As a coach who made the wrong decision many seasons ago in leaving Georgia Tech (lots of good recruits nearby) for Arizona (where it is always a crapshoot as to whether or not there is anyone you want within shouting distance), I kept hoping that the impact of distance would be lowered.

But as I have thought about it more from an overall health-of-the-game perspective, I'm not so sure. Right now, even A+ prestige schools tend to stay fairly close to home in who they go after. Suppose distance effects were completely eliminated (not what anyone here is proposing, I know, but just play along). What you would see would be a complete bloodbath. Right now, most coaches at Big Six programs know who to target based on proximity, competitors, etc... Do away with that knowledge, and suddenly you have UCLA, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, and such all jumping in on the same player with $20K apiece on the opening cycle. Someone is gonna get hurt playing like that, LOL.

And in reality, if Kansas loses a kid to UCLA, no big deal, there are fifty more studs who still want to play at Kansas. Whereas in HD, if Kansas blows $60K on a kid they don't get, then they're stuck choosing from the overs. So the (artificial, when compared to reality) cap we have on our resources in HD recruiting leads to the necessity of having distance play a serious role in the process.

Just my two cents.

Quote: Originally Posted By taz21 on 10/08/2009
I'm surprised that you thought 35k was enough to land that kid vs a higher prestige school in their own backyard. I honestly feel the way they've set things up is the best system in terms of keeping things equal across the board. Its not perfect, and there are going to be spots that are better than others, but overall it works pretty well.

regarding the feeder school system, it sounds great on paper, but they'd also have to revamp where HS kids come from. DeMatha in DC has produced a ton of talent thru the years, same as Oak Hill and many other schools. In HD its all kind of random (to an extent I guess) such that I've seen some schools local to me w/ high D1 prospects in HD that I'm not even sure have a basketball program in real life, and if so, not one that would ever produce anything resembling a big time basketball program. I'd be more in favor of keeping the current HS system (which is mainly window dressing) and installing some sort of "recruiting area" bonus, ie if you've spent your career coaching in and around the state of north carolina, and have always kept your recruiting in and around the state, when you finally land that big gig down at the University of Georgia, you'll have a little bit of street cred in the state of North Carolina to allow you to compete a little better vs UNC for that top talent.

Perhaps rather than breaking it down by state, perhaps you'd get credit for recruiting in different regions, ie Southeast, northeast, great Lakes region, Midwest, etc... You could also tie into FSS when scouting and perhaps you get a discount for scouting a whole region rather than going to all the states w/n that region collectively.

I'd be fine with doing it by region. I think doing it by state could limit its effectiveness, especially on the East Coast - again, using the NY example you're probably recruiting from CT and NJ a lot too, or if you're in DC you're recruiting DC, MD, VA, etc. That probably works better since they don't have the elite HS programs producing DI caliber talent every season.

You could also tie it to promises - if you don't keep them to kids from the region you end up making them less likely to sign with you. All these recruits are talking/texting/etc to each other, if you aren't honest with recruits, it will filter down.

dalter - good points (as usual). I agree with most everything you said.

The only chnage I would have on recruiting is I'd make the cost/mile more linear. There is absolutely no reason for a guy who is 370 miles away to cost twice as much as a guy who is 340 miles away.

Get rid of those large "cost gaps" and I think you would help longer distance recruiting.

Quote: Originally Posted By davis on 10/08/2009
And in reality, if Kansas loses a kid to UCLA, no big deal, there are fifty more studs who still want to play at Kansas. Whereas in HD, if Kansas blows $60K on a kid they don't get, then they're stuck choosing from the overs. So the (artificial, when compared to reality) cap we have on our resources in HD recruiting leads to the necessity of having distance play a serious role in the process.

This is the flip side of reality no one seems to consider. Elite schools don't mind battling each other in real life because A. Other than time, they pretty much have unlimited resources and B. They can pretty much get their "backup" recruits, if they lose the battle, with a phone call and a scholarship offer. The downside to losing a battle is minimal.

