Date: Wed Jan 16 22:12:39 2008
Sender: David Smith
We turn our attention to recruiting. Tomorrow is inviting so we may not get
much discussion in time for me to use anyone's (including Dagger's) advice so
more than likely you will have your chance to take your first critical shots at
my decisions...lol.
Before talking about the type of players to target I think we need to have a
plan about this program so here are my initial thoughts.
PHASE 1 - BUILD THE CORE (4 years)
As mentioned before this is a poorly talented team. Here is the talent
breakdown...
Overall C PF SF SG PG
Team Rnk Sc Rnk Sc Rnk Sc Rnk Sc Rnk Sc Rnk Sc
Dayton 290 40 273 42 261 40 267 38 264 39 296 41
There is not much to build around but I am planning on Rogers and Gregory and
maybe another one of the DC sophomores if they have a good camp.
G.Gregory C So 2 5 4 4 6 1 2 10 100 6' 7" RS C B C
F.Rogers SF Fr 2 2 8 3 3 5 0 8 100 6' 7" *S D C SF
Lets say we redshirt Gregory and 1 other sophomore. Those 3 players will be
the initial core of our team. In season 56 they will be seniors. Here is the
4 year plan.
Season 53 (current) - We have 4 scholarships to use. We will use 2 (maybe 3)
on freshman and redshirt them. I will not be afraid to recruit 1 or 2 seniors
and would prefer to. Will be able to have their scholarships for next year
when we have 0 seniors graduate. We will have at least 1 for next year!
Season 54 - Will have 1-2 scholarships to use on freshmen...redshirt them.
Core will be Gregory/Rogers/? (now sophomores) along with 53s 2 freshmen.
Season 55 - Will have 5 scholarships come open and will use 3 of them (and save
2 for next year) to recruit freshmen and redshirt them. Core will be
Gregory/Rogers/? (now juniors) along with 53s 2 (now sophomores) and 54s 2 (now
redshirt freshmen)
Season 56 - Will have 3 scholarships to recruit freshmen and redshirt them.
Core will be Gregory/Rogers/? (now seniors) along with 53s 2 (now juniors), 54s
2 now sophomores, and 55s 3 (now redshirt freshmen)
By the end of phase 1 Dayton should be very competitive with all Bob teams and
be able to win a decent share vs human coaches (strategic scheduling). The
roster will have turned over except for the original core and should have solid
CB players with a couple BA.
The plan above is just that...a plan and like all plans will have to be
adjusted based on circumstances. The biggest one (hopefully) will be the lucky
acquistion of a couple of very good walkons. At some point they would demand
scholarships and we will have to adjust. We also need to be lucky in both
recruiting and training camp.
PHASE 2 - THE NEXT STEP
With 4 years of improved prestige due to PR/voting and improved winning Dayton
is ready for the next step. Our beginning core will be seniors and the rest of
the scholarhship players will have redshirted, thereby maximizing their
potential talent. The new goals are:
- Recruitment of CA and BA players on a national (but not yet elite) level.
- 20 win season and CBEL Tournament qualification which includes a more
challenging non-conference schedule.
- By the end of phase 2 (8 seasons total) Dayton will achieve a top 25 ranking,
top 4 seed in CBEL Tournament and win an A-10 championship (regular season or
conference tournament).
These are very lofty goals considering where the program is but that is the
challenge.
SEASON 53 RECRUITING
This is going to be rough. Region E has two tier 1 conferences and out of 26
teams Dayton is 25 in prestige. Surprisingly Richmond is worse with a 9
prestige and 38 recruiting points. Dayton is a 10 prestige with 40 recruiting
points. On top of that there are 4 teams in the Colonial (tier 2) and 2 teams
in the Southern (tier 3) conferences that have better prestige! Therefore my
thoughts are...
- Recruit 2 freshmen players and redshirt them.
- Recruit up to 2 seniors and play them. We will get the scholarship back next
season. Must have at least 1 scholarship to work with next season.
Established programs usually don't recruit seniors and for sure not the talent
level senior that we would be looking at. We need to get better as quick as
possible so recruiting 1 or 2 seniors would be great.
- Aim to recruit mainly DC players...hope they develope to CB
- Aim for a few CC CB players
- Take a shot at 1 or 2 BA players.
