i think shoe said it pretty well, so ill try to keep it brief. my main objection to dogg's framing - take 16 already finished teams - and then coach them - is that is a way too (by any standard) narrow view of coaching. what about practice planning / player development? at a bare minimum, even the most expansive views of recruiting i've heard don't include that. but also building the synergy of the team really requires an in-depth knowledge of what makes players and teams great too - whether you call it team building or player evaluation and team planning, or whatever.

nobody, not even me, suggests you can take a poorly constructed team and start firing on all cylinders that same season. that is crazy. however, there is an emphasis in the community on prestige, on winning coin flips for great players, and all that jazz. sure, that is all very important. however, my claim is, if you aren't having the quality of results you want, quite often the main focus should be better understanding of what makes players and teams good, and the integration of those ideas into the key areas (recruit evaluation, player development, team setup, etc), and the execution there upon (collectively - coaching). you only need to be pretty well setup recruiting wise, not amazingly, to have amazing results. or to be solid recruiting wise to be really good - mostly, you have to be good enough in recruiting to execute solidly on the plan you made based on your coaching skills. understanding what makes players and teams good is the absolute most important skill in this game, the hardest to build, and the thing that more than anything, holds most coaches back.

Shoe are you sippin the bottle?????

"coin flips are rare"

That's every single aspect of this game. Especially in D1. Every solid player that is signed is complete luck of the roll. There's 3 way rolls, 4 way rolls. The game is built on it. In the top 100, sure there's a couple that sign free somewhere. But we're all battling for the elite guys. Even if you wanna factor in the strategy part..... yes you wanna aim for situations where it increases your chances. Good preferences, stuff like that.

But it still comes down to the roll. All we do is put ourselves in position to have the best luck. Rolls and luck. That's our game Haha

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/22/2021 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Shoe are you sippin the bottle?????

"coin flips are rare"

That's every single aspect of this game. Especially in D1. Every solid player that is signed is complete luck of the roll. There's 3 way rolls, 4 way rolls. The game is built on it. In the top 100, sure there's a couple that sign free somewhere. But we're all battling for the elite guys. Even if you wanna factor in the strategy part..... yes you wanna aim for situations where it increases your chances. Good preferences, stuff like that.

But it still comes down to the roll. All we do is put ourselves in position to have the best luck. Rolls and luck. That's our game Haha

I tend to flinch everytime someone says "coin flip." It both implies a 50/50 chance and that coaches have no impact on the outcome. Pick the player you want and then leave it up to the gods and a coin flip. There is an implied helplessness and lack of agency with the term "coin flip."

I much prefer the phrase "dice roll." Coaches make decisions that increase their chances and essentially get themselves an extra die or two to increase their chances in the roll.

I think Shoe was saying that true 50/50 coin flips are rare.

I know it's just a shorthand way to describe what happens when a recruit makes a decision, but it doesn't mean I have to like it haha.

rubber to the road (ok i gave up on being brief - i had good intentions! but my current meeting is very long and very boring) - here's a few examples from 3.0 - note that i have very limited 3.0 experience so i have limited capacity to cherry pick here. this is just regular stuff. i will supply some players and my assessment of these players. you'll note i have a very wide view of good and elite players because i only consider the requirement for being an elite player, being good enough for me to absolutely destroy with (winning 5 titles in 10 seasons or something along those lines).

this is much more than just proving a point - i think some folks will be genuinely surprised by the level of talent in some cases required for team quality - and hopefully there's something to be learned there.

let's start with the easy but misleading one - the delaware state (true low major, d/d+ baseline) title team chap and i won, that was really not a title caliber team, we got lucky. but the sr/5 was recruited on d+ prestige in an empty conference and the rest on C to B-/B prestige or something. so i think this shows 2 things - both high success for low talent, and quality teams built on crap prestige in crap conference. when i say lucky - this was a #1 rpi/ranking team on #6 sos, 32-3, so not insanely lucky or anything.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4353676 - (SR/5) our d+ prestige recruited sr/5 and the team's best player - example of those guys you should redshirt that shoe talks about. but note this guy is better than most of the bigs he is redshirting with his a+ oregon prestige (sorry shoe), which does mean we were definitely recruiting well. for fb/fcp, this guy was an absolute monster for us, a truly elite player, worthy of starting on an a+ NT champ team (props to chap, i didn't do anything yet when he recruited this guy!). but uh, it goes downhill FAST from there

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4377040 - SR) our starting pg, definitely a good player. C prestige recruit, one of our best - pretty mediocre on def/sta though, definitely not an elite player. for a perhaps 2nd best player on the team, pretty sketchy, if you ask me. dogg, you've got way more experience than i had when i was a new d1 coach (i started d1 at d+ prestige after 7 months of d2/d3 only, had 5 titles in my first 15 seasons as a clueless d1 recruiter like all other new d1 coaches), you winning lots of titles with lead guards like this? i know, digression - but sorry buddy - you've got a ways to go to have a firsthand understanding of what i mean by coaching mastery!

