Anyone care to share some examples of players they signed as backup options after they lost battles for their top options?

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Anyone care to share some examples of players they signed as backup options after they lost battles for their top options?

I would like to see some of these players too. Everyone keeps saying that if you lose a battle for your top guy, you can find a guy almost as good. Please show us the target you lost and the backup you signed.

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
All time low D2 and D3 populations.

Yeah it needs an electro-choc! I have been patient, but it does suck on many instances. D3... It use to be really fun, really competitive. A challenge, now it's dead. D2, you need a location to win. You will compete forever, since there aren't many teams but to get the NT, find a place where you will get D1 gifts. D1, well, recruit générations? Does that sound like something? Rolls that don't make sense, EES.

It needs to be changed so people remain in the game.

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Its been a year... I think we can judge how nuHD is going.

Yeah, but the purchase by Sportshub was probably on the table for at least the last six months or so before the deal was finalized. Right after the initial rollout of 3.0 FOX did appear to be interested in maintaining the game and make improvements. That probably all stopped when the purchase offer came across.

I think the true test now is what Sportshub does with the game. Does their marketing draw people in?Are they willing to keep finding ways to improve the product on a go forward basis?

Posted by mullycj on 9/29/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
shoe - don't take this the wrong way but you don't have any top notch D1 teams. Could it be your strategy works because you are picking up players that leave you battling DII schools in battles? It would really mean more for a top 10 D1 coach to come out here and spout the things you are saying because at the top of DI what you claim in ALL your posts about backup plans just isn't possible. You are an excellent DII coach so maybe your strategy is more applicable to DII/DIII.


NOW......
If you want to talk about having backup plans the 1st few days of recruiting, that's another story. But once you are invested, if another team comes in and makes a push you can be screwed. You can't change plans from there because you are then behind every other team that has been plowing APs into recruits from day 1.

My point exactly. You lose the dice, you are done sorry, but it's that way. Unless you decided your man was a LATE guy. I did this once, but still ended up on a roll... Cause I am not the only one choosing that strat.

Posted by mullycj on 9/29/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
shoe - don't take this the wrong way but you don't have any top notch D1 teams. Could it be your strategy works because you are picking up players that leave you battling DII schools in battles? It would really mean more for a top 10 D1 coach to come out here and spout the things you are saying because at the top of DI what you claim in ALL your posts about backup plans just isn't possible. You are an excellent DII coach so maybe your strategy is more applicable to DII/DIII.


NOW......
If you want to talk about having backup plans the 1st few days of recruiting, that's another story. But once you are invested, if another team comes in and makes a push you can be screwed. You can't change plans from there because you are then behind every other team that has been plowing APs into recruits from day 1.

There's mully, getting the ruler out again. Don't act so dense. FWIW, I'm perfectly comfortable with my D1 success, given where the programs were when I picked them up. This issue is about user expectations and gameplay choices. That's a fact. You don't need D1 titles to understand that.

And sure, how low you are willing to reach is an issue. As it should be. That's life in a game where you are competing for commodities with other intelligent people. If your "backup" is really just the 3rd or 4th guy on the list, that's not a backup. If you don't want to take players that don't meet your standards, fine. Then you have to deal with walk-ons. Perfectly valid choice. But the game doesn't need to be made easier for you or anyone else to field teams of all-NBA caliber players.

Posted by grimacedance on 9/29/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Anyone care to share some examples of players they signed as backup options after they lost battles for their top options?

I would like to see some of these players too. Everyone keeps saying that if you lose a battle for your top guy, you can find a guy almost as good. Please show us the target you lost and the backup you signed.

No one is saying "almost as good", not at D1. What kind of game would it be if everyone could just get all the talent they want?

There are basically 3 types of players I go after. The blue group are my ideals, the best guys I should be able to reasonably compete for. Top 15 by position caliber guys I will generally go all in on 2 or 3 of those guys, depending on scholarships. My green group is made up of players who will be good 4 year players - projects, role players, guys who I'll never have to worry about going early, and who will be all-conference caliber after a few years of development. I will usually try to lock in at least one of those guys every year. May require some investment, but not necessarily a start. The kind of guy who typically sits at 30-60 by position, and has good upside.

The third group are the backups. They are players with some flaw that I think will keep other similar prestige teams from going after hard. I don't want them on my team necessarily, but sometimes it makes sense to have a few, as insurance against the situation zorzii is in here. It's usually better to have a couple of these guys on the roster, who will be 4-year backups, and may be contributors when their IQ is high enough, rather than 4 walk-ons. I make that determination on a year by year basis. Sometimes I take the walk-on. Sometimes I don't.

Posted by grimacedance on 9/29/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Anyone care to share some examples of players they signed as backup options after they lost battles for their top options?

I would like to see some of these players too. Everyone keeps saying that if you lose a battle for your top guy, you can find a guy almost as good. Please show us the target you lost and the backup you signed.

Three seasons ago...
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3648241

Praying to god he finally leaves early......

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 9/29/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Anyone care to share some examples of players they signed as backup options after they lost battles for their top options?

