There is definitely a value for for STs, I kind've think the further a player is the more value it has, of course I could be wrong. There have been times when I'm trying to find out if I want to recruit an international player, and I throw a 4 STs at him and he'll consider me without even offering a scholarship. It has much more value than people realize.

Posted by ethan66 on 7/1/2012 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/1/2012 1:04:00 AM (view original):
the major misconception about SVs, i think, comes from the fact that it takes a **** ton to pull someone down. there is something fishy going on, where WIS is artificially reducing the effort done by schools on pulldowns, or something. the amount of SVs it takes to get a pulldown to consider you is super high, it makes SVs seem damn near useless. but if you use SVs to get someone to consider you, they really aren't that horrible.

I've always been told that the major - if only - value of STs was that they could not be refused.  For D3 and D2 teams, it means they're the only reliable method of getting yourself considered.

STs will also give you some info on fine grades of potential (high, low-high, high-high).

At least in D2/D3 they're a viable tool to get pulldowns.  I'm not sure what they'll do for a D1 program.
 

I have a couple problems with the info in this post:
1) Presenting SVs as "the only reliable way to get yourself considered" is false. It's a reliable way to pull a guy down, but to get someone in your own division to consider you, materials + a HV is a very reliable way to get a recruit to consider you.
2) For d1 programs, SVs can help with pull downs (if you're at a lower prestige school), but I also find them to be extremely valuable when deciding between two recruits. The difference between being successful or not comes down to finding guys with lots of high high potentials.

Posted by tkimble on 7/1/2012 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 7/1/2012 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/1/2012 1:04:00 AM (view original):
the major misconception about SVs, i think, comes from the fact that it takes a **** ton to pull someone down. there is something fishy going on, where WIS is artificially reducing the effort done by schools on pulldowns, or something. the amount of SVs it takes to get a pulldown to consider you is super high, it makes SVs seem damn near useless. but if you use SVs to get someone to consider you, they really aren't that horrible.

I've always been told that the major - if only - value of STs was that they could not be refused.  For D3 and D2 teams, it means they're the only reliable method of getting yourself considered.

STs will also give you some info on fine grades of potential (high, low-high, high-high).

At least in D2/D3 they're a viable tool to get pulldowns.  I'm not sure what they'll do for a D1 program.
 

I have a couple problems with the info in this post:
1) Presenting SVs as "the only reliable way to get yourself considered" is false. It's a reliable way to pull a guy down, but to get someone in your own division to consider you, materials + a HV is a very reliable way to get a recruit to consider you.
2) For d1 programs, SVs can help with pull downs (if you're at a lower prestige school), but I also find them to be extremely valuable when deciding between two recruits. The difference between being successful or not comes down to finding guys with lots of high high potentials.

If you'll note, I was referring to pullldowns, not players in your own division.  If you send HVs to a pulldown before he's considering you or dropped to your division, you're likely to lose the money.  Thus the STs which cannot be refused.

And I purposely did not address D1 since I don't play D1.  But thanks for the info.

Well, no, you're not likely to lose the money.  If you send the HV he will refuse it and your money won't be spent.

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/1/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
There is definitely a value for for STs, I kind've think the further a player is the more value it has, of course I could be wrong. There have been times when I'm trying to find out if I want to recruit an international player, and I throw a 4 STs at him and he'll consider me without even offering a scholarship. It has much more value than people realize.

+1

again, 99% sure there is an artificial decrease in value of SVs on pulldowns, causing the wide-spread misconception about the value of SVs

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/1/2012 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Yea, I remember when LM said that he thought CVs were 2.5-3x HVs, but I'm pretty sure he was wrong. I think the problem is back then, and even now, there is a misconception about the advantage of prestige. I remember it was going around that in D1, 1/3 letter grade was a 33% advantage, and I think now most people realize that that's far from the truth. People even thought there was a decent advantage at D2/D3 but now most people realize that when it comes to battles prestige is nearly meaningless outside of D1.

i agree with this too. i have a lot of respect for lostmyth, as hes a great coach, arguably the best ever, and easily hold the argument of best d1 coach ever, if there is even a distinction to be made (i would argue there is, but i can see the other side). 

however, you have to look at the WHOLE of his responses on the subject.

1) prestige is worth 70% per letter grade
2) prestige scales linearly
3) HV:CV is what, 2.5-3?
4) prestige is not capped on d1 a+

you have to take what lostmyth says in light of his situation. 