- Recruit only in region but take a shot in no-region for a couple of seniors.
- Offer scholarships to all players recruited
- Use a few points to use on the x-tra point option. Want to establish as good
an initial leaning as possible or just get the kid to visit us!
- Use playing time promises for the senior(s). May use one for a BA player.
Never use one for a DC. Very reluctant to use one for a CB as well.
- Try to recruit some size...there is none on this team!
COACHES INPUT
I would like to center discussion around two things.
1. Feedback on phase 1 strategy - especially concerning redshirt
plan/scholarship organization.
2. Feedback on recruiting thoughts...expectations for Dayton, type of players
to target. Reaching too high, not high enough, etc...
Tomorrow I will add to this thread and discuss the players that visited and
those that didn't.
Date: Wed Jan 16 23:52:46 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
This is going to be a fun project, because we'll be able to kick around
opposing strategies and then see how they pan out. Smitty and I have two
somewhat different initial inviting stategies (and he'll keep you guessing as
to which one he'll use until after the on-campus visits tomorrow!) Instead of
the D/C in-region approach combined with a few B/A no-region seniors, I would
employ an all C/B in-region philosophy. What I have seen occur in the past is
that the B/A, B/B, and A/A no-region players usually go to the mid-ranked Tier
1 teams (not to the bottom feeders like Dayton). For the first round, I'd
invite the best 25 C/B freshmen from Region E (in region), spend an extra point
on all of them (25 points total), and offer ALL 25 invitees scholarships AND
playing time. Because of the Flyers' low prestige, I'd do this to get some of
the players to at least VISIT Dayton. Then I'd hope to RECRUIT TWO of the guys
visiting in the first round. Remember, the downside to offering PT to freshmen
(even if they're more talented than anyone on your current roster) is that you
CAN'T redshirt them and you'll be forced to make them four-year starters, no
matter what!
In the second and third rounds, I'd try to recruit as many D/C non-scholarship
freshmen as I could, saving Dayton's other two scholarships for Season 54.
Date: Thu Jan 17 06:19:02 2008
Sender: Loren Smith
The Dayton Phase 1 strategy looks like a good plan to me.
When I reentered CBEL several seasons ago, I took Long Island. Long Island was
a Tier 3 school that had talent ranked second to the bottom and had only won a
couple of games the year prior to me being there. I had NO scholarships
available in my first recruiting class.
My recruiting strategy that season was basically the same as being suggested
for Dayton. Use extra points to make sure guys came to visit and target D/C
type players. I was pretty successful getting guys on campus, but was usually
ranked 4th or 5th in leanings. For the recruiting round, I didn't use any
priorities. I just took whichever guys would sign first (usually because the
bigger programs already had filled their spot or had skipped them due to their
own priorities). Those players came in as walk-ons and played early, so I kept
having to use my scholarships to keep players in the program...thus, limiting
my ability to go through the recruiting rounds with scholarships to offer.
I built my bottom feeder Long Island team into a conference champion in four
seasons -- but that was Tier 3. I think the goals stated for Dayton appear
reasonable given that they have a higher starting point in prestige and a much
more challenging conference.
Date: Thu Jan 17 06:28:25 2008
Sender: Loren Smith
Also, for what it's worth, I just took lowly Oklahoma State for my return to
Tier 1. I am not the coach that Dave Smith is; but, it might be an interesting
comparison to watch the two programs develop (hopefully) together. I'm sure
that I'll be watching this thread closely to see whether I can glean some
helpful nuggets of info from Dave.
Ok State has 12 prestige this season with 51 points and 2 scholarships
available. They were 6-24 last season with a 2-16 conference record. I did have
the benefit of receiving a B/A sophomore walkon PG at initialization, which
addressed by biggest talent need. My team talent is 107 compared to Dayton's
290, so I am signficantly better in that area...but, would agree that my
coaching won't be anywhere near that of Dave.
I won't go into detail on my recruiting strategies or provide any updates,
unless someone has a question...I just thought it might be interesting for
other coaches to know that there is another team in a somewhat similar
situation.
