Posted by udm_mike on 11/29/2011 8:07:00 AM (view original):
If you don't like D1 schools taking your players in D2, don't recruit players good enough to play in D1.  If you don't like the sound of that, then it's just the risk we take for trying to recruit really good players.

Well, that's not gonna happen :)   High rewards require high risk.  I get that.

I should clarify - I think the vast majority of good D2 recruits don't get picked up by D1 schools.  Right now on Smith, about 14 hours into signings, there are still a ton of good (though not great) players undecided in my region.    I follow the NT every season and I see too many really good high-700, low-800 players on Final Four rosters.  My aspiration is to be one of those teams as often as possible, but in order to do that I have to take the risk and chase pulldowns who might be low-D1 targets.

Last season, my best player was a D2 1st Team AA -- his original HS rating was 470.  So it's also true that we don't absolutely need those high-rated players if we pay attention to potentials (and in this case, redshirt).

I hope nobody thinks I was whining because I wasn't.  I haven't been poached by any D1 schools.  I was simply puzzled when reports from a couple of friends made it sound as though there are some D1 coaches who didn't know what they were doing.  I'm sure that's true at all levels, just like metsmax's chain reaction metaphor - sometimes coaches don't play smart, sometimes they're jerks, and sometimes they simply have no choice if they're going to try to compete.

With my team at C prestige, I will take the occasional shot at the 600 rated player with alot of high potentials (the potential 800-900 rated player by SR year) when things are aligned (alot of scholarships, distance is good). But when things aren't aligned, I will have to dip down to the 500-580ish range, and possibly into the 480s if the player has alot of high-highs. the 480-520 range is where the top D2 teams recruit. If I go for the low rating high potential route, I will invariably run into top D2 teams. This is the same as top D3 teams trying to pulldown 460-500 rated players, only to get outrecruited by a D2 team with 2x the budget. 

And I am guilty of poaching a d2 recruit 2 cycles before signing, but it occurred because a B prestige team with 2 more scholarships jumped me on signing day. I backed off asap and poached this dude who was 486, 546 after his RS season:

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1996941

Paul Wall:
speed: big upside
defensive fundamentals: big upside
shot blocking: limited upside
low post moves: big upside
perimeter shooting: big upside
ball handling: big upside
passing: limited upside
ft shooting: big upside

He's guaranteed another +165 minimum, assuming all the big upsides are now +21. But from my eval before recruiting him, he was high high in speed, lp, per, def. BH wasn't covered in my scouting. I believe those 4 high highs are still 30+ in growth, making this guy a lock for 750+, possibly 800+. 

So in the end, this was the right poach as this guy would be a pretty darn good player even for mid majors, and definitely should not be on a D2 team. 

On the topic of improvement:  What do you guys prefer?  Giving a kid with multiple areas of high potential lots of playing time as a freshman (even at the risk of losing a few games), or redshirting him if possible to give him an extra year?

Redshirt hands down.

Check out the high-high potential thread I made.

Signed a kid at DI who was 489 overall.  Finished his career over 800 and was drafted 41st overall after back-to-back seasons of being CPOY and being a 2nd-team All-American nationally.

ideal outcome is you play him 20mpg freshman year, RS soph year, but there's no guarantee he will take it.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 11/29/2011 2:46:00 PM (view original):
ideal outcome is you play him 20mpg freshman year, RS soph year, but there's no guarantee he will take it.

That will get him his maximum possible ratings for his last 2 seasons, but if you get him to redshirt as a freshman his minutes his freshman and sophomore seasons will be of a higher quality.  I prefer to get 3 or 4 good years, especially given that with decent WE most guys will be close enough to maxing out by tourney time junior year that the small remaining differences probably aren't even close to the difference in the quality of the freshman seasons.

I am the classic low prestige D1 coach who goes after marginal D1/D2 players with high high potentials. I do my recruiting, set up my practice schedule, and then pretty much do no game planning. Why? I just don't like game planning. I don't have the time for it and don't really have a desire to try to figure it out. The part that I really enjoy (and the only reason I continue to renew) is that I like the recruiting function. It is also the reason why I probably will always be coaching at a low prestige school. For the most part, I am not going to battle a high prestige D1 (I will lose), so I identify the guys I like that I know I can get and go after them. It sucks for the local D2 schools, I know, but I get my $10 a season out of it. 

Posted by ethan66 on 11/28/2011 11:42:00 PM (view original):
I've heard a lot of stories from you guys about how cuthroat D1 is.  Apparently it's so vicious that some D1 coaches are even resorting to poaching mediocre D2 recruits.  (Not mine, but several that I know of).

I think if I coached in D1 and had to take a 500-rated player away from a D2 school to sustain my mid-level B prestige D1 team, I'd hang my head in shame.  Or, here's an idea, figure out what I'm doing wrong?

Maybe I'm all wet here.  Maybe things really are that tough in D1?  

