Posted by l80r20 on 9/30/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2017 9:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/30/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 4:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/29/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/29/2017 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Unless you're talking about changing jobs, which is another topic, you absolutely can get backups lined up. But the users who come to the forums to complain choose not to play that way. That's a gameplay and expectations issue.

I agree to an extent, you can get back ups lined up if you are battling for guys that have an early signing...but for the late signers it is more difficult to have backup options if you are in a battle.

You can have backups lined up for late guys too, but it starts early in the first session. It can get complicated, if you have a bold D2 or D3 deciding to reach up and invest, and especially if the prime guy is taking his time in the second session, but usually if you're on a guy from the start, the lower level teams move on early. Trying to move in *after* those lower level teams have already invested is not the way to do it. It's like trying to buy life insurance after 50. Now the price is much higher.

Some don't like to play this way - which is fine - because they'd rather invest all their APs on their top targets, to maximize their chances. Totally valid. But then you can't complain about the consequence, which is that if you strike out, you are behind the eight-ball.

Those extra 3-5 APs per cycle don't really move the needle much at all on a recruit you're going to go all in on anyway. Sure it matters, maybe a couple of percentage points at the end. But there's not a lot of value there. They are far more valuable on recruits that are not going to get a ton of attention, or visits from high prestige teams. That's why siphoning off 3-5 APs per cycle from your top target to cultivate a backup over the course of a recruiting session can pay off for people who, for whatever reason, don't want to take a walk-on in that slot.

Superior advice, shoe. Only the blind could argue with that.

Of course, there is a lot of that going around.

I don’t get the logic behind this honestly. Why start the habit for of recruiting sub par backups who will only be useful 4 SEASONS from now? Like take the walk-on and attempt getting better players the next season.. I don’t get how Big Six D1 teams compete with #200 ranked players.

If you don't care about consistently making the NT or ever having any deep runs then you can do this.

So it's up to you.

"Some don't like to play this way - which is fine - because they'd rather invest all their APs on their top targets, to maximize their chances. Totally valid. But then you can't complain about the consequence, which is that if you strike out, you are behind the eight-ball."

pwned!

Spud : go Alabama Tark, I am leavin' see what it's all about.

Pfft...that is nothing. I had 6 in a row...

Posted by texrangers19 on 9/30/2017 11:09:00 AM (view original):
Pfft...that is nothing. I had 6 in a row...

6 vh (you) to h (others) in a row?

SPud is his own definition of worthless background noise...

His biggest contribution to the forums is copying other people's posts.

Posted by mullycj on 9/30/2017 11:47:00 AM (view original):
SPud is his own definition of worthless background noise...

His biggest contribution to the forums is copying other people's posts.

I'm not even sure what he's talking about and who got pwned.

Posted by Benis on 9/30/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 4:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/29/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/29/2017 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Unless you're talking about changing jobs, which is another topic, you absolutely can get backups lined up. But the users who come to the forums to complain choose not to play that way. That's a gameplay and expectations issue.

I agree to an extent, you can get back ups lined up if you are battling for guys that have an early signing...but for the late signers it is more difficult to have backup options if you are in a battle.

You can have backups lined up for late guys too, but it starts early in the first session. It can get complicated, if you have a bold D2 or D3 deciding to reach up and invest, and especially if the prime guy is taking his time in the second session, but usually if you're on a guy from the start, the lower level teams move on early. Trying to move in *after* those lower level teams have already invested is not the way to do it. It's like trying to buy life insurance after 50. Now the price is much higher.

Some don't like to play this way - which is fine - because they'd rather invest all their APs on their top targets, to maximize their chances. Totally valid. But then you can't complain about the consequence, which is that if you strike out, you are behind the eight-ball.

Those extra 3-5 APs per cycle don't really move the needle much at all on a recruit you're going to go all in on anyway. Sure it matters, maybe a couple of percentage points at the end. But there's not a lot of value there. They are far more valuable on recruits that are not going to get a ton of attention, or visits from high prestige teams. That's why siphoning off 3-5 APs per cycle from your top target to cultivate a backup over the course of a recruiting session can pay off for people who, for whatever reason, don't want to take a walk-on in that slot.

Superior advice, shoe. Only the blind could argue with that.

Of course, there is a lot of that going around.

