James Freeman
Eligible
6'1" | 193 lbs. | 3.1 GPA
Huntington Beach HS | Huntington Beach, CA
Category:
POSRATING
SG654
Scouting Level 4
#44 Ranked Overall#14 Ranked SG4 Years RemainingHigh School RecruitGuaranteed StarterGuaranteed MinutesScholarship Offer
This recruit has signed with Virginia Tech

• Ratings
• Preferences
• Recruit
• Considering
• History
• Note

Team	Coach	Division	Prestige	Int Level	Scholarship Offer?	Odds
New Mexico State	dlander	DI	B-	Very High	Yes	42%
Cal State Fullerton	tompkinsaj	DI	B	High	Yes	16%
Loyola Marymount	goodtymes31	DI	C	High	Yes	25%
Virginia Tech	Fregoe	DI	B-	High	Yes	17%

I know this happens to all of us, but I am now 1-for-12 on rolls where I've been the favorite.

Posted by texashick on 12/14/2022 3:31:00 PM (view original):

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.

I find it really difficult to land those second-tier guys without being bothered by C+/B- people, even at A+.

“difficult to land those second-tier guys”

I think “second-tier” probably means different things in different situations, let alone different coaches. How far down you have to drop to get to the level of player that is available for free depends on a lot of factors, it’s pretty fluid. But in almost all cases, if you don’t invest a decent chunk of AP early, you will certainly have to invest visits late for any kind of attractive player, this should be a given. If you’re not willing to go ugly first, you’ll have to spend. Sometimes you will anyway with population the way it is, and that’s healthy for the game. But many times, you don’t - if you’ve scouted wide enough and are willing to drop low enough.

There's always 2nd/3rd tier players available, you just have to look for them. Most coaches are bad at recruiting because they have a few targets and stick with them no matter the circumstances. They rely on rolls. I find very few coaches who move to secondary and tertiary targets. It's basically a matter of which coaches put in the work to find backups for all of their needs and then have the flexibility to act on it. I'm guessing that most coaches don't weigh their opponents, opponent preferences, and make decisions to move on to the next on the list or fight it out. Recruiting dollars aren't' properly spent, and there's too much reliance on random odds.

That's one of the things I like about the current game. If you put in more time/work than other coaches, you'll get ahead of them. My pet peeve is seeing coaches that pick a few targets at the start of recruiting and then complain if they don't win the rolls for them after going all-in. DAMMIT, I SPENT 80 AP PER CYCLE AND LOST WITH 70% ODDS. Well there was also a slightly lesser player that signed to a D2 team. You just didn't do your research.

Posted by mlitney on 5/7/2023 12:29:00 AM (view original):
There's always 2nd/3rd tier players available, you just have to look for them. Most coaches are bad at recruiting because they have a few targets and stick with them no matter the circumstances. They rely on rolls. I find very few coaches who move to secondary and tertiary targets. It's basically a matter of which coaches put in the work to find backups for all of their needs and then have the flexibility to act on it. I'm guessing that most coaches don't weigh their opponents, opponent preferences, and make decisions to move on to the next on the list or fight it out. Recruiting dollars aren't' properly spent, and there's too much reliance on random odds.

That's one of the things I like about the current game. If you put in more time/work than other coaches, you'll get ahead of them. My pet peeve is seeing coaches that pick a few targets at the start of recruiting and then complain if they don't win the rolls for them after going all-in. DAMMIT, I SPENT 80 AP PER CYCLE AND LOST WITH 70% ODDS. Well there was also a slightly lesser player that signed to a D2 team. You just didn't do your research.

*slightly* lesser player that signed with d2? :)

Posted by gillispie on 5/7/2023 2:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 5/7/2023 12:29:00 AM (view original):
There's always 2nd/3rd tier players available, you just have to look for them. Most coaches are bad at recruiting because they have a few targets and stick with them no matter the circumstances. They rely on rolls. I find very few coaches who move to secondary and tertiary targets. It's basically a matter of which coaches put in the work to find backups for all of their needs and then have the flexibility to act on it. I'm guessing that most coaches don't weigh their opponents, opponent preferences, and make decisions to move on to the next on the list or fight it out. Recruiting dollars aren't' properly spent, and there's too much reliance on random odds.

