So you are blaming the system for you not being able to build an A+ program.

That seems to be the overwhelming whining I hear from the other end. Wahh wahhh the old system was so unfair because I couldn't succeed. Easier to blame a system then a coaches own shortcomings.

Some changes in 3.0 were good for the game. Not all should have been implemented at once. I would bet if only half of the radical changes were made, many more coaches would have stayed.

Posted by mullycj on 10/3/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
So you are blaming the system for you not being able to build an A+ program.

That seems to be the overwhelming whining I hear from the other end. Wahh wahhh the old system was so unfair because I couldn't succeed. Easier to blame a system then a coaches own shortcomings.

Some changes in 3.0 were good for the game. Not all should have been implemented at once. I would bet if only half of the radical changes were made, many more coaches would have stayed.

I'm leaving about 20% because I don't like some of the new changes and 80% because I'm sick of being called a whiner and entitled because I don't like some of the changes. **** the nuHD superfans who need this change to sniff success.

Posted by mullycj on 10/3/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
So you are blaming the system for you not being able to build an A+ program.

That seems to be the overwhelming whining I hear from the other end. Wahh wahhh the old system was so unfair because I couldn't succeed. Easier to blame a system then a coaches own shortcomings.

Some changes in 3.0 were good for the game. Not all should have been implemented at once. I would bet if only half of the radical changes were made, many more coaches would have stayed.

I think the last sentence here sums it up. I think I'm one of the evil winners from HD2.

This game needs to be fun. What is fun about HD? I think everyone should ask themselves this question.

I like to win. I loved tough battles. When I beat girt/dalter or viperhoops or apeofwrath or another top notch coach, I was really happy. When I lost, I gave a tip of my cap and respected them for beating me. It just made me even happier when I did happen to win.

Now I worried I won't have that feeling. If you beat me, did you beat me, or did you get lucky? Its like if the Superbowl didn't get actually played, but each team got ping pong balls based on the # of points they scored over the course of the season, and we hold a lottery to give out the trophy. No one is going to be happy when the Cleveland Browns win. They didn't deserve it. Other teams wish they were luckier. Only the browns are happy, right?

I would argue that even the Browns aren't that happy. I once won a NT when I should have lost the NT title game in Allen season 62. I had an inferior team and just got lucky vs Girt25's UNC team. I know it, Girt knew it, it wasn't close. I won, but I wasn't happy. I wasn't happy because in season 58 I thought I won the NT because I had outsmarted my opponents and won all those games by superior gameplanning, I had a good team, but every string I pulled in that NT run worked. I gameplanned for hours. I remember waiting up til 2am on worknights for the last 4 games of the S58 NT. That S62 NT game showed me I just got lucky. Maybe I didn't win deserve to win S58's NT....maybe I was the browns the system just pulled my ping pong ball 4 times in a row. I stopped gameplanning after Allen season 62 because I knew I could never be really happy winning a game via gameplanning, so why put in the work.

In the next 25 seasons I made the Final Four 11 times. I never felt the joy of winning like I did season 58, because I know that I actually won all those games by luck. I game myself a good chance via recruiting smart, that's it. Setting all distro to 0 won't change the outcome too much. The only part of the game in HD 2.0 that required more skill than luck was recruiting.

All of you advocating for the lottery system of recruiting where some random effect awards the recruit at the end, consider the following:

Do you feel joy when you win the lottery? Or do you feel joy when your hard work and smart strategy pays off? What if you can't tell which is happening?
Hopefully admin will get the right mixture of strategy and randomness so that we all can have fun. Things like separating recruiting/scouting budgets, removing conference money and changing the amount of money you get per scholarship are all fine and just change the incumbent advantage, which I agree was far too high. The changes that remove the satisfaction a coach gets from the game are the changes that should be repealed/reversed/reviewed.

Posted by reinsel on 10/3/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/3/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
So you are blaming the system for you not being able to build an A+ program.

That seems to be the overwhelming whining I hear from the other end. Wahh wahhh the old system was so unfair because I couldn't succeed. Easier to blame a system then a coaches own shortcomings.

