Went back to the most recent major college BB program with a job change that I could think of. UCLA in 2013. Steve Alford.

They got a 4 star and two 3 stars(one was coach's son). 45 OVR and two unranked. LaVine, Alford and Allen. Lost Allerick Freeman(didn't dig deep to find out why but he's at Baylor now).

Is HD somewhat consistent with this type or recruiting class with job changes? Can anyone think of any other major college job changes in the recent past?

Did you target mostly 4 and 5 stars - if so, I think this plan was doomed

I hope you tried for guys in the 1,2,3 star range with potentials that made them likely to be useful as they matured. Even for those, I would expect it to be very tough in 3.0

Around what level were the guys you targeted?

Posted by fd343ny on 3/19/2017 7:48:00 AM (view original):
Did you target mostly 4 and 5 stars - if so, I think this plan was doomed

I hope you tried for guys in the 1,2,3 star range with potentials that made them likely to be useful as they matured. Even for those, I would expect it to be very tough in 3.0

Around what level were the guys you targeted?

At Clemson I targeted a three stars and no star players. With the ees I got. I targeted the three stars only because thr guy in the lead changed team, so it was a sim leading.

when Roy Williams took over UNC

when Turgeon took over for Gary Williams at Maryland

When whats his name took over NC State

When that guy took over for Thompson III at Georgetown - ooops not yet

When Calhoun left U Conn

some of those stayed at very high level recruiting - some dipped - none fell to 8 walk ons

But would still want to know whether the original posted went for elite players or barely useful guys when he struck out. 3.0 pushes one toward getting merely serviceable players in that situation, I think

Posted by fd343ny on 3/19/2017 11:59:00 AM (view original):
when Roy Williams took over UNC

when Turgeon took over for Gary Williams at Maryland

When whats his name took over NC State

When that guy took over for Thompson III at Georgetown - ooops not yet

When Calhoun left U Conn

some of those stayed at very high level recruiting - some dipped - none fell to 8 walk ons

But would still want to know whether the original posted went for elite players or barely useful guys when he struck out. 3.0 pushes one toward getting merely serviceable players in that situation, I think

Since I am in the same boat as Shatz, as mentioned earlier in the thread i'll answer your question fd.

I went for:
2, 4 star recruits went to SIM Big 6
1, 1 star went to human
1, 2 star that went to a D2
2, 1 stars that went to sim
2, 0 star that went to D2,
I also whiffed on the 762 rated transfer from Kansas. But that situation was weird he signed on the second cycle after no one on him (including TAMU) did anything but offer a scholarship.

I definitely spread it around as far as what type of player I was going for.

So far I have signed: Robert Dan (6 H or VH potentials), Tyler Speck (7 H or VH potentials), Michael Huie (5 H or VH potentials). I just dropped 80 AP and a scholarship on another player who has a SIM considering him. Not too optimistic since it is REALLY late in the process now. Honestly the only reason I signed those guys even was because next season I would have had 10 open scholarships.

Posted by fd343ny on 3/19/2017 11:59:00 AM (view original):
when Roy Williams took over UNC

when Turgeon took over for Gary Williams at Maryland

When whats his name took over NC State

When that guy took over for Thompson III at Georgetown - ooops not yet

When Calhoun left U Conn

some of those stayed at very high level recruiting - some dipped - none fell to 8 walk ons

But would still want to know whether the original posted went for elite players or barely useful guys when he struck out. 3.0 pushes one toward getting merely serviceable players in that situation, I think

I don't think anyone is suggesting they SHOULD get stuck with 8 walk-ons but, as I pointed out with real UCLA, they didn't killed it when Alford took over. A 4 star(45), 3 star(NR) and the coach's son(3 star, NR). They also lost a 4 star(58) but he went to Baylor so there's about a 75% chance he beat his girlfriend and was booted from UCLA before the season.

