This would eliminate a lot of the teams that sit at "very low" or "low" while offering a scholarship and promises while accumulating APs and hitting the recruit up with HVs/CVs on the last cycle before signing. It's equally frustrating for the team sitting at "very high" wondering if the other coach has given up on the recruit or he's waiting to Pearl Harbor you while your sitting there pumping in APs to that recruit, possibly for no reason.

I think if a team sits at low and withholds HVs and CVs, there should be some type of credit reduction. Thoughts?

So you want to be able to withhold HV/CV because no one else is at moderate or higher?

No. If you want the guy, "Pearl Harbor" the player yourself.

I've been on both sides of this. From the other coach's perspective, they are quietly pumping in APs because they need to have a viable backup option if they lose their primary battle. Creating a CV/HV penalty for using those actions in later cycles will make it impossible for a team to recover from losing a battle. It sucks that their lost battle can turn into your lost battle, but such is life.

Nope. Prioritize and recruit accordingly. If you’re trying to just get by with the minimum, you deserve to be “Pearl Harbor”ed. There should be no benefit to being “first”, nor penalty for coming late.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):
Nope. Prioritize and recruit accordingly. If you’re trying to just get by with the minimum, you deserve to be “Pearl Harbor”ed. There should be no benefit to being “first”, nor penalty for coming late.

I disagree with this 120%. There definitely should be a credit for being first on a recruit and first to high, very high. If you're on a recruit from the beginning, just like in RL, then you show that recruit you want him as your #1 guy, not your back up guy. And wizard was saying is that he did put in the effort to get to very high, with HV and CV.

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):
This would eliminate a lot of the teams that sit at "very low" or "low" while offering a scholarship and promises while accumulating APs and hitting the recruit up with HVs/CVs on the last cycle before signing. It's equally frustrating for the team sitting at "very high" wondering if the other coach has given up on the recruit or he's waiting to Pearl Harbor you while your sitting there pumping in APs to that recruit, possibly for no reason.

I think if a team sits at low and withholds HVs and CVs, there should be some type of credit reduction. Thoughts?

This is just a new spin on the old whining about "poaching." Boo hoo, cheater17.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/29/2017 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):
This would eliminate a lot of the teams that sit at "very low" or "low" while offering a scholarship and promises while accumulating APs and hitting the recruit up with HVs/CVs on the last cycle before signing. It's equally frustrating for the team sitting at "very high" wondering if the other coach has given up on the recruit or he's waiting to Pearl Harbor you while your sitting there pumping in APs to that recruit, possibly for no reason.

I think if a team sits at low and withholds HVs and CVs, there should be some type of credit reduction. Thoughts?

This is just a new spin on the old whining about "poaching." Boo hoo, cheater17.

No whining here. Just was interested in what everyone's thoughts were.

I've created a pretty good system to try to counter it. At D-1, especially if I have some extra scouting budget left over, I will scout the remaining states or internationals, just to check out who else the coach I'm recruiting against is going after. Sometimes you can tell if another coach, while sitting at "very low" , but has that scholarship offer on the table if and how much effort he's putting into a certain player. I must admit I had a good laugh when seble said that recruiting in 3.0 would be less time consuming.

Posted by terps21234 on 12/29/2017 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):
Nope. Prioritize and recruit accordingly. If you’re trying to just get by with the minimum, you deserve to be “Pearl Harbor”ed. There should be no benefit to being “first”, nor penalty for coming late.

I disagree with this 120%. There definitely should be a credit for being first on a recruit and first to high, very high. If you're on a recruit from the beginning, just like in RL, then you show that recruit you want him as your #1 guy, not your back up guy. And wizard was saying is that he did put in the effort to get to very high, with HV and CV.

No, there definitely should not be credit for being first. Johnny doesn’t care who the first team to go after him was. He cares who best matches his preferences and priorities. Prioritization certainly matters, but whether it’s early or late, as long as it comes before the player signs, it should be on its own footing, not relative to the timing of anyone else’s attention.

I disagree with thewiz, it would just kill strategy. I like others not knowing where I am going and what I am going to do. It makes them nervous, and they could make key mistakes.

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 10:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/29/2017 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):
This would eliminate a lot of the teams that sit at "very low" or "low" while offering a scholarship and promises while accumulating APs and hitting the recruit up with HVs/CVs on the last cycle before signing. It's equally frustrating for the team sitting at "very high" wondering if the other coach has given up on the recruit or he's waiting to Pearl Harbor you while your sitting there pumping in APs to that recruit, possibly for no reason.

I think if a team sits at low and withholds HVs and CVs, there should be some type of credit reduction. Thoughts?

This is just a new spin on the old whining about "poaching." Boo hoo, cheater17.

No whining here. Just was interested in what everyone's thoughts were.

LOL nope. Also, for your education, using Pearl Harbor as an analogy to something as insignificant as imagined poaching in a pretend basketball game is in remarkably poor taste.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/30/2017 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 10:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/29/2017 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):
This would eliminate a lot of the teams that sit at "very low" or "low" while offering a scholarship and promises while accumulating APs and hitting the recruit up with HVs/CVs on the last cycle before signing. It's equally frustrating for the team sitting at "very high" wondering if the other coach has given up on the recruit or he's waiting to Pearl Harbor you while your sitting there pumping in APs to that recruit, possibly for no reason.

I think if a team sits at low and withholds HVs and CVs, there should be some type of credit reduction. Thoughts?

This is just a new spin on the old whining about "poaching." Boo hoo, cheater17.

No whining here. Just was interested in what everyone's thoughts were.

LOL nope. Also, for your education, using Pearl Harbor as an analogy to something as insignificant as imagined poaching in a pretend basketball game is in remarkably poor taste.

Ok. Well have a good day.