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4399343 - (SO redshirt) - ok, so look at this guy's ending ratings. this was our starting SG in his redshirt sophmore year. i know that 81 ath, 94 spd, 79 def, 58 per, 61 bh, and 66 pass is still pretty quality, and he had redshirt sophmore iq, thats like, A-/A right? but don't worry dogg, some day you'll get your A- prestige up to an A+ you'll be able to recruit starting SGs who are that good too! and i'm sure you'll be winning titles with them, too!

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4399346 - (JR) - our starting SF, note his 60 STA was an experiment and generally speaking, totally unacceptable for fb/fcp! i'd tell y'all to pass on this guy without even thinking - even if you had C or B- prestige like us (i can't tell which season means which prestige with how weird the recruiting offsets are now??). but rules aren't made for coaches like me, so we took him anyway. look at his baller offense and ball skills, that 58 lp, 29 per, 72 bh, 33 passing, 60 stamina really screams championship 3 for fb/fcp!

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4399345 - (JR) - this is a backup big, but i've shown you all our best players, so i figured i'd include a quality backup. 68 ath, 64 lp - obviously not elite, but he got the job done.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4399344 - (JR) - last but not least, our best backup - the 6th man who made the team possible. now hes actually pretty good. 76 ath and 60 def would scare some of y'all away, but the raw power of his 90 spd, 87 per, and 91 bh is undeniable. i'm not joking this time either, as a backup with JR level iq? his backup line scoring was absolutely essential to our success. we actually won a major c+ vs a+ prestige battle for this guy, i'm not even joking (via luck, we were 30 something %s i think). he was a key target of ours and essential to our success, a worthy 6th man scorer for even a+ elite teams (truly - 90 per/bh/spd with JR iq can cut it on the starting line on high end title teams, too).

anyway, that's the entire slate of the best players. you can see the remaining backups if you care to:
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4424030 (SO)
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4424031 (SO)
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4450848 (FR)
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4450848 (SR) - he's actually a starter, i left him out, 86 ath 96 reb 98 def 79 blk 43 lp, hes pretty legit. these kinds of players are regulars on my championship teams even up to a+ prestige. he's not elite, especially not fb/fcp with that 79 sta, but he's a very good player that is available to most teams out there.
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4424029 (SO)
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/RatingsHistory.aspx?pid=4450849 (FR)

this was a fun team on a new scheme, neither of us knew what we were doing, this was our first attempt at a real fb/fcp program ever. so not like this is cherry picked. but it is a pretty extreme example! i think it makes my point pretty clearly, i'll stop with the examples here, but note that we had a *much* better team at vandy on maybe B prestige recruits (maybe less) that was #1 overall seed and title favorites, much more likely to win, but they lost, with 0 players listed on the final 100 big board (they had a JR who started on the board but dropped off), and several other almost as good examples in our very short time coaching 2 fb/fcp teams at lower prestige. so i could go on all day, even with my paper-thin 3.0 resume...

Posted by shoe3 on 2/18/2021 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 2/18/2021 11:21:00 AM (view original):
I think everyone should consider the jobs update to be the most important aspect of the patch.

Very much so!

And yet there are all of three posts in what is now a six-page thread that reference a jobs process that remained unchanged since [checks Dev Chats] November, 2011. Over the past 10 years how many angry threads have been devoted to "the jobs process is broken"? I am not saying this fix changes everything, but jeez, guys.

Posted by mrslam34 on 2/22/2021 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/22/2021 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Shoe are you sippin the bottle?????

"coin flips are rare"

That's every single aspect of this game. Especially in D1. Every solid player that is signed is complete luck of the roll. There's 3 way rolls, 4 way rolls. The game is built on it. In the top 100, sure there's a couple that sign free somewhere. But we're all battling for the elite guys. Even if you wanna factor in the strategy part..... yes you wanna aim for situations where it increases your chances. Good preferences, stuff like that.