As a follow up, I want to give full transparency to my recruiting efforts to highlight just how severe of a problem EE's and job changes are if you have zero effort during the first recruiting session (in season). Again, my strategy was to target D1 players, 2 or 3 that could eventually be low level draft quality as well as lifelong D1 backups that could start Y1 until better recruits come in. I also targeted players considering SIMS, mid tier mid majors or no leading schools at all (moderates).

Below is a cycle by cycle effort.

I had 140 attention points so I could comfortably max out 1 player each cycle and still give effort to other players.

Note all players were late signing preference.

Would love to hear critique of how I could have tackled the late cycle and actually landed D1 level talent through strategy and not luck. With exception of going after the D3 guys I lost out on - yes Duke lost out on multiple D3 players (details below) I'm not seeing it.

Cycle 1
5pm
Pierre - 40 points
Keller - 40 points - Signed w/ S. Carolina St.
Sluss - 40 points
Martin - 15 points - signed w/ St Mary's D2
Simoes - 5 points

I targeted realistic players, 2 considering SIMS, 1 with no high preference (possible 2, can't recall). Both latter players signed on the first cycle, the mid major and the D2 signee. No chance to even offer them.

Cycle 2
11pm
Pierre - 80 points (120 total) - signed w/ Michigan St. SIM
Simoes - 20 points (25 total) - signed w/ Oklahoma SIM
Sluss - 40 points (80 total)

2 of 3 cycle 1 players signed next session, no chance to offer even with max effort to get to offer stage. Sluss was opened to offer which was applied for next cycle.

Cycle 3
5am
Sluss - 30 points (110 total) scholarship offer accepted - signed with Uconn SIM
Brewer - 80 points - signed with Fresno St. SIM
Jankowski - 30 points

Offer went through on Sluss but signed with D1 SIM. Reduced my attention points but they weren't needed to open up visits this round. Turned effort to 2 others, 1 with max effort who signed with D1 SIM during the same process.

Cycle 4
11am
Bernard - 55 points - signed w/ Auburn
Jankowski - 80 points (110 total) - signed w/ Sacramento St.
Duel - 5 points - signed with Akron SIM

Same issue as previous cycle, max offer on Jankowski but signed with D1 mid major. Bernard was a long shot but signed during cycle of initial interest of 55 points. Duel had minimal interest points and signed with mid major SIM.

Cycle 5
5am
King - 60 points - Signed w/ Arizona
Walker - 80 points - signed w/ Providence

Note - this was a f*ck it cycle, went after only remaining D1 impact players but knowing I had nearly zero shot at either player.

After contemplated the notion of just riding out 8 Walk ons I decided to turn my attention to D3 players and attempt to compete for even 1 win this season. I targeted 5 players who really were D2 level, maybe low D1 depending on ceilings. All were considering D3 schools, but I'm a higher prestige D1 so no reason to think I can't land all with the swipe of a finger, especially with 24 hours left in recruiting right?

Cycle 6
11pm
Ferguson - 40 points - signed w/ Keoka D3
Birdsall - 40 points - signed w/ Piedmont D3
Wheeler - 20 points - signed with Elmira D3
King - 30 points
Conti - 10 points

Attention points go through and three immediately sign with D3 schools despite 20-40 attention points each. Granted all D3 schools had already built effort, but again, real life logic likely dictates that if a school like Duke or UNC call with interest guys may want to wait out another cycle, especially with the open-up cycle (where scholarships can be offered at any point) coming up next.

Cycle 7
5am
King - 78 points (108 points total) - scholarship offer - signed w/ Ozarks D3
Duncan - 5 points - scholarship offer - signed w/ Duke
Meli - 1 point - scholarship offer - signed w/ Duke
Conti - 55 points (65 total) - Signed w/ Duke

3 guys sign immediately now that scholarships could be given, bumping D3's off. Logically this should have happened with 65% of the players above. Still out on 1 player who was actually the best of the bunch.

Cycle 8
11am
Mosley - 1 point - scholarship offer - Signed w/ Duke

Signed one last guy to field a team.