I would like to see some of these players too. Everyone keeps saying that if you lose a battle for your top guy, you can find a guy almost as good. Please show us the target you lost and the backup you signed.

No one is saying "almost as good", not at D1. What kind of game would it be if everyone could just get all the talent they want?

There are basically 3 types of players I go after. The blue group are my ideals, the best guys I should be able to reasonably compete for. Top 15 by position caliber guys I will generally go all in on 2 or 3 of those guys, depending on scholarships. My green group is made up of players who will be good 4 year players - projects, role players, guys who I'll never have to worry about going early, and who will be all-conference caliber after a few years of development. I will usually try to lock in at least one of those guys every year. May require some investment, but not necessarily a start. The kind of guy who typically sits at 30-60 by position, and has good upside.

The third group are the backups. They are players with some flaw that I think will keep other similar prestige teams from going after hard. I don't want them on my team necessarily, but sometimes it makes sense to have a few, as insurance against the situation zorzii is in here. It's usually better to have a couple of these guys on the roster, who will be 4-year backups, and may be contributors when their IQ is high enough, rather than 4 walk-ons. I make that determination on a year by year basis. Sometimes I take the walk-on. Sometimes I don't.

I do a similar categorization

Blues- Direct targets, guys I think I can all sign and would be great players for me. I divide my AP among these players from Cycle one and adjust depending on battles
Greens- Backups to direct targets, Guys that I like but the blues were just better or possibly the greens were good but I'm unsure how much attention they will pull.
Yellows- These players are either flawed or beyond my reach, For instance a top 5 player positional player that is local to me. I pay attention these battles to learn who is fighting for what. Then I have flawed players here for if my blue player gets taken and I have no green backups, sometimes the flawed players are also "late" signing preference or projects or career backups.
Reds- Majorly flawed players that are a last resort. Complete dice rolls, things like 35 Green defense. Not high enough to be D1 but has a chance. Also might place internationals here as I prioritize locals. Might also put a guard here maxing out BH at 50 or Passing at 50.

"The third group are the backups. They are players with some flaw that I think will keep other similar prestige teams from going after hard. I don't want them on my team necessarily, but sometimes it makes sense to have a few, as insurance against the situation zorzii is in here. It's usually better to have a couple of these guys on the roster, who will be 4-year backups, and may be contributors when their IQ is high enough, rather than 4 walk-ons. I make that determination on a year by year basis. Sometimes I take the walk-on. Sometimes I don't."

Here is the issue and I don't know why you aren't experiencing it. When going after THOSE players there are usually schools below your prestige going after them also. So now if you only give them BACKUP AP points you will lose those players to the lower schools who are going all in. If you go all in you will lose out on the players you are REALLY interested in.

I took a shot on this guy https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Ratings.aspx?rid=4127677

Settled for https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Ratings.aspx?rid=4129886

Obviously would have preferred the first guy. I'll be grateful the second is on my team in two seasons, especially if I can't get an elite guard next year, either.

This is exactly how a competitive multi-player game should look. Prioritize, compete, gamble based on your tolerance for risk.

What are his potentials?

Posted by mullycj on 9/29/2017 2:37:00 PM (view original):
"The third group are the backups. They are players with some flaw that I think will keep other similar prestige teams from going after hard. I don't want them on my team necessarily, but sometimes it makes sense to have a few, as insurance against the situation zorzii is in here. It's usually better to have a couple of these guys on the roster, who will be 4-year backups, and may be contributors when their IQ is high enough, rather than 4 walk-ons. I make that determination on a year by year basis. Sometimes I take the walk-on. Sometimes I don't."

Here is the issue and I don't know why you aren't experiencing it. When going after THOSE players there are usually schools below your prestige going after them also. So now if you only give them BACKUP AP points you will lose those players to the lower schools who are going all in. If you go all in you will lose out on the players you are REALLY interested in.

Do it early, and on a couple different players, and the lower level teams will often move on. In the example above, I did offer a start, which is a wash on my rebuilding team. No visits.

Posted by mullycj on 9/29/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 9/29/2017 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/29/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Anyone care to share some examples of players they signed as backup options after they lost battles for their top options?

I would like to see some of these players too. Everyone keeps saying that if you lose a battle for your top guy, you can find a guy almost as good. Please show us the target you lost and the backup you signed.

Three seasons ago...
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3648241

Praying to god he finally leaves early......

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Ratings.aspx?rid=4128652

I just signed this guy before leaving TCU, lost my main target which I cant find anymore who it was and signed Herman as a backup SPD DEF BH AND PAS are green. ATH is black and PER is Yellow.

Herman will finish 90+ DEF 80+ SPD 60+ ATH 75+ BH 65+ PASS and around 80 PER. Signed him with no competition in period one after several cycles. He will be able to defend nearly any guard and depending on matchup will be able to score. I'm comfortable starting him after a season or 2 of development.

Posted by mullycj on 9/29/2017 2:39:00 PM (view original):
What are his potentials?

Green defense and ft, blue bh and passing. Black speed, stamina and durability. Everything else is orange.

On my more advanced Rutgers and UV teams, no way do I offer a start. I probably still get him without the start, but I wanted to wrap it up in the first session.