As neither A or B are true in HD, I don't think big schools are going to battle each other any more than they already do. What will happen is that, without the benefit of a distance advantage, the days of mid-to-low D1 schools getting really good recruits will end. The high prestige schools will split up the best recruits, the mid-level BCS teams will target the next best, and so on and so forth. I think it will create a definite tiered system of haves and have-nots. So, in a way, it will be "realistic". But WIS has been pretty clear they don't want the game to go too far down that road.

As others have mentioned, making recruiting truely national would likely leed to a lot of kids getting 20K thrown at them out of the gate like we currenlty have. It could almost become an all or nothing strategy.

Say I've got 4 openings at an A- prestige school. Typically that would be a fairly strong position, not the best, but certainly not the worst or even average any given season. W/ those 2 openings, I need 1 post and 1 SG, plus 2 other kids that can ride the bench a season until upperclassmen move on. So I target a PF in Arizona and a SG in Ohio and drop 5K first cycle, each, only to find that someone is going to come strong after those kids, so I quickly move on dropping another 5k elsewhere on 2 different kids to see someone else come after them, and so it goes, quickly burning thru money cycle after cycle until I find my comfort zone.

Conversely, you decide to sit out a cycle or 2 and see what the landscape looks like, well now in order to get the top end kids, you're going to have to go strong and hard, and likely waste the other 2 spots. I think either way, you'd see a lot of programs end up w/ 2-3 walkons each year so they could battle coast to coast. Perhaps not a bad thing, but in the end I think it would make recruiting much more difficult, time consuming and ultimately fustrating. Luck would play an even bigger roll than it does now.

As it stands right now, you can reasonable predict who might target the same kids you're going to. In a nationwide deal, it would be almost impossible to predict. It would be nothing for a school to come in late w/ 3 openings, drop everything into 1 of your kids while you're working to fill out the back of your roster and leave you with nothing. This can still happen today, but has a much smaller chance as the number of schools that can do this is limited to your geographical region. Nationwide recruiting, under the current landscape would turn into a blood bath.

If it were to work, I almost think it would have to work something like what EA sports NCAA football recruiting did. An initial wave each week of the season to slowly build up support/interest in several kids, then a concentration to battle things out. You'd need time for kids to formulate a list of competitors for their services, perhaps decide upon their 5 official visits then select the school that recruited them the best, has more playing time, more prestige, etc.... I think it's certainly possible to create an atmosphere like that, and make it work, but I imagine it would take a ton of programming.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think the current system is too bad, and creates some equity w/n the game, keeps power programs w/n check to an extent and also creates some diversity in recruiting. I've got 2 D1 teams in Crum, Texas & Georgetown and recruiting is very different. I've been an A level prestige (A- thru A+ depending on the season) for awhile now, and at Texas once recruits are spread out thru LSU, Texas & Texas Tech w/ the occasional battle from Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas or elsewhere, things don't change. If you lead by noon of the 2nd day, you rarely see a late charge, things are pretty easy as long as I pay attention to the needs of LSU, TT and others and make sure the places I'm targetting don't conflict w/ their targets if they've got more "power" than me, and vice versa.

Meanwhile at Georgetown along the East coast, I'm often fighting w/ UVA, UNC, Duke, Penn St, Seton Hall, Marlyand, etc.. where I stand at noon on the 2nd day means nothing. Late charges are often made by not only fellow Big East or ACC schools, but also some of the mid level program in the area hoping to spot a weakness amongst the battles. In a lot of ways, its much more challenging but also more enjoying.

At Texas I might have 3 top 10 SGs one year w/n 300 miles, then I might go 3 seasons or more w/o a top 10 SG w/n 300 miles. At Georgetown there's going to be a top 10 player at every position each and every season w/n 300 miles, but there are also going to be multiple schools wanting to fill the position in the area each and every season.

