You didnt say how much carryover and/or postseason money you estimated he had vs yours - but, the fact is that 6 schollies - with the $ and the ability to promise playing time that it confers - will often cream 2 schollies.  No matter how careful one is with the 2 slots of $$.  Thats the core of the game.

I think you did "everything right" up until the point you continued to pour money into the first player despite the fact a new team with 6 open scholarships jumped on. The fact that he jumped on even though the player was already considering you, means that he was willing to battle for him, and that is a battle that is going to be very difficult for you to win.

You also should've avoided trying to get tight with 2 players. When you do that, other coaches do the math, and have a pretty solid idea of the most you have left to put into either player. Just as importantly, it shows you're trying to hedge your bets, not totally committed to either player. If player B shows as "very open to other offers" you can much more easily lose him to late moves, but the commitment you show to player A is more effective at discouraging late moves. Even with this, you can still lose both. Such is life for a C+ DI program. If I'd been recruiting for you, I'd have gone for both players, but left BOTH as "very open". That way, you'd be flexible. I've had success with this. Maybe just lucky, but I think it's a better approach than getting tight with one and certainly better than getting tight with both. IMO, you didn't do everything right. Learn from this and you can become an even better recruiter. Good luck this year.

with that recruiting situation i would have gone after 1 guard option and planned to have to take a walkon. I would have gotten him considering me as cheaply as possibly and hoped n one else wanted him. As soon as a 6 opening higher prestige school showed up I would have cut my marginal loses and moved on to the next best guy. Eventually its still possibly i'd have run out of decent guys and been in the same boat, but I would have had more options I guess... My logic is with that limited budget you aren't likely to win any battles unless they are started by idiots, and most D I players aren't idiots. Since you can't win a committed battle, and since logically the only players that would battle you were ones who could probably beat you, go light and move on...and wait til you've got 6 ships in a season or two and be the boss...

You all raise excellent points. Perhaps the value of very tight isn't what I'd thought (thinking it would deter most from challenging versus looking like an opportunity). I just thunk the deck is too stacked in the current system of large money disparities.

Unfortunately, I needed two guards, and with scouting such few states, there where only 2 that were good enough to help but not so good as to attract the big 6

I don't think the value is less it's just you only had 2 schollies. Math says 2 schollies + (2) very tight = no $$$. It's always hard to recruit when you have less schollies because like everyone says you have to know when to cut your losses. 

Posted by dukenilnil on 5/14/2012 7:58:00 PM (view original):
You all raise excellent points. Perhaps the value of very tight isn't what I'd thought (thinking it would deter most from challenging versus looking like an opportunity). I just thunk the deck is too stacked in the current system of large money disparities.

Unfortunately, I needed two guards, and with scouting such few states, there where only 2 that were good enough to help but not so good as to attract the big 6

if you are in a situation where u have 2 openings, you should really be shooting for needing *nobody*, and at most, 1 person. needing 2 people at the same position is setting yourself up for failure. its very tough to land 2 good players on 2 openings. just have to plan better going forward, i guess

dacj501 sums it up very well: "go light and move on...and wait til you've got 6 ships in a season or two and be the boss..." (at least versus other midmajors)

You bring up another mistake you made, and you hinted at it yourself with, "Unfortunately, I needed two guards, and with scouting such few states, there where only 2 that were good enough..." That's why when recruiting as a midmajor and below, you should scout MORE states, not less. This gives you MORE options, so that when you go light on your top picks, if others take them, you move down the list. There are many, many good longterm players for midmajor coaches who don't zero in on absolute targets. As you just learned, woe to the midmajor coach puts all his eggs in those few (in your case 2) baskets.

Such is life in D1. You win some, you lose some. 

Everyone has Peru much confirmed what I thought.... If you are lower level d1 with less than near max scholarships, everyone thinks you should roll over anytime a higher level or max schollie guy comes song, even if you are already tight with the recruit. Essentially everyone has signed on to the poaching game. Not really my idea of fun. Next year I'll have six schollie myself, so I guess I'll just steal done put schmucks recruits on signing day too and make him waste $13.

You must be using an iPhone with autocorrect on.

"... everyone has Peru much confirmed ..."

Posted by dukenilnil on 5/14/2012 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Everyone has Peru much confirmed what I thought.... If you are lower level d1 with less than near max scholarships, everyone thinks you should roll over anytime a higher level or max schollie guy comes song, even if you are already tight with the recruit. Essentially everyone has signed on to the poaching game. Not really my idea of fun. Next year I'll have six schollie myself, so I guess I'll just steal done put schmucks recruits on signing day too and make him waste $13.

