Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2018 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Wales_ on 6/5/2018 3:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/4/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm a zone only coach. I use the assistant/FSS combo...no camps. I recruit almost exclusively within 300 miles of campus and I prefer metro schools (as opposed to my traditional love for isolated locations.) My goal is to have Level 4 info on as many recruits as I can but only level 4. I know exactly what I am getting when I sign a player. I have almost abandoned the Internationals unless it is Toronto and the like. I pay more attention to signing preference than I do any other preference.

Why do you pay the most attention to signing preference?

It’s really important at D2 and D3. If you’re chasing a D1 pool guy with a RS1 signing preference, and there are 2 D2 teams on him, you know exactly when he’s going to sign. Same with D3 teams on a D2 guy. Even more important, if a D1 shows up on him in the first session, you have to not only beat him, you have to hold him down to moderate. All a D1 has to do is slip into signing range, and the recruit is gone. Really tough for a lower division team to win a battle with a human D1 for a recruit with an early or EOP1 signing preference.

At D1, it’s important for the same reason, but the stakes are a bit lower, so it’s more of an afterthought. It doesn’t really play into who I go after, but it does help determine where my early attention goes, among my targets.

Thank you, shoe. Not word-for-word what I would have written to respond to wales but close enough. Early vs Late is a big strategic factor.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2018 4:33:00 PM (view original):
”...90% of the players in D-1 are useless if you're goal is trying to compete or a national championship.”

The rest of it is fine, personal preference, no big deal. But this part is categorically false. Any player better than a walkon can be useful.

That's exactly why I play zone, I can go with 8-9 players and not worry about having taking walkons. Normally, you would be correct in saying any player is better than a walk on, actually the A+ teams seem to get decent walkons, good enough for putting them in for a few minutes here and there. If I take an average player, that's not going to be a difference maker, then that's an extra $3,000 per season and 20 APs I don't have for recruiting for the following season.

In fairness, I will say it's possible that zone is the hardest defense to win a championship with, but maybe it's just that nobody has figured it out.

One thing that frustrates me the most is having a hard time being able to recruit 12 guys for a full court press/ fast break. It's a lot harder to do in 3.0 than it is in 2.0. It was easier to get solid backups in 2.0, as your 11th and 12th player.

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/5/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2018 4:33:00 PM (view original):
”...90% of the players in D-1 are useless if you're goal is trying to compete or a national championship.”

The rest of it is fine, personal preference, no big deal. But this part is categorically false. Any player better than a walkon can be useful.

That's exactly why I play zone, I can go with 8-9 players and not worry about having taking walkons. Normally, you would be correct in saying any player is better than a walk on, actually the A+ teams seem to get decent walkons, good enough for putting them in for a few minutes here and there. If I take an average player, that's not going to be a difference maker, then that's an extra $3,000 per season and 20 APs I don't have for recruiting for the following season.

In fairness, I will say it's possible that zone is the hardest defense to win a championship with, but maybe it's just that nobody has figured it out.

I said any player better than a walkon can be useful. This is much different than saying any player is better than a walkon.

Due to your personal preference, the $3000 in resources and 20 extra APs are more valuable to you than having an extra bench player. That’s cool. It’s not the only way to play, and it’s not the only way to win. It’s just the strategy you’ve chosen to pursue.

In reality, it isn’t hard at all to find decent 11th and 12th guys for FB/press teams with the scouting strategies I use.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/5/2018 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/5/2018 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2018 4:33:00 PM (view original):
”...90% of the players in D-1 are useless if you're goal is trying to compete or a national championship.”

The rest of it is fine, personal preference, no big deal. But this part is categorically false. Any player better than a walkon can be useful.

That's exactly why I play zone, I can go with 8-9 players and not worry about having taking walkons. Normally, you would be correct in saying any player is better than a walk on, actually the A+ teams seem to get decent walkons, good enough for putting them in for a few minutes here and there. If I take an average player, that's not going to be a difference maker, then that's an extra $3,000 per season and 20 APs I don't have for recruiting for the following season.

In fairness, I will say it's possible that zone is the hardest defense to win a championship with, but maybe it's just that nobody has figured it out.

I said any player better than a walkon can be useful. This is much different than saying any player is better than a walkon.

Due to your personal preference, the $3000 in resources and 20 extra APs are more valuable to you than having an extra bench player. That’s cool. It’s not the only way to play, and it’s not the only way to win. It’s just the strategy you’ve chosen to pursue.

In reality, it isn’t hard at all to find decent 11th and 12th guys for FB/press teams with the scouting strategies I use.

Yeah, wasn't trying to debate with you that my way is correct, but just saying that certain factors, whether it's type of offense, defense, prestige, scouting strategy can sometimes changed your overall strategy with the remaining factors. For example, playing zone allows me to scout and recruit differently than others would, but as you stated, to each his own.

