Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2022 10:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 7:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.
I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.
I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.
Yeah Shoe I have no idea what you’re saying to rebut the simple fact that any single recruit is a better get for a lower team than a higher team so this means that there’s a lot of cases the lower team can offer a start but the higher team has to save it for a more elite guy
I don’t have to rebut anything. But I would still love to hear how you think a new coach at Sacred Heart will close the gap against me at UConn if they’re limited to 5 starts on a roster. Because a good coach can recruit a team full of good potential, good-in-the-right-spots tier-2/3 players and move a team like C- Sacred Heart up to competitiveness, but losing that start carrot would hurt a ton. Currently, they can offer starts all over the place, and basically feel no qualms about it. Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle. Limiting promises is essentially a call for limited competitiveness. It’s just bad for the game.
I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk. It’s not move-countermove-checkmate. A lot of good coaches do it many different ways, that’s how the game was designed, that’s how it works. If you’re finding it isn’t working for you, well as mlitney even acknowledged in his first post, you can try other things.
The “higher” team doesn’t “have” to do anything. I offer promises to a wide array of players. Like I said, some of them are players who don’t get other (or many) resources from me. There are lots of ways to recruit. But again, my UConn and MSU teams will benefit much more than UMass from 4 year promises. There is absolutely no doubt. I’ll continue to promise the elites (when needed) and in spots 6-12 my prestige will more than make up for a B- start in a battle (if they battle), assuming I don’t feel like rolling the dice on an EE or a lost battle elsewhere.
"Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle."
No that's wrong. Abusing starts as an A+ program doesn't hurt at all. Oh no! I've dropped from 7 to 14 on the PR because I put a vastly inferior team out on the floor that went 23-5 instead of 25-3... whatever will I do now that my NT draw is *marginally* worse.
Versus Sacred Heart is fighting to make the NT and have to start 3 freshmen so they drop from 45 to 75 because they take 2 non-con losses to sims while their guys all have D- IQ.
"I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk."
If we can try "other things" then why has every coach gravitated towards the taking hella rolls and take hella walk-ons strategy naturally in the last 3-12 months?
Except you to be fair. You definitely have a unique strategy at D1 for high prestige teams with varying levels of success. I'm guessing you are thinking you'll start to see an uptick in success in the next few months, which I don't think is necessarily incorrect. You might have to reach even lower than normal (not in Minnesota) to fill your ships though.
FWIW another impact I haven't mentioned of the increased competitiveness is I feel locations like Utah/Colorado/Minnesota/LSU/Wisconsin got a SERIOUS ******* bump.
It depends on where the starts are and how the schedule shakes out, but multiple starts is almost always more than 7 spots on the PR. And it’s often much worse. And the difference between a 2 seed and a 4 seed has so much more impact than the difference between a 10 seed and a 15 seed for most coaches, I would think. But in reality, a C- Sacred Heart who is throwing around promises isn’t looking at a tourney shot anyway next year, in all likelihood, and that’s the real issue. They’re already playing for 2-3 years down the road, and will be next year, as well. And they can keep doing that *as long as promises aren’t limited* and that’s what allows the upward mobility in the long term.
UK is the only spot where I’ve had to reach down more than I’d really like. The A10 is eating everyone’s lunch in Smith, and Kentucky produces garbage for recruits (which is entirely absurd) so it is what it is. I take some filler in my other FB/P squads, but not more than I would expect. And UConn/Minny, where I’m still playing Flex/combo, I’m redshirting rather than taking walkons most seasons. Sometimes I’m looking to cut a guy, but I rarely do. When you ask why “every” (we’ll grant many) coach has gravitated toward the max rolls + walkons recently, my answer goes back to the common perception - I think it’s fundamentally flawed - that the resources gained from those walkons are worth more than the value they actually bring. I see guys complain about losing rolls, but then they turn around and willingly take multiple walkons to gather up scholarship resources, when each scholarship is really just a share of a ticket to get in on a roll for a player when you play that way. Makes no sense to me.
As for success, I’ve jumped around a bit in the past couple years. Other than UConn, which has had a number of high quality near-misses (including this last season’s S16 screw job lol) my other programs are all 12 season or under and I always do an overhaul (this season at Lincoln is the exception, I’m actually trying something new sticking with the team I inherited, haha), so I’m just starting to get them humming. UK is the weakest for sure, but even there reaching down for a handful of guys I’m confident you’d agree most power conference coaches wouldn’t touch, we’re going to make the tournament, and we’ll be a tough out even with 3 upperclassmen. Am I unique? Fine. But I’m not special or super awesome or anything. And I promise I’m not working harder than anyone else, probably the opposite.
6/9/2022 1:18 AM (edited)