recruiting - anti poaching suggestion - Page 4 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 1149 (0)

Hall of Famer

215 48 26 2 421 11

Rookie

without commenting on every bit of this discussion, if the question were simply do I think the "considering credit" should be a smidge more significant so that a late push would take more effort - my answer is yes. I dont think the considering credit means much. I think early effort should have enhanced value and I also think that frequent effort should have more effect. I think that is a real world sort of thing and I also think it would help the game

BUT, by no means a big enough increase to make late effort impractical - just to make it a somewhat tougher choice - if I go late I will need to spend, say 110% of the early money.

6/14/2012 3:20 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4398 (0)

Hall of Famer

54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

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.

6/14/2012 3:30 PM

dacj501

Posts: 4779 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 305

Pro

why would it help the game to penalize those who recruit later? It might help YOUR game if you are one who likes to spend early, but can't see how it would improve the game for everyone. What makes your recruiting dollars at cycle 1 more valuable than someone else's recruiting dollars later? I don't see why just being first makes someone super special. Protect your recruits, or have backups in mind in case you get beat out. Its not that hard.

6/14/2012 3:34 PM

reinsel

Posts: 927 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 130

Rookie

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.

Dear lord help me, but I agree with every word of a Colonels post.

6/14/2012 3:36 PM

dacj501

Posts: 4779 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 305

Pro

Posted by reinsel on 6/14/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
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.
Dear lord help me, but I agree with every word of a Colonels post.

+1 lol

6/14/2012 3:43 PM

isack24

Posts: 1566 (0)

Hall of Famer

81 19

Prospect

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.

6/14/2012 4:02 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by dacj501 on 6/14/2012 2:50:00 PM (view original):
It doesn't matter why someone recruits later. Recruiting last 50 hours before signings begin. There is already credit for being early. I strongly oppose making it even harder to recruit later. Since when in the internet is there supposed to be a real reward for being the guy who posts FIRST? Not sure why sending a kid a bunch of pretend home or campus visits first cycle should be substantively better than doing so 45 hours later.

You don't have to get there first at all.

For the first day (or so), there's no considering credit. You don't have to be stationed by a computer, waiting for the minute recruiting starts. You have an entire day before anything at all kicks in, and even at that point, any difference is extremely minor. Everyone knows when recruiting is starting. If you can't get on for even one cycle in the entire first day of recruiting and don't have a single friend, co-worker, relative, significant other or HD buddy that could take three minutes to help you for one cycle, then I'm sorry, but that might put you at a tiny disadvantage.

To say that we should design recruiting to be easier for these people is silly, and is trying to address a small, relatively rare issue rather than focusing on an actual recruiting shortcoming that effects everyone (i.e. that there should be more credit for strongly recruiting a kid from the get go as opposed to just trying to slip in right before signings). You can feel free to disagree, but in my opinion, that should be worth something quite tangible.

6/14/2012 4:07 PM (edited)

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

And yes, I agree with isaac's parting shot from above:

"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."

To me, it's a pretty common sense thing that a team that's strongly recruited a kid from the beginning would have an advantage, and I see no compelling reason not to incorporate it here. (In fact, it already is incorporated; we're essentially just debating if it should be incorporated more, and I think the answer is yes.)

6/14/2012 4:13 PM

professor17

Posts: 366 (0)

Hall of Famer

222 13

Rookie

Recruiting is already, to a large degree, a first dibs type of affair. Making late recruiting more difficult will make it even moreso. Ultimately, I think it would reduce competition for recruits, which overall is not a good thing.

Also, right now, part of the strategy of recruiting is not only who to recruit, but when to recruit them. Making late recruiting more difficult reduces part of that strategic equation.

And even if you do make early considering credit worth more, the A+, 5-scholly, $50K bonus money schools will still poach whoever they want, and get them The teams that will really get hurt by this are the B and B+ schools who are the targets of those A+ schools, who now won't be able to find affordable alternatives, after their top targets have been poached.

6/14/2012 4:26 PM

fatchance

Posts: 183 (0)

Hall of Famer

122

Prospect

I think we should penalize those that poach on the day of signing by increasing recruiting costs. Then we should penalize those that try to game the system by slapping their name on local recruits at the cheapest level during the first session. Only those recruiting on day two between 8am and 11pm will be rewarded with full efforts.

6/14/2012 4:28 PM

angmar

Posts: 219 (0)

Hall of Famer

141

Rookie

Posted by fatchance on 6/14/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):
I think we should penalize those that poach on the day of signing by increasing recruiting costs. Then we should penalize those that try to game the system by slapping their name on local recruits at the cheapest level during the first session. Only those recruiting on day two between 8am and 11pm will be rewarded with full efforts.

This would be awesome!

6/14/2012 4:46 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by professor17 on 6/14/2012 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting is already, to a large degree, a first dibs type of affair. Making late recruiting more difficult will make it even moreso. Ultimately, I think it would reduce competition for recruits, which overall is not a good thing.

Also, right now, part of the strategy of recruiting is not only who to recruit, but when to recruit them. Making late recruiting more difficult reduces part of that strategic equation.

And even if you do make early considering credit worth more, the A+, 5-scholly, $50K bonus money schools will still poach whoever they want, and get them The teams that will really get hurt by this are the B and B+ schools who are the targets of those A+ schools, who now won't be able to find affordable alternatives, after their top targets have been poached.

Prof, I usually find myself very much on the same page as you, but not here.

Why do you think it would result in less competiion? I think just the opposite. I think knowing that poaching isn't so completely easy would influence people to move sooner. More people moving sooner on the same number of players should equal more battles, not less.

I would also disagree with your second point. I think that recruiting late is so easy now, you barely have to even weigh the risk/reward. Bumping up the late penalty a bit would actually make when to recruit a tougher call, imho.

6/14/2012 4:52 PM

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

Posted by girt25 on 6/14/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
And yes, I agree with isaac's parting shot from above:

"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."

To me, it's a pretty common sense thing that a team that's strongly recruited a kid from the beginning would have an advantage, and I see no compelling reason not to incorporate it here. (In fact, it already is incorporated; we're essentially just debating if it should be incorporated more, and I think the answer is yes.)

So if IRL Charlotte puts time, energy, and money into a kid through scouting trips, home visits, and campus visits for months, and when signing day comes Coach K or Roy Williams calls and says, "Ya know, we overlooked you, we apologize for that but we see great potential in you. How about you come to our elite basketball school."

Is that player going to tell them to eat dirt and he's going to go play for the 49ers? It's possible, but not probable.

6/14/2012 5:02 PM

reinsel

Posts: 927 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 130

Rookie

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.

6/14/2012 5:02 PM

reinsel

Posts: 927 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 130

Rookie

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.

6/14/2012 5:05 PM

Forums

recruiting - anti poaching suggestion Topic

Search Criteria