That's one of the things I like about the current game. If you put in more time/work than other coaches, you'll get ahead of them. My pet peeve is seeing coaches that pick a few targets at the start of recruiting and then complain if they don't win the rolls for them after going all-in. DAMMIT, I SPENT 80 AP PER CYCLE AND LOST WITH 70% ODDS. Well there was also a slightly lesser player that signed to a D2 team. You just didn't do your research.

*slightly* lesser player that signed with d2? :)

By the time they're upperclassmen, yeah sometimes. So it's a matter of projecting out and do you want to protect a guy on your roster for a couple seasons, or carry a walk-on? I often have these guys on my roster, as you know, like Whittington in Fresno who was Pac-10 Honorable Mention as a senior this season. If I didn't take him, he'd have gone to D2. And he was low for D1 starting out, but it didn't kill me to have him on my roster. And I do that with non FB/P teams too, UConn has 3 guys like that right now, it's a way to deal with EEs for teams that only really need 8-core. Then the deal is, you commit on the scholarship resources and take what is essentially a solid juco, who will have elite IQ because he'll know your sets; may have limited value for a couple seasons, but that's the deal. And he'll be there if you need him, in case of emergency.

So yeah I agree with mlitney obviously. Like I always say, it's not the only way to play. It's perfectly valid to prefer to put all you resources on a couple elites every season and roll the dice, and just plan to carry a lot of walk-ons every year, and just play really tall. The game certainly incentivizes it, so why not? But what isn't valid is doing all that, and then complaining about the kind of game your own gameplay choices are creating for you.

Posted by smackawits on 12/21/2022 7:11:00 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.

Fregoe....I do not agree with your comment that "the numbers seem to work out as expected". I have been keeping track of my recruiting stats for quite some time now.....really can't say how many seasons, but if I had to guess probably 20-30 recruiting sessions. ... I have a "winning" percentage of 33% of those recruits where I have been the underdog,regardless of how much of an underdog I was. I do believe that this is an acceptable percentage. Prior to the change in recruiting, anyone below and A- grade could not involve themselves in trying to get some of the best players. Now they can.....and I believe it is in the best interest of the game. Teams in the C+ to B+ range now have an opportunity to improve their recruiting if they are willing to gamble. Obviously, I don't know what the total stats are, just the stats that I have been documenting for my team. My problem is related to the odds when I "have won" the recruiting battle but lose the recruit to another team. If I am successful 33% of the time when I am behind in effort, then I would expect my team to be approximately 67% if I am ahead in effort. This has not been the case. My percentage of signings when "winning" the recruiting battle is only 46%....a LONG ways away from the expected 67%. I only have a winning percentage of 53% when AHEAD BY 20+ PERCENTAGE POINTS!!! This percentage, IMO, should be at 67% + or -. My "winning percentage" when ahead by 1-19 percentage points is a mere 41%. I should imagine that this percentage should balance to a 50-50 split, at minimum.

Updating the numbers after a couple more recruiting seasons: When ahead by 20+ percentage points. 43%.......when ahead less than 20 percentage points, 53%.......when behind, 34%.......72 total recruits involved.

Posted by mlitney on 5/7/2023 12:29:00 AM (view original):
There's always 2nd/3rd tier players available, you just have to look for them. Most coaches are bad at recruiting because they have a few targets and stick with them no matter the circumstances. They rely on rolls. I find very few coaches who move to secondary and tertiary targets. It's basically a matter of which coaches put in the work to find backups for all of their needs and then have the flexibility to act on it. I'm guessing that most coaches don't weigh their opponents, opponent preferences, and make decisions to move on to the next on the list or fight it out. Recruiting dollars aren't' properly spent, and there's too much reliance on random odds.

That's one of the things I like about the current game. If you put in more time/work than other coaches, you'll get ahead of them. My pet peeve is seeing coaches that pick a few targets at the start of recruiting and then complain if they don't win the rolls for them after going all-in. DAMMIT, I SPENT 80 AP PER CYCLE AND LOST WITH 70% ODDS. Well there was also a slightly lesser player that signed to a D2 team. You just didn't do your research.