Some changes in 3.0 were good for the game. Not all should have been implemented at once. I would bet if only half of the radical changes were made, many more coaches would have stayed.

I think the last sentence here sums it up. I think I'm one of the evil winners from HD2.

This game needs to be fun. What is fun about HD? I think everyone should ask themselves this question.

I like to win. I loved tough battles. When I beat girt/dalter or viperhoops or apeofwrath or another top notch coach, I was really happy. When I lost, I gave a tip of my cap and respected them for beating me. It just made me even happier when I did happen to win.

Now I worried I won't have that feeling. If you beat me, did you beat me, or did you get lucky? Its like if the Superbowl didn't get actually played, but each team got ping pong balls based on the # of points they scored over the course of the season, and we hold a lottery to give out the trophy. No one is going to be happy when the Cleveland Browns win. They didn't deserve it. Other teams wish they were luckier. Only the browns are happy, right?

I would argue that even the Browns aren't that happy. I once won a NT when I should have lost the NT title game in Allen season 62. I had an inferior team and just got lucky vs Girt25's UNC team. I know it, Girt knew it, it wasn't close. I won, but I wasn't happy. I wasn't happy because in season 58 I thought I won the NT because I had outsmarted my opponents and won all those games by superior gameplanning, I had a good team, but every string I pulled in that NT run worked. I gameplanned for hours. I remember waiting up til 2am on worknights for the last 4 games of the S58 NT. That S62 NT game showed me I just got lucky. Maybe I didn't win deserve to win S58's NT....maybe I was the browns the system just pulled my ping pong ball 4 times in a row. I stopped gameplanning after Allen season 62 because I knew I could never be really happy winning a game via gameplanning, so why put in the work.

In the next 25 seasons I made the Final Four 11 times. I never felt the joy of winning like I did season 58, because I know that I actually won all those games by luck. I game myself a good chance via recruiting smart, that's it. Setting all distro to 0 won't change the outcome too much. The only part of the game in HD 2.0 that required more skill than luck was recruiting.

All of you advocating for the lottery system of recruiting where some random effect awards the recruit at the end, consider the following:

Do you feel joy when you win the lottery? Or do you feel joy when your hard work and smart strategy pays off? What if you can't tell which is happening?
Hopefully admin will get the right mixture of strategy and randomness so that we all can have fun. Things like separating recruiting/scouting budgets, removing conference money and changing the amount of money you get per scholarship are all fine and just change the incumbent advantage, which I agree was far too high. The changes that remove the satisfaction a coach gets from the game are the changes that should be repealed/reversed/reviewed.

First off, regarding mully's point, there are lots of us who enjoy 3.0 who are not part of the "blaming the system because... we couldn't sniff success" straw man. People enjoy games for different reasons. I like competition and battling, and I want there to be many viable strategies for success. I dislike a game that rewards risk aversion.

I find it interesting that you'd say "the only part of the game in HD 2.0 that required more skill than luck was recruiting". First, I'm not sure what you mean by skill. Saving up lots of cash and staying out of battles you may not win is not what I'd consider "skill", at least not in a competitive setting. Second, part of the reason I am excited to see how 3.0 changes gameplay is that it should put a premium back onto long term planning (in recruiting) and game planning on a game basis. There's some chance involved with everything - as reflected in the real world. Navigating that chance, and putting yourself in the best position to win is what competition is all about. As they say, "that's why you play the game". Nothing in life is won on paper.

Crossword puzzles are won on paper.

pkoopman, i think you are mostly just arguing semantics, and missing the point. of course, there is hyperbole, but there is no need to enforce a scientific usage of the word random. of course, random means the outcome is completely un-influenced by human actions. but to a layman, this is "completely random". basically, most folks use random and non-random as you and i might use non-deterministic, and deterministic. just read it that way, and your life will be a lot easier. the fact that you are technically correct is largely irrelevant, and it abstracts away from the primary complaint from many folks here (setting some hyperbole aside) - they liked how old recruiting was entirely deterministic, and they don't like how current recruiting is non-deterministic. its no more complicated than that.

