recruiting - anti poaching suggestion Topic

isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Sure, in that scenario you're right.

But I was under the assumption that we were talking about a situation in which Team B has more money and simply sits back because it knows it can pick people off on signing day.
6/14/2012 5:06 PM
mizzou77
Posts: 333 (0)
Hall of Famer
135 2
Prospect
I lean to the camp that thinks a little more considering credit (maybe a compounding effect), would be an improvement.
The game has evolved and changed over time, the recruiting process probably needs tweeking as well.
and not to slap down D2 and D3 but this is really a D1 issue.
The snowball effect of Big-6 power, prestige, and money has made recruiting in some worlds (Allen, cough, cough) almost a joke.
6/14/2012 5:38 PM
p6453
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
290 1
Prospect
Posted by colonels19 on 6/14/2012 3:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm not really a recruit battler, but I feel like I get my targets 90-95% of the time...I'm at D2 but still...good coaches/recruiters will get theirs regardless...moral of the story, nothing is broken/needs to be changed, just recruit better...accept and overcome the challenge.

+1

6/14/2012 5:48 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by reinsel on 6/14/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
But I do agree with Girt on 1 point.  The amount you can put into a recruit in once cycle should be limited.  I got 50 Campus Visits to stick in one cycle this period in Allen.  That is completely wrong and should be limited.

In fact I think everyone could be happy if you were limited to 10 calls, 10 letters, 10 SV, 10 HV and 1 CV per cycle.  THAT would make late  recruiting WAY WAY WAY harder, especially at distance.
I, for one, would not be happy with any limits on the amount of effort per cycle. So under that plan, coupled with the penalty for recruiting late, in order to "poach" (I remind you a completely legal and viable strategy) you would need to do it over the course of many late cycles and your efforts would not be equal to the guy who got there first. I guess I may be in a minority (not sure) but I do not agree with the basic premise of this entire thread I suppose, which seems to be that there needs to be artificial limits in place to restrict the currently legitimate strategy of recruiting late. Being early in real life is also no guarantee of success. Just because a team is all over a kid from the git go doesn't mean they will sign. If another (maybe better, maybe just better at recruiting) team comes along late, kids can and do flip all the time.
6/14/2012 5:48 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by isack24 on 6/14/2012 4:02:00 PM (view original):
reinsel,

Obviously you are more experienced/successful than I am, but I have never had a problem jumping on a recruit late.  It's not in any way more difficult than going early.  It's easy to calculate how much money someone has.  It's easy to calculate how many HVs/CVs someone can afford.  Under the current system, it's irrelevant when I go - if I can pump in more CVs/HVs, I will win, period.

dac,

Again, I don't really think it's a penalty.  If the only issue was an inability to recruit on the first day, I'd agree. But as others have noted, it's often a strategic decision. The "penalty," as you're calling, is the price you're paying for allowing me to get in a kid's head first about how great my school is.  I haven't really been given a reason yet why this aspect shouldn't mimic real life when we are talking about strategic decision, not simply an inability to recruit.
It is, by definition a penalty. If someone gets a bonus for doing something early and someone else does the exact same thing later but gets less credit for it, they incur a penalty. To continue to deny that is wrong.
I haven't really been given a reason yet why this aspect shouldn't mimic real life when we are talking about strategic decision, not simply an inability to recruit.

For 1, because it is not always a strategic decision. But more importantly, getting there early already carries a small bonus. Had I been around when the world was created I would have opposed that as well. If recruiting lasts 4 days (2 before signings) people should be able to recruit at any time during that period. That is is my opinion.  A couple people disagree. It does not appear we are likely going to change each other's mind.

For the record, I'd like to note that I rarely have the patience to wait, and while I do occasionally "poach" players it is not a frequent thing (and never because I sat on all my budget to wait specifically to poach, but typically because someone else took one of mine and I decided it was easier to take one of yours than try to fight it out), so I am not arguing this point because I feel the status quo benefits me in any particular way, I just feel it is the way things would be given the current way recruiting is handled.
6/14/2012 5:58 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
"It is, by definition a penalty. If someone gets a bonus for doing something early and someone else does the exact same thing later but gets less credit for it, they incur a penalty. To continue to deny that is wrong."

