"that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard"

Right up there with the idea that recruiting late with a bunch of money is actually difficult in any way.

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/14/2012 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 6/14/2012 7:41:00 PM (view original):
After some research, I finally found the stats I was looking for:

16.3% of the top-100 recruits in 2011 decommitted. 

This is far higher than the percentages that are lost to poaching each year.  So, if you really want to mimic RL, there should be a recruiting bonus for those who recruit later.

Allblack-- You seem to be the voice of reason and extremely knowledgeable so would respectfully ask-- How do you know what percentage is lost to "poaching" each year? My rate is closer to 80% (of players who initially were interested in my school choosing another school after signing started.  Maybe that just because my prestige sucks but shows that not only am I not recruiting from the same pool of players as those with higher prestige, that even those players  I do spend the money on and convince to take a closer look often go to someone with more money/higher prestige when their first choice doesn't work out. 
   I think it is also important to note when those 16.3% decommitted.  I would like to look at that percentage broken down into who decommitted in the last 50% of the available recruiting time and in the last 25% of recruiting time as that would be a closer approximation to what I believe is being spoken about.  I don't think anyone has a problem with a battle on day one as at least at that point, you haven't dropped your entire wad trying to secure a competitive player.
   I would also imagine that the rate of 'decommittment' decreases in RL as you get further away from the top players and I imagine that those being hurt by poaching are not even considered by the top 100 players available to better teams in the same division.  Even more important, what rate of players that decommitted were never contacted by the school for the first 50% of available recruiting time or had minimal recruiting effort put into them in that first 50%.  A player that is recruited heavily by two schools all along and initially chooses one but then opts to attend the other is not the same in my mind as a player who chooses to go to a school that didn't contact them early and often.
   I know you were kidding about the late recruiting bonus sentence but hope everyone else knows that as well because that would be way far away from reality.  Every high school kid loves going to a school that tells him "you weren't our first choice, but those others didn't work out so we'll fall back and take you."??  If we want to mimic RL, lets look at what the most successful coaches in rl say are the keys to recruiting and then incorporate those into the sim.  Waiting to see what other schools do will not top the list.  Visiting a kid early and often (building a relationship, getting to know the family) will come up as a top priority in almost every circumstance.
   I agree that we don't want to go to heavy on that "bonus" but I do think there should be a noticeable effect and really like some of the ideas of recruiting costing more later or the mutliplier being increased some to see the effect. 
   

If you are losing four out of every five recruits that you are targeting, then you are doing something VERY wrong.  Sorry, no other way to put it.

Posted by dukenilnil on 6/14/2012 9:43:00 PM (view original):
One thing that hasn't been mentioned but is a large factor in why I dislike late rush recruiting (i agree poaching is a loaded term but all the alternatives are clumsy) is the following:

recruiting in hd should be about more than just who has the most money and prestige (although those should be large factors). Recruiting should reward real world effort too. That is, the guy who signs in every cycle and puts effort into players from the start (making hd a priority in their life during recruiting), should receive a considerable, but not insurmountable credit, over the person who doesn't do anything until later in recruiting.
Right now, you can spend hours each day in recruiting and put a lot of real world effort into it,, only too be overcome by Johnny come lately just before signing. The current system just makes it to easy too lose both aa significant investment off time and some real world money.
A system that rewarded real world effort as described above would have the following benefits :

1) creates an incentive to invest time early and often in hd, boosting page hits and presumably value to wis
2) rewards real world effort, not just a fictitious bank ascent
3) helps the little guy either the lower prestige school or the low scholarship guy) have an option to compete a little bit, i.e., don't have much prestige or money, invest lots of time early and often.
4) increases battles because people will feel like the time commitment is worth it s its not strictly a cash formula.
5) likely increase hd participation because it gives the little guy a chance to be successful earlier by devoting time to the game

N.b. I realize a lot of late comers put in a ton of effort too, but there its certainly a frustration with putting in a lot of effort into one player only to have it be for not. You feel like you wasted all this time and then you factor in the effect a poor recruiting class can have on the program, you can waste a lot of money too
N.b. I am not proposing a radical bonus that would allow early recruiters to block late comers easily, just a stronger boost

Honestly, this might be the absolute WORST idea I have ever heard of in regards to recruiting.  Now you want to give a "bonus" to whomever logs on more?  Are you serious?  So the high school kid who has nothing to do during the summer and can afford to hit every recruiting cycle gets an advantage over the guy who has a family and full time job to deal with?  Absolutely THE WORST idea I have ever seen.  Ever.  Bar none.