Date: Thu Jan 17 07:21:31 2008
Sender: James Mathis
I like the idea of promising playing time to a couple of freshmen and scuttling
the red-shirt year. I am a fan of redshirting freshmen if you have the luxury
to do so (i.e. they aren't one of the best 2 players at the position), but I
don't think the extra year of development is worth enough to justify playing a
worse player.
I think as an up-and-coming program, you can have a lot of luck aiming at
slightly higher talent than you should normally get, spending an extra point
and promising PT, then getting one or maybe two of those guys because they are
the 3rd-4th choice of all of the top programs. It is a low risk move because
even if you miss, there are still good players to be had in Round 2 (and even
in round 3) and you will have high points and scholarships.
Cae in point, I got this guy in Round 3 of recruiting last season with no
scholly:
G.Alderman SF Fr 2 2 7 1 5 5 0 7 100 6' 6" D C SF
And when I recruited him, his Ag was '9' instead of '7'. Sure, he'd be a role
player at best at a good Tier I program, but he's certainly capable of starting
at a bad Tier I program or a decent Tier II program. A lineup filed with role
players as good as this one can be mashed into an NIT-capable team with
creative non-conference scheduling.
Date: Thu Jan 17 07:32:55 2008
Sender: Alaister Pawley
My two cents are
1) Be aggressive in the first phase of recruiting. I'd look at CC guys and even
B/C. Drop some extra points here and there where guys really fit your system.
There'll be plenty of players at DC left in the pot on day two.
2) I'm interested in what kind of system you're going to try to run? What
abilities are at a premium. With me I play a relatively static system so I like
DF and SC with a healthy splash of AG at either C or PF.
I think this is a fantastic experiment and I take my hat off to David for doing
this.
Date: Thu Jan 17 09:01:12 2008
Sender: David Smith AA
As of 08:33 here are the invites...
DC = 8
DB = 1
CC = 6
CB = 7
BB = 1
CA = 2
This seems like a solid cross section. I will tell who the players are after
invites are run today. I will also explain the idea behind thinking that I
could recruit CA players.
I also played with playing time promises for "this season" for every single
player. Only 1 player totally bought it, 4 doubted (various doubt levels) and
all of the others completely ignored it. I changed them all to "next season".
Again the exact same results. It is curious that so many players are ignoring
playing time promises from a team that is soooo bad. 1. Perhaps this is an
indication that they will be flat out refusing my invite today...they don't
want to play for such a terrible program.
2. Perhaps it is because I am a "new coach" with no track record and no
coaching prestige.
3. Perhaps they are telling me...forget the playing time, it's not important to
me, I just want to come to your fine University.
Any other thoughts????
Date: Thu Jan 17 14:28:26 2008
Sender: David Smith
Here are the players that Dayton sent invites to:
D.Cook C Fr 1 4 1 2 4 3 5 5 100 6'10" -- D C C
J.Curran C Fr 2 5 1 1 6 3 6 5 100 6' 8" -- C B C
R.House C Fr 3 5 2 1 3 2 0 7 100 6'10" -- D C C
B.James C Fr 3 4 1 1 6 2 5 6 100 6' 9" -- C B C
C.Luna C Fr 4 3 5 2 1 1 5 7 100 6'11" -- D C C
F.Marino C Fr 1 7 3 2 1 2 3 7 100 6'10" -- C B C
B.McFarley C Fr 2 3 0 2 6 1 5 8 100 6'11" -- C C C
D.Carroll PF Fr 4 4 4 2 3 2 1 6 100 6' 8" -- D C C
M.Kekelik PF Fr 3 1 9 1 6 1 1 4 100 6' 8" -- D B PF
K.Atzert SF Fr 2 3 10 2 6 2 3 5 100 6' 3" -- D C SG
A.Torbert SF Fr 6 1 5 4 6 2 1 10 100 6' 5" -- C C SF
W.Agnew SG Fr 1 5 5 4 5 2 4 10 100 6' 1" -- D C SG