But it still comes down to the roll. All we do is put ourselves in position to have the best luck. Rolls and luck. That's our game Haha

I tend to flinch everytime someone says "coin flip." It both implies a 50/50 chance and that coaches have no impact on the outcome. Pick the player you want and then leave it up to the gods and a coin flip. There is an implied helplessness and lack of agency with the term "coin flip."

I much prefer the phrase "dice roll." Coaches make decisions that increase their chances and essentially get themselves an extra die or two to increase their chances in the roll.

I think Shoe was saying that true 50/50 coin flips are rare.

I know it's just a shorthand way to describe what happens when a recruit makes a decision, but it doesn't mean I have to like it haha.

Yeah. My strategy in D1 recruiting focuses on really pouring AP onto 1 or 2 guys to get these 70/30s and 75/25s, other people focus on getting into a lot of H/VHs to spray around. I swear there are some people in this community who think deep down the actual listed percentages don't matter or "they don't care if they are high or VH." The reality is that luck evens out. You may think of 70/30 as a really slanted probability, but there is only a 20% chance a 70/30 ends up being different than a 50/50.

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/22/2021 2:23:00 PM (view original):
i think shoe said it pretty well, so ill try to keep it brief. my main objection to dogg's framing - take 16 already finished teams - and then coach them - is that is a way too (by any standard) narrow view of coaching. what about practice planning / player development? at a bare minimum, even the most expansive views of recruiting i've heard don't include that. but also building the synergy of the team really requires an in-depth knowledge of what makes players and teams great too - whether you call it team building or player evaluation and team planning, or whatever.

nobody, not even me, suggests you can take a poorly constructed team and start firing on all cylinders that same season. that is crazy. however, there is an emphasis in the community on prestige, on winning coin flips for great players, and all that jazz. sure, that is all very important. however, my claim is, if you aren't having the quality of results you want, quite often the main focus should be better understanding of what makes players and teams good, and the integration of those ideas into the key areas (recruit evaluation, player development, team setup, etc), and the execution there upon (collectively - coaching). you only need to be pretty well setup recruiting wise, not amazingly, to have amazing results. or to be solid recruiting wise to be really good - mostly, you have to be good enough in recruiting to execute solidly on the plan you made based on your coaching skills. understanding what makes players and teams good is the absolute most important skill in this game, the hardest to build, and the thing that more than anything, holds most coaches back.

Ok we're clearly talking about totally different things then. Here's the problem...... the original debate was basically "recruiting" vs "mastery coaching".

My interpretation of what you meant by that is wrong. Based off this post above, you're factoring in so many more things than just coaching. Coaching to me means more about what you do that season with that team.

Now my next gripe..... all these other things you factor in to "mastery coaching", guess what..... that's RECRUITING too! So I feel like you're chasing yourself in circles. One can't properly "evaluate the team's current and future situation" without recruiting! Can master gil see that he will need a PG in two seasons to run the show, and not actually sign one? No. He needs to sign one to BE this master coach.

So my point is, recruiting is coaching is recruiting is coaching. And you're trying to put recruiting in one little box, while saying EVERYTHING else falls under Mastery Coaching. The whole argument is ridiculous Haha.

The only way to sseparate it is the way I mentioned. Flat out recruiting. And flat out season coaching. Anything else is just HD wrapped up in one giant bubble

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/22/2021 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/22/2021 2:23:00 PM (view original):
i think shoe said it pretty well, so ill try to keep it brief. my main objection to dogg's framing - take 16 already finished teams - and then coach them - is that is a way too (by any standard) narrow view of coaching. what about practice planning / player development? at a bare minimum, even the most expansive views of recruiting i've heard don't include that. but also building the synergy of the team really requires an in-depth knowledge of what makes players and teams great too - whether you call it team building or player evaluation and team planning, or whatever.

nobody, not even me, suggests you can take a poorly constructed team and start firing on all cylinders that same season. that is crazy. however, there is an emphasis in the community on prestige, on winning coin flips for great players, and all that jazz. sure, that is all very important. however, my claim is, if you aren't having the quality of results you want, quite often the main focus should be better understanding of what makes players and teams good, and the integration of those ideas into the key areas (recruit evaluation, player development, team setup, etc), and the execution there upon (collectively - coaching). you only need to be pretty well setup recruiting wise, not amazingly, to have amazing results. or to be solid recruiting wise to be really good - mostly, you have to be good enough in recruiting to execute solidly on the plan you made based on your coaching skills. understanding what makes players and teams good is the absolute most important skill in this game, the hardest to build, and the thing that more than anything, holds most coaches back.

