Posted by obituaryconc on 1/16/2018 9:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/16/2018 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Always and never are bad suggestions.

Ha, however when it comes to preferences they make a ton of sense. Why go for a player that has Bad or Very Bad preferences. That is just bad recruiting. You might need to expand your vocabulary trentonjoe.

Trentonjoe is very correct. Your recruiting "test" is basic and inconclusive. If you think it is "bad recruiting" to avoid any player for which you have a bad or very bad preference then you have a long way to go before you understand this game.

Posted by snafu4u on 1/16/2018 9:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by obituaryconc on 1/16/2018 9:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/16/2018 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Always and never are bad suggestions.

Ha, however when it comes to preferences they make a ton of sense. Why go for a player that has Bad or Very Bad preferences. That is just bad recruiting. You might need to expand your vocabulary trentonjoe.

Trentonjoe is very correct. Your recruiting "test" is basic and inconclusive. If you think it is "bad recruiting" to avoid any player for which you have a bad or very bad preference then you have a long way to go before you understand this game.

Its not so much to avoid bad or very bad preference its to know your situation. How early or late is it in recruiting? What schools are being considered by the recruit? How do you think the recruits preferences line up with the schools being considered? How many open scholarships do you have? How many openings does the very good schools have? How many recruits is that school recruiting? I have seen top schools sign players whose preferences dont match up.

In my situation I had 4 openings and signed 2 recruits and maxed in on another recruit. I am not expecting any EE. I was basically done with recruiting and had enough money to drop 20 HV and a CV on a recruit that was very local, I didn't have enough to venture out and I felt this late in recruiting I would have zero chance on a recruit I could only drop 14 HV on. The Very High school was a C prestige. I took a shot. I was expecting to get to Very High as I underestimated how many APs the other school likely dropped on the recruit and the impact of the APS. This recruit is a luxury pick I was not anticipating going for him but it was either go for him or lose the money. I didnt need another recruit so I wasnt going to chase lower tier recruits.

Yeah, that's my point. There are lots of situations where a recruit with a couple BAD or VERY BADs is still a good decision to recruit.

Recruit guys who:

are good
you think you can win

End of story

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/17/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, that's my point. There are lots of situations where a recruit with a couple BAD or VERY BADs is still a good decision to recruit.

Recruit guys who:

are good
you think you can win

End of story

Agree there are SOME situations where that is the case. I would disagree with "lots". At least for DI.

Recruit guys who:
you think you can win
are good

Some, lots, at least 4?

I agree with Plague definitely. It depends on the situation.

Also, which preference you are lacking in is super important as well. If I'm far away from a guy and he wants Near Home, then I'm basically hit double because not only am I at a preference disadvantage but obviously the guys going for him are probably local so therefore most of your competition already comes in with a great preference.

On the flip side, if it's a 5 star guy and he wants rebuild, well then maybe the low prestige teams get a bit of a leg up but it doesn't hurt me against other high prestige teams - which is the type of teams a 5 star will attract. So I'm not going to disregard a 5 star just because he wants rebuild and I'm Very Bad for that preference.

Posted by snafu4u on 1/16/2018 9:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by obituaryconc on 1/16/2018 9:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/16/2018 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Always and never are bad suggestions.

Ha, however when it comes to preferences they make a ton of sense. Why go for a player that has Bad or Very Bad preferences. That is just bad recruiting. You might need to expand your vocabulary trentonjoe.

Trentonjoe is very correct. Your recruiting "test" is basic and inconclusive. If you think it is "bad recruiting" to avoid any player for which you have a bad or very bad preference then you have a long way to go before you understand this game.

Agreed it is basic, however not inconclusive. I was able to battle a high prestige school and end up being 46% overall for the recruit. So inconclusive not at all. Yes, it was an initial test so there are still holes and things to work out, that is why there will be additional tests. But overall it is a great start to a great thought on how to recruit and focus on recruits. So understanding this game isn't the concern. If you ask any other veteran coach they can tell you the same thing as a lower prestige school that I put out in the blog post. Higher prestige schools have other factors you MUST consider and there are vastly different. Meaning I am never going to go after a player that does not have preferences that fit into my school because out of the years I have been here as well as the years in 3.0 I have not once beaten out another higher prestige team without having preferences. So ensure that you understand before you say that something is wrong, or you are a player that has only ever recruited at a high caliber program in 3.0 and do not understand the nuances of the new system.

Man, you are the king of absolutes.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/17/2018 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Man, you are the king of absolutes.

I also have a better time recruiting because of it and don't spend my money where it does no good at all. Except for this season during the test run, but the guy I didn't get was a 46%(My team) to a 54%(Team he signed with), which to me was a totally worthy investment because I almost had him signed, well had a chance in the new 3.0.