Summary

19 total targets
4 won - 15 lost
980 total attention points available (not counting cycle 8)
72 points actually used on players I signed
2 players that I actually could offer scholarships to (but lost).
$0 recruiting budget (of $23k) used during recruiting - not by choice

Players lost on, broken down by Division, splitting D 1 and notating SIMS:

D1 - big 6
3 players to Humans
4 players to SIMS

D1 - mid major
2 players to Humans
1 player to SIM

D2
1 player to Human

D3
4 players to Human

Again, no real surprises based on Beta experience with changing jobs but hopefully this illustrates the magnitude of the issue.

A few thoughts:

Not enough quality players left in session 2 recruiting
Players need to be able to offer/apply visits sooner in the cycle
There should be an embargo on signees for the first few cycles
Signing preference is not dynamic - it's hard and fast and doesn't take into account logic of new interest coming in.

I actually think using something more similar to the old version for session 2 would be a better route. Still give session 1 credit but let the second session give chances for players to actually play and compete for recruits.

When a player can't spend his recruiting money during he recruiting session this is a major, MAJOR issue regardless of what level you're at.

When you move to a D1 program with 6+ scholarships to fill, starting from scratch in the 2nd session, whether it's Prairie View or Duke, you are going to have obstacles. That is literally what you are signing up for - a true rebuild. For starters, it's helpful to think of this team in terms of what it is in the current state, not the program name in real life. This isn't "Duke!", this is a team that has been ghost-shipped for at least 3 seasons, and has won a total of 4 games over the last 2 seasons. You're not going to waltz in and start signing kids who "meet your expectations", who have already developed a history and relationship with other schools.

Ive done this sort of rebuild twice (as shoe3) and I've not had any trouble finding guys much better than walk-ons or D3 players. In this situation, you have to set realistic expectations, and use the strengths you have. You have a massive scouting budget. Use it. Focus on jucos and transfers and internationals, along with guys who aren't seriously considering anyone yet (use that considering tab to filter for undecideds). Then manage expectations. You're not going to seriously compete for a conference championship with these players, not in the ACC. But you can get guys who can pick up some non-conference wins, set your class structure the way you want it, and prevent your prestige from continuing a free fall. Leave a couple scholarships open that you can play with next season. That's how you do a rebuild in this game. If you don't want to undergo a rebuild, then be more selective in the team you are taking over.

ETA- all that said, I am absolutely in favor of increasing the number of late preference signees among ranked recruits, and making them sign later, like last 5-6 cycles instead of last 10. But realize none of that is going to help you much in this case, because people are still pumping effort and attention into those recruiting efforts while you're at your old school. You're still behind the 8-ball with anyone who has been a priority for someone. It will help you with some guys who teams may be trying to steal for little or no effort, though.

"For starters, it's helpful to think of this team in terms of what it is in the current state, not the program name in real life. This isn't "Duke!", this is a team that has been ghost-shipped for at least 3 seasons, and has won a total of 4 games over the last 2 seasons."

Bingo! And when you play the game as it is and not how you wish it were:

"Ive done this sort of rebuild twice (as shoe3) and I've not had any trouble finding guys much better than walk-ons or D3 players. In this situation, you have to set realistic expectations, and use the strengths you have."

Bingo! again. Thank you.

I think if late meant a specific time where recruits startto sign, say 12 hours before the one day D3, it would work perfectly and ees and switching jobs would still be a punishment since it seems to be WIS(even if it's really bad for the game). At D2,D3,it's not a big issue because the pool of talents is bigger.

Posted by pkoopman on 3/19/2017 2:41:00 PM (view original):
When you move to a D1 program with 6+ scholarships to fill, starting from scratch in the 2nd session, whether it's Prairie View or Duke, you are going to have obstacles. That is literally what you are signing up for - a true rebuild. For starters, it's helpful to think of this team in terms of what it is in the current state, not the program name in real life. This isn't "Duke!", this is a team that has been ghost-shipped for at least 3 seasons, and has won a total of 4 games over the last 2 seasons. You're not going to waltz in and start signing kids who "meet your expectations", who have already developed a history and relationship with other schools.

