Thats never how its worked for me before. I only use it for my D2 team but Ive never had to spend more than the 10 evals to get a guy considering me. There have been plenty of times that I did it and the next cycle the guy was considering me and another team.

Ive always thought that getting guys to consider you takes the around the same amount of effort regardless unless a higher level team is going after a guy. Its signing the guy that can take more money.

For the most part it is 8-15 evals for me unless its a stud. In that case others target him as well even though he is undecided it costs 20+ evals. Almost every player on my caldwell team is currently a pull down other then 3. 4 of them took over 25 evals and the rest took under 18. I never got in a battle for any of them. David Stepp, William Toles, Shannon Farkas and Henry Hanford were the ones who cost me a ton.

Every single player on my Lock Haven team is a pulldown and I used exactly 10 evals on all of them. Anderson someone else pulled him the same cycle but let him go to me instead of battling but it didnt take any extra evals to get him to consider me.

10 works in most cases, especially within 70 miles, but furry is right that some of the harder-to-land guys can take 15 to 20 if you want them to commit within a cycle or two.

Can we delete thei thread?

Could there be some sort of middle ground? The "method" which everyone is talking about has worked many times for me...until this cycle, when it didn't work at all.

So who knows?

Good discussion in this thread for sure.

The one thing I didn't see covered was whether or not people thought it mattered whether you did all the evals in one cycle or if you spread them out?

I haven't noticed a difference yet, but given some of the inferences in here, perhaps some of you have?

I have done 20 evals in one cycle and the player dropped. I think that spreading out $$$ spent is not necessary.

one thing that has allways puzzled me.

ever since the rewardspoint tax was instituted, HD management has made it clear that they would prefer that vets and better coaches leave the lower lavels and gravitate to D1 as quickly as possible.

i cant recall if i have heard seble cooment on the subject, but since the rp tax is still there, i gotta assume that management still feels the same.

so... if they feel so strongly that the lower divisions are just for newguys, why have a feature that is so advanced (and a bit secretive) and is only applicable in the lower divisions?

i know there has been discussion as to whether tk really meant for pulldowns to exist, but whether it was an intended feature or not, surely it could be removed if they really wanted to.

So, i guess my question is:

do you guys agree that there is a bit of disconnect between management's philiosophy on the lower divisions (reinforced via the rp tax), and the existence of pulldowns?

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 11/24/2009one thing that has allways puzzled me.ever since the rewardspoint tax was instituted, HD management has made it clear that they would prefer that vets and better coaches leave the lower lavels and gravitate to D1 as quickly as possible.i cant recall if i have heard seble cooment on the subject,  but since the rp tax is still there, i gotta assume that management still feels the same.so... if they feel so strongly that the lower divisions are just for newguys,  why have a feature that is so advanced (and a bit secretive) and is only applicable in the lower divisions? i know there has been discussion as to whether tk really meant for pulldowns to exist,  but whether it was an intended feature or not,  surely it could be removed if they really wanted to.So, i guess my question is:do you guys agree that there is a bit of disconnect between management's philiosophy on the lower divisions (reinforced via the rp tax),  and the existence of pulldowns?

Seems to be a logical conclusion based upon the available data...

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 11/24/2009one thing that has allways puzzled me.ever since the rewardspoint tax was instituted, HD management has made it clear that they would prefer that vets and better coaches leave the lower lavels and gravitate to D1 as quickly as possible.i cant recall if i have heard seble cooment on the subject,  but since the rp tax is still there, i gotta assume that management still feels the same.so... if they feel so strongly that the lower divisions are just for newguys,  why have a feature that is so advanced (and a bit secretive) and is only applicable in the lower divisions? i know there has been discussion as to whether tk really meant for pulldowns to exist,  but whether it was an intended feature or not,  surely it could be removed if they really wanted to.So, i guess my question is:do you guys agree that there is a bit of disconnect between management's philiosophy on the lower divisions (reinforced via the rp tax),  and the existence of pulldowns?

im not sure i can agree with your statement of their philosophy of wanting "vets and better coaches [to] leave the lower lavels and gravitate to D1 as quickly as possible".

i don't think CS wanted all vets to leave the lower divisions, that is really a horrible idea. i think they were more concerned with too many vets and better coaches sticking around d3. in the extreme case, this would cause new coaches to have basically no shot of making the NT, which is not a whole lot of fun. or, if there were 20 good long time coaches sticking around in d3 (which is a pretty realistic case, IMO), this would take away almost any chance of new coaches getting their team to the sweet 16 in a 5 season run (or something like that).

so, i think CS was trying to curb the number of coaches trying to build dynasties in lower divisions, to address the above problem. i'm not saying i agree with it, but i also can see some merit in the intentions.

