I will probably never win a championship, but I win enough to enjoy the game and to justify spending my money to play. I have accepted that 2.0 is gone and 3.0 is the existing version of Hoops Dynasty. I took over Clemson in Crum during season 86 after a successful run at UCF. This was a few seasons after the transition to 3.0. I went 4-23 as a C+ team that had been led to the championship game by a Sim in season 81. After seven tough seasons, I finally make the NT and play in the Sweet 16. My team is now B+ prestige. I need three recruits as season 92 begins. I plan on going after two players and have some backups in mind.

Starner is an early signer in my backyard. Clemson is good for long time coach and the 15 minutes playing time I offered gets me to very good. I give him 20 HVs and 1 CV. Starner signs with C- Florida. I lose the “coin toss” 58-42.

Brundidge is an incredible Canadian player who is 800 miles from Clemson but a late signer. Normally, I wouldn't have looked twice at a player of this caliber, but his preferences include VG for defense and conference strength and good for success. With a guaranteed start and twenty minutes, I am very good for playing time. In addition to the good preferences, I give him 20 HV’s. Going into the second recruiting period, Clemson is VH with 850 APs. A- prestige Pitt makes a late push to get to moderate. Brundidge signs with Pitt. I lose 67-33.

I believe I go into the second recruiting session as moderate with a scholly offered and one HV with Joseph Sweeting. Mt. Olive an A+ prestige DII school is also moderate with a scholly offered. I begin the second recruiting session by offering three more HVs and a CV. Sweeting signs with Mt. Olive during the first signing session.

Pittsburgh manages to crush it during the first signing cycle on a recruit I offered the moon to, but Clemson as a DI team can't reasonably stave off a recruit from signing with DII powerhouse for one more cycle. Why? If prestige matters so much that Pitt could destroy me, why didn't it help me against Florida or Mt. Olive?

On top of all of this, I lose my very first EE of all-time. A guy who precipitously fell off the big board during the course of the season. This went from being a memorable season to one that I won't be able to forget for all of the wrong reasons. The two players I have been able to sign, just to have more than eight players, would be great DII players but they will not make meaningful contributions in the ACC.

What should I have done to increase my chances of winning?

Shorten your bench. Go local, with three schollies, international is a gamble cause you can't put as many $$$ as a team with more schollies. It's a set back but you are on your way. SC, Georgia kids, Tennessee and NC kids, sometimes close, you need to go for.

The problem with three schollies is 80 ap. I normally don't spread my ap too much and key on battles I think I will win.

I’m not nearly as concerned about the APs as I am the scholarship $ with only 3 recruits, going after a guy at a significant distance disadvantage. At 800 miles, you’re burning through a huge chunk of your resources, and keep in mind Canadians are always going to be “local” for some Big 6 team, so the really good ones are going to be very hard to get cheap.

With 3 scholarships, my plan is usually to try to target 2 guys I’m willing to go all in for, 2 lower level targets I think I may be able to lock in for cheap, and then 4-5 backups. Depending on signing tendencies, that usually looks like 50-60 APs on the top guys, 15-20 on the tier 2 guys, and 5-10 on the backups. If I’m expecting an EE, one of those tier 2 guys will be someone I’ll be willing to go all-in for in the late session, so obviously I’m looking for a late signer in that spot.

Most years I’m willing to offer promises to those all-in guys, including a start. And 25 minutes is worth quite a bit more than 20 and 15. If you’re not offering solid promises to those top level guys, you’re open to getting beaten by lower prestige teams.

This thread is great! I love to learn on the forums. As someone who has only coached D2 and D3, it's informative and interesting to read D1 recruiting strategies on the forums. Thank you for posting!

If only more of the forums were productive. If only less of the forums were bickering loudly about what "could be" "would be" changed by seble, as if he is reading every fight posted here. ??

The one mistake coaches at D-1 will make is just because you've had some success, for instance going from a D- to B+ or A- prestige doesn't mean you can land any recruit you want. Coaches often fall into that trap. Yeah, you probably can get to "high" against an A+ prestige team, but over time the odds are against you. Even if you land that one stud player, is he really going to make that much of an impact, considering you need at least 9 other guys?

It’s not a mistake for a B+ level team to challenge for a top level recruit, even against an A+. Nothing wrong with taking some calculated risks, and at B+ you are pretty much assured of being able to get in signing range with a 1 in 4 or better shot. The mistake is if you take those shots without knowing the risks, and preparing for contingencies.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/15/2017 9:33:00 AM (view original):
It’s not a mistake for a B+ level team to challenge for a top level recruit, even against an A+. Nothing wrong with taking some calculated risks, and at B+ you are pretty much assured of being able to get in signing range with a 1 in 4 or better shot. The mistake is if you take those shots without knowing the risks, and preparing for contingencies.

You need to evaluate the battle of preferences before doing this... If you do not have the edge there, you will need to pile up ap at 80... and it gives you less options if you lose.