You and I both have $10,000 to invest.  If I invest in a fixe-rate bond five days before you invest in the same bond, I reap the benefit of interest for those five days.  You're not "penalized," I just made the strategic decision to invest sooner than you, so I get more interest.  I don't want to argue the definition of "penalty," but it's not a penalty.

Anyway, you're right, we're not going to change each other's minds, although it does appear a majority of people on this thread would like, at a minimum, a small increase in considering credit.

And I'm with girt, I think that would increase early battles as much or more than decrease later battles.
6/14/2012 6:06 PM
asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 69 4
Rookie
I've been too lazy to read, but anytime this comes up, I also like to point out what happens to a person who can't make the first 36 hours of recruiting?  It happens...
6/14/2012 6:08 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
we are not investing in bonds we are competing for players. Since it is a competition if your effort gets more credit just by nature of being earlier than my credit that is a penalty for recruiting later. I don't care what the dictionary definition is.
6/14/2012 6:12 PM (edited)
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
What happens when person can't recruit at all, or can't gameplan for a NC game?

It sucks, and it's happened to me, but I don't think unavailability should affect what would be good for the overall betterment of the game.
6/14/2012 6:09 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by asher413 on 6/14/2012 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I've been too lazy to read, but anytime this comes up, I also like to point out what happens to a person who can't make the first 36 hours of recruiting?  It happens...
apparently tough luck is what folks seem to be in favor of...since it only happens occasionally
6/14/2012 6:10 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 6/14/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
But I do agree with Girt on 1 point.  The amount you can put into a recruit in once cycle should be limited.  I got 50 Campus Visits to stick in one cycle this period in Allen.  That is completely wrong and should be limited.

In fact I think everyone could be happy if you were limited to 10 calls, 10 letters, 10 SV, 10 HV and 1 CV per cycle.  THAT would make late  recruiting WAY WAY WAY harder, especially at distance.
That would also make it so that you really had to recruit every cycle, or almost every cycle, to maximize effectiveness.

Which would be fine with me, I check pretty much every cycle anyway. But if dac's argument is that we're penalizing people who can't even log in for one cycle in 24 hours, certainly something like that would be much, much worse.

Gotta run, but I don't like the above for a lot of reasons.
6/14/2012 6:13 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 6/14/2012 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 6/14/2012 4:02:00 PM (view original):
reinsel,

Obviously you are more experienced/successful than I am, but I have never had a problem jumping on a recruit late.  It's not in any way more difficult than going early.  It's easy to calculate how much money someone has.  It's easy to calculate how many HVs/CVs someone can afford.  Under the current system, it's irrelevant when I go - if I can pump in more CVs/HVs, I will win, period.

dac,

Again, I don't really think it's a penalty.  If the only issue was an inability to recruit on the first day, I'd agree. But as others have noted, it's often a strategic decision. The "penalty," as you're calling, is the price you're paying for allowing me to get in a kid's head first about how great my school is.  I haven't really been given a reason yet why this aspect shouldn't mimic real life when we are talking about strategic decision, not simply an inability to recruit.
I will try to elaborate on why I think poachers have it rough enough.

Let's assume a world consists of 2 teams, each with 3 openings. 

TEAM A "Early Bird"
They identify 3 targets and put 1/3 of their money into each one first cycle and never check recruiting again.  One of 4 things happen. 
A)  They sign all 3
B)  They sign 2 of 3
C)  They sign 1 of 3
D)  They sign no one.

Most of the time it will be A or B.  If they are lucky they won't have any battles at all.

TEAM B "The Poacher"
Sits tight on day one and spends nothing.
Now every good recruit is taken so he has to battle for EVERY recruit he gets.  If he puts his money into one of Team A's recruits he won't stop spending until he is ahead, and will have spent more than Team A.  Now he can try to steal recruit #2, but he overspends there too.  There is zero chance that Team B can steal all of Team A's guys just because he was second.

Team A's position is better because there is a good chance he signs all 3 while Team B has NO chance to sign all 3.
reinsel, I truly think that the above example oversimplifies things to the point that it's not terribly relevant to the discussion.

