about to go to war over a D1 recruit and I wanted to know which are more effective...

this kid is 530 miles away and home visits are $769 and campus visits are $1293 each sooooo whats the ratio I should be piling these things on? thanks!

people have expressed ratios ranging from 2:1 to 2.5:1

In that situation, I would go with CV, but I may be wrong

Yeah, campus visits would be more effective in that situation. 

CV will provide the better bang for your buck in that scenario.

Posted by fatchance on 7/12/2011 9:26:00 AM (view original):
CV will provide the better bang for your buck in that scenario.

some would argue in every scenario when there's a battle

is there a theory under which CV is better than HV even at close range?

Posted by metsmax on 7/12/2011 2:40:00 PM (view original):
is there a theory under which CV is better than HV even at close range?

If the other team is further away and one assumes that all their recruiting cash is going into CV, then one could possibly be safer to match the CV to CV rather than guessing on what the HV to CV ratio actually is.

ie..
which scenario would you consider a safer bet to be ahead?
You: 30 HV  vs  Them: 10 CV
or
You: 12 CV  vs  Them: 10 CV

bingo

If you're the one further away, then CV's are always a better tool b/c of the cost advantages in that situation.  I think we can all agree on that.

If you're closer, then more assumptions come into play.  What is the true underlying ratio of worth b/w HVs and CVs?  Some say it's the ratio of cost for a CV at 10 miles to the cost of a HV at 10 miles, which I think works out to like 2.65x or something.  Others say it's less than this, some may think it's more.  The reality is that none of us know this "golden ratio". 

The other assumption, more of a guess really, is are you dealing with a savvy competitor who understands the ratio and cost tradeoffs at different distances, esp. when they're at a distance disadvantage?  If you're not, and the other guy uses HVs only, then you'll be much better off with CVs (edit:  at large distance differences, that is 2 zone differences or more, using HVs would be a better strategy if you knew with certainty that the other guy is using strictly HVs.  If it's a matter of the closest zone vs. the next closest zone, then we could still be in the gray area.).  If you think your opponent is using strictly CVs, then you're kind of in the gray area, in which case you may fall back to Iguana's simple example above and CVs may be the better option.  In the moment of the battle, we obviously never know if the other coach is using strictly HVs, strictly CVs, or a mix.  I've done all 3 at different times, and it usually comes down to a variety of factors as to which I'll use (how much $$ do I have to spend on this player, how much do I think the other guy has, can I afford to go heavy with CVs or am I chasing some other kids as well, etc.).

I don't understand this logic at all.  Unless you're extremely uncomfortable trying to get navigation help from the scholarship messages when you need it, it's never smart to use the less efficient recruiting tool.  Period.  The end.

dahs, I have no idea how to interpret what you just wrote in the context of the original question.  Care to elaborate?

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/12/2011 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 7/12/2011 2:40:00 PM (view original):
is there a theory under which CV is better than HV even at close range?

If the other team is further away and one assumes that all their recruiting cash is going into CV, then one could possibly be safer to match the CV to CV rather than guessing on what the HV to CV ratio actually is.

ie..
which scenario would you consider a safer bet to be ahead?
You: 30 HV  vs  Them: 10 CV
or
You: 12 CV  vs  Them: 10 CV

32 HVs and 12 CVs break even if you put the ratio at 1:2.67

since, to the best of my knowledge, almost everyone believes it to be lower and almost no one believes it to be higher, using CVs seems like a huge blunder

edit: i misinterpreted somewhat but the concept's the same outwards to 360mi

Iguana's case was meant more as a qualitative and pseudo-quantitative example I think to show his point.  Let's use some easy examples with actual costs.

1. Let's take the example where I'm 10 miles away from a kid (HV = $302, CV = $801) and I'm battling vs. a team just over 200 miles away and into the next cost structure (HV = $415, CV = $1,025).

Let's say he has $10,250 to spend and chooses all CVs.  That's 10 CVs.

Now, for the same $10,250, I can do all HVs (33.9 HVs) or all CVs (12.8 CVs). 

If I go with all CVs, then I have 28% more effort into the kid. 

If I go with all HVs, then we have to convert that into CVs to be able to get an apples/apples comparison.  But what ratio do we use?  If we use the 2.65x ratio of HV to CV, then my 33.9 HVs = 12.8 CVs, which is the same as if I had gone with all CVs.  If we use 2.00x as the ratio, then I have 16.95 CVs, which is clearly better than if I had gone with all CVs.  But, you see, it's ratio dependent.


2. Another example, let's say I'm at 190 miles (HV = $338, CV = 823) and the other guy is just over 200 miles (same as above).  Same $10,250 to spend.  He gets 10 CVs.  I can get 30.3 HVs or 12.5 CVs.  Converting my 30.3 HVs at 2.65 = 11.4 CVs, which is a bit less than the 12.5 CVs I would have if I had spent it all on CVs.  Using a 2.00x ratio makes my 30.3 HVs = 15.2 CVs, so clearly this would be more advantageous if I think the ratio is 2.00 and not 2.67.

