Not saying I disagree TJ with your first point but I don't understand your last part. If you have fewer players scouted to max and therefore have a smaller pool of players that you really like then how would that help being able to land someone else if you lose the battle. I probably need to do better scouting but I was finding this pretty risky during my last recruiting at Chestnut. I had 3 guards that I really liked. I was able to get 1 while the others got snatched up by D2 very quickly. If I didn't get that 3rd one, I was really screwed because I had no one else on my list that was more than just average or a backup.

And actually even the guy I did get is pretty meh.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2016 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Well, if you don't need to spend a dime on recruiting in D3, how are we lacking in scouting money? Just scout all the D1 players you can at level one and work off the letter grades. Surely we know an A/B is better than D/F, right?

I think he means recruiting money and not scouting money, as the budgets are now separated.

There are a couple different ways to recruit .. In Div-2/3 this is what I do.

I do a full local camp first thing ($12,000 and 200 recruits), as well as scout all states w/in 200 miles (or 300 miles for div-2) on FSS.

Once the camp runs, I MIGHT do the closest Elite camp if in Div-2 or the closest Standard camp in Div-3. Or I might not wait for that camp.

Once I have done all the camps I want and the FSS .. I think start at 100 miles and pick div-2/3 for a div-3 team or div-1/2 for a dvi-2 team and start scouting. After I scout all within/100 miles, I move to 200 miles and do the same, then 300 miles, etc.

I scout as many as I can .. saving a couple thousand bucks to look for transfers during session 2. If you have already found all recruits w/in 300 miles .. and if you scout looking for new recruits in session 2, then only transfers will show up .. for example.

Anyway, that is how I NORMALLY recruit at the lower levels .. then I really only look at guys scouted at > scouting level 2 and progress them out to what I think final attributes will be.

I understood what he meant.

He said that one didn't need to spend a dime in recruiting. Therefore, it stands to reason that the "best" strategy for a D3 is to scout, to level 1, as many D1 players as possible. No need to waste money on D2/D3 players as all you have to do is wait for the D1 guys. As I said, A/B is better than D/F. I only need to scout that deeply to be rolling in the D1 players at D3.

Posted by zorzii on 11/22/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Well, PK, I am testing D1, D2 and D3... So I wonder what's false. D1 is a lottery, if you lose it, beware. I don't spend money in D2, D3 unless I need to push sims to low or v.low. The system needs ajustments. It can be perfected. Scouting limits your chances to find gems. If you win the lotteries, it's good, if not you need to dig deeper and money can be thin. As for D3, it would be fun to have a bit more money so the field of talent is a bit more discovered.

"D1 is a lottery". No it isn't. You could say that many battles for elite players become individual lotteries, if by lottery you mean a probability-based contest that you buy into. How you prioritize,who you target, and how much you invest determines how high your probability will be. If you understand that you may lose - because others may be prioritizing, targeting, and investing against you - you can either develop and execute contingency plans, or you can save up for next year. And if you have no taste for lotteries, and want to continue to avoid battles, you can target and lock down lower-demand players. Or you can mix and match. Lots of strategy choices to choose from. None of this "needs fixed asap".

You can recruit without spending money at D2/3, sure. You can also spend money, and fight D1s. With Abilene Christian, I fought off 2 human D1s (Air Force and Vanderbilt) for recruits that I had prioritized. I doubt they went all in, but they both offered scholarships - likely to see if they could cherry-pick and knock me down easily. The fact that you can recruit without spending money is not, in itself, anything that needs to be fixed. That method is a tool in your toolkit.

The reason scouting budget decreases as you go down is because it's supposed to be more local at lower levels. It's a feature, not a bug. Are you having trouble finding good players who fall through the cracks at D3 or D2? I haven't. Lots of people haven't. In fact, that was what sweetpeapapa's whole rant was based on, it's supposedly too easy. So frankly, I just don't know what you're talking about at all. Lower level scouting budgets are fine. Increasing them will only increase the instances of lower division teams snatching up those poor D1 team's plan B prospects (which you've also complained about).

Posted by therewas47 on 11/21/2016 7:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 11/21/2016 5:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/21/2016 1:35:00 AM (view original):
**crickets**

If by 'crickets' you mean the majority of readers implicitly agree that your opinion on this matter doesn't warrant a genuine response...then you'd be absolutely correct.

So, sadly, those are 'ironic crickets' that only you can hear.

It's rough that even when you have him on block he can still derail any thread you read. I absolutely hate the pseudo-intellectual types like spud that think so highly of themselves but in reality aren't very intelligent.

Couldn't agree more. I can deal with petty insults and competing opinions just fine, but repeated and sorry attemts of sophistry are entirely unbearable.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2016 1:43:00 PM (view original):
I understood what he meant.