anyway, with that in mind, i also would like to spin pulldowns a little differently. imagine a world without pulldowns. now, players are going to drop evenly to d2 teams in order of prestige. this is a massive advantage for a+ prestige teams, and so on. for all the players who drop after signings, there is basically a pecking order, and 0 competition (because a+ prestige schools tend to be spread over the country). even before signings, you know there is going to be little competition with the a+ schools, so who is going to fight them, when the a+ school can always get their name on first (for all the drop downs at least, but i.e. that is all the players who are worth a ****). the same kind of philosophy applies for the A schools from the perspective of the A- schools and below, and so on down the line.

given how cut and dry recruiting would become in lower divisions without pulldowns, and the tremendous advantage for higher prestige schools that takes away most of the opportunity for new coaches to perform at a high level (the very thing i believe CS was trying to avoid with the reward point thing), i can't imagine why CS would get rid of them.

however, i believe it should not be a hush-hush kind of topic. everybody should know pulldowns exist. on the other hand, i can see how there is supposed to be some exploration by the coach to figure out the exact boundaries.

as a compromise, i think that all new coaches should be freely told something like, "you can pull down players early, any player who will drop to you eventually, by giving them effort through calls and evals (calls cap eventually and become worthless). the amount of effort varies on a number of factors, and you would be smart to try to figure out the limits as soon as possible as it is a huge disadvantage if you don't". but, the exact number of evals, which does vary by situation, should be to the reader to figure out.

okay then... why dropdowns at all? or if there be dropdowns, why would they drop in order of prestige ? again, seems to me this runs contrary to thier phliosophies

i agree that it would be a horrible idea if all vets the lower levels, but TK made it very clear this was his goal with the RP tax. when i say he made it clear, i am saying that he specifically told us that.

i suppose seble may think differently, but i havent seen any evidence of that.

doc, i really dont see your point at all with the "curb the number of vet coaches in D3" deal. so, 20 is too many... what is the right number? 10, 5 , 3?

it seems to me that as you artifically reduce the number of vets in D3, you make the problem even worse and (as has happened in a few a of the newer worlds) you get one or two vets winning 6 or 8 NCs in a short time period. that just does not seem good to me.

but, my main point, is things like dropdpwns and pulldowns which are highly secretive, and/or benefit the hgih presitge teams, makes it tougher for the newbie to compete.



okay... rant over.

Just because there is a "vet" in DIII that doesn't make them that good or dominant. There really aren't that many coaches who completely dominate a certain level (not saying it never happens). There is usually more parity when there are MORE vets no matter how good of coaches they are.

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 11/24/2009i agree that it would be a horrible idea if all vets the lower levels,  but TK made it very clear this was his goal with the RP tax.   when i say he made it clear,  i am saying that he specifically told us that.  i suppose seble may think differently, but i havent seen any evidence of that.doc, i really dont see your point at all with  the "curb the number of vet coaches in D3" deal.  so,  20 is too many... what is the right number?  10,  5 , 3?it seems to me that as you artifically reduce the number of vets in D3, you make the problem even worse and (as has happened in a few a of the newer worlds) you get one or two vets winning 6 or 8 NCs in a short time period.  that just does not seem good to me.but,  my main point,  is things like dropdpwns  and pulldowns which are highly secretive, and/or benefit the hgih presitge teams,  makes it tougher for the newbie to compete. okay... rant over.

i agree 100%, that highly secretive is bad. horrible. i think we should all be open with the basics of how drop downs and pull downs work. this is not a game of how bad can we beat the rookies, and that is all being secretive accomplishes. not knowing pull downs even exist is a massive and unovercomable disadvantage, there is no reason not to be open with the basics. when i started there were plenty of d2/d3 coaches who didn't know they exist, i hope that isn't the case today, but i am afraid it is.

also, i'm not saying 20 vets is too many. i was referencing what i assume is the goal of CS by having a reward point tax, and giving an example. 20 established programs, maybe that is fine... is it ok that its damn hard for a true newbie to make the sweet 16 in their first 5 years (assuming 20 strong programs in d3)? i don't know. i am not passing judgement on that example. all i am saying is there is clearly a line, where, at some point, you have too many quality coaches at programs for a while (10 seasons for example). at least for d3. it makes it impossible for new coaches to win. there needs to be a place for new coaches to have a chance, to suck them into the game, and i think there is merit in that. i am not saying i agree with the methods or extent CS is looking to push the concept, but the concept itself has serious merit, i think.

finally, eliminate drop downs and pull downs altogether? i am not sure how serious you were in that suggestion, i don't think that would be much fun, personally. at least without a complete overhaul of the system that remained (i.e. you couldn't do it with the players we have now). also, wouldn't you agree, the current model is easier for rookies to jump on board with, than say, a cut throat model like d1? well, the current model just without drop downs and pull downs would be even worse. the significant advantages of prestige and distance partition recruits in d1 to reduce competition for a recruit. in d2/d3, pulldowns and dropdowns do the same thing. without them, the only thing would be distance, and it would get brutal. i don't think that is a good environment for people to start out in.