D1 is a dog eat dog world. Nothing wrong with last cycle poaching, assuming you are ok with the consequences (the coach you poached from poaching you back). 

Posted by dukenilnil on 5/14/2012 5:41:00 PM (view original):

I have to express my frustration over a recent recruiting session.  I think it exposes a fundemental difficulty (flaw?) faced by most low and mid-tier D1 teams.  This involves my Yale team.

 

The difficulty:  Even doing everything "right", I still got taken advantage of by the recruiting system which creates vast disparities in war chests. 

 

The setup:  I had 2 open scholarships and 1 major need - guards.

 

I did everything right, but still came up virtually empty.  Why I think I did everthing right:

 

1.  I conserved my money, only scouting 2 states and only making 10 phone calls so that I would have the most money possible for securing the individual recruits

 

2.  I targeted mid level guys that the big 6 schools would avoid so I wouldn't get poached by teams with far greater prestige.

 

3.  I moved right away, making the 10 calls at the first cycle, and making the big move on the second cycle once I was sure the players were receptive and undecided

 

4.  I only spent money on my 2 guys from then on (save $110 for a low level scrub just to have a healthy body to play at the end of recruiting.

 

5.  By the 3rd cycle, I was "very *tight*" with both of my recruits

 

6.  Both of my recruits were within 180 miles of my campus

 

7.  The recruits were ranked roughly 60 and 100 in their position, solid players but not superstars that top tier would be interested in.

 

8.  I still had over 1/2 my war chest available with both players "very tight" and I waited.

 

As soon as someone showed interest in one of my players, I was still the strong lean.  I pumped in a bunch of HV to secure the lead.  The guys I was battling with had a small letter grade adv (C+ to B-) but a slight distance disadvantage (just over 180 miles).  

The problem was, he had 6 openings (but he was already in another battle).

 

Long story short, the guy (who I won't call out because although I think it was poor sportsmanship to the extent that exists in HD, he played within the rules and used them to his advantage so I also admire his gamesmanship) with whom I was battling, ended up taking this first recruit from me.  Realizing this was a lost cause, I stopped battling to save a 1/4 of my chest to protect my other top recruit.

 

At this point, I was still "very tight" with my other top recuirt.  At the 5pm cycle before signing (with no one previously on his radar), the SAME GUY I had just battled jumped on this guy as well and ended up being on the interest sheet as "struggling to decide" but I was still winning.  I poured my remaining 1/4 chest into the player trying to knock him off and save at least the one recruit.  Long story short, he out spent me for this guy too.

 

Now this sucks.  I started out strong, got 2 players to be very tight with me at close distance and had 1/2 my money left, and still couldn't sign either player, losing both to the same guy just because he had 6 open scholarships.

 

It seems to me, that if you are "very tight" with someone, it should take herculian effort to knock you off, but instead it seems to not have been a big deal, even poaching in the next to last cycle before signings started.  Outside of laying down and not even trying to defend my guys, there was nothing I could do to recruit any better.  It was purely a math calculation. 

 

I will be ok this year (although no depth at guard) but next year will be a total rebuild unless I move on.  That's pretty crappy in a game where I spending real money to play, especially not having any defense to the last minute poaching.

two things i would have done differently:

1. scouted more states and made more phone calls. give yourself as many options as possible, so if you get bumped off your top target, you'll have another guy undecided who is 90%-99% as good.

2. only battle when you KNOW you can win. do your best to estimate on how much effort your opponent can give, and decide if the battle is worth it.

i'm fully in favor of getting "tight" with your recruits, but when you only have 2 schollies, that's really the best you can do. try to spend as little as possible while still getting "tight" as quickly as possible.

Posted by dukenilnil on 5/14/2012 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Everyone has Peru much confirmed what I thought.... If you are lower level d1 with less than near max scholarships, everyone thinks you should roll over anytime a higher level or max schollie guy comes song, even if you are already tight with the recruit. Essentially everyone has signed on to the poaching game. Not really my idea of fun. Next year I'll have six schollie myself, so I guess I'll just steal done put schmucks recruits on signing day too and make him waste $13.

it's understandable that you're peeved, but the fact of the matter is you didn't "do everything right" given the circumstances