note, I found my recruiting in this game changed immeasurably for the better when we switched from Addidas sponsored uniforms to Nike sponsored uniforms.

Isn't the post about considering not poachi ng Im not the post starter here but 'd stay a lil more on topic

Posted by possumfiend on 2/3/2016 1:20:00 PM (view original):
"Poaching" is part of this game for good or bad. I have no problem with it. But the "poaching" that occurs in this game, and recruiting as a whole bears very little resemblance to real life recruiting for many reasons. So post away, it won't prove a thing but it sounds like it will make you feel better. On a side note, I found my recruiting in this game changed immeasurably for the better when we switched from Addidas sponsored uniforms to Nike sponsored uniforms.

You should do some research on some real life "poaching"... Also -- I've never said it will prove anything. I'm just hoping stupid people stop posting about it every time a forum post releases trying to give advice to people. I'm sick of reading it. So I'll start posting more things like that, to share my annoyance. 

Here is a more specific example of why Gil's initial advice is good advice. 

I am rebuilding Mich St in Wooden, B+ prestige.  Had locked up to front court players with minimal effort, and I show up on a guard the same cycle as Kentucky (A prestige).  I get about 30-35k in (I had 4 schollies, and a total budget of about 65 - 70k), and realize there is no way for me to win the battle, and Kentucky realizes this too.  He decides he isnt going to spend anymore unless needed, so now I have a guard that I am dead in the water on showing on my list, I have wasted half my budget on, and is showing as "struggling between" on WOTS, despite there being literally zero chance he comes to Mich St.

I need to move on to other targest, and if I leave him on my list, my new battles might be more inclined to battle me if they can see him and it looks like I am battling Kentucky.  Instead, I offer the redshirt, pull his schooly, he is off my list, and now I only have the other 2 players on my list, both showing "not 100% sold" to Mich St, and to someone looking at my list the first time, it looks like I have the majority of my budget left, when in reality I have spent well over half.

I was able to move in on 2 other guards where I'd have the advantage in the situation, but realistically would have lost had I been battled, but I didnt get battled because I looked stronger than I really was, and I think that is the point Gil is making.

By leaving "battles" on your list that you arent really in, you are giving away your position by either showing how weak you are, or making yourself look weaker than you are.  "Struggling" could mean each school has 5k in or 30k in, and it's up to the other guys to determine that.  I almost always bail on guys when I am beat.  And plus, you can always reoffer the scholly and pull the redshirt and get almost all of that effort back if you want to jump back in later.

yeah goodtymes that **** happens all the time. i use this strategy multiple times per season on some teams, like the mid major i am coaching in the northeast. i used it on an a+ team as recently as a few hours ago. honestly not sure what the initial resistance was all about, but its an ultra useful technique for d1 teams of all shapes and sizes.

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/3/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):
yeah goodtymes that **** happens all the time. i use this strategy multiple times per season on some teams, like the mid major i am coaching in the northeast. i used it on an a+ team as recently as a few hours ago. honestly not sure what the initial resistance was all about, but its an ultra useful technique for d1 teams of all shapes and sizes.

this is an extremely useful DI technique -- I've used it in the last few days myself. Like gill, I've been a bit surprised at the complaining -- if anything, maybe I should be mad at him for sharing secrets....

This does bring up another issue that has been discussed before and that is the inability sometimes to get a player to stop considering you.  Even if it is not a battle you may not want to look over extended.  This happens especially with internationals.  You send a few SVs find out the guy is a bum, but 2 SVs and he is in love with your school.  Now, without ever offering a scholly you hit redshirt and the kid says no problem.  So he is stuck on your list and there is nothing you can do.  There really needs to be a "Get Lost Button."

Posted by cburton23 on 2/3/2016 6:23:00 PM (view original):
This does bring up another issue that has been discussed before and that is the inability sometimes to get a player to stop considering you.  Even if it is not a battle you may not want to look over extended.  This happens especially with internationals.  You send a few SVs find out the guy is a bum, but 2 SVs and he is in love with your school.  Now, without ever offering a scholly you hit redshirt and the kid says no problem.  So he is stuck on your list and there is nothing you can do.  There really needs to be a "Get Lost Button."

thats my point. there ISNT nothing you can do. re-read the original post.

Posted by goodtymes31 on 2/3/2016 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Here is a more specific example of why Gil's initial advice is good advice. 

I am rebuilding Mich St in Wooden, B+ prestige.  Had locked up to front court players with minimal effort, and I show up on a guard the same cycle as Kentucky (A prestige).  I get about 30-35k in (I had 4 schollies, and a total budget of about 65 - 70k), and realize there is no way for me to win the battle, and Kentucky realizes this too.  He decides he isnt going to spend anymore unless needed, so now I have a guard that I am dead in the water on showing on my list, I have wasted half my budget on, and is showing as "struggling between" on WOTS, despite there being literally zero chance he comes to Mich St.

I need to move on to other targest, and if I leave him on my list, my new battles might be more inclined to battle me if they can see him and it looks like I am battling Kentucky.  Instead, I offer the redshirt, pull his schooly, he is off my list, and now I only have the other 2 players on my list, both showing "not 100% sold" to Mich St, and to someone looking at my list the first time, it looks like I have the majority of my budget left, when in reality I have spent well over half.

I was able to move in on 2 other guards where I'd have the advantage in the situation, but realistically would have lost had I been battled, but I didnt get battled because I looked stronger than I really was, and I think that is the point Gil is making.

By leaving "battles" on your list that you arent really in, you are giving away your position by either showing how weak you are, or making yourself look weaker than you are.  "Struggling" could mean each school has 5k in or 30k in, and it's up to the other guys to determine that.  I almost always bail on guys when I am beat.  And plus, you can always reoffer the scholly and pull the redshirt and get almost all of that effort back if you want to jump back in later.

But isn't all of that common sense and if it's not, it should be?

i would agree emy, it should be common sense - but its not. that's the entire purpose of the thread. being at a B mid major has really opened my eyes to how far from common sense this approach is, to much of the community.

the reason i was surprised at all the initial push back, is i thought upon a read, it would be intuitively obvious to most folks who didn't use the strategy, that they really need to consider it. maybe some folks just thought it was so obvious, it wasn't real advice? but, it definitely was meant to be real advice to what is possibly the majority of d1 coaches who never pull themselves out of a battle.