C.Gasperak SG Fr 2 6 4 1 5 3 2 4 100 6' 0" -- C B SG
C.Moyer SG Fr 2 5 2 3 4 4 2 10 100 6' 3" -- D C PG
T.Brazzell PG Fr 6 3 3 5 1 3 6 8 100 5' 8" -S C A PG
J.Corbin PG Fr 4 2 3 2 3 6 1 8 100 6' 0" -- D C PG
T.Hernandez PG Fr 4 3 4 4 1 5 1 11 100 6' 3" -- C C PG
S.Parrent PG Fr 5 5 1 2 3 6 1 8 100 6' 0" -S C A PG
M.Pastor PG Fr 7 3 4 3 2 1 3 8 100 6' 5" -- C B PG
D.Soldner PG Fr 4 3 3 5 4 2 5 8 100 6' 0" -- C B PG
No-Region Invitations
R.Watson C Sr 5 3 2 3 5 1 4 12 100 6'10" *S C C C
N.Evans PF Sr 2 3 9 2 6 3 3 15 100 6' 6" *S C C PF
B.Goldberg PF Sr 2 4 7 4 5 4 4 12 100 6' 9" -S B B PF
D.Catmur PG Sr 6 3 0 4 7 7 0 16 100 6' 3" *S C B PG
T.Osbourne PG Sr 6 1 2 4 4 7 3 11 100 6' 2" *S C C PG
Playing time promises for "this season" were given to:
Parrent, Brazzell, Pastor, and all 5 players from the No Region
Every player was offered a scholarship
Extra points were used on:
Parrent, Brazzell, Pastor, Hernandez, Corbin, Curran, Keklik, Marino, B.James,
McFarley, Catmur, and Goldberg
A total of 17 points out of 40 were used leaving us with 23.
I have to say I am pretty happy with the results. 18 of 25 players sent
invites have decided to visit.
8 DC invited, 7 visited
1 DB invited, 1 visited
6 CC invited, 5 visited
7 CB invited, 5 visited
1 BB invited, 0 visited
2 CA invited, 0 visited
The next thing I want to look at is...could we have aimed higher?
Date: Thu Jan 17 17:01:25 2008
Sender: David Smith
Could we have aimed higher? Probably...at least a little. I ranked each
position in Dayton's region E using the sortable list function and printed them
out. Now I can go to this site...
http://www.dolphinsim.com/cbasket/cbel/invites.htm
to see the inviting results. I am looking at players at each position that
were ranked higher than the players I invited to see how many teams with better
prestige tried to invite as well as those that offered scholarships. I list
the players name, his letter grades, the number of teams that sent an invite
that had more prestige than Dayton, and the number of scholarships they
offered.
Centers
There were 6 centers rated better than the best center I recruited. I may have
had a shot at a couple of them.
T.Jones BA 11-11
S.Burkholder CA 4-2
A.Muniz CB 4-2
T.Connors CB 4-1
J.Hanneman CB 4-3
W.Wahl CB 2-1
Power Forwards
There were 9 PFs rated better than the best PF I recruited. From the looks of
it I would not have had much success.
F.Jones BA 14-14
W.Villa CA 7-5
M.Cherkes CA 6-4
S.Mosley CA 8-6
S.Monaghan CB 8-7
D.Callahan CB 2-1
C.Fisher CB 5-4
G.Mendez CB 1-1 (only 6-6 so no go for me)
S.White CB 9-4
Small Forwards
I really didn't recruit any SF's. The 2 that I did go after one was for a SG
and the other a PG
Shooting Guards
There were only 2 shooting guards in the region that were rated better than the
best one I went after.
T.Morley CA 5-3
J.Holieb CA 11-11
Point Guards
I did not get my 2 highest rated PG's to visit me. They were 4th and 6th on
the list. There were 10 other PGs rated higher than the best one to visit
Dayton. Overall I doubt we would have had much success in getting a visit.
R.Cavanaugh BA 9-9
K.Arreguin BA 9-9
D.Feigl CA 6-6
D.Lewis CB 4-4
K.Jupiter CB 6-2
B.Liu CB 2-1
R.Wadlow CB 6-4
M.Perez CB 3-1
J.Lopez CB 6-3
E.Kidd CB 2-1
Overall I have to say that the Dayton recruiting was pretty much right on. Yes
we probably could have gotten a few players that were better rated to come
visit and maybe even scored them on signing day. I have to admit I was unsure
what to expect, but 18/25 is solid. I really like our chances to get the 2
seniors. Those players would help immediately and we get the 2 scholarships
back to use next year.
