recruiting - anti poaching suggestion Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
It is most certainly fair play. Whether or not it is fun I would counter depends on which side of the transaction one is on. IMO you are completely off base and could not be more wrong.

To limit jumping on recruits at signing, protect your recruits.

No disrespect. I just completely disagree with your point of view and your proposal.
6/13/2012 8:44 PM
johnsensing
Posts: 344 (0)
Hall of Famer
679
Prospect
Posted by dukenilnil on 6/13/2012 8:38:00 PM (view original):
To limit jumping on recruits at signing, I purpose the following...
Have a fairly significant recruit bonus for recruiting a player early and for giving him attention over a number of periods. I know there is the consideration credit but it is too small. This should go a long ways towards balancing out recruiting as too many coaches wait until signing or just before and snag a player who another coach has been on from the beginning. This strategy may technically be allowed under the current rules, but its certainly not fair play (or fun)
what dac said.  this is a bad, bad idea.
6/13/2012 8:49 PM
emy1013
Posts: 2731 (0)
Hall of Famer
829
Prospect
Posted by dacj501 on 6/13/2012 8:44:00 PM (view original):
It is most certainly fair play. Whether or not it is fun I would counter depends on which side of the transaction one is on. IMO you are completely off base and could not be more wrong.

To limit jumping on recruits at signing, protect your recruits.

No disrespect. I just completely disagree with your point of view and your proposal.
Agree 100%.
6/13/2012 9:03 PM
flashlantern
Posts: 50 (0)
Pro
18
Prospect
I don't necessarily agree about the OP's plan, I do think it's a bit of a dick move to swoop in at the last minute and snag a guy away from a team that has the guy interested in them. I think it's laziness on the part of most players, who don't want to be bothered to keep up on recruiting. I'm probably wrong, as I'm sure many of you will point out, but it's still my belief...
6/13/2012 9:11 PM
dukenilnil
Posts: 302 (0)
Hall of Famer
10 180
Prospect
What's the argument in favor of the late jumping on recruits in the grand scheme of the game (not just the benefit to the actor but how it benefits the game in general). It allows the 5 + scholarship guys to sit add wait and take whoever they want cheaply. There is no amount of protecting that can be done if you only have 1 or 2 scholarships. Those with more can always take.
What I am proposing does allow for protecting by rewarding the persistent and active coach who can identify targets early and acts on it.
6/13/2012 9:15 PM
flashlantern
Posts: 50 (0)
Pro
18
Prospect

I agree, dukenilnil, that it's a flawed scheme. I just don't see any changes coming. I just try to work within the system and try my hand with the patience bit. I don't have the prestige, and won't be fighting for recruits, but I hope to start rolling over more money every season and be able to have more than most in a few seasons.

6/13/2012 9:20 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
There's nothing wrong with coming in late and taking a recruit.  

On the other hand, I also believe there should be weightier considering credit to benefit those who are on a recruit early.  But not something that can't possibly be overcome.
6/13/2012 9:51 PM
tkimble
Posts: 1347 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 335 1 1
Rookie
You have to protect yourself from being poached- that often means keeping a large sum of cash on hand until signings so you can spend a good amount if your guys get poached. If you are going to overextend yourself, spend enough to get guys you want to protect to tight on FSS. I'm much less likely to go after a guy late if I won't have to battle for them.
6/13/2012 9:57 PM
lmschwarz
Posts: 162 (0)
Hall of Famer
115
Prospect
I agree with isack24, I'd be willing to make it tougher to come in late, but I don't want it impossible.
6/13/2012 11:34 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
So let me see if I understand the argument logically. It is ok for the original, early acting team to sign a recruit relatively cheaply (by not getting "tight" with him) but not ok for a team that, for whatever reason, chooses to wait until later, but still within the prescribed time set aside by the game specifically for recruiting to do the same by (relatively cheaply) "poaching" that player? I suppose that the later acting teams should be forced to only recruit kids that no one else is considering (probably because they are not as good)? Recruiting (before signings) lasts 50 hours. As long as you spend your money first it is better than the coach who, for whatever reason, chooses to spend it late? Someone tell me if I'm getting close here?
6/13/2012 11:51 PM
mully1
Posts: 37 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
WIS should limit the number of home/campus visits you can make to a single recruit during any one recruiting period.    This will keep schools from dumping their load on the recruit at the signing period and force them to spread more money up front.

Even in real life, there are only so many contacts you can make during any stretch in time.
6/13/2012 11:52 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by mully1 on 6/13/2012 11:52:00 PM (view original):
WIS should limit the number of home/campus visits you can make to a single recruit during any one recruiting period.    This will keep schools from dumping their load on the recruit at the signing period and force them to spread more money up front.

Even in real life, there are only so many contacts you can make during any stretch in time.
real life has very little, if anything, to do with HD recruiting. Still not sure why late spenders need to be penalized.
6/13/2012 11:56 PM
hughesjr
Posts: 3174 (0)
Hall of Famer
484 154 8 2
Prospect
People just need to stop thinking of recruits as theirs until they are signed.

Real college coaches don't know until they get that LOI faxed in with a signature on it.

I do think that they should make it so a recruit can not go more than one spot towards signing in one turn ... so that if someone is "considering us" and has an offer from team A ... then if Team B puts all their money in on the signing turn, the most that can happen on that turn is that they can go to "considering us among others" in one turn.

That gives the other team a chance to respond.

Then, if they can not counter enough, the guy signs with the new team on the next turn.

But ... the bottom line is ... you need to get the guy tight on FSS if you want him.
6/14/2012 12:00 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
I don't really disagree with what you guys are saying, but it's borderline ridiculous that a team with 6 open scholarships will automatically get a guy over a team with 2 open scholarships.  It's the system we have, I understand that, but I don't see anything wrong with increasing the considering credit.  It's not about penalizing the teams who act late, but rewarding those who are on a guy early.

Even though I agree with dac that there is a dearth of similarities between real life and HD recruiting, it seems like this is one area - earning points for being the first to show interest - where a parallel makes sense.
6/14/2012 12:18 AM
1|2|3...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.