3.  Another example, let's say I'm just over 200 miles (HV = 415, CV = $1,025), he's just over 360 miles and into the next cost level (HV = $748, CV = $1,264).  To keep the numbers simple, let's say we have $12,640 each to spend.  He gets 10 CVs.  I can either get 30.5 HVs or 12.3 CVs.  Converting my HVs at 2.67x, they turn into 11.4 CVs, which is less than the 12.3 CVs I could've had if I bought them directly.  Using 2.00x, my 30.5 HVs = 15.3 CVs, in which case I come out ahead by buying all HVs.  

4. Another example.  let's say I'm at 10 miles (HV = 302, CV = 801) and he's just over 360 miles and into the next cost level (HV = 748, CV = 1264).  For $12,640, he gets 10 CVs.  I can get 41.9HVs or 15.8 CVs.  The 41.9 HVs can be converted into 15.7 CVs at a 2.65x ratio or into 21 CVs at a 2.00 ratio.  At a 2.65 ratio, it's a wash.  At a 2.00 ratio, again going with strictly HVs would make more sense.

5.  I'm at 190 miles, or just before the next cost level (HV = 338, CV = 823) and he's just over 360 miles and into the next cost level (HV = 748, CV = 1264).  For, $12,640 he gets 10 CVs.  I can get 37.4 HVs or 15.4 CVs.  My HVs translate into 14.1 CVs at 2.65x ratio or 18.7 CVs at 2.00x ratio.  At 2.65x ratio, CVs win, at 2.00 ratio, HVs win.


So, how confident are each of us in what we think the golden ratio is?  I always use 2.65, which would dictate that I should go with CVs in nearly every case (though  I readily admit to sometimes going all HVs at times, despite what the numbers say).  Worst case I break even it seems.  If you use something closer to 2.00x as the ratio, then you should always go with HVs.  If it's something in between, then work out the numbers for yourself and see which is best.

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/12/2011 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 7/12/2011 2:40:00 PM (view original):
is there a theory under which CV is better than HV even at close range?

If the other team is further away and one assumes that all their recruiting cash is going into CV, then one could possibly be safer to match the CV to CV rather than guessing on what the HV to CV ratio actually is.

ie..
which scenario would you consider a safer bet to be ahead?
You: 30 HV  vs  Them: 10 CV
or
You: 12 CV  vs  Them: 10 CV

This only applies when prestige is equal or in your favor.  If you are at a prestige disadvantage you cannot afford to 'trade baskets' so to speak, you need to make your money more efficient.

Posted by jdno on 7/12/2011 10:27:00 PM (view original):
bingo

If you're the one further away, then CV's are always a better tool b/c of the cost advantages in that situation.  I think we can all agree on that.

If you're closer, then more assumptions come into play.  What is the true underlying ratio of worth b/w HVs and CVs?  Some say it's the ratio of cost for a CV at 10 miles to the cost of a HV at 10 miles, which I think works out to like 2.65x or something.  Others say it's less than this, some may think it's more.  The reality is that none of us know this "golden ratio". 

The other assumption, more of a guess really, is are you dealing with a savvy competitor who understands the ratio and cost tradeoffs at different distances, esp. when they're at a distance disadvantage?  If you're not, and the other guy uses HVs only, then you'll be much better off with CVs (edit:  at large distance differences, that is 2 zone differences or more, using HVs would be a better strategy if you knew with certainty that the other guy is using strictly HVs.  If it's a matter of the closest zone vs. the next closest zone, then we could still be in the gray area.).  If you think your opponent is using strictly CVs, then you're kind of in the gray area, in which case you may fall back to Iguana's simple example above and CVs may be the better option.  In the moment of the battle, we obviously never know if the other coach is using strictly HVs, strictly CVs, or a mix.  I've done all 3 at different times, and it usually comes down to a variety of factors as to which I'll use (how much $$ do I have to spend on this player, how much do I think the other guy has, can I afford to go heavy with CVs or am I chasing some other kids as well, etc.).

If you're the one further away, then CV's are always a better tool b/c of the cost advantages in that situation.  I think we can all agree on that.

i would strongly disagree that we all agree

This only applies when prestige is equal or in your favor.  If you are at a prestige disadvantage you cannot afford to 'trade baskets' so to speak, you need to make your money more efficient.
----------------------------------------

and if we knew the exact ratio of HV to CV than one could be certain that they are spending their budget effectively .   But it's no more than speculation on what that ratio is.

I've exchanged notes after recruiting battles and there are times when one is following the book and being what they believe is "cost-efficient", only to watch the recruit end up on another campus. 
It's more common than one may believe that a team has no distance advantage, no prestige advantage, spends less, yet gets the recruit.