Yeah, it would be nice if the recruits who wanted a rebuild would actually, you know, pick a rebuilding school. Right now at Utah I am getting hammered by high prestige schools despite the recruit having a "rebuild" preference. Not even sure why some of these good schools would offer these recruits a start and max minutes but thats besides the point.

Just get rid of the rebuild preference if its not going to be a factor.

Posted by crabman26 on 7/22/2019 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, it would be nice if the recruits who wanted a rebuild would actually, you know, pick a rebuilding school. Right now at Utah I am getting hammered by high prestige schools despite the recruit having a "rebuild" preference. Not even sure why some of these good schools would offer these recruits a start and max minutes but thats besides the point.

Just get rid of the rebuild preference if its not going to be a factor.

I agree with this. That rebuild preference should be HUGE. Maybe the strongest of all. But me and benis already had that forum discussion!

"If i want taco bell, nothing in the world will change my mind where i want an expensive steak instead. I don't care how much effort you put in, trying to take me to Texas Roadhouse. I said i want Taco Bell"

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/22/2019 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 7/22/2019 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, it would be nice if the recruits who wanted a rebuild would actually, you know, pick a rebuilding school. Right now at Utah I am getting hammered by high prestige schools despite the recruit having a "rebuild" preference. Not even sure why some of these good schools would offer these recruits a start and max minutes but thats besides the point.

Just get rid of the rebuild preference if its not going to be a factor.

I agree with this. That rebuild preference should be HUGE. Maybe the strongest of all. But me and benis already had that forum discussion!

"If i want taco bell, nothing in the world will change my mind where i want an expensive steak instead. I don't care how much effort you put in, trying to take me to Texas Roadhouse. I said i want Taco Bell"

Obviously it's highly debatable but I think distance would be most important. If you're a mama's boy (which we all know I am) I don't want to miss that home cooking so I ain't going anywhere.

I'd probably put playing time #2.

Posted by Benis on 7/22/2019 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/22/2019 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/22/2019 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by starrider19 on 7/21/2019 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Promises should stay if effect for longer than one season. In real life a stud recruit who is promised a start + min. would expect to start throughout his career. Transfers should be more common.

I've been saying this for a couple years. I think it should extend beyond promises too. If a player starts at a FR and then loses their starting gig, they shouldnt be very happy about it. It should also impact EEs. If a guy has lost his starting job as a Sophomore or Jr, they should be more likely to leave.

Balancing playing time and keeping players content with their role on the team should be a much bigger part of the game IMO.

i was all for it, but when you put it that way, babysitting the players' virtual emotions actually sounds less attractive :) there is also the issue that sometimes players do lose their job when not performing and stuff - i guess it feels sort of unrealistic to really be promising spots in the first place. i'd guess most coaches are not promising most of their players time (IRL), only the opportunity. maybe that is the real issue, that promises themselves just inherently aren't realistic and don't fit the model, and trying to fix them will remain unrealistic and messy. maybe they just need to go. i liked them in 2.0 because they were a useful tool, but i don't personally feel they are adding much if anything to 3.0 recruiting strategy.

Well, maybe it's not exactly babysitting if you plan it correctly. If you don't think through your decisions to make promises or plan out your roster, it turns in to that. But you should be thinking long term with your team, IMO.

Promises should be a major decision in your recruiting thought process. Right now, I offer starts without a 2nd thought because I know I don't need to worry about them in the postseason or any subsequent season. If you made it harder to keep promises, you'd make the decision to give them much tougher- which should be the entire point. You are making a choice and taking a risk that could help you in the short term but burn you in the long run.

Hmm, does anyone hear Benis advising us about prudent resource allocation. It doesn’t sound exactly like something Shoe always repeats, but it sounds similar, to me.

Well that's because poopshoe and Benis are the same person.

Mind BLOWN

no preference should be decisively more important than others - there should be a distro of different degrees of preference - some players slight and some huge - some kids care more than anything about being close to home, some care more than anything about minutes and some more than anything want a warm climate, beaches and hot women at parties.

Posted by fd343ny on 7/22/2019 10:32:00 PM (view original):
no preference should be decisively more important than others - there should be a distro of different degrees of preference - some players slight and some huge - some kids care more than anything about being close to home, some care more than anything about minutes and some more than anything want a warm climate, beaches and hot women at parties.

Most are there for the education, but that's just stating the obvious.

Again, i worded things wrong as far as "rebuild should be the most important". What i mean is that it should be powerful enough to where it eliminates high prestige teams from discussion, if low prestige teams are pursuing.

Example.... poopshoe (who?!) always states that in D1 battles that are all in and equal in effort, that you can battle within 2 full grade prestige levels. So a C- has a chance competing against an A- school. Well rebuild preference should have the reverse effect. So if a D+ school goes all in, all schools in the A+ A and A- range should not be able to contend. Only B+ and below should get in the roll

What's the point of rebuild preference if they end up at Duke every time? (And i don't mean Benis, the Duke of Obfuscation or whatever it is that shoe calls him! Haha)

Top, do you feel the same about every preference or just this one? So if you want to play for a long time coach he should almost never choose a school with a new coach? Or you think this preference in particular is just THAT important?

