so i have 4 teams left under 3 IDs, all in Naismith and Wooden-- high d1 (NC State), low-mid D1 (San Francisco), and 2 d3 teams. I don't have a ton of experience recruiting with the new players, but found it interesting at all levels.

State-- B+ prestige after a couple of down seasons, had 3 openings, really didn't need anyone great to be able to compete OK this season, just depth and future players. Main interest was in getting a good G, followed by a big. Fully planned on taking a WO unless I could somehow land my first 2 without a battle and/or poach a 3rd player late. Targeted a G i loved and a big i really liked, got listed on both 1st cycle. Found Duke also on my G recruit, he had 4 openings to my 3, no distance difference. He was also only recruiting 2, so i knew i was in trouble, but was in the lead, so mainly waited it out, hoping he'd get a battle on the other guy or add a 3rd/4th recruit and spend some money. Day 2 he added a 3rd recruit, a JUCO he had to battle for from Pitt, who was listed as "very solid" with Pitt.

Anyway, long story short, I had to decide whether to throw my last $21K into a recruit I was likely to lose to Duke or else root through the entire d1 recruiting pool to find one decent G I thought could be useful. Went with option 1, lost the guy. No shocker, but not something that would have happened before-- in past recruiting seasons i'd very likely have landed a second-tier G who could be useful next season, and maybe a 3rd recruit as well.

SFO-- C prestige, 2 openings. i landed a good G and a terrible starting-ratings SF with tons of potential. Final usefulness TBD, but it was a pretty uneventful recruiting period considering prestige and $.

Marymount-- A prestige, 3 openings. got a late start, sweated finding a good big late, but ended up with a SG with 8 high potential categories, a SF with 9, both with decent starting ratings, and a PF with 8 high potentials but worse (mediocre) starting ratings. 

Hobart-- B+ prestige, 3 openings. late start again, this time had trouble finding a decent SF prospect. similar results to Marymount, though, with little trouble finding 3 guys with high potential, and signed a Monster big.

I think the whole thing needs more time to play out, but it seems healthy in d3 for sure, and I'm pretty sure it'll end up OK in d1 as well over the long term, but definitely think it's TBD.      

Posted by girt25 on 8/16/2010 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 12:37:00 AM (view original):
daalts - So if they are facts.... where can I validate them?

Ps... doc says I cant drink for 2 weeks. It's a real *****.

Just so you know, from a medical perspective, drinks consumed before noon and while watching a sporting event don't count.

That's a fact.

nice. I'll let the doc know

Posted by girt25 on 8/16/2010 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dilo on 8/16/2010 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Not sure if anyone looked closely at my contributions to this thread ... which centered on UMass being outrecruited by a small conference team with a significantly lesser prestige (C+ vs a B for UMass) ... despite UMass offering a starting spot and 25 mins ... well, the Manhattan coach was kind enough to share his recruit spend with me ... not only did he spend $10k less than UMass ... but he didn't offer minutes or a starting spot ... someone explain this to me? ... I was in on this recruit in one of the first few cycles ...

I'm guessing that the item you're leaving out is that the other coach had a significant distance advantage.

It's about recruiting effort, not recruiting money.

Are Manhattan and UMass far enough apart for it to matter? Or, rather, for it to matter by $10K?

if the recruit was in DC, or VA, sure. That all-important 360-370 mile barrier....

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 9:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/16/2010 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 12:52:00 AM (view original):
So called fact#1

-Is it the statement that there are more low potentials than before? If you don't believe me or the numbers I ran in Allen to back it up, just ask seble. He will happily confirm that this is correct.

**** running a small sample is not fact. Just because Obama might be a 51% approval rating from usa today polls does not factually mean Obama has the approval of 51% of all Americans. It's an estimate... not a fact. I will not go ask seble since its a waste of his and my time.

So called fact #2

-Surely you're not arguing with my statement that the caliber of recruits generally available to non-BCS teams is significantly lower than before. That's not even at issue here; the only thing that's being debated is whether it's gone too far.

*****the caliber of recruits went down for bcs schools 'as well'. That was the whole point of the change. Of course they went down for non-bcs but you are presenting half truths. The caliber of recruits is significantly lower for both bcs and non-bcs schools would be a more accurate statement. Now whether its gone too far.... there are no facts to support that- only opinions. I personally would like to see this play out.

#1: The numbers I ran weren't a 51-49 type of thing. It was over 2x as many low potentials. But as I've said, if you don't believe me, ask seble, he's confirmed on numerous occasions. I've even talked with him about why he felt like this made sense. So yeah, it's a fact. That's like saying, "why is it a fact that there are issues in the sim?" Well, because the guy running the game has said so.

