I wanted to get some opinions about something that happened to me under another ID.  I've enjoyed playing HD alot even though my MU team has gotten worse the last couple of seasons but that is for another post.

Anyways, without thinking I created another ID to get another team in another world and went through the recruiting process.  I had 3 or 4 guys considering only me and thought I was in good shape.  So when the cycle recruits sign happens I notice I had 1 less signee then I expected.  I looked at my recruiting summary and noticed he was now considering us among others.  When I looked at who the other school was I noticed it was a coach with over 30 seasons with that school.  I wasn't happy that I had to battle for him but I realize that is part of the game.  I eventually lost the battle and had to settle for a lower but still decent recruit.

My question is...what do you think about a coach with that much experience...I'll use the term "Urban Meyering" (cause he's a genius at flipping recruits)...a recruit at the last minute from a much less experienced coach?  I'm not sure I'd do it but wanted to get some thoughts.  Thanks!

a coach is a coach and a recruit is a recruit. Until they sign they are all fair game to the highest bidder. 

I agree as long as they are abiding by the same rules as you then everything is fair.

fairplay

This is the same discussion that's been had over and over again many times.

Call it "Urban Meyering" or "poaching" or whatever you want, there is nothing wrong with it.

Most coaches, however, will not attempt to battle someone for a recruit unless they see good reason to do it. If there are comparable recruits you don't have to battle for, it's a waste of your money to fight a battle to get one guy when you can get another similar guy for much less. If nothing else you have more to carry over to the next season, and that could be critical the next season.

I wouldn't personally do that without a really good reason, like maybe if I couldn't recruit at all for the first day and a half.  There are so many recruits out there that you can almost always find something else comparable without ******* in someone's Cheerios.

I never do it to another coach at D3, but that is my own preference.  The only exception is if another coach does it to me.  Then, I won't hesitate to recruit someone considering him in the future, if that recruit is high on my wish list and I know I can win the battle.  I don't see anything wrong with it, I just thnk there are enough good recruits out there. 

The reason I don't do it at D3 is because when I started 7 years ago, there were fewer Worlds, and it was tougher to get promoted to D2 and D1.  So D3 was crowded with coaches.  I saw a lot of veteran coaches who took advantage of new coaches to poach their recuits if they were in other battles, or didn't know what they were doing. New coaches would get frustrated having 4 opennings and run over the coals by a couple of veteran coaches and come away with no signings. The new coaches had a tough enough time winning  and learning the game anyway and this just added to it.  Hence, they would quit.  I tried to take new coaches under my wing and help them to try to keep them in the game,  just like Al Black and a few veteran coaches did with me, so it was frustrating for me to watch.  So I never did it, and still don't at D3.  D2 and D1 is different, but I don't play there any more. 

Like these guys are saying, don't count your chickens before they hatch

I'm all for mentoring new coaches, and in general I try to avoid all battles whenever possible, but the truth of it is that more and more often there are fewer recruits that meet my standards without having to battle, even at DIII. My D III teams are in pretty competitive conferences and worlds mostly though, so I guess that might make a difference. I am sympathetic regarding new coaches getting crushed and losing interest, but I pay to play too so my primary concern is improving my team's chances to win a title. If I can do that without getting into battles, that's great, but I won't shy away. Honestly, at high BCS DI the recruiting battles (figuring out who might be vulnerable and who you can beat) is one of the more interesting aspects for me. I've seen it compared to poker (which I don't play often but have dabbled) and I think that's probably apt. 

I have less than a handful of seasons, but have battled over a few recruits. In particular, there was a younger coach that had 7 FR recruits considering him. Two periods before signing I did enough to get his best to consider me. The other six signed right away. Do I feel badly, not really. He signed a full class.

It is what it is. I try to do whats in my interest and manage recruiting that way.

There needs to be more recruting battles. Read ESPN and review the 150 in any sports, multiple teams after the same guy. I just beat out a A+ team for a recuit this season and it made me feel like i had won a NT game. I enjoy the battles, make you calculate every step in recuting much more than just throwing money at a recruit until he decides he favors you.

I just moved up to D2 in GD and a coach just did this to me a couple of days ago. I'm not upset, but I am going to schedule a non-conference game with him and then beat his @ss.

I like battles occasionally, but there is also something to be said for coaches who take the time to find quality recruits they don't have to battle for. I guess what I'm saying is you shouldn't have to battle for every single quality recruit - there should be enough of them (of varying abilities) a good coach who wants to do so should be able to find some they don't have to battle for it that is what they want to do.

I know several guys have a specific strategy of having two classes of six recruits so they get lots of cash and they scout many states and look specifically for quality guys that no one else wants and they avoid battles most of the time on purpose, because there are enough quality guys to be had they don't feel the need to battle.

That strategy shouldn't go away if someone wants to use it. The idea of different strategies working is part of what makes the game more interesting.

I appreciate all the comments made.  Like I said before, I was a little unhappy when it happened but I know it's part of the game and I moved on.  I don't mind a battle or two here and there and it does make the recruiting process more interesting because at least I was looking forward to every cycle to see what happened.  In the end I realized I was running short of money and had a feeling I would lose so I used my last $200 to send another recurit some phone calls and a schollie and signed him...so in the end I got a recruit and he's making good progress so far.

So this brings up another question I had...when you are in a battle with someone else...do you make a recruit action like a phone call, HV or CV every cycle or do you wait a cycle or 2 before making continuing efforts?  Obviously it depends on your budget but are you less likely to land the recruit if you do an action every 2 or 3 cycles to prolong it or try to do something every cycle hoping he likes the attention and signs?

Fight me early-fine, we both like the same recruit and all is fair, we both know what we are getting in to, choose to fight me late-fine but I will remember and the favor will be returned at some point...