An ongoing conversation in our Allen coaches corner regarding recruiting probably warrants further discussion by the HD community at large. 

A top recruit had his choice between starting at A prestige Texas and B+ prestige Oklahoma or heading to A+ UNC with, presumably, no promises of playing time whatsoever.  Naturally, the player chose UNC.  14 games into the season, said player has played precisely zero minutes. 

Now, like anybody else, I've been guilty of stashing a top recruit for a season or two.  (Unlike most anybody else, I've also had them transfer on multiple occasions.  Clearly, I'm missing the boat on that logic.)  That being said, as I mentioned in our coaches corner, how many players in the real world who will clearly be early entries would choose to ride the pine at UNC when Texas or Oklahoma offered said player the chance to start immediately?  It just wouldn't happen.  Moreover, it just doesn't happen (with the exception that sometimes players going to Duke or UNC are only highly rated because they're going to Duke or UNC.  Neil Fingleton immediately comes to mind). 

How do we fix this?  Highly rated players with clear NBA aspirations should require immediate playing time.  I don't know what the threshold should be (10 minutes seems fair), but it's preposterous that top 25 recruit would end up at a school where he would play literally zero minutes over the course of a season.  The recruit that I'm referring to in this instance would have long since declared his intent to transfer from UNC for more playing time elsewhere. 

Any thoughts from the world at large?  Clearly, this is an issue with the recruit logic, IMO. 

I don't know if this is built in but I think promised playing time and promised starting spots should be multiplied by prestege AND counted more.

In my head, I think of a promised start as the equivalent of a CV and 15 minutes the same as a HV.

Now if that multiplied up exponentially with prestige, I think it might solve your problem.   For example:

A D prestige school starting spot equals 1 CV  (roughly 1K)
A C prestige school = 2 CV (roughly 2k)
A B prestige school = 4 CV (roughly 4k)
An A Presitige school= 16 CV (roughly 16k)

Just some thoughts....

Or just add something to the Schollarship message.

"Coach, I gotta tell you, unless you can promise my time on the court, I'm just not interested.  Sorry, but thats how it is.  I gots bigger dreams, and sooner rather than later."

 

I agree that starts and minutes should carry more weight than they currently do, and that they should carry more weight at higher prestige schools. However, we need to make sure we don't make starts/minutes overwhelm other recruiting efforts. Right now, most elite-level  programs that are offering players starts are usually programs with numerous openings. As such, these schools already have a boatload of cash. If starts/minutes carry too much weight, such that substantially fewer HV/CV are needed to land a player, it will just give those programs even more cash to either carry-over or free up to recruit other players. Just something to keep in mind.

I'm not sure how it works now, but the best approach is probably to make promised starts/minutes a multiplier to other recruiting efforts. If it already works that way, I would advocate increasing the multiplier by a modest amount. If it isn't that way, and instead equals a fixed amount of effort, I would rather it be a multiplier, so that schools still have to spend money on other recruiting tools, in addition to simply offering starts/minutes.

I just think it should take an extenuating circumstance for a player - particularly a high value recruit - to choose a school where they absolutely will not play over a school will they will play immediately if the prestiges and other recruiting efforts of the two schools are relatively equal. 

I agree that promises should carry more weight -- potentially a lot more.

That said, I'm not for making artificial changes that say things like "all top recruits must get 10 minutes", etc. That's just trying to artificially influence things in HD. The reality is that in real life, it's not uncommon for a highly-ranked recruit to opt for riding the pine for a season at a UNC/Duke type elite school rather than get some immediate PT at a school like Oklahoma, Wisconsin, etc. (Unfortunately for my Badgers, I've seen this hit far too close to home.)

Another alternative is to build that into the personality of some players -- now that would be more like real life, where some guys want to play for an elite program no matter what, and others might have a preference to play right away and/or be the unrivaled go-to star as an upperclassman.

(And js, you need to be fair in stating that the battle came down to UNC vs. Oklahoma -- Texas was an afterthought that was hugely outspent and got completely knocked off. And in that scenario, I think there are plenty of recruits that would've opted for UNC over a team that often doesn't even make the NT.) 

I'm waiting for your list of big time, high attribute players who ride the pine in the real world, girt.  It really just doesn't happen. 

girt25, now you have me curious who you are referring to in RL who (apparently) spurned the Badgers for an "elite" program.  The RL Badgers have become a regular B-10 title conender and top-25 team, no doubt, but I don't recall any 5-star type kids recently who spurned the Badgers for a spot on a bench somewhere.

As far as in this scenario Oklahoma not often making the WCAA tourney, that is true, but what does OU need to make the tourney--kids like the recruit they lost to you.  In RL I think kids do see a program that with a little help could make it, and many are willing to buy into the "with you we can make it" sales pitch that the recruiting engine in HD makes tough to simulate. 

