Posted by darnoc29099 on 9/22/2017 2:18:00 PM (view original):
If preferences favor App St then yes, they can absolutely compete against UNC for recruits.

Of course.

Rebuild, long-time coach, distance, etc, etc.

But we know, in most cases, UNC wins. Or at least is a heavy favorite. Best case scenario for App State is a multi-team(3+) battle and they win a 22% chance opportunity.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/22/2017 10:15:00 AM (view original):
I have no experience in 3.0 at D1 but I think I cracked the code.

You need good players, right?

It took me almost a year to figure it out, several seasons at D2/D3, but I'm pretty sure I got it right.

MikeT is good at cracking the anal code.

Shouldn't you be spending your time figuring out how to cheat again rather than thinking about *****?

I keep seeing people saying that D1 recruiting is somehow different than it is at D2/D3, but nobody seems to be saying how it's different.

Anybody care to enlighten the rest of us?

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I keep seeing people saying that D1 recruiting is somehow different than it is at D2/D3, but nobody seems to be saying how it's different.

Anybody care to enlighten the rest of us?

Why do you think nearly all the top teams in D3 play Press and nearly all the top teams in D1 play M2M?

If you can answer that then you'll be closer to understanding than your buddy Mike.

Not looking for playing mind games, i.e. answering questions with questions.

How about a straight forward answer? What's so different in D1 recruiting from the lower levels?

Okay if you legitimately want to know..

The reason that playing press is more difficult at D1 is because you need a deeper team to run it properly and be effective.

There is such a drop off in talent level from the "top guys" (Not necessarily ranked in the top 100) that having these elite players drastically increases your chances of winning. So these players are highly sought after. More teams going for the same top players means more battles and more competition (which was what Seble wanted with 3.0). A strategy that many people use is to just bank resources using walkons. So you have 4 openings and just hope to get 2 players after battles and what not.

Basically in order to compete for a deep run in a NT, you need to compete heavily for your players or else you won't field a good team.

In D2/D3 there are SO many more of these "Final Four quality" players available to you so you don't really need to get into crazy battles all the time. A lot of times at D3, your 2nd or 3rd option isn't THAT much worse than your 1st option. You can sign your backup options with very little penalty to your team success.

TL/DR - High level players are more scarce in D1 than in D2/D3.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):
Not looking for playing mind games, i.e. answering questions with questions.

How about a straight forward answer? What's so different in D1 recruiting from the lower levels?

A few differences off the top of my head (I only coach DI, so my DII/III knowledge is extremely limited, and there are likely many more):

In DI, recruits are much less fungible. There are 25/50 "elite" recruits in any given year, and those recruits are significantly better than all other DI recruits. If you want to win an NT in DI, you (almost certainly) need to be recruiting from that pool of recruits. In DII/DIII, it's my understanding that the recruiting pool is much deeper, as lower level DI recruits are playable for DII/DIII teams.

Additionally, I've heard it said that the strategy in DII/DIII is to wait for DI recruits to "fall" to the lower levels -- in DI, one viable strategy is to spend lots of APs/$$ as soon as possible to scare off possible competition. The idea is that a B team will see A+ UNC already having offered a scholly, and will back off from a potential battle.

I assume the larger budgets in DI play a significant role as well, but I can't really speak to that -- I assume the strategy with spending money is much different, though.

I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

Mike is the only one who ever said it was rocket science. It's just different.

Grab a FB/Press D1 team and you'll see.

This is kinda like someone who has run a 5K telling someone else they know what it's like to run a marathon. Understanding that you get really, really tired in a marathon isn't "rocket science" but when you have experience doing it, you just understand what it's like better.

But w/e. Do what you want.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

It isn't magically different, but it absolutely is different for all of the reasons benis and I stated (and probably others). To answer your last question, though, I'll repost what I posted this morning in another thread:

"Here's what will happen in a full 3.0 DI w/re elite recruits: certain teams will win their dice rolls and be loaded; certain teams will split them (win 1, lose 1) and have a team with a few studs and a bunch of holes, and certain teams will go 0-fer. Currently, the teams that go 0-fer have alternatives (not great alternatives, but alternatives), because it's so easy to push SIM off recruits -- those backups will be much harder to obtain in a full DI, since you'll be falling back against humans. Multiply this over a few years, and you're going to have even more coach frustration than you do now (and a couple of monstrous teams that were lucky, went 6-0 in dice rolls over a couple years, and are nearly unbeatable). Additionally, right now there is a viable strategy of building up a team via picking up non-elite players who will be decently strong (700-750 overall) by their senior years -- those teams can make runs (probably can't win NTs, but you can make some S16s). While there's some competition for those recruits, it's often SIMs, or you can snag a few recruits w/o any competition at all. That path will be closed in a full DI, because you won't be able to win anyone playable without full-out battles."

This is already happening in DI -- in 2.0, there were 15/20 elite teams (or so), all of whom had a shot at the NT, then a big gap to the next tier -- much harder to make a S16. In 3.0, there's a much larger pool of teams that can make the S16, but a smaller pool of true NT contenders. More people in DI will heighten this effect.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):
Not looking for playing mind games, i.e. answering questions with questions.

How about a straight forward answer? What's so different in D1 recruiting from the lower levels?

You don't need to consider the impact of early entries in DII and DIII. It really does impact strategy. Do you go after the best player and potentially have a hole in your roster in two seasons or do you go after a slightly lower grade prospect that you might be able to develop for all four years. In DII and DIII, you simply go after the best talent available.

Posted by Benis on 9/22/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):
This is kinda like someone who has run a 5K telling someone else they know what it's like to run a marathon. Understanding that you get really, really tired in a marathon isn't "rocket science" but when you have experience doing it, you just understand what it's like better.

But w/e. Do what you want.

Yeah, sounds wickedly different. You want good players at D1 and you have to compete for them. Nothing like that in D2 or D3. Cra-cra different.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/22/2017 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):
Not looking for playing mind games, i.e. answering questions with questions.

How about a straight forward answer? What's so different in D1 recruiting from the lower levels?

You don't need to consider the impact of early entries in DII and DIII. It really does impact strategy. Do you go after the best player and potentially have a hole in your roster in two seasons or do you go after a slightly lower grade prospect that you might be able to develop for all four years. In DII and DIII, you simply go after the best talent available.

OK, that's fair. But that's only one thing.