Committing to this strategy took me a while, but it has been very effective in producing more consistent winning teams for me. It's so cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Going all or nothing on "reach recruits" without backup options leaves you open to disaster, and sooner or later it's going to hit you. You may think that you have a shot at those reach players and that you deserve to land them, but you have to be honest with yourself as to your realistic odds while also your analyzing your opponents. Know when you need to cut bait and pivot to your backup option, the sooner you do it the better. Patience is key

Lost both of these in the same cycle over the last two days. (Both on 4* players)

Very High 63% 20 HVs, Campus Visit, 25 Promised minutes, Guarantied Starter, 846 AP's
High 37%

Very High 65% 20 HVs, Campus Visit, 25 Promised minutes, Guarantied Starter, 710 AP's
High 35%

Team +G85+A1:I85+A1+A1:I85	Year	Player	Fav	Dog	Winner	winning team
Coppin St	188	Glenn Miligan	62	38	Underdog	Coppin
Drake	168	Jan Threlkeld	57	43	undergod	Missouri
Wyoming	169	Thomas Mathis	74	26	Underdog	Air Force
Miss V St	134	Jason Morejon	63	37	undergod	Miss V St
Coppin St	189	Shawn Smith	49	30	underdog	Morgan St
Coppin St	189	Jay Barrett	58	42	underdog	Coppin St
Miss V St	135	Jason Morejon	63	37	Underdog	Miss St
Clemson	132	Richard Lebel	74	26	Fav	Indiana
Boise St	129	Douglas Vogel	69	31	Fav	Gonzaga
Wyoming	170	Tim Ward	75	25	Fav	Gonzaga
Wyoming	170	JR Nagata	69	31	Fav	Iowa St
Lamar	135	Fred McCullough	76	24	Fav	Lamar
Drake	170	Ahmad Whitehill	71	29	Fav	Drake
Drake	170	Zach Parks	55	23	Fav	Illinois
Drake	170	Roy Jones	48	17	Underdog	ND
Clemson	133	Craig Bryant	51	49	Fav	Vandy
Drake	170	Ruben Mullins	38	12	Fav	Missouri	5 WAY ROLL
Miss V St	135	Daniel Puckett	66	34	Fav	Alcorn st
Miss V St	135	eric Hemphill	72	27	fav	Drake
Coppin St	191	j Cambell	57	23	fav	Pitt	3 Way
Miss Valley St	135	Brandon Randolph	53	47	Undedog	G Tech
Miss Valley St	135	Bryant Wetzstein	74	26	underdog	Tenn Martin
Miss Valley St	135	John Park	59	20	Fav	Aub
Prarie View	134	James Phillips	53	47	Underdog	Florida St
Coppin St	192	Michael Larose	68	32	Underdog	Coppin St
Coppin St	192	Thad Evans	72	28	Underdog	Clev St
Drake	172	William Chilton	53	18	Fav	Hou	3 way
Clemson	134	Bryan Lacy	57	43	Underdog	Clemson
Clemson	134	Michael Williams	51	19	undergod	Clemson	3 way
Prarie View	135	Hults	72	28	underdog	Houston
Miss V State	136	Tyler Smith	55	45	underdog	Ark Pine B
Prarie View	135	Kerry Phillippi	68	32	Fav	Prarie View
Lamar	137	James Mingus	59	41	underdog	PrarieView
Coppin St	193	Elmer Redden	61	39	underdog	wagner
Coppin St	193	Micahel Dillard	54	46	unerdog	Coppin St
West Virginia	137	Mathew Gilchrist	52	48	underdog	West Virginia
Texas SA	173	Roy Samons	57	43	Underdog	Oklahoma
Texas SA	173	John Baehr	48	20	Fav	Oklahoma	3 way
Texas SA	173	James Vaetch	51	49	Fav	New Mexico
Coppin St	193	James Knight	50	20	Fav	Maryland	3 way
Lamar	137	Edward Fecteau	74	26	Fav	Oklahoma St
West Virginia	137	Dennis Dixon	51	20	Underdog	West Virginia
Texas SA	174	Norman Pack	74	26	Fav	Texas SA
Drake	174	Mike Harris	74	26	underdog	Drake
Drake	174	Jack Roth	49	51	Underdog	Drake
Coppin St	193	Earnst Shiffer	52	19	fav	Maryland	3 way
Gonzaga	136	Tony Corp	67	33	fav	AZ St
Bucknell	138	George Dingus	42	19	underdog	Bucknell	19% 3 way
Texas SA	175	Stacy Champion	56	44	fav	Texas SA
West Virginia	138	John Hairston	63	37	Fav	Providence
Drake	175	William Hudson	56	44	underdog	Creghton
Coppin St	195	Don Baltes	59	41	underdog	Columbia
Drake	175	Jeffrey Rush	70	30	underdog	Drake
Boise St	133	William Griffin	52	48	underdog	Idaho
Bucknell	139	Mark Ramsey	69	31	underdog	Bucknell
Texas SA	176	Kurtis Hoover	48	16	Fav	Ok St
Gonzaga	137	Troy Craig	56	44	Fav	AZ St
Virginia Tech	176	James Freeman	42	17	Underdog VT		4 way with last place winning
Drake	176	Jonathan Jackson	75	25	Underdog	Drake
Lamar	139	Todd Davis	62	38	underdog	Texas Tech
Lamar	139	Miquel Hernandez	79	21	underdog	Lamar
Clemson		Willaim Taylot	39	23	Favorite	Vandy
Lehigh	139	Earl Strong	70	30	undergod	Lehigh
Boise St	134	Aurthur Reasor	39	13	underdog	Loyola	4 way won by the last place
Coppin St		Larry Bowen	42	19	Fav	Bucknll	3 way
Lehigh	139	James Nicholson	34	20	Underdog	BC	4 way
Lehigh		allen Cox	32	12	underdog	Clev st	4 way
Virginia Tech		Michael Hord	60	40	Fav	Wake
Clemson	138	Jery Collins	39	25	Fav	Virginia	3 way
Baylor	140	Jerry Pettway	59	41	Underdog	G Tech
Baylor	140	Dustin McEntyre	68	32	FAV	L State
Baylor	140	Michael Larocca	55	45	Fav	Nebraska
Coppin St	198	Ben Thomason	57	43	Underdog	Morgan State
Clemson	138	Chares Perera	62	38	Fav	V Tech
Lehigh	140	George Frias	74	26	underdog	Lehigh
Clemson	138	Gary Arnette	48	23	fav	Clark Atl D2	3-way
Lehigh	140	James Wild	67	33	fav	Rhode Island
Drake	179	James Spade	58	42	Fav	Purdue
Gonzaga	139	Antonio Mills	51	20	underdog	Oregon St	3-way
Bucknell	141	larry Boyle	66	33	Underdod	Bucknell
Baylor	141	Edward Holland	58	42	Underdog	Baylor
Baylor	141	Elbert Williams	43	22	Fav	Baylor	3-way
Baylor	141	Anthony Kelly	40	21	underdog	Texas SM	3way winner was 21%
Drake	179	Owne Doyle	60	40	Fav	Valpo

