Posted by mrg1037 on 12/9/2014 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bowen_brian on 12/9/2014 2:10:00 PM (view original):
I will give you an example where I would have issues. Coach A and B are in the same area with about the same prestige. Coach A recruits normally and paying for FSS. Coach B simply waits and targets coach A's players without ever using FSS. This gives him a monetary advantage over coach A. I know this is an extreme hypothetical ( a less advance version would be 'if he's good enough for Coach A he's good enough for me') but I would have a problem with it,

This has happened to me before. Coach B was a conference mate and friend of mine who admitted to doing it. He also waited until the cycle before signings to make his move. It really got on my nerves, but I admit it's not against the rules. I considered throwing a $110 special at some guys with crappy potential the next year to mess with him (rescinding my offers before signing), but didn't actually go through with it.

If you know it is happening you should have "set him up". It may not have changed his tactic immediately but could have.

Posted by emy1013 on 12/9/2014 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 12/9/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sullytoo on 12/9/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):
the "forcing a coach to overspend" rule is too general. i know that if i am battling for a recruit, i will look for a weak link to target in the other coach's recruit list, forcing him to spend money on the other recruit that he would not otherwise have to so that he has less money to spend on the recruit i actually want.

Unless you're an A+ BCS school with a pot full of money, that sounds very self-defeating to me.  You're doing more harm to your own recruiting than good.

Not neccessarily. In certain circumstances it can be a very viable strategy. I've used it myself here and there, but there are certainly risks involved. I wouldn't recommend it all the time, but it can definitely help win the occasional battle, even in D2.

What's the old saying?  "Man who try to get even never get ahead?"  I wasn't talking about looking for weak links in someone's recruit list.  I was mainly referring to targeting another coach and spending your money on a recruit you don't honestly intend to sign, much less play, just to force the other coach to blow his budget.

At D2 and D3, that sounds like suicide.  Even at D1 you're not likely to have that much more of a budget than your competition unless you're an elite BCS team and he's not.  If that's the case, that sounds to me more like the move of someone with a petty grudge than a coach with a viable strategy.

Posted by ethan66 on 12/9/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/9/2014 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 12/9/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sullytoo on 12/9/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):
the "forcing a coach to overspend" rule is too general. i know that if i am battling for a recruit, i will look for a weak link to target in the other coach's recruit list, forcing him to spend money on the other recruit that he would not otherwise have to so that he has less money to spend on the recruit i actually want.

Unless you're an A+ BCS school with a pot full of money, that sounds very self-defeating to me.  You're doing more harm to your own recruiting than good.

Not neccessarily. In certain circumstances it can be a very viable strategy. I've used it myself here and there, but there are certainly risks involved. I wouldn't recommend it all the time, but it can definitely help win the occasional battle, even in D2.

What's the old saying?  "Man who try to get even never get ahead?"  I wasn't talking about looking for weak links in someone's recruit list.  I was mainly referring to targeting another coach and spending your money on a recruit you don't honestly intend to sign, much less play, just to force the other coach to blow his budget.

At D2 and D3, that sounds like suicide.  Even at D1 you're not likely to have that much more of a budget than your competition unless you're an elite BCS team and he's not.  If that's the case, that sounds to me more like the move of someone with a petty grudge than a coach with a viable strategy.

It's far from a "petty grudge". Much more like a misdirection. Make the enemy think I'm attacking here, thus forcing him to commit unnecessary forces to bolster those defenses when I really have every intention of attacking there, where he is now weaker. Pretty simple, basic military tactics, just applied to this game.

Of course, from the tone of your post, I bet you also think it's "suicide" to recruit international players in D2 also. You know, because they're expensive.

Oh, and what's that old HD saying, "Man who take no chances in recruiting destined for mediocrity". Nice day.

also, in many circumstances you can pick 2 recruits at once and force the opposing coach to choose who to defend and who to walk away from. A better way to find out how hard he's recruiting someone than an every-12-hour-update on FSS. 

but the effectiveness definitely depends on the circumstances, and of course it's easier at a bigger school with a bigger budget, but what if we're at d2 and I have 6 openings to your 2? 

fake left, go right

of course there is the school of thought in basketball that ball fakes and misdirection are unfair and should be avoided.

I remember when I was coaching first grade rec league ball and I had to convince some of the kids that taking the ball away from the opponent was fair.....after a while they caught on

Posted by emy1013 on 12/10/2014 4:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 12/9/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/9/2014 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 12/9/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sullytoo on 12/9/2014 2:50:00 PM (view original):
the "forcing a coach to overspend" rule is too general. i know that if i am battling for a recruit, i will look for a weak link to target in the other coach's recruit list, forcing him to spend money on the other recruit that he would not otherwise have to so that he has less money to spend on the recruit i actually want.