Ok we're clearly talking about totally different things then. Here's the problem...... the original debate was basically "recruiting" vs "mastery coaching".

My interpretation of what you meant by that is wrong. Based off this post above, you're factoring in so many more things than just coaching. Coaching to me means more about what you do that season with that team.

Now my next gripe..... all these other things you factor in to "mastery coaching", guess what..... that's RECRUITING too! So I feel like you're chasing yourself in circles. One can't properly "evaluate the team's current and future situation" without recruiting! Can master gil see that he will need a PG in two seasons to run the show, and not actually sign one? No. He needs to sign one to BE this master coach.

So my point is, recruiting is coaching is recruiting is coaching. And you're trying to put recruiting in one little box, while saying EVERYTHING else falls under Mastery Coaching. The whole argument is ridiculous Haha.

The only way to sseparate it is the way I mentioned. Flat out recruiting. And flat out season coaching. Anything else is just HD wrapped up in one giant bubble

calling in-season practice planning and deciding who to start and all that, just from 1 season ago, part of recruiting - that is absolutely absurd. sorry.

my split is simple. 'how good is that recruit?' - coaching. 'how hard is it to get that recruit?' - recruiting. 'how do i get that recruit?' - recruiting. 'which of those 2 equally recruitable players should i pick to complement my team synergy?' - coaching. 'which of these 2 players should i start to get better development'? - coaching, obviously.

now that is all perhaps more subjective but i don't think it results in endless pretzel logic as you imply. the conclusion being something like:

- what contributes to the talent level of a program? recruiting. (talent level being combo of starting and max ratings, current ratings does base on player development too, but obviously its mostly recruiting)
- what contributes to the quality of the arrangement of that talent, and the level of performance for a given level of talent? coaching (even though recruiting plays a part in getting any player, except i guess if you just took over, the synergy for a given talent level and how well the coach utilizes that talent through player development, team setup, and game planning, is the primary driver)

i don't think everyone has to have this view but i do think it is more reflective of the reality of what matters in this game (recruiting mechanics vs understanding of what makes players and teams good)

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/22/2021 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/22/2021 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/22/2021 2:23:00 PM (view original):
i think shoe said it pretty well, so ill try to keep it brief. my main objection to dogg's framing - take 16 already finished teams - and then coach them - is that is a way too (by any standard) narrow view of coaching. what about practice planning / player development? at a bare minimum, even the most expansive views of recruiting i've heard don't include that. but also building the synergy of the team really requires an in-depth knowledge of what makes players and teams great too - whether you call it team building or player evaluation and team planning, or whatever.

nobody, not even me, suggests you can take a poorly constructed team and start firing on all cylinders that same season. that is crazy. however, there is an emphasis in the community on prestige, on winning coin flips for great players, and all that jazz. sure, that is all very important. however, my claim is, if you aren't having the quality of results you want, quite often the main focus should be better understanding of what makes players and teams good, and the integration of those ideas into the key areas (recruit evaluation, player development, team setup, etc), and the execution there upon (collectively - coaching). you only need to be pretty well setup recruiting wise, not amazingly, to have amazing results. or to be solid recruiting wise to be really good - mostly, you have to be good enough in recruiting to execute solidly on the plan you made based on your coaching skills. understanding what makes players and teams good is the absolute most important skill in this game, the hardest to build, and the thing that more than anything, holds most coaches back.

Ok we're clearly talking about totally different things then. Here's the problem...... the original debate was basically "recruiting" vs "mastery coaching".

My interpretation of what you meant by that is wrong. Based off this post above, you're factoring in so many more things than just coaching. Coaching to me means more about what you do that season with that team.

Now my next gripe..... all these other things you factor in to "mastery coaching", guess what..... that's RECRUITING too! So I feel like you're chasing yourself in circles. One can't properly "evaluate the team's current and future situation" without recruiting! Can master gil see that he will need a PG in two seasons to run the show, and not actually sign one? No. He needs to sign one to BE this master coach.

So my point is, recruiting is coaching is recruiting is coaching. And you're trying to put recruiting in one little box, while saying EVERYTHING else falls under Mastery Coaching. The whole argument is ridiculous Haha.