#2: The notion that some BCS teams may also take some lower tier guys, doesn't for one moment make my statement -- that the caliber of recruits for non-BCS teams went down dramatically -- anything but factual.. The top 50 or so recruits are as good or better than before, and they'll be carved up almost exclusively by the big boys. But the drop in the quality of recruits that the second- and third-tier conferences have available to them has been incredibly precipitous, to the point where there's just no comparison.

daalt-

as to point #1 - by that logic - if Tarek said everything is fine then it would be fact, right?


as to point #2 - the top 50 recruits are not better. They are the same and there are less of them. top 50 recruits are being fought over by at least 27 A- to A+ prestiges and an unknown amount of B/B+ prestiges. now add in the possibility that many of these top 50 guys will go EE after 1-3 seasons. I think it will be interesting to watch.

#1 - No, there's a major difference between whoever's in charge saying everyhing is fine (where it's possible they might just be acting in their own self interest) vs. admitting something negative (which they'd have absolutely no reason to do unless it were true).

#2 - I concede that increased competition may also play a factor. I still don't think it's even close to enough to even out the difference between the good players and everyone else in the current structure.

Recruits?  Did someone mention recruits?  How bout NYC?  Next recruiting cycle in DI Rupp.

Top 50 (by position NOT overall) SG: None.  SF: None.  PF: None.

But, hell.  Everybody knows they can't ball in the Apple.  So I guess everything's fine.

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dilo on 8/16/2010 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Not sure if anyone looked closely at my contributions to this thread ... which centered on UMass being outrecruited by a small conference team with a significantly lesser prestige (C+ vs a B for UMass) ... despite UMass offering a starting spot and 25 mins ... well, the Manhattan coach was kind enough to share his recruit spend with me ... not only did he spend $10k less than UMass ... but he didn't offer minutes or a starting spot ... someone explain this to me? ... I was in on this recruit in one of the first few cycles ...

dilo -

the issue for you seems to be the value of a start + 25 minutes at a B prestige vs a C+. This is something I can relate to as well. I've often offered them when desperate and they never seem to work, even as an A+ prestige. I just stopped offering them.

EDIT - oh, and girt is right - it's effort (i.e. # of visits) over $ spent (i.e. cost of visits) that matter.

This is good advice MOY, I will have to consider this if I continue playing.  I will say, though, that looking at Manhattan's recruiting efforts that I conducted more home visits and campus visits than he did.  Maybe it's just an anomaly in the system and I have to let it go.

He sent you his whole recruiting history, and not the amount he spent?

Posted by dilo on 8/16/2010 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dilo on 8/16/2010 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Not sure if anyone looked closely at my contributions to this thread ... which centered on UMass being outrecruited by a small conference team with a significantly lesser prestige (C+ vs a B for UMass) ... despite UMass offering a starting spot and 25 mins ... well, the Manhattan coach was kind enough to share his recruit spend with me ... not only did he spend $10k less than UMass ... but he didn't offer minutes or a starting spot ... someone explain this to me? ... I was in on this recruit in one of the first few cycles ...

dilo -

the issue for you seems to be the value of a start + 25 minutes at a B prestige vs a C+. This is something I can relate to as well. I've often offered them when desperate and they never seem to work, even as an A+ prestige. I just stopped offering them.

EDIT - oh, and girt is right - it's effort (i.e. # of visits) over $ spent (i.e. cost of visits) that matter.

This is good advice MOY, I will have to consider this if I continue playing.  I will say, though, that looking at Manhattan's recruiting efforts that I conducted more home visits and campus visits than he did.  Maybe it's just an anomaly in the system and I have to let it go.

personally I do think starts and minutes are undervalued in HD - they should be the most powerful recruiting tool that we have imo. of course - I also think if minutes and starts are not honored (especially minutes - they should be "at least" what is guaranteed - not close enough to) then player should be off that team the following season... period.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/16/2010 11:05:00 AM (view original):
He sent you his whole recruiting history, and not the amount he spent?

he sent me both

Well, something's missing from the equation then. If you had a prestige edge and put in more recruiting effort, you should have won.

Was Manhattan the player's favorite school?

can you post it on here, so we can see it and get a better idea?

"Maybe it's just an anomaly in the system and I have to let it go."

So School 1 & School 2 are within about the same distance away from a recruit.

- School 1 has a B prestige; School 2 has a C+ prestige
- School 1 spends $25,000 on a recruit (with more HVs & CVs); School 2 spends $15,000
- School 1 offers the recruit a starting spot; School 2 does not
- School 1 offers 25 minutes of playing time; School 2 does not

- School 2 wins the recruit. Why? I'm stumped.

I thought maybe the recruit could have been swayed by the previous season's record (supposedly, that could make a difference) but School 1 was a NT At-large team (2nd round) and School 2 missed both tournaments.

I'd be curious to know how the new engine formulated this recruit's decision-making.