Yes, you're off base here.

There are guy with very strong potential that will make solid D1 players. I think your monologue above is a little silly.

(I also think you're missing out by not trying DI based on a handful of complaints. D2 ain't perfect, either -- by a long shot. But DI certainly takes a lot more skill.)

Posted by tianyi7886 on 11/29/2011 2:46:00 PM (view original):
ideal outcome is you play him 20mpg freshman year, RS soph year, but there's no guarantee he will take it.

Why would that be ideal over a RS his first year and then significant playing time?

I think he's looking at it strictly from a WE perspective and its influence on player practice improvement.  After playing his freshman year, his WE will be higher going into his R/S season, implying higher gains while being R/S.  Technically he's right, but I'm with dahs on this one.  I'd rather have him be more productive after his R/S season as a freshman than logging many minutes as a true freshman, regardless of the fact that most kids aren't going to accept a R/S as a soph.

Posted by jdno on 11/30/2011 9:16:00 AM (view original):
I think he's looking at it strictly from a WE perspective and its influence on player practice improvement.  After playing his freshman year, his WE will be higher going into his R/S season, implying higher gains while being R/S.  Technically he's right, but I'm with dahs on this one.  I'd rather have him be more productive after his R/S season as a freshman than logging many minutes as a true freshman, regardless of the fact that most kids aren't going to accept a R/S as a soph.

Right, that's what I was thinking.

Yep, if you want the player to be at his absolute best as a junior and senior, you'd start him his freshman and sophomore years then RS him as a junior.  But if you want the best four-year performance you should really be redshirting right away.

Posted by girt25 on 11/30/2011 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 11/30/2011 9:16:00 AM (view original):
I think he's looking at it strictly from a WE perspective and its influence on player practice improvement.  After playing his freshman year, his WE will be higher going into his R/S season, implying higher gains while being R/S.  Technically he's right, but I'm with dahs on this one.  I'd rather have him be more productive after his R/S season as a freshman than logging many minutes as a true freshman, regardless of the fact that most kids aren't going to accept a R/S as a soph.

Right, that's what I was thinking.

I go the play as much as possible RS soph year for players with low WE, but alot of potentials. The extra +6 to +8 in WE boosts growth in the RS year by 15points or so, and decrease rollover loss by quite a bit. 

Posted by girt25 on 11/30/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 11/28/2011 11:42:00 PM (view original):
I've heard a lot of stories from you guys about how cuthroat D1 is.  Apparently it's so vicious that some D1 coaches are even resorting to poaching mediocre D2 recruits.  (Not mine, but several that I know of).

I think if I coached in D1 and had to take a 500-rated player away from a D2 school to sustain my mid-level B prestige D1 team, I'd hang my head in shame.  Or, here's an idea, figure out what I'm doing wrong?

Maybe I'm all wet here.  Maybe things really are that tough in D1?  

Yes, you're off base here.

There are guy with very strong potential that will make solid D1 players. I think your monologue above is a little silly.

(I also think you're missing out by not trying DI based on a handful of complaints. D2 ain't perfect, either -- by a long shot. But DI certainly takes a lot more skill.)

"Silly"? It was my pov as a D2 and D3 coach, that's all.  Others have offered some much-appreciated counterpoints from the D1 perspective (though one or two have been dismissive of lower divisions' perspective, which sounds to me like little more than poor sportsmanship.  Maybe there are other anger issues at work there.)

I understand that high-D2 recruits are also low D1 -- when I scout for pulldowns, I specifically select "Division 1" on the drop down - to me, that means I accept the risk that I'll butt up against a D1 school.   But what I was addressing was at least two particular cases I know of where a D2 coach had pursued and gotten considered by a guy who wasn't even a good D1 player --- in one case, the player showed to me (A prestige) as a D2 recruit, not even a pulldown -- and  in the last cycle before signings begin,  after he'd gotten his name on him a D1 school came along and snatched him.

It's the law of the jungle, I guess.  What is annoying is the attitude of a few (not all) D1 coaches that their larger budgets give them the right to dismiss lower divisions.  We all pay for our subscriptions and I still don't understand why chasing a kid with a DEF of 32 is going to help a D1 team, even if he has high-high potential.

My lack of interest in D1 probably has equal parts "not ready yet" and "BCS or nothing" to it.  If I can't reasonably expect to compete for a championship after enough seasons of building, why bother?

"My lack of interest in D1 probably has equal parts "not ready yet" and "BCS or nothing" to it.  If I can't reasonably expect to compete for a championship after enough seasons of building, why bother?"

Ethan - Because it's fun.  My old Miss Valley State team (Tark) is still one of the funnest teams I've coached.  There's something to be said for finding a nice group of conference mates (admittedly usually a small group) and making a mini run in the tourny with Cindarella U.  And a little bit of success in low D1 helps you get that BCS school that much easier.