Posted by _hannibal_ on 7/13/2011 9:49:00 AM (view original):

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.

+1

i think you can use the kind of logic people are alluding to in here - in the goal of winning a single battle. but if that is your goal, frankly, that is a ****** goal. you need to try to figure the "golden ratio" of HV:CV and use it every time you can, in the hopes of trading info with the other coach when the battle was close or the outcome surprising, so that you can refine your golden ratio. i just cant see any other strategy paying off in the long run. maybe there are short term gimmicks, that is debatable. but your goal should be to get to the right answer if your goal is long term success.

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/13/2011 10:45:00 AM (view original):
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. 

but then shouldn't one learn from this? if you spent 50k going all HV, and the other guy spends 45K going all CV, there is something to learn there... there is always the possibility of a coach lying, but outside of that, i firmly believe the game is deterministic - the guy with more effort always wins. so if it isn't adding up, and you trust the info you get, i have always taken the approach that i am either 1 - missing a factor or 2 - misweighing a factor (or several of those). im not sure else how to slice it.

at the same time, if you take the 10 most successful coaches in any world and they would honestly tell you their values on hv:cv, and prestige at d1, d2, d3, you would probably not find a consensus. i realize that, but i don't think it makes the pursuit worthless. if you took the common situations we find ourselves in battle wise, i believe most of those coaches's systems would lead to the same action. and a lot of other parts of recruiting you could get similar answers on. surely not all, and surely none of us have it 100% right, but i don't think that changes the goal.

In making calcuations, one thing that gets in the way is presitge can vary ruining the curves - a B can be 3.16 or 2.84 a A- can be 3.83 or 3.51 - the calculations made for seemingly equal cases of the high vs lo end 3.16 vs 3.51 vs the opposite 2.84 vs 3.83 is hard to take in account, unless you have lots of data.

I don't think the HV thing vs the CV thing is hard at all, I used to go 1 CV for each 3 HV's, but after a while I felt every once in a while I got beat by another local recruiter on local guys when I should not ... and did some reading on the forums and came up with my current strategy, which I think is correct - I probably have shared it a few times, but I try to keep that one to myself - but I will hint that what I do or use as a strategy is not brain surgery and does not require excel, nor knowledge gained from exchanging recruiting data, prestiges, to calculate ratios - but I must admit, it is nice to do that every once in a while, just to make sure!

I always calculate based on worst case scenario and won't intentionally enter a battle unless I can win at those odds... of course if someone else initiates one I hope for the best case

at the same time, if you take the 10 most successful coaches in any world and they would honestly tell you their values on hv:cv, and prestige at d1, d2, d3, you would probably not find a consensus

I believe we should test this hypothesis 

Posted by jdno on 7/12/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I have no idea how to interpret what you just wrote in the context of the original question.  Care to elaborate?

If it hasn't already been answered sufficiently, the point is that using a recruiting tool you believe to be less cost-efficient simply to try to count 1-1 recruiting effort against the team you're battling is nonsensical.

OK, but as has been discussed, what you find efficient may be different than another coach simply based on different assumptions about the right HV/CV ratio.  None of us know.  In Iguana's example, that's the point he was trying to get across I think.  He's not sure of the right ratio, but he is sure that he can get more CVs, and that alone can be worth something in an important battle, imo..

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/13/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 7/12/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I have no idea how to interpret what you just wrote in the context of the original question.  Care to elaborate?

If it hasn't already been answered sufficiently, the point is that using a recruiting tool you believe to be less cost-efficient simply to try to count 1-1 recruiting effort against the team you're battling is nonsensical.

I think the point is that you don't know the exact ratio of HV to CV. If HV to CV is 2.67, then you are indifferent between HV or CV. If the ratio is closer to 3, then you should be going CV. If ratio is closer to 2.5, you should be going all HV. The point that jdno and other coaches wrote is that given this ambiguity, it's better to go CV since regardless of the ratio, you will always be ahead if you have the distance advantage. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/13/2011 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/13/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 7/12/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I have no idea how to interpret what you just wrote in the context of the original question.  Care to elaborate?

If it hasn't already been answered sufficiently, the point is that using a recruiting tool you believe to be less cost-efficient simply to try to count 1-1 recruiting effort against the team you're battling is nonsensical.

I think the point is that you don't know the exact ratio of HV to CV. If HV to CV is 2.67, then you are indifferent between HV or CV. If the ratio is closer to 3, then you should be going CV. If ratio is closer to 2.5, you should be going all HV. The point that jdno and other coaches wrote is that given this ambiguity, it's better to go CV since regardless of the ratio, you will always be ahead if you have the distance advantage. 

i understand where you guys are coming from but essentially agree with dahs that it is nonsensical. you are never recruiting in a vaccuum, you don't know where else you will need funds or exactly what funds the other coach has, or the prestige situation, or considering credit. so if you believe that in your situation, HV > CV, using that logic to say i know i can outspend him on CV so i will makes no sense to me. if you are a good enough to be SURE you have taken into account all of the unknowns - of which there are many, and few coaches who always capture them all in their true magnitude - then surely your HV:CV ratio is good enough to go on before using logic like you have described.

Posted by gillispie on 7/13/2011 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/13/2011 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/13/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 7/12/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I have no idea how to interpret what you just wrote in the context of the original question.  Care to elaborate?

If it hasn't already been answered sufficiently, the point is that using a recruiting tool you believe to be less cost-efficient simply to try to count 1-1 recruiting effort against the team you're battling is nonsensical.

