recruiting - anti poaching suggestion Topic

Because the defender can decline the battle and get 2 players for cheap and still have $35k to get someone else. 

The attacker is committed and has lost all flexibility.  If someone comes after the attacker, he is screwed.  The defender can now just sit and wait for someone else to look vulnerable.  The defender can promise a start and 30 minutes and wait for the attacker might over committ to the battle to get ahead.  Then the defender can steal one of the attackers other guys since the attacker might have spent $15-20k on the poach target, and only have $20k left to defend.

One thing that does need to be reformed is the amount of effort alowed per cycle.  Its too easy to poach really really late, like 6pm signings day.

Flexibility is SO critical in recruiting.  The biggest mistake I see coaches make is get locked into a recruit after they spend 4% of their budget on him.  They throw good money after bad and get ****** when they lose the battle.  MUCH smarter, as much as it hurts, to not fight a battle you know you are going to lose, and go somewhere else.  Don't lose your flexibility.

Now don't take that to mean never battle.  If you can defend your guys, crush the poacher.
6/15/2012 12:19 PM (edited)
I for one am the one doing the poaching and not getting poached ... but I'm for additional considering credit because I think it is good for the (DI) game (and also just makes a lot of common sense).

And reinsel, the defender does NOT have all the control. At all. In your Allen situation, you opted to try and poach in a very difficult situation vs. a team with a huge budget. You took a high reward risk, which is fine and I don't blame you for it. If you simply poach recruits that you know you can win, then the poacher has all of the control, and the defender is helpless. Can you remember the last time I tried to poach a guy and wasn't able to? There are guys I could've gone after (jamespastine's sg and Illinois' pg come to mind) this time around that I liked better than the guy I took from UConn. But I knew 100% I'd have no problem with UConn, and the other guys were coin flips, sort of like your attempt vs. Miami.

The defender only has some control if you as the poacher pick a situation that allows for him to have some.
6/15/2012 12:21 PM

But then it just is someone with more money beating someone with less.  And early or late, its just going to happen.  If you aren't comparing teams with equal resources, of course the team with more will win, and early or late it doesn't matter.

Your grab vs. UConn was a classic poach where the strong (A+ 150k?) took from the weak (A+ 100k?).  What's to see?  You want to prevent that?

6/15/2012 12:26 PM
I like the idea of considering credit because it does make sense intuitively --- IRL you hear quotes all the time from recruits who at least pay lip service to the idea that being on a guy early is a good thing.  Plus, putting money into a guy for more than one cycle feels more like you are actually "recruiting" the guy rather than buying him at the last minute.

The idea about giving extra credit for a coach who spends *every* cycle makes sense if the recruiting season lasted weeks, but not with the current system that is only a matter of days.  I don't want to have to set an alarm to get up at 1 am just to put in my effort for that cycle.  Not to mention all the cycles that people miss for all kinds of other reasons.

With regard to the comment that RL recruits "decommit" more than HD recruits, I think the flaw with the current system is that there are not *enough* battles.  And I mean that in the sense of multiple schools being all over a guy from day one, not in the sense of there not being enough "poaching."  There is probably too much of a sense of "entitlement" that people get about "their guys" because the system has evolved to the point where the vast majority of recruits are not battled for.  And the reason there are so few battles are because (1) coaches generally keep their powder dry for their top options; and (2) coaches don't want to look vulnerable by having 10 guys considering them.

The system could be better by not rewarding coaches for only having 1 target, which is pretty far removed from real life.  You could probably make things better by giving teams a certain number of absolutely free effort.  If each team could get 5 guys to consider without actually blowing the budget, you'd end up seeing a lot more battling.  But then again, I tend to be more of a "real-lifer" than a total "whatif every school was completely even" person.
6/15/2012 12:41 PM
I see the phrase "IRL" being thrown around a lot. Last time I looked we were playing an online simulation game and these comparisons to real-life recruiting are rather silly, in my opinion. And real-life comparisons to the job process, gameplanning, etc. etc. I've always looked at getting poached like this-if another Coach comes in and puts forth the effort (time and dollar-wise) to pry a recruit away from me then he must have wanted him more.  That's my fault for not doing enough to get that player "tight" with my program. And if you're getting poached then you know at the very least you're going after good players.  All you can do is protect the players you're going after, because as someone else mentioned-they're all fair game until they're signed.
6/15/2012 2:15 PM
p6453, if you are going to call it a "simulation" game then you are inviting people to compare it to real life.  Otherwise what is the game simulating?
6/15/2012 3:51 PM
Oh man, let's argue semantics now.  How about we just call it a game then?
6/15/2012 4:21 PM
Well put jcfeder.
I'll just leave it with poaching happens whether Coaches like it or not. I've been poached but don't mind it happening.
6/15/2012 4:39 PM
Currently I'm not sure how the defending team would have any advantages if the "attack" is done during the signing cycle.
And that's generally when I see most of the D1 moves made.