The only way to sseparate it is the way I mentioned. Flat out recruiting. And flat out season coaching. Anything else is just HD wrapped up in one giant bubble

calling in-season practice planning and deciding who to start and all that, just from 1 season ago, part of recruiting - that is absolutely absurd. sorry.

my split is simple. 'how good is that recruit?' - coaching. 'how hard is it to get that recruit?' - recruiting. 'how do i get that recruit?' - recruiting. 'which of those 2 equally recruitable players should i pick to complement my team synergy?' - coaching. 'which of these 2 players should i start to get better development'? - coaching, obviously.

Hahaha this is the worst thread ever to have this conversation in. NO **** practice planning ain't recruiting. Good lord!

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/22/2021 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/22/2021 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/22/2021 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/22/2021 2:23:00 PM (view original):
i think shoe said it pretty well, so ill try to keep it brief. my main objection to dogg's framing - take 16 already finished teams - and then coach them - is that is a way too (by any standard) narrow view of coaching. what about practice planning / player development? at a bare minimum, even the most expansive views of recruiting i've heard don't include that. but also building the synergy of the team really requires an in-depth knowledge of what makes players and teams great too - whether you call it team building or player evaluation and team planning, or whatever.

nobody, not even me, suggests you can take a poorly constructed team and start firing on all cylinders that same season. that is crazy. however, there is an emphasis in the community on prestige, on winning coin flips for great players, and all that jazz. sure, that is all very important. however, my claim is, if you aren't having the quality of results you want, quite often the main focus should be better understanding of what makes players and teams good, and the integration of those ideas into the key areas (recruit evaluation, player development, team setup, etc), and the execution there upon (collectively - coaching). you only need to be pretty well setup recruiting wise, not amazingly, to have amazing results. or to be solid recruiting wise to be really good - mostly, you have to be good enough in recruiting to execute solidly on the plan you made based on your coaching skills. understanding what makes players and teams good is the absolute most important skill in this game, the hardest to build, and the thing that more than anything, holds most coaches back.

Ok we're clearly talking about totally different things then. Here's the problem...... the original debate was basically "recruiting" vs "mastery coaching".

My interpretation of what you meant by that is wrong. Based off this post above, you're factoring in so many more things than just coaching. Coaching to me means more about what you do that season with that team.

Now my next gripe..... all these other things you factor in to "mastery coaching", guess what..... that's RECRUITING too! So I feel like you're chasing yourself in circles. One can't properly "evaluate the team's current and future situation" without recruiting! Can master gil see that he will need a PG in two seasons to run the show, and not actually sign one? No. He needs to sign one to BE this master coach.

So my point is, recruiting is coaching is recruiting is coaching. And you're trying to put recruiting in one little box, while saying EVERYTHING else falls under Mastery Coaching. The whole argument is ridiculous Haha.

The only way to sseparate it is the way I mentioned. Flat out recruiting. And flat out season coaching. Anything else is just HD wrapped up in one giant bubble

calling in-season practice planning and deciding who to start and all that, just from 1 season ago, part of recruiting - that is absolutely absurd. sorry.

my split is simple. 'how good is that recruit?' - coaching. 'how hard is it to get that recruit?' - recruiting. 'how do i get that recruit?' - recruiting. 'which of those 2 equally recruitable players should i pick to complement my team synergy?' - coaching. 'which of these 2 players should i start to get better development'? - coaching, obviously.

Hahaha this is the worst thread ever to have this conversation in. NO **** practice planning ain't recruiting. Good lord!

but... you just said it was. or at least your model implies it (coaching is what you do that season). all the planning from the previous seasons has a huge impact.

dogg, you are a good guy and i appreciate you, glad you are cool about taking (and giving) grief. sometimes though man, your approach is so heavy on burying the complexity for simplicity sake. like you said, when you start to think about it, recruiting is coaching is recruiting is coaching - one thing feeds into the next. but i think if you take the time to mull it over, there is a dichotomy (more or less) that makes sense.

you start, clueless - make a WAG (wild *** guess) about what a good player looks like, and start recruiting (forget 3.0 backwards). then you take some players and make a WAG about what makes a good team, and put a team setup in, do some game planning, and hopefully watch the results looking for clues on what is working and what isn't. of course you are constantly feeding that info back into who to recruit. then you hopefully achieve something more in line with who you want, in the next recruiting, and you evaluate those through the season, over and over again.