I don’t get the logic behind this honestly. Why start the habit for of recruiting sub par backups who will only be useful 4 SEASONS from now? Like take the walk-on and attempt getting better players the next season.. I don’t get how Big Six D1 teams compete with #200 ranked players.

If you don't care about consistently making the NT or ever having any deep runs then you can do this.

So it's up to you.

I’m sorry I just expected that Big Six D1 was all about competing for the Top 100 players in the nation. I don’t get how coaches get up to the highest level of HD and are content with building below average teams. I expected being Uber competitive is what got you up there in the first place.

IRL, there are a lot of successful teams who run with 8-9 stud players. There has to be successful HD who do the same.

No all BCS schools are the same, zags.

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/30/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 4:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/29/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/29/2017 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Unless you're talking about changing jobs, which is another topic, you absolutely can get backups lined up. But the users who come to the forums to complain choose not to play that way. That's a gameplay and expectations issue.

I agree to an extent, you can get back ups lined up if you are battling for guys that have an early signing...but for the late signers it is more difficult to have backup options if you are in a battle.

You can have backups lined up for late guys too, but it starts early in the first session. It can get complicated, if you have a bold D2 or D3 deciding to reach up and invest, and especially if the prime guy is taking his time in the second session, but usually if you're on a guy from the start, the lower level teams move on early. Trying to move in *after* those lower level teams have already invested is not the way to do it. It's like trying to buy life insurance after 50. Now the price is much higher.

Some don't like to play this way - which is fine - because they'd rather invest all their APs on their top targets, to maximize their chances. Totally valid. But then you can't complain about the consequence, which is that if you strike out, you are behind the eight-ball.

Those extra 3-5 APs per cycle don't really move the needle much at all on a recruit you're going to go all in on anyway. Sure it matters, maybe a couple of percentage points at the end. But there's not a lot of value there. They are far more valuable on recruits that are not going to get a ton of attention, or visits from high prestige teams. That's why siphoning off 3-5 APs per cycle from your top target to cultivate a backup over the course of a recruiting session can pay off for people who, for whatever reason, don't want to take a walk-on in that slot.

Superior advice, shoe. Only the blind could argue with that.

Of course, there is a lot of that going around.

I don’t get the logic behind this honestly. Why start the habit for of recruiting sub par backups who will only be useful 4 SEASONS from now? Like take the walk-on and attempt getting better players the next season.. I don’t get how Big Six D1 teams compete with #200 ranked players.

If you don't care about consistently making the NT or ever having any deep runs then you can do this.

So it's up to you.

I’m sorry I just expected that Big Six D1 was all about competing for the Top 100 players in the nation. I don’t get how coaches get up to the highest level of HD and are content with building below average teams. I expected being Uber competitive is what got you up there in the first place.

IRL, there are a lot of successful teams who run with 8-9 stud players. There has to be successful HD who do the same.

Either these people are:

a) content with being mediocre
b) delusional and unaware of how mediocre they are.

Thanks for the input, Duke. But this isn't about "strategy wars". It's about whether or not it's valid to say the system is broken because some team or other can't get all the recruits it wants. It isn't. You can line up backups. Whether or not it's a good idea to do so is up to the coach and the situation. But it's a users choice to forego a chance to line up backup options. If the "backups" you're targeting are priorities for other teams, then you aren't prioritizing properly. This is very simple economics.

Zagsrulez made a statement seeking clarification and I answered him.

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/30/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 4:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/29/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/29/2017 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Unless you're talking about changing jobs, which is another topic, you absolutely can get backups lined up. But the users who come to the forums to complain choose not to play that way. That's a gameplay and expectations issue.

I agree to an extent, you can get back ups lined up if you are battling for guys that have an early signing...but for the late signers it is more difficult to have backup options if you are in a battle.

You can have backups lined up for late guys too, but it starts early in the first session. It can get complicated, if you have a bold D2 or D3 deciding to reach up and invest, and especially if the prime guy is taking his time in the second session, but usually if you're on a guy from the start, the lower level teams move on early. Trying to move in *after* those lower level teams have already invested is not the way to do it. It's like trying to buy life insurance after 50. Now the price is much higher.

Some don't like to play this way - which is fine - because they'd rather invest all their APs on their top targets, to maximize their chances. Totally valid. But then you can't complain about the consequence, which is that if you strike out, you are behind the eight-ball.