people know a d3 sim can beat the best d1 team, its just a really small chance - but still, that chance, its really discomforting to some folks. its discomforting to me, to some degree, i get it - nobody likes doing everything to position themselves to win, and then, to lose. in recruiting before, that didn't exist, if you were slightly ahead, you won 100% of the time (except maybe some weird bug with sims that nobody really ever pinned down). that surety of outcome provides comfort, and really, recruiting was the big area where they got it. whether you agree or not, one should be able to sympathize with that to some extent. its hard when nothing is guaranteed, when you can't be sure of anything, and i think that is what folks are fundamentally upset about -- in this one regard. they feel the game was random enough (read: non-deterministic enough) already.

I can certainly understand why some coaches do not like having a the final recruit decision being made by probability.

I have been one of the guys throwing around the term whiner .. and I apologize.

I will try to explain why I think using probability instead of just having the team in the lead win every time is good.

I think it better approximates the new player, who wants to hold a commitment ceremony with 3 or 4 hats and pick the team he wants to play for. All the verbal commitments and assurances in the world don't matter .. when he picks the hat and signs the papers, he is committed. And it could be any of his finalists. Some people have done a little more, others have not .. but he picks, based on what he likes.

I think using a probability system at signing that uses Potential as a major factor as well as player preferences is the best way to really approximate that aspect of recruit 'indecisiveness'.

I also like that fact that it helps to mitigate the 'within 180/360 miles' recruiting paradigm. You can show the love to a recruit who is within 50 miles of Florida State or Washington and still have a decent shot at getting that recruit.

So for those two main reasons, I really like the probability model.

For those who say it is totally random, obviously it is not. There is a 'roll', where the outcome is determined by probability. It is not totally random. But, I will concede that this roll adds more randomness to the process. I think that added randomness adds to the fun of the game .. not because 'I want to get' players I could not get before .. but because I think it better represents how 18 year old recruits make decisions.

I certainly understand why some would be unhappy with it.

But I think, in the long run, this helps the game be more fun.

Posted by gillispie1 on 10/3/2016 5:49:00 PM (view original):
pkoopman, i think you are mostly just arguing semantics, and missing the point. of course, there is hyperbole, but there is no need to enforce a scientific usage of the word random. of course, random means the outcome is completely un-influenced by human actions. but to a layman, this is "completely random". basically, most folks use random and non-random as you and i might use non-deterministic, and deterministic. just read it that way, and your life will be a lot easier. the fact that you are technically correct is largely irrelevant, and it abstracts away from the primary complaint from many folks here (setting some hyperbole aside) - they liked how old recruiting was entirely deterministic, and they don't like how current recruiting is non-deterministic. its no more complicated than that.

people know a d3 sim can beat the best d1 team, its just a really small chance - but still, that chance, its really discomforting to some folks. its discomforting to me, to some degree, i get it - nobody likes doing everything to position themselves to win, and then, to lose. in recruiting before, that didn't exist, if you were slightly ahead, you won 100% of the time (except maybe some weird bug with sims that nobody really ever pinned down). that surety of outcome provides comfort, and really, recruiting was the big area where they got it. whether you agree or not, one should be able to sympathize with that to some extent. its hard when nothing is guaranteed, when you can't be sure of anything, and i think that is what folks are fundamentally upset about -- in this one regard. they feel the game was random enough (read: non-deterministic enough) already.

On the contrary, I think I got to the point, if you'll note a few posts back I've already essentially made the points you're getting at.

"You're entitled to a preference that recruiting be entirely deterministic. That's fine. I disagree, and apparently so does WIS, but you want what you want, and it's valid. Let's just stick to the honest preferences, and not go off into a made up universe where 3.0 might as well just randomly assign recruits, and pretend that the outcomes would be similar."

Look, as OR brings up in another thread, it's important right now to reach out to "fence-sitters". The guys who just can't tolerate probability in this game are likely gone, or out the door. If there is a false notion of 3.0 being all about luck, removing skill, removing strategy, what have you, those are misconceptions, and they should not go unchallenged. It may not change poncho's mind, but there may be someone reading along who needs to hear about all the different strategies that are opened up in this new system, beyond horde cash and avoid most battles.