R.Watson C Sr 5 3 2 3 5 1 4 12 100 6'10" *S C C C
considering Dayton (2sP), Maine (1s)
N.Evans PF Sr 2 3 9 2 6 3 3 15 100 6' 6" *S C C PF
considering Purdue (2), Dayton (2sP), C Arkansas (1sP), Texas State (1sP)
With the other 2 scholarships we should be able to get 2 decent freshmen that
in time should develope into solid contributors.
Date: Fri Jan 18 09:05:14 2008
Sender: David Smith AA
Here are the round 1 inviting results for Dayton:
D.Cook C Fr 1 4 1 2 4 3 5 5 100 6'10" -- D C C
Georgia (3s), Duquesne (2), S Carolina (2s), Dayton (2s), Hofstra (2s)
R.House C Fr 3 5 2 1 3 2 0 7 100 6'10" -- D C C
Mississippi (3s), Arkansas (3s), Fordham (3), Dayton (2s), Texas AM CC (2)
B.James C Fr 3 4 1 1 6 2 5 6 100 6' 9" -- C B C
Florida (3), Dayton (3s), Auburn (3), Texas AM CC (2)
C.Luna C Fr 4 3 5 2 1 1 5 7 100 6'11" -- D C C
Georgia (3s), Hofstra (2s), S Carolina (2s), Dayton (2s), Appalachn St (2s)
F.Marino C Fr 1 7 3 2 1 2 3 7 100 6'10" -- C B C
Rhode Island (3s), Florida (3), Texas AM CC (2), Dayton (2s), Wofford (1P)
B.McFarley C Fr 2 3 0 2 6 1 5 8 100 6'11" -- C C C
Mississippi (3s), Fordham (3s), Arkansas (2s), Dayton (2s), Texas AM CC (2)
R.Watson C Sr 5 3 2 3 5 1 4 12 100 6'10" *S C C C
Dayton (2sP), Maine (1s)
D.Carroll PF Fr 4 4 4 2 3 2 1 6 100 6' 8" -- D C C
NC Wilmington (2s), Hofstra (2s), S Carolina (2s), Dayton (2s), Appalachn St
(2s)
N.Evans PF Sr 2 3 9 2 6 3 3 15 100 6' 6" *S C C PF
Purdue (2), Dayton (2sP), C Arkansas (1sP), Texas State (1sP)
M.Kekelik PF Fr 3 1 9 1 6 1 1 4 100 6' 8" -- D B PF
Georgia (3s), Duquesne (3s), Dayton (2s), Purdue (2s), S Carolina (2s)
K.Atzert SF Fr 2 3 10 2 6 2 3 5 100 6' 3" -- D C SG
Fordham (4s), St Josephs (3s), Arkansas (3s), Dayton (2s)
A.Torbert SF Fr 6 1 5 4 6 2 1 10 100 6' 5" -- C C SF
Mississippi (3s), Fordham (3s), Arkansas (3s), Penn St (3s), Dayton (2s)
W.Agnew SG Fr 1 5 5 4 5 2 4 10 100 6' 1" -- D C SG
St Josephs (4s), Fordham (3s), Arkansas (3s), James Madison (3s), Dayton (2s)
C.Gasperak SG Fr 2 6 4 1 5 3 2 4 100 6' 0" -- C B SG
Alabama (4), St Josephs (3s), Fordham (3s), Dayton (2s), Rhode Island (2s)
J.Corbin PG Fr 4 2 3 2 3 6 1 8 100 6' 0" -- D C PG
Rhode Island (3s), Dayton (3s), S Carolina (2s), Appalachn St (2s), Hofstra
(2s)
T.Hernandez PG Fr 4 3 4 4 1 5 1 11 100 6' 3" -- C C PG
Duquesne (3s), Georgia (3s), St Bonaventre (3s), Dayton (3s), James Madison
(2s)
M.Pastor PG Fr 7 3 4 3 2 1 3 8 100 6' 5" -- C B PG
Alabama (4), Fordham (3s), St Josephs (3s), Tennessee (3), Dayton (3sP)
D.Soldner PG Fr 4 3 3 5 4 2 5 8 100 6' 0" -- C B PG
Alabama (4), Tennessee (2), Dayton (2s), Texas AM CC (2)
Loren: It looks like you have good results with your Oklahoma State invites.