Posted by tkimble on 6/15/2012 1:26:00 AM (view original):
Ever tried recruiting late or poaching?  It's already hard as balls, I don't know why you guys want to make it harder.  Protect your recruits and man the **** up.  Sometimes you have to make hard decisions when recruiting, deal with it.  Maybe you think you could beat this other team that showed up on your guy in a battle, but if you do you won't be able to protect your top guy.  Maybe you let guy #2 go to make sure you get your target.  Maybe you go get guy #2, but as a result your top guy gets taken because you spent all your cash getting a guy who wasn't as good.  Tough ****.  If recruiting was easy this game would be no fun.  For all you guys who are saying you spend so much time and effort in recruiting and think you should get a bonus for that, that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.  If you're going to spend all that time on HD, spend it wiser, make a spreadsheet/chart/diary/whatever and figure out which schools near you need what, what battles they're in, what battles they could win or lose, which guys that you want to go after are in danger.  That way, you can be prepared instead of disappointed when that guy you thought was going to be your all-time leading scorer gets nabbed by Duke.  This game is all about recruiting and recruiting is all about strategy and if your strategy isn't working, find a new strategy instead of trying to change the rules.  

This.

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/14/2012 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 6/14/2012 7:41:00 PM (view original):
After some research, I finally found the stats I was looking for:

16.3% of the top-100 recruits in 2011 decommitted. 

This is far higher than the percentages that are lost to poaching each year.  So, if you really want to mimic RL, there should be a recruiting bonus for those who recruit later.

Allblack-- You seem to be the voice of reason and extremely knowledgeable so would respectfully ask-- How do you know what percentage is lost to "poaching" each year? My rate is closer to 80% (of players who initially were interested in my school choosing another school after signing started.  Maybe that just because my prestige sucks but shows that not only am I not recruiting from the same pool of players as those with higher prestige, that even those players  I do spend the money on and convince to take a closer look often go to someone with more money/higher prestige when their first choice doesn't work out. 
   I think it is also important to note when those 16.3% decommitted.  I would like to look at that percentage broken down into who decommitted in the last 50% of the available recruiting time and in the last 25% of recruiting time as that would be a closer approximation to what I believe is being spoken about.  I don't think anyone has a problem with a battle on day one as at least at that point, you haven't dropped your entire wad trying to secure a competitive player.
   I would also imagine that the rate of 'decommittment' decreases in RL as you get further away from the top players and I imagine that those being hurt by poaching are not even considered by the top 100 players available to better teams in the same division.  Even more important, what rate of players that decommitted were never contacted by the school for the first 50% of available recruiting time or had minimal recruiting effort put into them in that first 50%.  A player that is recruited heavily by two schools all along and initially chooses one but then opts to attend the other is not the same in my mind as a player who chooses to go to a school that didn't contact them early and often.
   I know you were kidding about the late recruiting bonus sentence but hope everyone else knows that as well because that would be way far away from reality.  Every high school kid loves going to a school that tells him "you weren't our first choice, but those others didn't work out so we'll fall back and take you."??  If we want to mimic RL, lets look at what the most successful coaches in rl say are the keys to recruiting and then incorporate those into the sim.  Waiting to see what other schools do will not top the list.  Visiting a kid early and often (building a relationship, getting to know the family) will come up as a top priority in almost every circumstance.
   I agree that we don't want to go to heavy on that "bonus" but I do think there should be a noticeable effect and really like some of the ideas of recruiting costing more later or the mutliplier being increased some to see the effect. 
   

To address a few of your points:

1)  I'm shocked that you're losing 80% of your recruits..  I lose recruits all the time, mainly by giving up on battles that I can't win, but I can't remember the last time it happened late in recruiting.  But, when I only need one or two players, I don't recruit early. It's obvious my funds are limited and I'm easy pickings.  I suspect that many coaches who get poached , 1) have limited funds; 2)  spend it all too early

2) As you get away from the top 100 recruits, the percentage of decommitments stays about the same..  83 of the top 502 recruits (16.5%) decommitted.  Of those who committed early (sophomore year), 47% decommitted.  If you compared that to WIS, what is the sophomore year? The first two cycles??

3) Finally, there are 17 recruiting cycles before signing (not including the first cycle). If a coach starts recruiting at 11 a.m. on signing day, 18% of those cycles are still available. I wouldn't consider that to be 'poaching'.  I guess it depends on your definition of poaching. Some coaches think they have a God-given right to a recruit and, ANYTIME another coach wants him, they've been 'poached'.  It reminds me of kids battling for the front seat in the car. "Shotgun! I called it!"

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.

How would that work?  It it was only increasing the "considering credit" it would only effect things if all of their secondary options were already previously spoken for.  I don't see how it would affect uncommitted recruits?

@tbird-- the RL comparisons are not going to do you any favors here at all. If a player is being heavily recruited by Elon and UNC-Charlotte from the time he's a sophomore, but Roy WIlliams and Coach K call at Christmas of his senior year, plenty of guys (I'd say most) would end up taking one of those offers.