Small Sample, I know. The underdog has won 46/84. I will continue my goal of just getting into the role. Now I need to get better and at getting into the rolls.

My updated results. I think I'm 19/40 despite 55% average odds.

2-Team Battles	Wins	Losses	Win%
>30% Odds	0	2	0.00%
31-40% Odds	1	3	25.00%
41-50% Odds	2	3	40.00%
51-60% Odds	6	3	66.67%
61-70% Odds	5	4	55.56%
71+% Odds	3	3	50.00%

3-Team Battles	Wins	Losses	Win%
>20% Odds	0	1	0.00%
21-30% Odds	0	0	0.00%
31-40% Odds	1	1	50.00%
41-50% Odds	0	1	0.00%
50+% Odds	1	0	100.00%

I've lost at 71+ multiple times - I lose all the time to people with less than 30 - Just lost a weird one where a team B- came in at the very last minute late and my A team had been on the guy who committed late full in 80AP / start / minutes from the beginning. I believe there are way too many underdogs winning recruiting battles in weird ways like this that don't make sense. I'm fine with some flips but some of these are just unexplainable.

lost a couple more when ahead percentage-wise by more than 30%....brings my stats to a ridiculous 40% success rate WHEN AHEAD BY MORE THAN 20%! Ridiculous! Still at 53% when ahead by less than 20 percentage points. Overall total of 45% WHEN AHEAD! I wish I could get to the 60% mark when behind, but I am still at only 34% success rate when behind. I am surprised I win any games.