Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

No it isn't. If you do that against me in D2, you will get the guy I haven't invested in, because I didn't invest in him, and set the price very low. He wasn't a big enough priority. So I'll say oh well and move on to the next one.

If its a guy I've invested in, you probably won't get him. You may get into signing range, if you're in a strong enough position with the recruit. But if you've assumed that I'm just trying to slip by with the minimum, you'll probably lose. Not that it can't work, but there is a risk to that strategy.

So you always max out your top targets in the 1st session... interesting. Good to know.

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

No it isn't. If you do that against me in D2, you will get the guy I haven't invested in, because I didn't invest in him, and set the price very low. He wasn't a big enough priority. So I'll say oh well and move on to the next one.

If its a guy I've invested in, you probably won't get him. You may get into signing range, if you're in a strong enough position with the recruit. But if you've assumed that I'm just trying to slip by with the minimum, you'll probably lose. Not that it can't work, but there is a risk to that strategy.

So you always max out your top targets in the 1st session... interesting. Good to know.

You're welcome, Duke.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

No it isn't. If you do that against me in D2, you will get the guy I haven't invested in, because I didn't invest in him, and set the price very low. He wasn't a big enough priority. So I'll say oh well and move on to the next one.

If its a guy I've invested in, you probably won't get him. You may get into signing range, if you're in a strong enough position with the recruit. But if you've assumed that I'm just trying to slip by with the minimum, you'll probably lose. Not that it can't work, but there is a risk to that strategy.

So you always max out your top targets in the 1st session... interesting. Good to know.

You're welcome, Duke.

Thanks a bunch court jester

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

No it isn't. If you do that against me in D2, you will get the guy I haven't invested in, because I didn't invest in him, and set the price very low. He wasn't a big enough priority. So I'll say oh well and move on to the next one.

If its a guy I've invested in, you probably won't get him. You may get into signing range, if you're in a strong enough position with the recruit. But if you've assumed that I'm just trying to slip by with the minimum, you'll probably lose. Not that it can't work, but there is a risk to that strategy.

So you always max out your top targets in the 1st session... interesting. Good to know.

You're welcome, Duke.

Thanks a bunch court jester

*yawn*

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

Well, except in the case of chapel vs me. He held me off long enough until a D1 stepped in. Nothing is foolproof.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/20/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

No it isn't. If you do that against me in D2, you will get the guy I haven't invested in, because I didn't invest in him, and set the price very low. He wasn't a big enough priority. So I'll say oh well and move on to the next one.

If its a guy I've invested in, you probably won't get him. You may get into signing range, if you're in a strong enough position with the recruit. But if you've assumed that I'm just trying to slip by with the minimum, you'll probably lose. Not that it can't work, but there is a risk to that strategy.

So you always max out your top targets in the 1st session... interesting. Good to know.

You're welcome, Duke.

Thanks a bunch court jester

*yawn*

*burp*

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2017 11:32:00 PM (view original):
There's also a gamble. I just went thru it with chapel.

We were both moderate at the end of RS1.
I dumped 20 HV and a CV in the 1st cycle before AP process in RS2.
I never caught chapel and used a lot of resources.
I got my walk-on.

For benis.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/20/2017 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
The response is, if you want a player, put effort in that will get that player. If someone puts in more effort, that's a "you" problem.

I laid out a scenario where I dumped 20 HV and a CV on a guy and DID NOT get him. No idea what chapel did, nor do I care, but dumping 20 HV and a CV in the cycle before he signs is NOT foolproof. You win some, you lose some. And you lose when you're outrecruited.

It's very foolproof when its DII vs DII.

Well, except in the case of chapel vs me. He held me off long enough until a D1 stepped in. Nothing is foolproof.

Also for benis.

Posted by Benis on 6/20/2017 7:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/19/2017 10:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/19/2017 9:42:00 PM (view original):
I am not complaining because I got burned by this ****. One of the main reasons Seble himself said we needed 3.0 was to eliminate eBay style sniping. We did except for one division and one cycle. I abuse the **** out of this thing but it isn't that fun.

DII recruiting is this:

Put 1 AP on 35 guys. Pick the best ones with no DI to target. Put enough APs on to unlock Home Visit. Wait 5 days and check every 6 hours to make sure no DI team is on your recruits. Drop 10 HVs on two guys first cycle second session who have unsuspecting poor old DII guys on them who though they were safe. The poor coaches don't get a chance to respond. Why do I have all this money? Oh, because taking 1-2 walkons each year is ******* OP. I'm just going to run 10 guys slowdown with a walk on and redshirt each year now. Oh, what strategic fun!

Note: What takes this to another level is not offering a 'ship to make it appear you have no interest.

****** Moderate Yes
****** Very Low No

If you are the top team would you drop 10 HVs on all the recruits that look like this to be safe? NOPE!

As TJ has said, that's one strategy. But it's not the only one, nor is it the best.

What's the best strategy?

There isn't. At least not universally. That's what makes the game great. One strategy doesn't work all the time.

Ebay style hasn't left, it just changed from cash to AP and a cap was put on visits. The argument that if you really wanted the guy, you should have invested more, is the exact same argument as before. I can still drop 20 visits out of nowhere whenever I want to surprise someone and possibly steal a player, while dropping more AP simply because I have more openings, which is equivalent to dropping more cash as before. Nothing wrong with the strategy. It's the nature of the game.

Even Madden Ultimate Team gives you 15 seconds to respond after there is a vid with under 15 seconds. Fantasy Baseball auctions on ESPN give you 10 seconds after a bid under 10 seconds. In real basketball, what percentage of players commit on campus because they are so swayed by a coach? 5%? 10%?

I agree with Cub, but only to a point. "Poaching", while always a part of the game, has been mitigated somewhat by the artificial cap of 1 CV and 20 HV but rest assured that strategy still exists.

"The argument that if you really wanted the guy, you should have invested more, is the exact same argument as before."

It's not exactly the same, unless you're using "exact same" the way kids these days use "literally".

Important differences:
1. There are now only certain instances where you know exactly which cycle the player will sign, namely when you're a lower division school recruiting a higher division recruit who preferred to sign in an earlier session. It used to apply at every level, for every player. Sniping in the previous version made D1 recruiting miserable to play, and it's a non-factor at that level now. 3.0 win.
2. There is no "word on the street" to give you hints about which players are vulnerable.
3. It isn't easy to see players another school is recruiting, or teams it's battling to give you hints about which teams are vulnerable.
4. The caps mean a team with one scholarship can stand on equal footing in a battle for its top priority with a team of equal prestige and preference match with 6 open scholarships. A D2 team with one scholarship can go all in, or nearly all in on local kids, and can't be blown out of the water by a team with overwhelming scholarship resources. The most he can do, if I have actually prioritized the recruit, is roll with me. And no, that isn't the "exact same" as before.

I agree it's still a sort of bidding process, for better or worse (worse, I think, but that's a different topic). It's still a commodities game, at least the recruiting side is, because that's what most players seem to want. At least it's rational and realistic now, where the "commodities" - in this case, 18-21 year old pixilated basketball players - have their own priorities, agendas, agency, and retain a level of unpredictability.

So no. Sniping is not the "exact same" as it used to be, so the arguments made in response to it are not the "exact same" either.

There's no crying in basketball.

Adam Morrison disagrees.