There's a guy on UNC now who came as an "invited walk-on" despite offers from Charlotte and several other mid-level schools. He has actually ended up on scholarship both seasons because UNC didn't fill their roster spots... but he didn't know that when he signed, and he's up for renewal each season.

What I'm trying to say is, for most kids, RL prestige is a pretty damn big deal, maybe even moreso than in HD. 

Try a new tack...

All Black--- I appreciate you looking into the stats and that definetely backs up your position.  I agree that trying to relate the real world recruiting time frame to WIS recruiting period is for the most part impossible.  Again, I don't consider anything wrong with grabbing a guy late but wanted to put my experiences out there, as it is one of the frustrating parts of the game for newcomers or coaches starting a new team with poor prestige (which I don't see happen too often). 
    For me, its been a catch 22 of recruiting early to try to get a guy committed or waiting until the end and picking through what is left.  I am not in a position where I am going to come from behind and win a battle against better prestiged/more money teams and have learned that lesson the hard way.

    Angmar-   I definetely think I have made lots of mistakes in recruiting but mostly because I listened to the posts on how to recruit and those are written from a perspective not in line with my (or many weaker teams) situation.  I know it is debated on how much effect prestige plays but I would say it is even larger than is often suggested.  That means if I am a C team, I have a ton of teams above me that are going to, for the most part, have first dibs on a player even with paying less money (and they probably have more to begin with as well).  So, if you are at the bottom or near the bottom of the food chain, it rolls downhill so your targets can be taken by a lot of teams and any of those teams who are "poached" themselves means even more of your targeted guys are going to be recruited away.
   That is why often when veteran coaches take on new teams, they don't take extremely low prestige teams (with a few exceptions).  I have seen multiple times when a veteran coach takes a low prestige team and 2-3 years later after marginal improvement, they move on.  Some of you reading this have to have done that in the past?
   So, I look at recruiting from the bottom as extremely difficult because not only do you need to gauge what level of player you are going to be able to get, if any of the teams above you jump on that player, you have to move on.  Whereas a B+ prestige team with good money (good conference) might only need to worry about a few teams being interested in and "taking" their targeted player, that lower level team has to deal with a lot more teams that have the ability to "poach" their guys.  
   The reason so many of my guys were "taken" early on is that I was trying to get guys with the ratings that everyone told me to get and when I did take a player I actually could sign, veterans say "that guy is a piece of s... why did you recruit him-- drop him asap".  When newbies ask about their recruits and a few of the jerks (we all know who they are) act like the newbie was a complete idiot to take the player, I have often wanted to say, that is not a good recruit for an A school in a good conference but for your team, you did a pretty good job.  Often, that would be closer to the truth than, "you'll never compete with that guy-- what were you thinking?" comments they get.  Then they get told to go read the posts on recruiting, which is only going to make them feel worse because they aren't recruiting on a level playing field and either can't get the guys to consider them or have the guys "poached" at some point during recruiting.  To me, the question of what level of ratings I can get should not be focused on divisions but more detailed on division/conference/prestige.  Yes, I could get a 60 ath, 60 spd guy to talk to me, but no way I am going to sign that guy because 50 teams above me can outbid me if they want.  
   I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the way that works, just that the lack of clarity and the assumption that recruits are "available to all" causes a sharp learning curve to be even sharper.
   I think the point of adding some more value to early effort would ultimately help raise the quality of recruits that a "underdog" team could get and therefore make the game more competitive and fun and recruiting easier for newbies.  Saying you don't want that part of the game easier for newbies is to me like saying "you'll learn the rules as you go along" and so not really a good answer.

I have also been a bit fearful to throw this out there but this has been a relatively peaceful conversation for the most part so here it goes... I also have noticed that every year I have more and more "acceptable" recruits close to my home.  I didn't have a single good guy 10-50 miles from my school for the first two years and now during recruiting, I will have 10 of them.  Yes, I agree that part of that is learning good recruits, but trust me when I say there is a noticeable difference.  I would suggest that the recruit generation formula includes something about human users and what I experienced is a result of that variable.  Veterans wouldn't experience this as much as new users because they know to take previously human-coached teams with higher prestige and do so for the most part.  I know I'll get some arguments here but hoping maybe others have experienced the same thing and if so, that should be added into the discussion boards on recruiting with a bad team.

Anyways, sorry to be long winded, hope that makes sense, and another helpful thread.  I wish I would have had some of the info a year ago.  Have a great Friday everyone and appreciate the tone of this post staying informative and positive rather than going the direction they sometimes do.

Posted by ike1024 on 6/15/2012 1:49:00 AM (view original):
"that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard"

Right up there with the idea that recruiting late with a bunch of money is actually difficult in any way.

It IS difficult. 

The reason is that the defender can move their resources more effectively than the attacker.

