I have been a huge proponent of HD3. There are a ton of conceptual changes I like, however- execution is always the key to anything being worthwhile, regardless of the concept behind it. I also realize that this post is just some straight old-fashioned whining about losing.

At FSU in Tark, I have been there four seasons. In my first season, I had a pretty nice recruiting class and won a battle against Ohio State (SIMAI) for Dominick Cracraft. Since then, I have not won another battle. But let me be clear, in the vast majority of those battles, I was at VH. I will attempt to relay my situation as accurately and clearly as possible, but I only started keeping notes on the results last year, when I began to notice a trend.

So... I am 1 for 8 in recruiting battles (I thought there was another, but I can't remember who) in four years at FSU. 4 of the battles I was VH vs another VH. 3 of the battles, I was a VH vs. a H (I won one). 1 of the battles I was a H vs. a VH.

So my first question to the board is, what are you estimations as to what the signing percentage chance ranges for VH vs. another VH and as a VH vs. a H?

The next question would be, what do you think are appropriate signing percentages for those ranges?

Lastly, would you think it is possible or even beneficial to have a system in place to lessen the blow of losing a string of battles? I recognize this is a small sample size, but that's just it. With recruiting being so critical and the relatively small number of battles one would have each year... it seems like this string of "bad luck" is perfectly capable of dismantling a program. I'm finding it very hard to stomach at the moment.

I've had much worse results than this with my Kentucky team

Posted by skinzfan36 on 1/30/2017 12:05:00 AM (view original):
I've had much worse results than this with my Kentucky team

Give me an idea. I'm looking for the floor and ceiling results. I'm wondering if there is anyone out there winning eight or nine battles in a row in addition to people losing that many in a row.

I have not won a battle yet in 3.0 at UK. The only guys on my team are players who I either didn't have competition for or was able to drop team to moderate. Have lost somewhere in the range of 14-16. 5-6 where I was the Very High team v. High. Probably a couple where I was High team v. Very High but not much.

This past season alone I lost 8 battles. A few were 2nd period where the player decided the cycle I got to Very High and didn't get time to knock the other team to moderate despite having more money. 2 of these were loses to teams that were listed High. That was a shitshow to say the least, especially with the addition of losing to "on the fence" players to EE.

FWIW Nole - in my first 3 seasons under HD3.0 I was 1 for 9 in battles, with 4 losses to a High when I was Very High. Since then I have had 3 battles against, all where I was VH against High and won all 3. In all of the ones I won I estimate I was at about the max advantage I could be before knocking them down to moderate. What's the takeaway from this? The VH-H battles will come around in your favor as sample size grows. VH-VH is just a crap shoot. In 3.0 if you are an A or above team it is just best to avoid battles unless you know you can knock a lower team off completely. That and offer starts, lots of starts.

At least one....

Honestly, I started 1 out of 5 at Clemson, lost some more but won two in a row the last session... So I am probably at 33% or 40 %. At Penn State, I have one one battle and lost all others... But It made me change my strategy a lot. I truly calculate everything and try and get free recruits, going to places where nobody will go.

1) First mistake, only focus on late recruits... It could be a huge problem cause once the players are signed in early session, the teams will come for your late prospects.
2) Second mistake, getting into too many battles. You pick your battles (2 max) since they will be all-in...
3) Not scouting your region enough so you cannot find gems or easy pick that you will develop 4 seasons...
4) Not knowing your location, other teams location, other teams needs, other teams money and number of scholly, other teams battles...

Sometimes location is a pain, you are surrounded and battling for everything at D1... And you even get D2 annoying you. This is why I would reduce the impact of distance at D1... Some team will always battle because of their location and it isn't fair IMO. Others will have an edge because they are not challenged... I think there is some work to be done to make it more democratic and not as location-base as It is now.

I just won a battle in Tark at UNI. I would be very curious and willing to compare notes with powermad at VT.

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2017 12:48:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I started 1 out of 5 at Clemson, lost some more but won two in a row the last session... So I am probably at 33% or 40 %. At Penn State, I have one one battle and lost all others... But It made me change my strategy a lot. I truly calculate everything and try and get free recruits, going to places where nobody will go.

1) First mistake, only focus on late recruits... It could be a huge problem cause once the players are signed in early session, the teams will come for your late prospects.
2) Second mistake, getting into too many battles. You pick your battles (2 max) since they will be all-in...
3) Not scouting your region enough so you cannot find gems or easy pick that you will develop 4 seasons...
4) Not knowing your location, other teams location, other teams needs, other teams money and number of scholly, other teams battles...

Sometimes location is a pain, you are surrounded and battling for everything at D1... And you even get D2 annoying you. This is why I would reduce the impact of distance at D1... Some team will always battle because of their location and it isn't fair IMO. Others will have an edge because they are not challenged... I think there is some work to be done to make it more democratic and not as location-base as It is now.

Everything you've said here is excellent advice for anyone trying to really excel in recruiting.

I've been too aggressive previously. I have to scale back a bit, but these are all things that I do look at and it has helped me.

Posted by ardthomp on 1/30/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2017 12:48:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I started 1 out of 5 at Clemson, lost some more but won two in a row the last session... So I am probably at 33% or 40 %. At Penn State, I have one one battle and lost all others... But It made me change my strategy a lot. I truly calculate everything and try and get free recruits, going to places where nobody will go.

1) First mistake, only focus on late recruits... It could be a huge problem cause once the players are signed in early session, the teams will come for your late prospects.
2) Second mistake, getting into too many battles. You pick your battles (2 max) since they will be all-in...
3) Not scouting your region enough so you cannot find gems or easy pick that you will develop 4 seasons...
4) Not knowing your location, other teams location, other teams needs, other teams money and number of scholly, other teams battles...

Sometimes location is a pain, you are surrounded and battling for everything at D1... And you even get D2 annoying you. This is why I would reduce the impact of distance at D1... Some team will always battle because of their location and it isn't fair IMO. Others will have an edge because they are not challenged... I think there is some work to be done to make it more democratic and not as location-base as It is now.

Everything you've said here is excellent advice for anyone trying to really excel in recruiting.

I've been too aggressive previously. I have to scale back a bit, but these are all things that I do look at and it has helped me.

Yes all late recruits is a mistake... finding gems is important but they can quickly become your battles...

Is anyone winning 5+ battles in a row? It seems like someone must be.

Posted by noleaniml on 1/30/2017 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Is anyone winning 5+ battles in a row? It seems like someone must be.

I am 2/2 with 4 openings at UNI... D- Prestige...

It's also important to look at preferences. They can make a big difference. At Illinois A+ I almost lost the #1 player in the country to a B IUPUI because he matched offense and defense and I matched neither, and I underestimated how important that was. I could have put more effort in and won more easily, but I cut it way closer than I should have and we both ended up at VH.