At Texas I might ignore the #3 SG who looks like a stud to focus on the #8 SG that looks solid, just a step below but I know can fill in at PG in case there are no decent PG recruits the following season or 2. Flexability is a huge asset in recruits. At Georgetown, I'm going after the stud each time b/c I know there will be multiple solid PGs if I really need one the following season. Flexability doesn't mean nearly as much.

Meanwhile, a school like Hawaii offers a completely different challenge. If nationwide recruiting truely existed, all schools would essentially become the same more or less. It would take some variety away from today's game. Some coaches like the challenge of a big market w/ lots of big fish, others like being out in the middle of no where having to go long distances to find a hidden gem or 2 each season. If recruiting at Georgetown was identical to Texas, I'd likely would have dropped one or the other by now. However the different aspects and challenges of each school has made the world a little more interesting to me.

Quote: Originally Posted By mullycj on 10/08/2009

dalter - good points (as usual). I agree with most everything you said.

The only chnage I would have on recruiting is I'd make the cost/mile more linear. There is absolutely no reason for a guy who is 370 miles away to cost twice as much as a guy who is 340 miles away.

Get rid of those large "cost gaps" and I think you would help longer distance recruiting.

I could buy into that, mully. I'd have to think on it more ... part of me thinks those big gaps can make things a little more interesting/strategic, part of me thinks they're kind of stupid.

As an aside, it's great to see a good thread like this involving a bunch of coaches who know what they're talking about and care about HD. Here's to more of them ...

taz, very nice post. I would like to see a way where there would be more battles between top schools but it's really not logical either. I like the fact that I can spend the entire season looking into the teams around me and get a feel for what they want recruiting, who is leaving early, how many 'ships do they have, how much carryover did they have, and so on and before recruiting I can tell you who is going to be going after who and where I am at an advantage and where I am not. If you were to nationalize recruiting 100% you'd end up knowing nothing, no matter how much time you spent. To some that might be enticing but not to me.

I do like the theory of regions. I have always thought that would be cool or (to use me for an example) in Phelan at Weber State I moved them up to an A prestige (Final Four and Elite Eight) and owned for the most part that region of recruiting (CO, UT, KS area), yes there was the occasional player I really wanted that i had to let go because it wasn't economical for me to 'waste' money on him because I wasn't going to win. But for the most part if I wanted a guy he was mine. It would be cool to see some sort of 'boost' in that area for me now, maybe a player from UT who grew up loving the old Weber team and wants to play for Coach zhawks at Illinois now? I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight onto it but it would be cool to get a bonus if you have recruited a given area for so long.

Keeping it regional would work great for FSS too imo. I would gladly scout the Midwest in Phelan at a discount every season, now there are seasons when I don't even scout Illinois. I agree this could take a TON of programming but I do think that anything to make recruiting a little more interesting but not completely revolutionize it would be something to look into.

I do have to say I do enjoy recruiting the way it is now too though. I like the recruiting area Illinois is in. I know that the big teams I have to worry about (tOSU, Kansas) and the teams that are lower then me but might try to battle (Iowa State, Missouri, Iowa, Northwestern). And I like that while I might have quite a few advantages (school prestige, players drafted, sometimes money) that there are some things that are out of my control.

As for the big jump in recruiting costs around 370... I am on the same page as daalter here, I really can't decide if I am totally against them, yeah it is kinda crazy but at the same time it is just another dimension of recruiting that you have to keep in mind and balance.

Ok, so I did this for fun, but this is kinda the way I'd like to see recruiting change. The idea is not completely thought out- but I'd like to accomplish a few things- 1) Make distance/$ less of a factor for teams with high prestige 2) Make finding out information about recruits more of a factor. And yes, maybe even make it more realistic.

1) Scouting: The only information available to all is # of stars. Go to regional AAU tournaments to get individual ratings for all attendees. This scouting effort requires money. Tournaments are regional... and each costs 2 grand or so to attend and to get information. Maybe there's 10 regional tournaments or so.