You should get 2 solid scholarship players.
James: I don't disagree with your thoughts on redshirting. I will wait to see
what training camp brings, but the initial plan of redshirting 2 current
players and both scholarship freshmen (if we get 2) is part of a long term
strategy to improve the team. It also serves a dual purpose of getting
scholarship distribution among classes worked out. If things go according to
plan, in season 59 (year 7 of the project) we will have 3 seniors who were
recruited in season 55. Those 3 seniors will have been better quality recruits
to begin with and will be 5th year seniors. Dayton should have about a 17/18
prestige and capable of recruiting the type of freshmen that would turn pro
early and therefore play as true freshmen. Season 59 and then 60 (the final
year of the project) should see a very strong Dayton team with a very good core
of maxed out sophomore/junior/seniors and a couple of stud true
freshmen/sophomores.
Alaister - I also like the good Df/Sc players at C/PF/SF along with a solid
dose of Ps,Ag (Ps more for the SF and PF...I can live with the 1 Ps center). I
like SG's that have good Df and Sh. For me they have to be able to shoot. If
they have a couple points of Sc that is good to, but I do not like SGs that are
high Sc and low Sh. PGs have to have good Ps/In/Df.
Date: Mon Jan 21 20:12:58 2008
Sender: David Smith
Dayton was able to land a stunning recruiting success today by bringing in the
#14 class as graded by DEL. Although it did not stand up in the DSPN rankings
put out by David Rogers - #35 is still a very respectable and surprising
result.
With 23 recruiting points and 4 scholarships here was the plan...
Group A
Both seniors were placed here and each was recruited with 1 point. I had
originally thought that we could get them with 0 points bid but with other
schools in the mix coach Ayres recommended to spend the 1 point. He reminded
me that the first point is the most important in recruiting as all points
thereafter have a diminishing return.
N.Evans PF Sr 2 3 9 2 6 3 3 15 100 6' 6" *S C C PF
R.Watson C Sr 5 3 2 3 5 1 4 12 100 6'10" *S C C C
Watson was recruited by just one other school and they were offering a
scholarship but we were ahead in leaning. Evans was recruited by 3 other
schools. We were 2nd in leaning but the lead school was not offering a
scholarship. I was pretty confident that we would land both of these players
and we did. Since they are seniors we will get both scholarships back to use
next year. They will be the only 2 that we will have. Both players are better
than the players we currently have so it was a smart strategy to use...in my
opinion.
Group B
I put all the big men in this group and 10 points were placed on each player.
Five players were given a priority of 2 and the other 3 were given a 0. I
wanted to make sure that I had a chance to get one of the best 5 players first,
then fall back to the last 3. I was pretty confident that James would be our
man as we were #2 in leaning and the lead team (Florida) was not offering a
scholarship. James was our man to sign and he was the 62nd player to go.
B.James C Fr 3 4 1 1 6 2 5 6 100 6' 9" -S C B C
He was graded an A recruit and hopefully that means a good camp is in store.
He will redshirt this year and should be a very good scorer during his career.
Florida (3), Dayton (3s), Auburn (3), Texas AM CC (2)
Group C
All of the guards (PG and SG) were put in this group and 10 points was placed
on each player. 7 players were given a 2 priority while 1 player was given a
0. Soldner was the odds on favorite to be our guy as the other 3 teams were
not offering scholarships.
D.Soldner PG Fr 4 3 3 5 4 2 5 8 100 6' 0" -- C B PG
Alabama (4), Tennessee (2), Dayton (2s), Texas AM CC (2)
Soldner was graded B and was the 114th player to commit. He will redshirt and
become part of the team's core over the next 5 years. He should become a solid
point guard that can distribute the ball with low turnovers.
All of Dayton's scholarships have been used and 1 recruiting point remains for
round 2. All in all Dagger and I are thrilled with the results. The team's
talent level has also increased from...
Dayton 289 40 273 42 260 40 267 38 263 39 294 41
to...
Dayton 266 42 218 45 160 45 275 38 278 39 300 42
Dayton still has the worst talent of all tier 1 teams but improvement has been
made, especially in regards to our big men. After some roster moves/position
changes we may be able to get the talent level up a little more. Unfortunately
due to the redshirting plan the team's talent will actually be much worse as
some of our best will not be playing.