If I scout a state in scouting services or do a non-hosted camp and one of the players that is in that state or that attends that camp is already fully scouted do I still pay the total fee to scout the state or camp or do I get the discount?

Posted by Robertooo on 10/21/2018 10:38:00 PM (view original):
If I scout a state in scouting services or do a non-hosted camp and one of the players that is in that state or that attends that camp is already fully scouted do I still pay the total fee to scout the state or camp or do I get the discount?

Pretty sure you're still out the cash as the prices are based off attendees (camps) or unsigned players (scouting services), not whether the player is already fully "found." Can't say for certain though since I start with scouting service and then a camp, so I'm never in position to have to worry about redundant charges with them..

lots of good thoughts here - some ideas I had not considered

this should be obvious, but all of this depends on your situation - I recruit in VERY different way for Hawaii than I do for Maryland. Location generally.....who else is in your neigrborhood......your roster situation......you system......all matter a lot.

This is a great post, but one question - you can't really go with a global approach if you're a D2 school recruiting D1 guys, can you? By taking the distance filter off for Assistant Search (so that you can scout your intl / Canada / distance targets), that means you're going to pay an additional $18K just to get the Top 100 recruited fully. And those are guys that you basically have no chance with. That's a huge hit to your usable budget.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

echo the praise. This was extremely helpful to someone new to D1 in 3.0

Posted by bhansalid00 on 7/16/2019 12:49:00 PM (view original):
This is a great post, but one question - you can't really go with a global approach if you're a D2 school recruiting D1 guys, can you? By taking the distance filter off for Assistant Search (so that you can scout your intl / Canada / distance targets), that means you're going to pay an additional $18K just to get the Top 100 recruited fully. And those are guys that you basically have no chance with. That's a huge hit to your usable budget.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

I don’t do it, no. The OP was geared toward D1.

From SD, I do scout D1 Canada, but I limit my asst, so I’m just getting the guys within 500 or 750 miles (basically the Winnipeg guys). Even limiting to 500 won’t work very efficiently if you’re in an area saturated with a lot of top 100 players.

At D2 (and D3) you can scout the internationals and Canadians using this method, you just can't include the D1 players.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/17/2019 9:31:00 AM (view original):
At D2 (and D3) you can scout the internationals and Canadians using this method, you just can't include the D1 players.

Do you mean you can’t scout the D1 internationals? Or that you can’t scout any *other* D1 domestic players, outside the top 100?

You could theoretically get the D1 internationals and the entire crop of top 100 domestics this way at D3, provided you have enough scholarship resources, and the crop of D1 internationals is small enough. The times I’ve even looked at it, the international crop was too big to get them all to level 4 (for a D3 scouting budget with 3-4 scholarships).

For what it’s worth, I almost always fully scout the D2 crop of internationals at D3 and D2. There are usually at least a few that project to be high level D2 players.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 7/16/2019 12:49:00 PM (view original):
This is a great post, but one question - you can't really go with a global approach if you're a D2 school recruiting D1 guys, can you? By taking the distance filter off for Assistant Search (so that you can scout your intl / Canada / distance targets), that means you're going to pay an additional $18K just to get the Top 100 recruited fully. And those are guys that you basically have no chance with. That's a huge hit to your usable budget.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

Excellent point. You're correct on this. I agree that it's a huge pain in D-1 midmajor land, cuz on my San Francisco team i don't expect to sign a top level east coast recruit, yet i have to burn scouting cash on *them* just to look at Level-4 Internationals. It's seriously a real pain. $4500 gets you to Level-4 with 25 of the Top-100's... so it takes $13.5k just to burn through blue-chip scouting. Assuming in my case that few blue chips are close to my team geographically and gettable, that means a ton is flushed down the toilet just to clear them out of the way.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/17/2019 10:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/17/2019 9:31:00 AM (view original):
At D2 (and D3) you can scout the internationals and Canadians using this method, you just can't include the D1 players.

Do you mean you can’t scout the D1 internationals? Or that you can’t scout any *other* D1 domestic players, outside the top 100?

You could theoretically get the D1 internationals and the entire crop of top 100 domestics this way at D3, provided you have enough scholarship resources, and the crop of D1 internationals is small enough. The times I’ve even looked at it, the international crop was too big to get them all to level 4 (for a D3 scouting budget with 3-4 scholarships).

For what it’s worth, I almost always fully scout the D2 crop of internationals at D3 and D2. There are usually at least a few that project to be high level D2 players.

I mean you can scout the D2 internationals. Trying to do the D1 internationals makes you waste money on the top 100 guys, like you said.