Posted by hughesjr on 12/14/2022 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by texashick on 12/14/2022 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 12/13/2022 4:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Fregoe on 12/12/2022 12:49:00 PM (view original):
My main goal is to just see it makes sense to get as many "better" recruits to High.
I really do think the numbers, except for maybe 3-way VH-VH-H battles seem to work out as expected.
If you get 10 guys to 67-33 ahead .. you should win 6.7 players. You would need to get 20 players to 33% to mathematically win the same number of players.
So, the question becomes, is it cheaper to get 20 players to high or 10 players to very high.
This is probably a stupid and annoying comment, but I think the best value is not being in a roll at all. If you can get to VH v H, that means you weren't that far from VH v moderate. Pricing wise, I think that's a much better value if that if that means the back half of your recruiting classes are filled with fairly average role players because you were so committed to the top guys.
This is a theoretical exercise, because you could never guarantee yourself any of these options, but id prefer in this order
6VH to M
10VH to H
20H to VH
There's just way too much variance in the last option and commonly see people getting overstretched trying to be in on too many recruits.
Well, sure. But in D1, for decent players, that is really hardly ever happening (keep everyone under H) :)
I mean, maybe if you are Duke or Kentucky and have been A+ for 20 seasons.
I think that's the common perception, but not always the case. Sure, Im running two A+ baseline prestige teams, those should be excluded from this conversation. That's a completely different ballgame. But looking at my notes for A- TCU team (that's a C baseline), of my last 24 players, Ive only rolled on three of them. That's been a successful team that's just hasn't had many drafted players since I took over because I choose to avoid the first and 2nd tier of recruits. While the rest of Texas/OK/LA fight over the EE types for the first 5-8 cycles, I get a big moat on the players that will be successful but not stars.
I don't have clear enough notes from when I took over at C- to put a number on it, but I can tell you with reasonable assurance I've averaged about one roll a season and commonly have zero.
I get on my most key recruits early, move off them when a higher prestige coach shows up, and if no one shows, they still get a huge AP allotment. I rarely spend money until signing day. And I almost always sign at least one player for essentially free that will likely ride my bench all 4 seasons.
Not trying to be contentious, I just commonly see coaches in battles they have no business being in. It's my perception that the coaches that try the "lets get to high on a ton of recruits" strategy are inevitably the ones complaining about rolls or rage quitting when the dice don't come up their way for a season.