If I go down the rabbit hole sometimes when I have the time and the inclination, so be it. You may not care about the distinction between good argumentation, a proper representation of opposing viewpoints, and hyperbole, but I do.

NO ONE IS SAYING WIS IS RANDOMLY ASSIGNING RECRUITS OR THAT RECRUITING RESULTS ARE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED. The whiners and haters who are the wis apologists boil the counter-arguments down into those things. You are engaging in what you claim to be better than.

The forums will have little to no impact on fence sitters, their experience of gameplay will be authoritative, for anyone to think of themselves as some sort of light in the darkness in the forums is delusional. Just as much as I find hoping wis to engage in meaningful discourse with users in the forums is delusional.

I'd call myself a fence sitter.

I think that for me, there is a risk that HD3 is too much like poker. To have skill reveal itself in poker, you have to play hundreds, maybe thousands of hands. If you are of average skill (for someone who plays) and you sit down with a Dan Coleman or Eric Seidel or Dan Negraneau type pro, and you play 5 hands, you got a good chance to win 3, and 90% of the time you'll win at least one of the 5.

In a game where the best strategy wins (and HD2 was not that game) you don't need a ton of games to reveal skill. Chess is a good example. No average player is going to hang with a grandmaster for even 1 game out of 5.

"If there is a false notion of 3.0 being all about luck, removing skill, removing strategy, what have you, those are misconceptions, and they should not go unchallenged. ...there may be someone reading along who needs to hear about all the different strategies that are opened up in this new system, beyond horde cash and avoid most battles."
Pin it.

"The forums will have little to no impact on fence sitters ..."
I hope that turns out to be true. The continued presence of the whiners and HD-haters in the forums would certainly have a deleterious effect on their experience with the website, so your optimism that they will leave is refreshing.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/3/2016 8:32:00 PM (view original):
"If there is a false notion of 3.0 being all about luck, removing skill, removing strategy, what have you, those are misconceptions, and they should not go unchallenged. ...there may be someone reading along who needs to hear about all the different strategies that are opened up in this new system, beyond horde cash and avoid most battles."
Pin it.

"The forums will have little to no impact on fence sitters ..."
I hope that turns out to be true. The continued presence of the whiners and HD-haters in the forums would certainly have a deleterious effect on their experience with the website, so your optimism that they will leave is refreshing.

Try reading my post. I said the forums will have no impact as compared to the gameplay experience, I said nothing about the forums having a positive impact on fence sitters.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2016 11:08:00 AM (view original):
So we can agree that the process is not, in fact, a random one, and you will retract the suggestion that we "Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it" because it is misleading hyperbole? Cool. You're entitled to a preference that recruiting be entirely deterministic. That's fine. I disagree, and apparently so does WIS, but you want what you want, and it's valid. Let's just stick to the honest preferences, and not go off into a made up universe where 3.0 might as well just randomly assign recruits, and pretend that the outcomes would be similar.

In case you didn't catch it, that was a blatant exaggeration. I thought it was obvious, but apparently it was not.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/3/2016 12:18:00 PM (view original):
"Spud, you can remove yourself altogether." Of course, if all you understand is "random" and you don't understand that very well, I have no interest in the conversation anyway. I'll talk about HD. Lotsa luck with "random." Thank you.

Thanks for another quality post full of knowledge and insight coming from your depth of experience.

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/3/2016 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2016 11:08:00 AM (view original):
So we can agree that the process is not, in fact, a random one, and you will retract the suggestion that we "Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it" because it is misleading hyperbole? Cool. You're entitled to a preference that recruiting be entirely deterministic. That's fine. I disagree, and apparently so does WIS, but you want what you want, and it's valid. Let's just stick to the honest preferences, and not go off into a made up universe where 3.0 might as well just randomly assign recruits, and pretend that the outcomes would be similar.

In case you didn't catch it, that was a blatant exaggeration. I thought it was obvious, but apparently it was not.

No, I got it. That's what hyperbole means.