Date: Mon Jan 21 22:04:51 2008
Sender: Dave Ayres
Of the 14 "other" recruits visiting Dayton in Round 1, 10 signed with Tier 1
schools, 1 signed with Tier 2 Hofstra, and 2 (TWO!) somehow signed with Tier 3
Appalachian State.
The two Appalachian signees (Luna & Carroll) had Appy as their #5 choice, so
there IS hope for all Tier 3 schools out there!
Note that of the 13 signees, Alabama was the only school to land one of the
prospects without using a scholarship (Porter). Also note that even though
five schools recruited him and promised him a scholarship, Corbin was the only
one of the 14-man group NOT to sign with ANYONE in the first round!
Date: Tue Jan 22 15:30:10 2008
Sender: Loren Smith
I think your groupings reflect how I pulled in decent walkons during recruiting
while at Tier III Long Island. In my opinion, priority settings should be used
sparingly at the lower levels unless you are somehow a top lean. Just put guys
that are fairly close in talent into the same priority group and take the first
that is willing to sign. Sometimes, the bigger names schools will prioritize
themselves right out of a player and you'll get a surprising signee.
If you fiddle too much with priority to try to eke out that extra talent
grading, you can easily find yourself shut out. When building a program, two
decent C/B players would be much better than trying to land a single B/A and
getting stuck with two D/C players.
When starting a program, your first goal should be for overall talent
improvement. Superstars are unlikely to come to your school anyway, so just
make sure to get solid contributors.
My two cents...
Date: Tue Jan 22 18:21:20 2008
Sender: David Smith
Loren makes a great point concerning groupings/priorities!
Here are Dayton's round 2 invites. 17/25 players visited. With no
scholarships to give and 0 points the few better players passed us up. It
looks like we will be able to replace at least 1 DD player on the current
roster with a better player from this list.
J.Frey C Jr 2 6 0 5 2 1 8 11 100 6' 7" -S D C C
James Madison (2), Dayton (2)
A.Hill C Fr 1 3 4 3 2 2 5 8 100 6' 9" -- D C C
Dayton (2), James Madison (2), Elon (2), Georgia St (1), Campbell (1)
W.Lam C Fr 3 4 0 3 2 1 4 11 100 6' 9" -- D D C
Dayton (2)
R.Pineiro C Fr 2 4 2 1 2 3 5 6 100 6' 9" -- D C C
Dayton (2), James Madison (2)
D.Weirich C Fr 2 5 7 1 2 2 1 4 100 6' 7" -- D C C
Auburn (3), Dayton (2), Richmond (2), James Madison (2), Northeastern (2)
S.Pearl PF Fr 1 5 5 4 3 1 3 6 100 6' 6" -- D C C
St Bonaventre (3), Duquesne (2), Dayton (1), James Madison (1), Georgia Sthrn
(1)
A.Bryant SF Fr 5 4 4 1 2 3 3 6 100 6' 7" -- D C SF
Dayton (2), James Madison (2)
T.Tade SG Fr 4 6 1 1 2 3 1 7 100 6' 7" -S D C C
James Madison (2), Dayton (2)
T.Ackerman PG Fr 7 1 0 2 1 4 5 9 100 6' 2" -- D C PG
St Bonaventre (3), Illinois (2), S Carolina (2), Duquesne (2), Dayton (2)
D.Bodin PG So 5 4 2 2 5 2 6 7 100 6' 3" -- D C PG
Illinois (3), Penn St (2), James Madison (2), Dayton (2), Campbell (1)
E.Curtis PG Fr 6 1 1 4 4 2 8 8 100 6' 1" -- D C PG
James Madison (2), Dayton (2)
J.Enyeart PG Fr 3 1 3 6 5 4 1 12 100 5'10" -- D C PG
Texas AM CC (2), Dayton (2), James Madison (2)
E.Haviland PG Fr 4 4 0 1 5 3 3 9 100 6' 3" -- D C PG
Dayton (2), James Madison (2), Northeastern (2), Stephen Austn (2), Elon (2)
C.Pachosa PG So 6 2 6 5 1 1 2 11 100 6' 5" -- D C PG
Tennessee (3), Auburn (3), Duquesne (2), St Bonaventre (2), Dayton (2)
T.Parra PG Fr 3 5 1 2 1 5 4 8 100 6' 5" -- D C PG
Dayton (2), James Madison (2), TN Chattnooga (1)
J.Sultana PG Fr 4 3 1 3 1 5 2 5 100 5' 9" -- D C PG
Dayton (2), James Madison (2)
J.Zafra PG Fr 4 4 6 2 1 1 1 9 100 6' 7" -- D C C
Auburn (3), Dayton (2), James Madison (2), Georgia St (2), Elon (2)
Date: Fri Jan 25 11:12:58 2008
Sender: David Smith
In round 2 Bryant and Haviland committed to Dayton. Invites were sent for
round 3 and 11 players visited. However none of these players will be
recruited in round 3 and we will go with the following roster into training
camp.
