I may be simple on this, but I always use the mix of recruiting tools that I think is most cost effective for me - I worry about the resources my adversary has at his disposal, but I dont change the mix of tools based on the adversary.  I try to optimize as best I can what I am doing - again, I may be simple minded about this.

The competition for a recruit is not really a $ competition.  It is an effort competition.  This includes whatever value - call the unit "E" -  is given for a HV, a CV and other steps.  It includes an increment on the E for early consideration.  It includes some value that can presumably translate into E for a promised start or promised minutes.  And it includes the negative E effect of inform of redshirt and other negative actions.

Subject to limits on what promises I am willing to make, I want to maximize the E that my $$$ will buy.  Full stop.  I may be simple.

i think the ?'s I would want answered by us vets would go something like this:

1 - At 10 miles away, with HV's costing $300 and CV's costing $800, and I as a coach am going to spend $10,000 on HV's and CV's, what is the correct way to split that effort up?

2 - At 1000 miles away, with HV's costing $825 and CV's costing $1375, again with $10,000 to split up, what then would be the correct way to split that effort up?

I am surprised there is not near unanimous agreement on the answer - but it appears we as a group are all over the map????

Am I missing something here?  Figure out what you think the ratio is, and use either one or the other: in every circumstance either HV>CV or vice versa.  Mixing it up means you're always somewhat wrong.  Keep revising with experience.  

OR -- your questions are hypothetical, right?  I assume you would not split HVs and CVs in either of those circumstances, would you?

Posted by jeffdrayer on 7/13/2011 6:10:00 PM (view original):
Am I missing something here?  Figure out what you think the ratio is, and use either one or the other: in every circumstance either HV>CV or vice versa.  Mixing it up means you're always somewhat wrong.  Keep revising with experience.  

OR -- your questions are hypothetical, right?  I assume you would not split HVs and CVs in either of those circumstances, would you?

jeff - I may be missing something that is obvious to everyone else, or I know something that some are missing, but as far as I can tell, there is not anything near agreement on this board as to how to use cv's vs hv's.

one way I used to recruit, probably won ten NT's doing it, was roughly balancing the money spent on HV's and CV's, hence my answer then would have been

1 - 17 Hv's and 6 CV's for $9900 spent
2 - 6 HV's and 4 Cv's for roughly $10,000 spent

I am pretty sure that is not the best way to do things, but I won lots of recruiting battles doing that, many times when I was moving up the ranks in d1 vs higher prestige coaches.  How would you spend the $10000?

Well, I bet you were winning because A) you were still a better coach, and B) you picked your battles correctly and made the right assumptions about what everyone was doing around you, such that even if you only got 96% of the value for your money spent, you were doing everything else 140% better than those around you, so it didn't matter :)

Personally, based on the ratio I've settled on (which may or may not be right), I'd do:
1 - 33 HVs for $9900
2 - 7 CVs for $9625

last time I tried just using HVs the kid kept rejecting a good portion of them until I threw a CV in with some...

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/13/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
my initial post was a response to a question about whether there would be any reason when a local recruit should not be recruited with all HV.

I gave an example that if you're certain the other coach is only dumping in CV,  I know 3x > 2x  would be a guaranteed win, but only had a strong suspicion that 5y > 2x and therefore no 100% certainty. 

I never realized how strongly some believe in the "golden-ratio" is the only "sensical" method of recruiting.

how could you ever be certain the other coach is only dumping CV? unless collusion is going on, that cannot happen. so any statement that follows is perfectly reasonable. such as, if you are certain the other coach is only dumping CV, you should probably only send 1 phone and no scholarship message and the player will sign with you. that is just as true and accurate in every way as your statement.

-----------------------

based on what I read here I'd leap to the assumption that more coaches then I thought are following their HV:CV "golden-ratio" and believing that it's an either/or recruiting tool and one method is always the way to go in each situation.
Which means when they look at their chart and column B lines up with row 3 they do step A.
 
Unless one can say with certainty that the ratio of one HV vs. CV from 1 mile for two D+ prestige teams at D3 equals the same recruiting effort that one HV vs. CV at 2000 miles does for two A+ teams in D1, I will continue to approach it with an open mind and be willing to think outside the cubicle.

If that makes sense to you go with it.  But that means either A) you think there is some advantage to using both HV and CV instead of just one or the other or B) you accept that you are probably being cost inefficient nearly 100% of the time.

The "Effort" expended by one HV or one CV is the same no matter how much you spent for it, or from what distance: we know that from seble/tarek.  Seems to me the only question is what you think the ratio is.  If you don't know, hedge your bets and mix it up.  But every season you don't get closer to figuring it out is another season you've wasted some money that could've been better spent.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 7/13/2011 7:14:00 PM (view original):
The "Effort" expended by one HV or one CV is the same no matter how much you spent for it, or from what distance: we know that from seble/tarek.  Seems to me the only question is what you think the ratio is.  If you don't know, hedge your bets and mix it up.  But every season you don't get closer to figuring it out is another season you've wasted some money that could've been better spent.