I think that particular preference is THAT important. But I've always been all for making preferences have a much bigger impact. I don't know how to fix everything. Maybe tons more recruits available than openings? As in, sure i just graduated and I'd love to play college ball. But maybe no one takes me at D1 D2 or D3 and i disappear. Like real life kids. Make a zillion recruits that all have different preferences, and every school will have some recruits that fit their criteria.

I think certain preferences should carry more weight. Players that want rebuilds shouldn't end up at Duke. In your example, a player that wants to play for an established veteran coach should not be playing for me, in my first season at D2, right after i coached 1 season of D3 and my loyalty sucks. It makes no sense

I am not sure preferences - generally should be so strong.

Lets say I am an okay but not great DI recruit. I would love to play in a power 5 conference, but realistically I am mostly getting interest from mid majors. And my preference is to go to a place where a rebuild is coming so I can be part of a resurgence.

I'm narrowing myself down to which A10 schools I want to go visit and unexpectedly Coach K calls and says he thinks I would be a perfect fit at Duke.

Now there may be some kids for whom the rebuild is really the overriding thing - but I bet that for many, most kids, the call from Duke or UNC or Kentucky or Michigan State would overcome that idea of playing in an A10 rebuild. Just my guess.

Posted by mamxet on 7/23/2019 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I am not sure preferences - generally should be so strong.

Lets say I am an okay but not great DI recruit. I would love to play in a power 5 conference, but realistically I am mostly getting interest from mid majors. And my preference is to go to a place where a rebuild is coming so I can be part of a resurgence.

I'm narrowing myself down to which A10 schools I want to go visit and unexpectedly Coach K calls and says he thinks I would be a perfect fit at Duke.

Now there may be some kids for whom the rebuild is really the overriding thing - but I bet that for many, most kids, the call from Duke or UNC or Kentucky or Michigan State would overcome that idea of playing in an A10 rebuild. Just my guess.

Well with this kids mindset, he shouldn't have rebuild preference. He should be neutral. Rebuild preference players should WANT to go to **** schools. Or Low prestige schools. At least that's how i would like to look at that preference

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/23/2019 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 7/23/2019 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I am not sure preferences - generally should be so strong.

Lets say I am an okay but not great DI recruit. I would love to play in a power 5 conference, but realistically I am mostly getting interest from mid majors. And my preference is to go to a place where a rebuild is coming so I can be part of a resurgence.

I'm narrowing myself down to which A10 schools I want to go visit and unexpectedly Coach K calls and says he thinks I would be a perfect fit at Duke.

Now there may be some kids for whom the rebuild is really the overriding thing - but I bet that for many, most kids, the call from Duke or UNC or Kentucky or Michigan State would overcome that idea of playing in an A10 rebuild. Just my guess.

Well with this kids mindset, he shouldn't have rebuild preference. He should be neutral. Rebuild preference players should WANT to go to **** schools. Or Low prestige schools. At least that's how i would like to look at that preference

Following this line of logic... we are all ignoring the biggest preference of all - What division the recruit wants to play at. D1 projected recruits prefer to play at D1 schools so therefore no amount of effort should change that preference. They should not consider playing at D3 schools because that is not their preference.

Posted by Benis on 7/23/2019 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/23/2019 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 7/23/2019 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I am not sure preferences - generally should be so strong.

Lets say I am an okay but not great DI recruit. I would love to play in a power 5 conference, but realistically I am mostly getting interest from mid majors. And my preference is to go to a place where a rebuild is coming so I can be part of a resurgence.

I'm narrowing myself down to which A10 schools I want to go visit and unexpectedly Coach K calls and says he thinks I would be a perfect fit at Duke.

Now there may be some kids for whom the rebuild is really the overriding thing - but I bet that for many, most kids, the call from Duke or UNC or Kentucky or Michigan State would overcome that idea of playing in an A10 rebuild. Just my guess.

Well with this kids mindset, he shouldn't have rebuild preference. He should be neutral. Rebuild preference players should WANT to go to **** schools. Or Low prestige schools. At least that's how i would like to look at that preference

Following this line of logic... we are all ignoring the biggest preference of all - What division the recruit wants to play at. D1 projected recruits prefer to play at D1 schools so therefore no amount of effort should change that preference. They should not consider playing at D3 schools because that is not their preference.

I can't argue with that!

it's also tough because with the lower divisions being able to recruit players from a pool in a higher division, the preferences would have to float somewhat. Meaning if a B+ D1 school is targeting a player that wants success, the B+ D1 would be good, while a competing A+ D1 school would have very good. But... if that same B+ D1 school was battling for that same player with a D2 B+ school, the D1 B+ should be very good. While the B+ D2 school would be bad.

Just based on the fact that REAL success should definitely be weighted to the higher division schools. Because going to ANY D2 program is not the same level of REAL success in my opinion. And now this conversation just got really weird