Begin 1st round of recruiting for 1/3 of recruits who intend to decide early.

2) Recruiting and follow up scouting: Visit high school to find out potential... be able to request 3 categories per visit (Ie: spd, ath, per). Cost is the same as always. Send letters, make calls and implement a law of diminishing returns on those efforts. Make your 1 home visit. Make promises. Offer scholarships (this will now take on more risk, so you can't do this lightly)

3) Offer campus visits (you can only offer one per player). Players choose only up to 5 schools to visit (could be different based on personality) There is *some* luck involved here and its's a bit like the nba lottery. Higher prestige schools get more lottery balls. Teams that have made more calls/sent letters/ made home visit, get marginally more lottery balls.

4) Recruit "considers" up to five teams. Have another round of recruiting. Make scholarship offers, make calls, make promises (could make promises more elaborate... minutes freshman year, sophomore year, junior year) Again lottery ball system with increased balls going to recruiting effort and prestige.

5) 1st signing period occurs. This could occur in 3 cycles, with different recruits making their decisions in each cycle. Gives schools opporutnities to withdraw scholarship offers as they sign players. Also means that offering a scholarship carries the risk of that player signing. So top schools have to decide whether to offer 3 star recruits scholarships.

6) Begin 2nd round of recruiting for next 1/3 of recruits

7) Begin 3rd round of recruiting for next 1/3 of recruits.



Strategies:

How many aau tournaments to attend? Or any?

HOw much money to spend trying to get a campus visit... lower prestige teams must spend more to land visit with top recruit.

How aggress will you be in each of 3 rounds of recruiting. Go for 5 star recruits early? Or secure 3 and 4 star recruits first?

The other idea that might be easier to install is the ratings range... Like in HBD where what you see in potential isn't exactly right or in HD sense, starting ratings might notbe 100% accurate.

holy crap. great dialogue, some thought out posts, and quite a few "old timers" chiming in. is the the HD of 2006??

i'm with dalt on this, distance disadvantages serve their purpose. mully made a great comment though on making values more linear and i'll have to mull that one over.

What if higher prestige teams paid less for travel? As you prestige approaches a+, the cost of a campus visit anywhere approaches 800, or whatever the minimum is. Not rl, but maybe a good proxy.

I think a straight linear system is as good as the current one, but not better, the way the current system works is still somewhat a mystery to me, there are definitely pressure points in it, where HV's or CV's take on more or less value depending on the distance away, since so few offers are made at d3, this is not as important there, but in d1 where coaches are spending 30-50k, using the offers the right way can make up for prestige disadvantages (I think, as I said, the non linear system is somewhat a mystery to me)

The way the current system works it really doesn't make sense that a recruit being .1 miles further away increases your costs by 40%, either from an "effort" perspective or a "realistic," let's-look-at-traveling costs perspective.

I think a really easy way to revamp the system is to randomize each recruit's costs by distance and school. Some recruits would have flatter expenses by distance than now, others would have steeper costs, but generally speaking the costs would be less dependent on distance.

Also, rather than having just a favorite school, randomly generate a factor for each school and adjust costs that way. Each coach would only know the adjusted costs for their own school. This would simulate recruits having certain preferences without making it overcomplicated and add a further element of the unknown. Adding things like preferences for team colors, big vs. small, urban vs. rural, academics, etc. is just asking for recruiting to take up more time than it takes right now, and it's by far the most time-consuming of aspect of HD.

Instead of a straight linear cost structure, how about breaking it into tiers.

For example, from 0-250 miles all prices are the same (the thinking being you can drive that round trip, it essentially takes gas + time, only 1 day).

250-500 miles is one price (can still be driven, but it take 2 days + hotel).

500-1000 miles is one price (fly in the morning, make visit, fly back)

1000+ miles is one price (flight + hotel).

That might lessen the impact of distance a little bit while maintaining a system that works pretty well.