In that exact example, I'd rather be Team A than B. I can also draw up plenty of examples where I'd much rather be Team B, the poacher. (For instance, if he would've battled Team A off the bat for a player, it would've been expensive. But if he waits and Team A gets into another battle, he can not poach the player for much cheaper. Team B wins.) The point is, there are lots of varied, textured scenarios. Some favor poaching. Some don't. A smart poacher will simply find a good scenario for himself.
6/14/2012 6:18 PM
backboy13
Posts: 586 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 2
Prospect
Posted by reinsel on 6/14/2012 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 6/14/2012 4:02:00 PM (view original):
reinsel,

Obviously you are more experienced/successful than I am, but I have never had a problem jumping on a recruit late.  It's not in any way more difficult than going early.  It's easy to calculate how much money someone has.  It's easy to calculate how many HVs/CVs someone can afford.  Under the current system, it's irrelevant when I go - if I can pump in more CVs/HVs, I will win, period.

dac,

Again, I don't really think it's a penalty.  If the only issue was an inability to recruit on the first day, I'd agree. But as others have noted, it's often a strategic decision. The "penalty," as you're calling, is the price you're paying for allowing me to get in a kid's head first about how great my school is.  I haven't really been given a reason yet why this aspect shouldn't mimic real life when we are talking about strategic decision, not simply an inability to recruit.
I will try to elaborate on why I think poachers have it rough enough.

Let's assume a world consists of 2 teams, each with 3 openings. 

TEAM A "Early Bird"
They identify 3 targets and put 1/3 of their money into each one first cycle and never check recruiting again.  One of 4 things happen. 
A)  They sign all 3
B)  They sign 2 of 3
C)  They sign 1 of 3
D)  They sign no one.

Most of the time it will be A or B.  If they are lucky they won't have any battles at all.

TEAM B "The Poacher"
Sits tight on day one and spends nothing.
Now every good recruit is taken so he has to battle for EVERY recruit he gets.  If he puts his money into one of Team A's recruits he won't stop spending until he is ahead, and will have spent more than Team A.  Now he can try to steal recruit #2, but he overspends there too.  There is zero chance that Team B can steal all of Team A's guys just because he was second.

Team A's position is better because there is a good chance he signs all 3 while Team B has NO chance to sign all 3.
This scenario is only true with an equal amount of openings and cash. People seem to have a problem with teams that have six scholarships and significantly more cash taking recruits from schools that are helpless with one or two openings. If a team has six scholarships, signs three players without any problems, and has a lot of cash left at a later stage in recruiting, the situation is completely different.
6/14/2012 6:19 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by girt25 on 6/14/2012 6:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 6/14/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
But I do agree with Girt on 1 point.  The amount you can put into a recruit in once cycle should be limited.  I got 50 Campus Visits to stick in one cycle this period in Allen.  That is completely wrong and should be limited.

In fact I think everyone could be happy if you were limited to 10 calls, 10 letters, 10 SV, 10 HV and 1 CV per cycle.  THAT would make late  recruiting WAY WAY WAY harder, especially at distance.
That would also make it so that you really had to recruit every cycle, or almost every cycle, to maximize effectiveness.

Which would be fine with me, I check pretty much every cycle anyway. But if dac's argument is that we're penalizing people who can't even log in for one cycle in 24 hours, certainly something like that would be much, much worse.

Gotta run, but I don't like the above for a lot of reasons.
Technically Dan my argument isn't so much based around those who cannot recruit til later, although certainly they are a factor. My argument really is that recruiting lasts 50 hours before signings. Hour 49 should be no different than hour 1. The system does not need artifical limits to protect players who are unable to protect themselves because they overreached and spent too much and cannot protect their own. What are we now, the NBA? We need rules to protect us from ourselves?

Someone talked about the problem with schools with 5+ ships stealing recruits from schools with 2. None of these suggestions will stop that. Only a complete redesign of recruiting will. Since that issue is here to stay, I do not see the advantage from an overall competitive balance standpoint to making these changes.


6/14/2012 6:19 PM
kypride
Posts: 90 (0)
Hall of Famer
250
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 6/14/2012 6:09:00 PM (view original):
What happens when person can't recruit at all, or can't gameplan for a NC game?

It sucks, and it's happened to me, but I don't think unavailability should affect what would be good for the overall betterment of the game.
This game is 90% recruiting. There's no comparison to failing to gameplan.

As for overall betterment of the game, I like recruiting in D2 and D3 as it is. I have no D1 teams.
6/14/2012 6:25 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
recruiting - anti poaching suggestion Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.