Posted by Benis on 10/1/2017 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Only dipshits use "moi" and post gifs. So yes.

Posted by zorzii on 10/1/2017 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 10/1/2017 11:18:00 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.

So let me see if I understand this. Despite zorzii saying he went "all-in" on several recruits (HV, CV, promises, etc) you say he didn't do enough to swing the needle more in his favor. Yet you also say he should have used APs to unlock more backup options, which takes away from his effort on his primary targets. And you wonder why no one can stand you commenting on D1 recruiting? You can't even figure out how to belittle people without contradicting yourself.

+1

he just does not understand what's going on.

I'm not reading the 9 pages I missed.

Are you saying you went "all-in" on the 3 you missed on? You hadn't said that before and it's not possible. "All in" is 80 AP, 1 CV, 20 HV, 25 mi/start guarantee. That's 240 AP per cycle. You COULDN'T have done that. I DOUBT you had the budget for 3 CV, 60 HV. Did the story change?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/1/2017 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 10/1/2017 11:18:00 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.

So let me see if I understand this. Despite zorzii saying he went "all-in" on several recruits (HV, CV, promises, etc) you say he didn't do enough to swing the needle more in his favor. Yet you also say he should have used APs to unlock more backup options, which takes away from his effort on his primary targets. And you wonder why no one can stand you commenting on D1 recruiting? You can't even figure out how to belittle people without contradicting yourself.

+1

he just does not understand what's going on.

I'm not reading the 9 pages I missed.

Are you saying you went "all-in" on the 3 you missed on? You hadn't said that before and it's not possible. "All in" is 80 AP, 1 CV, 20 HV, 25 mi/start guarantee. That's 240 AP per cycle. You COULDN'T have done that. I DOUBT you had the budget for 3 CV, 60 HV. Did the story change?

I had 5 schollies, all near... Did I have the budget? Of course I did... But 80 ap, impossible, that you are right.

OK, so you didn't go "all in". Someone is speaking for you. Incorrectly.

Again, it sucks to lose three in the manner you did. I get your gripe. But it's been the game for over a year.

When someone says "all-in" I assume 1 CV, 20 HVs and promises. I never thought this meant needing 80 APs per cycle too.

Posted by Benis on 10/2/2017 7:46:00 AM (view original):
When someone says "all-in" I assume 1 CV, 20 HVs and promises. I never thought this meant needing 80 APs per cycle too.

+1

Posted by Benis on 10/2/2017 7:46:00 AM (view original):
When someone says "all-in" I assume 1 CV, 20 HVs and promises. I never thought this meant needing 80 APs per cycle too.

Exactly.

Posted by Benis on 10/2/2017 7:46:00 AM (view original):
When someone says "all-in" I assume 1 CV, 20 HVs and promises. I never thought this meant needing 80 APs per cycle too.

Yeah. By this definition, you could never go all in with 1 or 2 openings.

Anybody play poker? When you say "I'm all in", you push all your chips to the middle of the table. You don't keep 3-4 off to the side.

So...

No backups then?

Don't confuse me with spud. You make decisions to go "all in"(or whatever you call "all in" which is "kinda, somewhat all-in" to many of you) or you work back-up plans. Or some version of both. But the game has been this way for a year. You put yourself in the best position to succeed. Maybe you fail.

BTW, I think the "problem" is the mindset. If you're at 60%, you should win the recruit 6 out of 10 times. Not 100% of the time. I read some football analogy earlier in this thread about 600 yards vs 400 yards. The team that gained 600 is MORE LIKELY to win but it's not a guarantee. Recruiting is more like yards gained than the final score.