Unless you're an A+ BCS school with a pot full of money, that sounds very self-defeating to me.  You're doing more harm to your own recruiting than good.

Not neccessarily. In certain circumstances it can be a very viable strategy. I've used it myself here and there, but there are certainly risks involved. I wouldn't recommend it all the time, but it can definitely help win the occasional battle, even in D2.

What's the old saying?  "Man who try to get even never get ahead?"  I wasn't talking about looking for weak links in someone's recruit list.  I was mainly referring to targeting another coach and spending your money on a recruit you don't honestly intend to sign, much less play, just to force the other coach to blow his budget.

At D2 and D3, that sounds like suicide.  Even at D1 you're not likely to have that much more of a budget than your competition unless you're an elite BCS team and he's not.  If that's the case, that sounds to me more like the move of someone with a petty grudge than a coach with a viable strategy.

It's far from a "petty grudge". Much more like a misdirection. Make the enemy think I'm attacking here, thus forcing him to commit unnecessary forces to bolster those defenses when I really have every intention of attacking there, where he is now weaker. Pretty simple, basic military tactics, just applied to this game.

Of course, from the tone of your post, I bet you also think it's "suicide" to recruit international players in D2 also. You know, because they're expensive.

Oh, and what's that old HD saying, "Man who take no chances in recruiting destined for mediocrity". Nice day.

Strawman.  I won a D2 title and I've had international players in D2.  I also know that I had to be more careful with my money then (of course, starting out in Texas it took a chunk just to FSS my own state) than in D1.

There isn't much comparison between HD and military tactics beyond this minor conflation.  If there were, we'd be able to drop special forces behind their lines and scout their positions from satellite orbit.  That may have to wait for the next update :)

What you're suggesting is that a coach "fake recruit" a player he does not really want in order to get another coach to spend money defending that player.  If both of you have equivalent budgets, it's a wash and a useless tactic as you'll end up battling over the real target, anyway.  You could just as easily go all out for your real target from the get-go without all the foot-shuffling and faux deception.  If, on the other hand, you have a bigger budget, you'd beat him in a one-on-one recruiting battle anyway.  I do not see an advantage to this deviousness.

Even if you have equal budgets, if you have the distance and prestige advantage on the fake recruit, you will get him to spend more money.  That's some pretty simple recruiting math.  

Posted by tkimble on 12/10/2014 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Even if you have equal budgets, if you have the distance and prestige advantage on the fake recruit, you will get him to spend more money.  That's some pretty simple recruiting math.  

Agreed.  Which is why it makes more sense just to go hard after your #1 guy and use that distance/prestige advantage instead of fuzzing around with decoys.

Posted by ethan66 on 12/10/2014 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 12/10/2014 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Even if you have equal budgets, if you have the distance and prestige advantage on the fake recruit, you will get him to spend more money.  That's some pretty simple recruiting math.  

Agreed.  Which is why it makes more sense just to go hard after your #1 guy and use that distance/prestige advantage instead of fuzzing around with decoys.

But you may not have a distance advantage for your #1 guy!  These 2 recruits may be in different places (this tends to happen).  

Posted by emy1013 on 12/10/2014 2:45:00 PM (view original):
No sense arguing with someone who has their mind already made up TK.

I feel the same way.

The beauty of HD is that most coaches have their own ways of doing things.  I don't get the "logic" of diversionary recruiting, myself, but if it rocks someone else's boat who cares?  I don't think it's a helpful strategy for a new player but that's up to them.

Maybe it's personality -- while I've used diversions and deception in war games plenty of times, I'm more of a "identify your target and go after him 100%" guy in HD.  Part of that is probably because I've never had an A+ BCS budget, which probably allows for that sort of extravagance. 

My goal with both of my D1 teams to date has always been to just keep the recruits I pitch because I don't have 100k in my war chest to play games. Different strokes.

That seems to be the point you're missing, you don't HAVE to be an A+ BCS school with 100K in their recruiting budget to use outside the box tactics. Does that make it easier? Sure, of course. Is it absolutely necessary? No, of course not. In fact, if I HAD an A+ prestige team with that kind of bankroll, that's exactly the team of team I WOULDN'T be using those type tactics with. But hey, as you said, different strokes.

Posted by tkimble on 12/10/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/10/2014 2:45:00 PM (view original):
No sense arguing with someone who has their mind already made up TK.

But...but...logic...

That's funny because originally I had ended my statement with "even if your logic is sound" before I edited that part out. Brilliant minds I guess, ha ha!