As for me, I can't think of a single real life 5-star type recruit who went and sat the bench, but like jslotman I'm open to being brought up to speed on the topic.  Since in the CC you stated there were "...plenty of highly-ranked guys in real life who opt to ride the pine for a season at a UNC or Duke, etc. rather than play..." (emphasis mine).  Should be simple to slap together a quick list of players who recently have done this...

I'll throw out a real world example from a couple of years ago.  Harrison Barnes.  Grew up in Ames, father played for one of the early Johnny Orr teams there, mom employed by the University, close friends with the coaches son, grew up watching games in Hilton.  Would have played as much as he could handle there, and while we can't definitively say what an alternate selection would have been, I feel fairly safe in saying with him the Cyclones would have been very much in contention for post-season play.  His final choices were the home-town Cyclones, Duke, or his ultimate destination, UNC. 

Oh wait, he did not ride the pine last season, he played.  A lot.  Do you think he'd have still gone to UNC if Coach Williams had told him "I love your potential and the depth you will give me, but the first year every kid rides the pine."?  Would have been a great way to have seen HB down the road in Durham, or staying near home in Ames.  No way HB goes to UNC to sit, and you will never convince me otherwise. 

So, let's see a few names from your list.  Please?

real life has nothing to do with HD. Been said time and again. I doubt Barnes' real life "IQ" was in the D range when he got to UNC like it would be in HD...

The logic in the most recent update that made guys like Kevin Robinson less likely to transfer is going to end up being a huge boon for high prestige teams in the long run.  Really, the game is just rigged in favor of major conference teams at this point. 

As far as recruiting improvements, one I'd personally like to see is something like a "minimum $ threshold" to be considered, and no starts or minutes will be considered by a recruit until that threshold is met.  For a 5-star I don't think $10k is an unreasonable threshold--maybe $2k per star?  It is a crude way to set up, but I just watched recruiting in Crum from Dayton, admiring a BCS power conference school with 5 top-5 recruits (as I recall) for 5 open spots.  FSS feedback told me they were not sold, but given the prestige and post-season money they had it would have been suicidal for me to challenge for one of them.  They landed all 5 with no apparent battles, and I'd be surprised if they spent more than $30k total (including scouting) for recruiting. 

I know that to some extent it is the fault of local BCS coaches who didn't challenge--that school could have fended off 1 or 2 challenges but not challenges on all 5 players.  And with an estimated (rough) budget of $100k (or more) to spend for 5 spots, I'm guessing that since no one was willing to be the first to challenge on a player, then in the end the signings were easy.  Too easy.

If however you set for a 5-star kid a $10k number just to get considered, it would ensure a greater budget is spent.  The teams who are serious can then play, and it is a lot harder (not impossible though) for a coach to load up every season on 5-star players with little spent.  It also makes it more likely that a few more of these kids will be fought over, since the opposing coach weightin out the odds in the upcoming battle would know that for those 5 5-star kids at least $50k has been dropped and the additional amount that can be spent is less, so a team willing to drop a lot on 1 or 2 top kids has a better chance.

If then added weight on PT and/or starts was implemented, this would enhance the overall effect even more.  It would still be possible to load up on top recruits, but not as easy since the cost and commitment would be greater.

dacj501, I agree with that comment as well.  IQs coming in seem to bee unrealistically low for some kids.

But is the IQ a serious factor?  A take would be that a coach might have to choose between superior raw talent and an edge in IQ.  We see it every year in March Madness where a seasoned team with 5 seniors (think a team like Bucknell or North Dakota) overcoming a team that unquestionably has more raw talent. 

Posted by professor17 on 2/1/2012 11:22:00 AM (view original):
I agree that starts and minutes should carry more weight than they currently do, and that they should carry more weight at higher prestige schools. However, we need to make sure we don't make starts/minutes overwhelm other recruiting efforts. Right now, most elite-level  programs that are offering players starts are usually programs with numerous openings. As such, these schools already have a boatload of cash. If starts/minutes carry too much weight, such that substantially fewer HV/CV are needed to land a player, it will just give those programs even more cash to either carry-over or free up to recruit other players. Just something to keep in mind.

I'm not sure how it works now, but the best approach is probably to make promised starts/minutes a multiplier to other recruiting efforts. If it already works that way, I would advocate increasing the multiplier by a modest amount. If it isn't that way, and instead equals a fixed amount of effort, I would rather it be a multiplier, so that schools still have to spend money on other recruiting tools, in addition to simply offering starts/minutes.

I like that more than my idea...

Posted by dacj501 on 2/1/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):
real life has nothing to do with HD. Been said time and again. I doubt Barnes' real life "IQ" was in the D range when he got to UNC like it would be in HD...

this is a huge factor, that goes hand in hand with the original problem. i just feel like WIS missed the boat on elite players so badly, its amazing, really.