They basically can; 1) commit all in, in what could be an unwinnable battle,  2) look for a much lower rated recruit that didn't sign and isn't considering anyone, 3) look to get involved in a remaining recruiting battle.
6/15/2012 4:56 PM (edited)
I wish people get away from the idea that those of us who are arguing for increased considering credit think poaching is wrong.  The issues are clearly distinct.
6/15/2012 4:59 PM
Posted by reinsel on 6/15/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):

But then it just is someone with more money beating someone with less.  And early or late, its just going to happen.  If you aren't comparing teams with equal resources, of course the team with more will win, and early or late it doesn't matter.

Your grab vs. UConn was a classic poach where the strong (A+ 150k?) took from the weak (A+ 100k?).  What's to see?  You want to prevent that?

No ... it's someone with more money at that moment in time. A three schollie school can easily poach a five schollie school, assuming that five schollie school is in other batles. But it's the waiting until late in recruiting that allows that poach to happen.
6/15/2012 5:39 PM
Posted by jcfreder on 6/15/2012 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I like the idea of considering credit because it does make sense intuitively --- IRL you hear quotes all the time from recruits who at least pay lip service to the idea that being on a guy early is a good thing.  Plus, putting money into a guy for more than one cycle feels more like you are actually "recruiting" the guy rather than buying him at the last minute.

The idea about giving extra credit for a coach who spends *every* cycle makes sense if the recruiting season lasted weeks, but not with the current system that is only a matter of days.  I don't want to have to set an alarm to get up at 1 am just to put in my effort for that cycle.  Not to mention all the cycles that people miss for all kinds of other reasons.

With regard to the comment that RL recruits "decommit" more than HD recruits, I think the flaw with the current system is that there are not *enough* battles.  And I mean that in the sense of multiple schools being all over a guy from day one, not in the sense of there not being enough "poaching."  There is probably too much of a sense of "entitlement" that people get about "their guys" because the system has evolved to the point where the vast majority of recruits are not battled for.  And the reason there are so few battles are because (1) coaches generally keep their powder dry for their top options; and (2) coaches don't want to look vulnerable by having 10 guys considering them.

The system could be better by not rewarding coaches for only having 1 target, which is pretty far removed from real life.  You could probably make things better by giving teams a certain number of absolutely free effort.  If each team could get 5 guys to consider without actually blowing the budget, you'd end up seeing a lot more battling.  But then again, I tend to be more of a "real-lifer" than a total "whatif every school was completely even" person.
Agreed w. all of this, Fredericks. Surprisingly good insights from a Minnesota fan.

The biggest reason there aren't more battles is because if you lose a battle in HD, you're completely screwed. In real life, if UNC and Kansas both go after the #1 pg and UNC gets him, Kansas is still going to be able to land a strong player in his place. In HD if that happens, Kansas is looking at either a subpar player or a walk-on. When the penalty to losing a battle is that incredibly heavy, it's going to discourage people from battling.

I don't have a bright idea on how to fix that part of things, but until they do, they were always be fewer battles.
6/15/2012 5:45 PM
Had heard from a long-time coach that early money had a multiplier effect after a certain period--end of 1st day, whatever.  Maybe that is a myth, along with the theory that a sim spends 75% of their money the first cycle.  But it does mean a "poacher" has somewhat more effort to put in if they start late.  BTW, to me, the term, "poach" only applies to those that jump a conference mate.  I try to get in early, and get my targets "considering" me in the first few cycles, but then have to worry about just how much continuing effort to put in later to keep them.  Sometimes hard to tell if other schools are sniffing around..  Since HD has made more of an effort to upgrade sims, they are latching on to more of my targets than previously, with no distance penalty (unfair),  prompting me to think about grabbing a recruit from some school outside my conference that is involved in a battle or two.  The dumbing down of recruits has made life more difficult along the recruiting trail.  Decent low D1 players that sometimes would sign with a high prestige D2 school are now being totally snarky.  Supposedly HD has done this deliberately to encourage more battles (and more "poaching"), so we will have to live with it.  Personally, don't like to grab a recruit from another coach, but this is the New Reality in HD.   
6/16/2012 10:18 AM
Posted by tedlukacs on 6/16/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Had heard from a long-time coach that early money had a multiplier effect after a certain period--end of 1st day, whatever.  Maybe that is a myth, along with the theory that a sim spends 75% of their money the first cycle.  But it does mean a "poacher" has somewhat more effort to put in if they start late.  BTW, to me, the term, "poach" only applies to those that jump a conference mate.  I try to get in early, and get my targets "considering" me in the first few cycles, but then have to worry about just how much continuing effort to put in later to keep them.  Sometimes hard to tell if other schools are sniffing around..  Since HD has made more of an effort to upgrade sims, they are latching on to more of my targets than previously, with no distance penalty (unfair),  prompting me to think about grabbing a recruit from some school outside my conference that is involved in a battle or two.  The dumbing down of recruits has made life more difficult along the recruiting trail.  Decent low D1 players that sometimes would sign with a high prestige D2 school are now being totally snarky.  Supposedly HD has done this deliberately to encourage more battles (and more "poaching"), so we will have to live with it.  Personally, don't like to grab a recruit from another coach, but this is the New Reality in HD.   
It's not supposed to be a myth Ted, that's the considering credit that everyone has been talking about.
6/16/2012 3:02 PM
but I believe the sims spending 75% of their money in first cycle is bogus.
6/16/2012 3:21 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8
recruiting - anti poaching suggestion Topic

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.