Ive done this sort of rebuild twice (as shoe3) and I've not had any trouble finding guys much better than walk-ons or D3 players. In this situation, you have to set realistic expectations, and use the strengths you have. You have a massive scouting budget. Use it. Focus on jucos and transfers and internationals, along with guys who aren't seriously considering anyone yet (use that considering tab to filter for undecideds). Then manage expectations. You're not going to seriously compete for a conference championship with these players, not in the ACC. But you can get guys who can pick up some non-conference wins, set your class structure the way you want it, and prevent your prestige from continuing a free fall. Leave a couple scholarships open that you can play with next season. That's how you do a rebuild in this game. If you don't want to undergo a rebuild, then be more selective in the team you are taking over.

ETA- all that said, I am absolutely in favor of increasing the number of late preference signees among ranked recruits, and making them sign later, like last 5-6 cycles instead of last 10. But realize none of that is going to help you much in this case, because people are still pumping effort and attention into those recruiting efforts while you're at your old school. You're still behind the 8-ball with anyone who has been a priority for someone. It will help you with some guys who teams may be trying to steal for little or no effort, though.

PK-

You're right in much of your logic, particularly Duke not being DUKE in this instance. However, I wasn't implying I was a top 5 school that all other D1's with the exception of a very few were tiered below. But just that it's a upper third prestige school. This is still a B prestige D1 team, not a C-, D, etc. D1 team. My Fresno State team that I just moved from has been a perennial B-/B team and this new version has made it much easier to recruit against stronger D1 teams. I've benefitted from it and my Fresno team is about to have 4 guys drafted, three projected 1st rounders with one being the top projection. Point being, in the eyes of recruiting I was actually confused why I was NOT listed as a 'rebuild team' - recruits looking for that actually had me listed as 'bad' whereas I was listed as good with players wanting success. So in the classification of the game I'm seen as a destination draw along with the other top ~30-40 schools. But now that D2 and D3 schools can pull down anyone all decent players have some interest at the end of the first cycle.

RE scouting, i scouted the entire country and the issue was that very few players of quality - even D2 level had schools already with built up advantage. Transfers were the logical way to go in the old version but there are less transfers in this version, less players leaving on their own accord - particularly upperclassmen. But I target players who weren't even considering schools above moderate level who signed with a D2 and low D1 on the first cycle.

I ended up targeting 12 of the players which were less than 400 miles from me. This would have allowed me to spend more budget had I been able to get there.

And thus the major overlying issue. Unless you target guys that even D3 players don't want you have no way of knowing or shaping when guys sign, it's all luck right now when you apply attention points in session 2.

You can replace Duke with Colorado, Washington State, etc. and it applies just the same. 0 wins last season by the SIM still doesn't take away from the facts that a B prestige school can't even apply budget money to recruits that are signing with D2 and D3 schools.

it is a fair question whether the game "should" be the way it seems to be for situations like this. Viewed from game quality and or realism. My personal take is that a new coach at Duke should have opportunities in the first year to get okay DI players. Not the usual Duke level but okay players.

as a maryland fan, it pains me to use Duke as an example - I'd rather talk about UCLA....less tendency to make me think of coach k and make my skin crawl

The complaint loses a lot of credibility when this statement is made: "Im now staring at a team with 8 walk on/D3 level players next year with 4 returning players that are also D2/D3 level."

We can see who you signed and who returned.

You won't get the quality of players you would like. But can we have a period of time to be able to throw offers, visits and campus visits to the lates we want to attract? Right now, they sign before stuff opens up.

Everyone knows the position you're in when you take a new team. Doesn't make it right, I've been arguing for a different kind of change in another thread but it does make it a known quantity.

But, anyway, think of it as "realism".

Press conference on 4/10:
"Hi, I'm coach Shatz. I know this once proud program has gone 21-61 in the last 3 seasons and is on a 32 game losing streak but I should be getting some quality recruits despite my late start in recruiting. Something has to be wrong with the system when a new coach getting a late recruiting start at a school that hasn't won a game in over a year just can't get some high quality recruits to come on over. The NCAA should look into this."