+1

prestige may affect the value - i don't know if prestige is tacked on at each step or the end or what. but i would bet its at each step. so if you have a 50% prestige advantage over another team, you may get 3 points for a HV while they get 2. but for a fixed prestige, i think we do know that if at 1 mile your first HV is worth 2 points, then at 5000 miles you 50th HV is also worth 2 points.

50 HVs at 5000 miles sounds like 1 heck of a (inefficiently recruited) international...

If the golden ratio was knowable, then solely using either CVs or HVs, depending on the relative value of each at the recruit's distance from you, would be the correct approach.

However, we don't know what that "golden ratio" is. Even if it's in a fairly narrow band, say between 2.4 and 2.6, the "correct" answer varies.

For example, for a recruit 270 miles away, a HV costs $429 and a CV costs $1034. Assuming a $20,000 budget, you have three options:

1. Max out CVs;
2. Max out HVs;
3. Use some mix of HVs to CVs--for the example, we'll say 3 HVs to every CV.

If the golden ratio is 2.6, and you maxed out CVs, your $20K gives you 19 CVs. That effort is equivalent to 49.4HVs (19*2.6). Pursuing option 3, you'd end up with 27 HVs and 8 CVs, for an equivalent of 47.8 HVs. (The three extra HVs come from the $$ you have left over.) So in this case, not maxing out cost you the equivalent of 1.6 HVs.

However, if the golden ratio is 2.4, maxing out CVs gives you the equivalent of 45.6 HVs. Option 3 would give you the equivalent of 46.2 HVs. So maxing out in this case put you at a slight disadvantage.

So if you're confident you know what the golden ratio is, you should max out one or the other. But you don't have to be off by much to drive you to an incorrect decision.

I used to assume - and I still wonder - whether the recruiting software somehow gave credit for things like staying in touch, use of all the available methods of contact etc.  If I were writing it, there would be a tiny bonus for doing something in every cycle - not just a calculus of effort......SO, I often will send one CV even if I think HV is optimal.  And, for no good reason at all I will often send a call or a letter each cycle.  In real life, a kid would like to see the campus and would value continuing contacts.  Speaking of which, where is the $1 text option on the recruiting choices?  So kelvin sampson could use his entire budget on 100,000 texts???

Posted by coach_billyg on 7/13/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/13/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
my initial post was a response to a question about whether there would be any reason when a local recruit should not be recruited with all HV.

I gave an example that if you're certain the other coach is only dumping in CV,  I know 3x > 2x  would be a guaranteed win, but only had a strong suspicion that 5y > 2x and therefore no 100% certainty. 

I never realized how strongly some believe in the "golden-ratio" is the only "sensical" method of recruiting.

how could you ever be certain the other coach is only dumping CV? unless collusion is going on, that cannot happen. so any statement that follows is perfectly reasonable. such as, if you are certain the other coach is only dumping CV, you should probably only send 1 phone and no scholarship message and the player will sign with you. that is just as true and accurate in every way as your statement.

reading that over, it probably sounds dickish, but i am just using an extreme example to make it clear what i am saying - not trying to be a dick. sorry if i still am anyway.

and, i think its fine if coaches want to recruit however they want. but to say i am going to use a tool that i am confident is inferior to another tool, in the event i know something i cannot know - well, it is a bit nonsensical :) you can safely assume the worst case of the other coach is using all CV if hes far enough, if you are confident enough in your HV:CV ratio. but then, why not rely on that same piece of information again, by using a tool you suspect is more valuable? if you really are not very confident at all, i can see where you are coming from. and there is nothing wrong with it. but i feel like it is very very dangerous - if the marginal value of the money you think you are wasting is exactly 0 - meaning you have nothing else to do with it no matter what - then fine, its probably the smart way to go. but that happens so incredibly rarely. without adding those stipulations, i think its just a misleading strategy to coaches without a broad understand of recruiting. so i am just trying to raise the flags.

I think iguana's point, which is being missed, is that

-at great distances, we very certain (say, 99% certain for the sake of a math comparison) that CV's are the most efficient recruiting tool, as the ratio of HV-CV has shrunk quite a bit. thus, if you assume that the opponent has used only CV's, you have a very low chance of underestimating his effort.

-if you have a distance advantage, as well as a prestige equality or edge, and can reasonably calculate the number of CV's your opponent has used, you can then possibly match this number of CV's and exceed it. thus employ the iguana's certainty logic and you can be 99% you have put in more effort that the PREDICTED effort of your opponent. if you're 75% sure that HV's are a greater value than CV's at your distance, you can put in as many home visits as you want, and you will probably have put in more effort...however, you cannot achieve the 99% probability that you have exceeded your opponent's PREDICTED effort. while using HV's you might beat yourself in 75% of the possible ratios, you will only beat your opponent 90% of the time, not 99%.

-the issue with the predicted effort does not come from uncertainty in whether your opponent used CV's. the issue comes from the variability of equal prestige, how many starts/minutes have been promised (might be an issue for low #'s of CV's, though this reason is entirely secondary), considering credit and most importantly the unpredictability of your opponent's actual budget, especially taking into account carryover cash. unless you can put an absolute cap on your opponent's budget and have a defined prestige advantage, you cannot reach this 99% certainty. your certainty could still be greater

Huh? Nope.

Figure out what you think the ratio is. Then maximize your value. End. Of. Story.