The attacker will always have to be prepared to beat a "maximum effort" for any battle with a defender.  The defender gets to make the choice if they accept the battle, and go to the mat for the player or the take their reserve cash and become the attacker somewhere else.

Say the defender has $50k and 3 open.  He gets 3 guys considering for $5k each and has $35k remaining. 

Any would be poacher has to be ready to beat $40k.  If the defender appears to let the guy go, the poacher has to be prepared he could come back at any time, limiting his chance to get a second player.

You can only grab 1 recruit late per team usually, unless its a true UNC knocking off Charlotte mismatch.  If the defender in my example thinks the attacker has $50k, then take your $35k and grab someone else.  Don't whine. 

I spent $70,000+ trying to late poach another team in D1 Allen.  With an A+ prestige....and failed, because the defender cut off his other battles to focus on mine.  That is a risk the attacker takes that they have zero control over.  The defender has all the control.  That makes being the defender the better position tactically, but its tough to get into the defender position all the time. 

HD recruiting is all about resource ($$$ times prestige) allocation in an auction type format.  It is super fun and my favorite thing about this game.

I like the current system.

third9423-
   Your postings are insightful and well-written. You're a WIS super-star in the making. It'd be an honor to be in your conference.

The current system has worked well for years. The game however has changed / evolved at the high level D1.
Some of you who like it like it is are either in D3, D2, or the A+ poachers themselves.
A small amount more of considering credit to help fend off the overpowered A+ poacher would only be better for the game.
As most of us know that have been here very long, several of you aren't interested in that..... and there are really no surprises here.
The only surprise in this entire thread is that I have always known if I lived long enough I would one day read a post from Al I didn't 100% agree with....LOL

tbird ~ your post is very well thought out.  You are going to do well.

Posted by mizzou77 on 6/15/2012 10:32:00 AM (view original):
The current system has worked well for years. The game however has changed / evolved at the high level D1.
Some of you who like it like it is are either in D3, D2, or the A+ poachers themselves.
A small amount more of considering credit to help fend off the overpowered A+ poacher would only be better for the game.
As most of us know that have been here very long, several of you aren't interested in that..... and there are really no surprises here.
The only surprise in this entire thread is that I have always known if I lived long enough I would one day read a post from Al I didn't 100% agree with....LOL

I am not sure why you call it poaching when an A+ takes a recruit ... I just call it recruiting.

I mean, look at Terrance Jones committing to Kentucky over Washington, etc.

If Duke, or UNC, or Kansas, or Kentucky (ie, A+ teams) come calling ... recruits listen.

It is hard to get an A+ team in HD ... the coaches have to be good for a long period of time to get there.  They have all been at the B or C level and had recruits taken.  They eventually got their team to A+.  Why SHOULDN'T they be able to take whatever recruit they want ... they have earned it.

Posted by reinsel on 6/15/2012 9:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ike1024 on 6/15/2012 1:49:00 AM (view original):
"that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard"

Right up there with the idea that recruiting late with a bunch of money is actually difficult in any way.

It IS difficult. 

The reason is that the defender can move their resources more effectively than the attacker.

The attacker will always have to be prepared to beat a "maximum effort" for any battle with a defender.  The defender gets to make the choice if they accept the battle, and go to the mat for the player or the take their reserve cash and become the attacker somewhere else.

Say the defender has $50k and 3 open.  He gets 3 guys considering for $5k each and has $35k remaining. 

Any would be poacher has to be ready to beat $40k.  If the defender appears to let the guy go, the poacher has to be prepared he could come back at any time, limiting his chance to get a second player.

You can only grab 1 recruit late per team usually, unless its a true UNC knocking off Charlotte mismatch.  If the defender in my example thinks the attacker has $50k, then take your $35k and grab someone else.  Don't whine. 

I spent $70,000+ trying to late poach another team in D1 Allen.  With an A+ prestige....and failed, because the defender cut off his other battles to focus on mine.  That is a risk the attacker takes that they have zero control over.  The defender has all the control.  That makes being the defender the better position tactically, but its tough to get into the defender position all the time. 

HD recruiting is all about resource ($$$ times prestige) allocation in an auction type format.  It is super fun and my favorite thing about this game.

Everything you said is absolutely true. 

And I'm not ****** about losing guys that way.  There seems to be a misconception that those of us arguing for an increased considering credit think that "poaching" is wrong.  I don't.  I just lost a superstud recruit in Allen D2 at the last second to a guy who was closer and had more scholarships.  I didn't battle because I knew I couldn't win.  I would have done the same thing if I was that guy, and I congrtulated him on nabbing a great player.

But how is the defender better in your situation?  He has to abandon other battles, which he presumably lost, to protect his player?  Does he get to make th strategic decision which of his players he wants to lose?  Sure, but that's not a good position to be in.  Whereas the attacker is the one forcing the decision-making.  I guess I just don't see how the defender is in a better position in that situation.