Those extra 3-5 APs per cycle don't really move the needle much at all on a recruit you're going to go all in on anyway. Sure it matters, maybe a couple of percentage points at the end. But there's not a lot of value there. They are far more valuable on recruits that are not going to get a ton of attention, or visits from high prestige teams. That's why siphoning off 3-5 APs per cycle from your top target to cultivate a backup over the course of a recruiting session can pay off for people who, for whatever reason, don't want to take a walk-on in that slot.

Superior advice, shoe. Only the blind could argue with that.

Of course, there is a lot of that going around.

I don’t get the logic behind this honestly. Why start the habit for of recruiting sub par backups who will only be useful 4 SEASONS from now? Like take the walk-on and attempt getting better players the next season.. I don’t get how Big Six D1 teams compete with #200 ranked players.

If you don't care about consistently making the NT or ever having any deep runs then you can do this.

So it's up to you.

I’m sorry I just expected that Big Six D1 was all about competing for the Top 100 players in the nation. I don’t get how coaches get up to the highest level of HD and are content with building below average teams. I expected being Uber competitive is what got you up there in the first place.

IRL, there are a lot of successful teams who run with 8-9 stud players. There has to be successful HD who do the same.

"There are a lot of successful teams who run with 8-9 stud players."? This is a whopper.

1991 UNLV produced five NBA draft picks. 2012 and 2015 Kentucky each had six. And those are outliers.

This debate is a little idealistic. You recruit based on the condition of your program at the time you take it over, not based on the name of the school. If SIM has run a BCS school into the ground and it's 2 full letter grades below it's baseline prestige, you can't compete for top recruits immediately if other established human schools are targeting them, even if you go all in. If a coach has been at Kentucky for a while and is still picking up the #190 PG, that's a problem. However, if you take over a D+ BCS team, you right the ship before you start reaching. Just a few NT appearances will get you near your baseline and then you can start being aggressive. Recruiting is situational. There is not one universal standard that covers all scenarios.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2017 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/30/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/30/2017 4:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/29/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/29/2017 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/29/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Unless you're talking about changing jobs, which is another topic, you absolutely can get backups lined up. But the users who come to the forums to complain choose not to play that way. That's a gameplay and expectations issue.

I agree to an extent, you can get back ups lined up if you are battling for guys that have an early signing...but for the late signers it is more difficult to have backup options if you are in a battle.

You can have backups lined up for late guys too, but it starts early in the first session. It can get complicated, if you have a bold D2 or D3 deciding to reach up and invest, and especially if the prime guy is taking his time in the second session, but usually if you're on a guy from the start, the lower level teams move on early. Trying to move in *after* those lower level teams have already invested is not the way to do it. It's like trying to buy life insurance after 50. Now the price is much higher.

Some don't like to play this way - which is fine - because they'd rather invest all their APs on their top targets, to maximize their chances. Totally valid. But then you can't complain about the consequence, which is that if you strike out, you are behind the eight-ball.

Those extra 3-5 APs per cycle don't really move the needle much at all on a recruit you're going to go all in on anyway. Sure it matters, maybe a couple of percentage points at the end. But there's not a lot of value there. They are far more valuable on recruits that are not going to get a ton of attention, or visits from high prestige teams. That's why siphoning off 3-5 APs per cycle from your top target to cultivate a backup over the course of a recruiting session can pay off for people who, for whatever reason, don't want to take a walk-on in that slot.

Superior advice, shoe. Only the blind could argue with that.

Of course, there is a lot of that going around.

I don’t get the logic behind this honestly. Why start the habit for of recruiting sub par backups who will only be useful 4 SEASONS from now? Like take the walk-on and attempt getting better players the next season.. I don’t get how Big Six D1 teams compete with #200 ranked players.

If you don't care about consistently making the NT or ever having any deep runs then you can do this.

So it's up to you.

I’m sorry I just expected that Big Six D1 was all about competing for the Top 100 players in the nation. I don’t get how coaches get up to the highest level of HD and are content with building below average teams. I expected being Uber competitive is what got you up there in the first place.

IRL, there are a lot of successful teams who run with 8-9 stud players. There has to be successful HD who do the same.

"There are a lot of successful teams who run with 8-9 stud players."? This is a whopper.

1991 UNLV produced five NBA draft picks. 2012 and 2015 Kentucky each had six. And those are outliers.

Oregon played only 8 players last season in their FF run. Teams with not very much depth are more common than you think

Yeah most good teams in RL don't go very deep. Cuse usually only plays 7.