R.Watson C Sr 5 3 2 3 5 1 4 12 100 6'10" *S C C C
B.James C Fr 3 4 1 1 6 2 5 6 100 6' 9" -S C B C
N.Evans PF Sr 2 3 9 2 6 3 3 15 100 6' 6" *S C C PF
C.Alioto PF Jr 5 2 2 2 6 4 2 11 100 6' 9" *S C C PF
G.Gregory SF So 2 5 4 4 6 1 2 10 100 6' 7" -S C B C
F.Rogers SF Fr 2 2 8 3 3 5 0 8 100 6' 7" *S D C SF
M.Levin SF Jr 5 2 4 3 4 1 7 13 100 6' 7" *S D D PF
C.Leverenz SG Fr 3 6 4 2 2 2 4 9 100 6' 6" -- D C SG
C.Hatcher SG Fr 3 2 7 2 3 5 3 7 100 6' 6" -- D C SF
P.Avlon SG Jr 2 4 3 3 3 3 9 10 100 6' 2" -S D D PG
D.Soldner PG Fr 4 3 3 5 4 2 5 8 100 6' 0" -S C B PG
B.Alexander PG So 5 3 4 3 1 2 6 8 100 6' 0" -S D C PG
A.White PG Fr 6 2 0 4 3 2 1 7 100 6' 1" -- D C PG
D.Gambrell PG Jr 5 2 0 4 1 2 2 7 100 6' 1" -S D D PG
A.Reyes C Jr 1 7 0 2 3 1 5 11 100 6' 5" -S D D C S.King SG
So 1 4 1 2 3 4 2 5 100 6' 0" -S F D PG
A.Bryant SF Fr 5 4 4 1 2 3 3 6 100 6' 7" -- D C SF
E.Haviland PG Fr 4 4 0 1 5 3 3 9 100 6' 3" -- D C PG
Hopefully we will get several players show significant improvement. I am
really keeping my fingers crossed that our guard play will improve. Camp will
ultimately help to decide which direction to take with this team...whether it
be follow my initial plan and redshirt young players or just go for it. I am
leaning right now to going for it. Main reason is that if I redshirt guys it
will really hurt our talent level which is already bad enough. It is very
difficult to put a competitive roster together which includes nonscholarship
players. The way it is now I am probably going to have to play 2
nonscholarship players at SG this season...which means that they will request
scholarships in the offseason...which means they will be let go...because I am
going into recruiting next year with 2 scholarships!
The roster above shows the players in the position that I intend to use them.
I used the sortable list on the roster page to help determine the best possible
use for each player. Camp could change things but I doubt it. Remember that
players take a hit to their skills after camp is run if you change their
position and it takes several games before they recover at their new position.
You will not "see" it reflected by a lowering of their skills on your roster,
like a 6 scoring won't go down to a 5...it just happens. During the offseason
(after season end) you can move players around with no effect to their skills
at all. You can see how position changes will affect your talent level overall
and at different positions. After training camp runs I will talk with coach
Ayres and take into account the suggestions that many of you have made and
decide what the final plan for this season and the first phase of the project
should be. I will start a new thread called "Game planning/analysis". There
we will look at the playing style/coaching orders the team should have, game
plan opponents, and see what worked or didnt work throughout the regular
season.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