I have been accustomed to running 10-11 men squads at Clemson. My thinking at the onset of recruiting was, if I sign one of my two main targets I am happy. Both would be gravy.
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Preferences.aspx?rid=4140092

I had two very good preferences and one good. I knew that I was offering Brundidge minutes and a guaranteed start which would make the playing time preference very good as well. That totaled 3 very good and one good. All of the recruit's other categories had no preference. Pitt might have had very good for success, but everything else should have been even. So, after 20 HVs and 900+ APs, I only have a 33% chance of winning? I didn't think that there was that great of a difference between an A- and a B+ prestige. And if prestige matters that much why did it not help gain a much larger chance of winning against a C- prestige Florida team or Division II team?

Posted by trizzo31 on 10/15/2017 10:30:00 AM (view original):
I have been accustomed to running 10-11 men squads at Clemson. My thinking at the onset of recruiting was, if I sign one of my two main targets I am happy. Both would be gravy.
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Preferences.aspx?rid=4140092

I had two very good preferences and one good. I knew that I was offering Brundidge minutes and a guaranteed start which would make the playing time preference very good as well. That totaled 3 very good and one good. All of the recruit's other categories had no preference. Pitt might have had very good for success, but everything else should have been even. So, after 20 HVs and 900+ APs, I only have a 33% chance of winning? I didn't think that there was that great of a difference between an A- and a B+ prestige. And if prestige matters that much why did it not help gain a much larger chance of winning against a C- prestige Florida team or Division II team?

AP is the answer. Is Pitt A+? 900 ap was how much a cycle? Against Florida, what was your ap? I beat Providence once (was A- to A+) by piling up ap. It ended up being a vh (me) against h him.

Posted by zorzii on 10/15/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/15/2017 9:33:00 AM (view original):
It’s not a mistake for a B+ level team to challenge for a top level recruit, even against an A+. Nothing wrong with taking some calculated risks, and at B+ you are pretty much assured of being able to get in signing range with a 1 in 4 or better shot. The mistake is if you take those shots without knowing the risks, and preparing for contingencies.

You need to evaluate the battle of preferences before doing this... If you do not have the edge there, you will need to pile up ap at 80... and it gives you less options if you lose.

I can only think of two players I spent more than an average of 50 points per cycle on. Your use of the word “need” is incorrect here.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/15/2017 9:33:00 AM (view original):
It’s not a mistake for a B+ level team to challenge for a top level recruit, even against an A+. Nothing wrong with taking some calculated risks, and at B+ you are pretty much assured of being able to get in signing range with a 1 in 4 or better shot. The mistake is if you take those shots without knowing the risks, and preparing for contingencies.

Not only does the preferences need to match up, but it has to work against the other team you're recruiting against.

The other issue is, while you're jacking up 80 APs per cycle on that one recruit you're going after, it takes away you're ability to use APs on other recruits. Knowing this, the smart coaches will purposely target the other recruits you're on, making it much more difficult.

I'm not saying you can't win the recruit. But overall, is it really the best strategy for your team? I would say on average, it works against you more times than not.

I'm seeing some doublespeak in this thread.

On one hand, I hear "You can't win championships without A+ recruits."
On the other hand, I'm seeing "Don't battle A/A+ schools because you'll lose or damage your team in the process."

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I'm seeing some doublespeak in this thread.

On one hand, I hear "You can't win championships without A+ recruits."
On the other hand, I'm seeing "Don't battle A/A+ schools because you'll lose or damage your team in the process."

I didn't realize you were qualified to speak on D-1 recruiting.

This is where you're trolling gets in the way Mike. There was no mention by me that stated you can't win championships without A+ recruits. I've had many successful teams without A+ recruits.

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/15/2017 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I'm seeing some doublespeak in this thread.

On one hand, I hear "You can't win championships without A+ recruits."
On the other hand, I'm seeing "Don't battle A/A+ schools because you'll lose or damage your team in the process."

I didn't realize you were qualified to speak on D-1 recruiting.

This is where you're trolling gets in the way Mike. There was no mention by me that stated you can't win championships without A+ recruits. I've had many successful teams without A+ recruits.

I bet. Better question how many successful teams have you had without enhancing them, thecheater17?

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/15/2017 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I'm seeing some doublespeak in this thread.

On one hand, I hear "You can't win championships without A+ recruits."
On the other hand, I'm seeing "Don't battle A/A+ schools because you'll lose or damage your team in the process."

I didn't realize you were qualified to speak on D-1 recruiting.

This is where you're trolling gets in the way Mike. There was no mention by me that stated you can't win championships without A+ recruits. I've had many successful teams without A+ recruits.

I can speak on anything I please, cheater. This game is not rocket science. Those in D1 did not have to go to college for 8 years to reach D1. They simply had to play the game long enough to get there. Don't overestimate your intelligence or your viewpoint. YOU felt the need to cheat to reach the top. On an internet game. Pathetic. Go back to your "official retirement from the forums."

My point is two very much "me" guys are discouraging users from recruiting upper echelon talent. I question the validity of such opinions because, as stated, they are "me" guys.