He said that one didn't need to spend a dime in recruiting. Therefore, it stands to reason that the "best" strategy for a D3 is to scout, to level 1, as many D1 players as possible. No need to waste money on D2/D3 players as all you have to do is wait for the D1 guys. As I said, A/B is better than D/F. I only need to scout that deeply to be rolling in the D1 players at D3.

It doesn't stand to reason that. That's an incredibly dumb idea and no one is suggesting it.

You either don't understand what he means or are being purposely thick.

Posted by Benis on 11/22/2016 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Not saying I disagree TJ with your first point but I don't understand your last part. If you have fewer players scouted to max and therefore have a smaller pool of players that you really like then how would that help being able to land someone else if you lose the battle. I probably need to do better scouting but I was finding this pretty risky during my last recruiting at Chestnut. I had 3 guards that I really liked. I was able to get 1 while the others got snatched up by D2 very quickly. If I didn't get that 3rd one, I was really screwed because I had no one else on my list that was more than just average or a backup.

And actually even the guy I did get is pretty meh.

I don't usually spend all my scouting budget in cycle 1. I try to hold back 1/3 to 1/2 of it (at d3) to scout after signings when it's cheaper and more efficient.

What I am trying to say is I like to go hard after my first choice. Even if I spend ALL my recruiting budget and lose, I know there will be some decent options (but usually not as good as my first choice) left that I can sign with AP and promises. In the older version, if I went all in and lost I couldn't sign anyone else. Heck, often I win but then wouldn't have either enough cash to sign more players OR there wouldn't be anyone else worth signing because EVERYONE had the same (or close to) the same information and gems were kinda hard to find when dealing with savy recruiters.

Posted by dadbod on 11/22/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/22/2016 1:43:00 PM (view original):
I understood what he meant.

He said that one didn't need to spend a dime in recruiting. Therefore, it stands to reason that the "best" strategy for a D3 is to scout, to level 1, as many D1 players as possible. No need to waste money on D2/D3 players as all you have to do is wait for the D1 guys. As I said, A/B is better than D/F. I only need to scout that deeply to be rolling in the D1 players at D3.

It doesn't stand to reason that. That's an incredibly dumb idea and no one is suggesting it.

You either don't understand what he means or are being purposely thick.

Sure it does. It's all random, right? If so, simply open up the scholarships and wait for the random dice roll. If it's your lucky day, you're a big winner.

The more I play 3.0, the more I like it. Of course, I've spent most of my time in Div II and III. It seems to me the people most upset with 3.0 are the traditional powers in Div I. Is it really about EE's? Or are they just not liking their gravy train has changed and they have to adapt to it?

Posted by dadbod on 11/22/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/22/2016 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Not saying I disagree TJ with your first point but I don't understand your last part. If you have fewer players scouted to max and therefore have a smaller pool of players that you really like then how would that help being able to land someone else if you lose the battle. I probably need to do better scouting but I was finding this pretty risky during my last recruiting at Chestnut. I had 3 guards that I really liked. I was able to get 1 while the others got snatched up by D2 very quickly. If I didn't get that 3rd one, I was really screwed because I had no one else on my list that was more than just average or a backup.

And actually even the guy I did get is pretty meh.

I don't usually spend all my scouting budget in cycle 1. I try to hold back 1/3 to 1/2 of it (at d3) to scout after signings when it's cheaper and more efficient.

What I am trying to say is I like to go hard after my first choice. Even if I spend ALL my recruiting budget and lose, I know there will be some decent options (but usually not as good as my first choice) left that I can sign with AP and promises. In the older version, if I went all in and lost I couldn't sign anyone else. Heck, often I win but then wouldn't have either enough cash to sign more players OR there wouldn't be anyone else worth signing because EVERYONE had the same (or close to) the same information and gems were kinda hard to find when dealing with savy recruiters.

ah okay I see what you're saying. Makes sense. So you typically go for same division then on your first choice? If he's an early signer then you'd know very quickly if you lose. If your 1st choice is D1 and you're D3 then you might not know if you've won until deep in 2nd session.

I don't usually go for same division guys unless early unless:

1. They are VERY good (or best available)
2. I have a lot of openings and need to sign some people

I try to always have backups options lined up in case the higher division guys get scooped up.

In my time in the WIS forums I have only ever blocked one user, and it was a very high volume poster in the HBD forums. Someone who posted constantly but I felt added no value. Draw your own conclusions.

My heart is broken. Buh-bye.

No Active Teams

If I stop playing the game and post here, I hope I get hit by a bus the next day. Because, obviously, I have nothing left to do.