I think the point is that you don't know the exact ratio of HV to CV. If HV to CV is 2.67, then you are indifferent between HV or CV. If the ratio is closer to 3, then you should be going CV. If ratio is closer to 2.5, you should be going all HV. The point that jdno and other coaches wrote is that given this ambiguity, it's better to go CV since regardless of the ratio, you will always be ahead if you have the distance advantage. 

i understand where you guys are coming from but essentially agree with dahs that it is nonsensical. you are never recruiting in a vaccuum, you don't know where else you will need funds or exactly what funds the other coach has, or the prestige situation, or considering credit. so if you believe that in your situation, HV > CV, using that logic to say i know i can outspend him on CV so i will makes no sense to me. if you are a good enough to be SURE you have taken into account all of the unknowns - of which there are many, and few coaches who always capture them all in their true magnitude - then surely your HV:CV ratio is good enough to go on before using logic like you have described.

If you are certain that HV > CV, then yes, go all HV. If you are not sure that HV > CV, and you have the distance advantage, then you should be going all CV. That's pretty much it. Prestige, considering credits, etc. shouldnt matter. 

What I don't understand here is why you would do just HVs or just CVs. One thing everyone seems to agree on is that we don't know exactly what the ratio is. Given that, why risk being exactly worng?

my initial post was a response to a question about whether there would be any reason when a local recruit should not be recruited with all HV.

I gave an example that if you're certain the other coach is only dumping in CV,  I know 3x > 2x  would be a guaranteed win, but only had a strong suspicion that 5y > 2x and therefore no 100% certainty. 

I never realized how strongly some believe in the "golden-ratio" is the only "sensical" method of recruiting.

Posted by jbasnight on 7/13/2011 1:53:00 PM (view original):
What I don't understand here is why you would do just HVs or just CVs. One thing everyone seems to agree on is that we don't know exactly what the ratio is. Given that, why risk being exactly worng?

in the hopes of being exactly right, hehe

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/13/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
my initial post was a response to a question about whether there would be any reason when a local recruit should not be recruited with all HV.

I gave an example that if you're certain the other coach is only dumping in CV,  I know 3x > 2x  would be a guaranteed win, but only had a strong suspicion that 5y > 2x and therefore no 100% certainty. 

I never realized how strongly some believe in the "golden-ratio" is the only "sensical" method of recruiting.

how could you ever be certain the other coach is only dumping CV? unless collusion is going on, that cannot happen. so any statement that follows is perfectly reasonable. such as, if you are certain the other coach is only dumping CV, you should probably only send 1 phone and no scholarship message and the player will sign with you. that is just as true and accurate in every way as your statement.

reading that over, it probably sounds dickish, but i am just using an extreme example to make it clear what i am saying - not trying to be a dick. sorry if i still am anyway.

and, i think its fine if coaches want to recruit however they want. but to say i am going to use a tool that i am confident is inferior to another tool, in the event i know something i cannot know - well, it is a bit nonsensical :) you can safely assume the worst case of the other coach is using all CV if hes far enough, if you are confident enough in your HV:CV ratio. but then, why not rely on that same piece of information again, by using a tool you suspect is more valuable? if you really are not very confident at all, i can see where you are coming from. and there is nothing wrong with it. but i feel like it is very very dangerous - if the marginal value of the money you think you are wasting is exactly 0 - meaning you have nothing else to do with it no matter what - then fine, its probably the smart way to go. but that happens so incredibly rarely. without adding those stipulations, i think its just a misleading strategy to coaches without a broad understand of recruiting. so i am just trying to raise the flags.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/13/2011 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 7/13/2011 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/13/2011 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/13/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 7/12/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I have no idea how to interpret what you just wrote in the context of the original question.  Care to elaborate?

If it hasn't already been answered sufficiently, the point is that using a recruiting tool you believe to be less cost-efficient simply to try to count 1-1 recruiting effort against the team you're battling is nonsensical.

I think the point is that you don't know the exact ratio of HV to CV. If HV to CV is 2.67, then you are indifferent between HV or CV. If the ratio is closer to 3, then you should be going CV. If ratio is closer to 2.5, you should be going all HV. The point that jdno and other coaches wrote is that given this ambiguity, it's better to go CV since regardless of the ratio, you will always be ahead if you have the distance advantage. 

i understand where you guys are coming from but essentially agree with dahs that it is nonsensical. you are never recruiting in a vaccuum, you don't know where else you will need funds or exactly what funds the other coach has, or the prestige situation, or considering credit. so if you believe that in your situation, HV > CV, using that logic to say i know i can outspend him on CV so i will makes no sense to me. if you are a good enough to be SURE you have taken into account all of the unknowns - of which there are many, and few coaches who always capture them all in their true magnitude - then surely your HV:CV ratio is good enough to go on before using logic like you have described.

If you are certain that HV > CV, then yes, go all HV. If you are not sure that HV > CV, and you have the distance advantage, then you should be going all CV. That's pretty much it. Prestige, considering credits, etc. shouldnt matter. 

this is still just as false as the first time you said it. if you have a distance advantage, and you have not even an inkling if HV or CV is more valuable, then why are you using all CV? what if the other coach is using all HV? and you are talking about some theoretical instance in which you have the extremely rare luxury of having more money than you can spend. where the money you expect to waste is absolutely nothing.

i really don't care if people recruit this way, but to me, it is terrible advice for a coach who does not have a firm grasp on recruiting. and even dangerous for some of those that do.

i guess a big part of my objection is, you are telling a guy at 10 miles to always use CV, essentially. and if any coach follows that advice, i very firmly believe they are totally screwing themselves, majorly. i really cannot think of much except the extreme stuff (like, only recruit the worst players you find) that could actually do more damage if a coach follows the advice. maybe only use evals to recruit is worse without being a totally unmerited strategy. but only stuff like that would actually do more harm to a coach following the strategy, based on recruiting as i understand it.