but the thing of note - its always the 'who' to recruit that runs in circles. not how to recruit them. of course, your ultimate selection of recruiting targets depends on who you think you can get, but again, that is not something that runs in circles. you evaluate which recruits you can get, and how to best get them, and all other manners of recruiting strategy, in a way that is generally disconnected from which players are good, how do you combine players into really effective teams, and so forth. in essence, how good is this recruit is a question you can only answer with all the in season coaching stuff, but how to get the recruits you think are good, has nothing to do with the in season coaching stuff. i think its a fairly clean break.

to test the theory, the two other major things with getting a particular set of 12 players are player development and EE planning. there's a lot of totally unrelated mechanics to both - practice planning mechanics (how many minutes gives what kind of growth, what 0ing categories does, etc) and EE mechanics (what odds for a player to leave at a given big board ranking, etc) are things you need to learn about, but are not integrally or cyclically related to the core coaching stuff (what makes players and teams good) or the core recruiting stuff (which players are realistic targets, how to best attack them, battle mechanics, etc). meanwhile, the prioritizations you make, the decisions you make, about what practice plan to actually implement, what EE plan to actually implement, are integrally and cyclically related to the core coaching stuff - while they are fundamentally disconnected from your core recruiting mechanics understanding. i'm not saying the recruiting and coaching can be or should be absolutely split conceptually, but the core understanding of recruiting mechanics versus coaching (what makes players and teams good) are generally disconnected, while all the activities that build on and are integrally dependent on that coaching understanding are impossible to separate (team setup, evaluating what recruits would be good players, evaluating which combinations of recruits might make a good team if you could wave a magic wand and get them... player development, all of it integrally, but not exclusively, relies on the same core understanding about good players and teams).

the salient point of all that being, when folks come to me with something like 'i suck at recruiting, can you help?' - there's always two perspectives. is it that they don't know which recruits are good, or they don't know how to get them? the majority of the time, i find the bigger problem is on the former, which recruits are good - and that is where i spend my time helping, accordingly. also because most of the time, and definitely now, i'm just not that sure about the 'how to get them' part anyway. but fundamentally, i would guess a full 50% of the coaches in all of HD wish they where better at recruiting, while also underestimating how much of that journey lies on the 'which recruits are good' side of the path.

that is why i am always beating this drum.

"when folks come to me with something like 'i suck at recruiting, can you help?' - there's always two perspectives. is it that they don't know which recruits are good, or they don't know how to get them? the majority of the time, i find the bigger problem is on the former,"

agreed.

Gil it all comes down to the same things. I love to argue with you. And I know you do as well. But there are things that I say that, in my opinion, should have some simple understanding. I say outlandish things that stretch the limits at times, to shorten a conversation. I LOVE to argue. But I don't like to write details near as much as you do.

"Recruiting is coaching is recruiting is coaching". Saying something like that is me trying to generalize things to you, that there are many factors that overlap along the way. And that the more I think about it, i feel like you're trying to group all 999 other things into coaching, while saying recruiting is only 1. That's the direction I feel you were going with this, and i feel that's not true.

But instead of grasping what my generalization meant, you come back with "practice plans aren't recruiting". Well gee I know that. Everyone knows that. Practice plans are 1 of the 999 things that you're factoring into mastery coaching. And i AGREE! But I think it would be obvious to you I do not think practice plans are recruiting. I'm decent at this game! To be honest, any moron knows that. It reminds me of me being a parent answering your question, and your response is "why?" And when I answer that one, your reply again is "why?"

You and I are USUALLY saying the same thing. Really. I just don't speak scientist. It's a foreign language to me. The length of this post I'm writing..... way too long. Mastery coaching is not always needed. It's helpful. Useful. Beneficial. But there's some things that get detailed, drawn out, and discussed, that are just so unnecessary. If anything, I'm just a sucker for getting drawn into the discussions. I can admit that! You do it too.

There's some times where a red car is just red man! Not a shade of magenta with sparkling undercoat rose shading, topped with maroon fibers...... just red is fine!

Time.
Time spent recruiting seems to be my #1 factor in success. If I am busy in real life and spend less time on hd I make the s16 at best. When real life is a little slow and I can spend more time recruiting, I make F4's and a Natty every now and then.

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2021 6:23:00 PM (view original):
"when folks come to me with something like 'i suck at recruiting, can you help?' - there's always two perspectives. is it that they don't know which recruits are good, or they don't know how to get them? the majority of the time, i find the bigger problem is on the former,"

agreed.

That definitely describes me. I know a few different archetypes of players that I know work and I tend to over-recruit those. I really need to take some risks and diversify for the sake of team building.