1) he basically only coached with an a+ for a long while
2) he claimed prestige *must* scale linearly due to the nonsensical battles he would have to explain based on smaller contrasts in bigger prestige battles

well, the linear prestige claim has been proven false. there is no logical system where you can have a linear prestige progress. as in, if A to B = 2x, A to C = 4x. or else what in the hell would you do when an A, B, and C schools battle? there is a simple conversion to effort, virtually everyone understands that. so if the B = 2C and A = 2B, then A = 4C but also in a linear system, one would claim A = 3C. contradiction.

so, knowing now that lostmyth had a flaw in his understanding of d1 prestige, whats the impact on the rest of his claims?

so, heres what i claim. any battles within a single prestige grade aren't worth half a ****. (note, there are exceptions, but they are rare and most coaches cannot spot them). figure A to B, is that 1 prestige grade? or is the A a low A, the B a high B, making the difference of a low B+ to high A-, which is 2/3rds. or is the A a high A, and B low B, which is 1 1/3 grades - twice the low end range. so with a factor of TWO variance on the damn prestige grade, which is a major factor, it is *incredibly* easy to have misleading results.

anyway, one thing is obvious to me. if you think prestige scales linearly at the high range of battles, you were over valuing prestige. multiplicative prestige scales very quickly. if, on a wide prestige battle lostmyth was going hmm this range of prestige wasn't as big as i though, so it must scale linearly - it stands to reason, his value of prestige is probably high.

well, here is where i don't have a tidy logical reason to break down his HV:CV ratio, which as you might have guessed, i disagree with (i only agree with his claim about a+ not being capped - goes to show - this **** is not simple, if you can, at one time, take guys like OR, LM, and myself, and we can all heartily disagree with each other on prestige range). one would think a high value on prestige would lead to an under valuing of whichever tool one used - and CV seem to be LMs tool of choice (or maybe, it WAS HV, but his value on prestige drove him to believe CV > HV at low distances??). so, all i can say is this:

this **** is NOT simple. im a math guy, a computer algorithms guy, and in this world of basketball simulations, THAT is my strength. guys like OR crush me on, you know, having a damn clue how to play basketball (i have none). i can say honestly, i was surprised how difficult it was to attempt to nail down prestige. the range of variation is so huge, its so damn easy to get sucked in to a frame of mind but when you have things like a wide prestige range (a whole grade, about the largest you see with any regularity in d1 - STILL being a factor of 2 variation) - its insanely difficult to pin down! but its easy to go, i think prestige is 1.7, HV:CV is 2.7, and most battles will fit those values - because of the massive ranges involved.

so anyway, i would guess lostmyth has had some of the best d1 A+s of all time, and more of them than anyone, by a lot. any time you have an advantage like that, that you can't really count on, it can easily hide other losses - such as, using CV at 250 miles, when you should use HV, but experience only a moderate (about 20%) loss - his a+ could have caused him to win battles, that he attributed to CVs being stronger than they are. also, often, coaches make judgement calls based on what works. LM most likely was spending his money more efficiently than just about any coach, so when he would presumably, like all of us, "predict" if he could win a battle - he probably only ended up fighting battles he expected to win, without factoring in his efficiency (i do the same thing, im sure most of the other top coaches do too), and then he won. so why question his values? no reason, as best i can tell, tough to doubt yourself when you as successful as he was.

so i would just guess he fell into one of the many traps and pitfalls any coach can fall into trying to approximate prestige and HV:CV. *if you don't save your battles in writing you basically don't have an ice cube's chance in hell, due to the extreme uncertainty involved*. did he save his? i dont know, but its really easy not to. your *ONLY* chance is to take battle after battle, compute the extremely wide ranges of possibilities, always considering the possibility the other coach, who most likely just lost, is ****** off and lying to you (or made a mistake). when you get enough of these extremely wide ranges, they do prune things down, and over time, you can narrow in. BUT if you have value in mind, that is reasonably close to the real values, you usually can find a way to make it fit, its just what happens when there is such wide variation. it just simply takes a mathematical rigor to really nail this down that most people are not used to. when you do get a tight battle, that maybe shows you were off (say it was 1.6 not 1.7, might take 20 battles to find out you are wrong) - its close enough, and you've had so many more positive indicators, its easy to wave one slightly negative one off.

for some semblance of completion, i should also mention - you also have the possibility of finding these things other ways, other than battles. but i doubt more than a couple coaches have figured out those methods. surely, they exist, but again - with an incredible array of possible pit falls and challenges. and a similar level of mathematical rigor is required, along with a detailed understanding of the mechanics of recruiting. and its just the reality of life - most of the "sports people" who tend to excel quickly in this game, with a strong intuition for sports - are not the math geeks who take the time to prove everything under the sun. so i just dont think its very likely that many coaches would figure out how to *really* nail down things like prestige value, and HV:CV.

i mean, to illustrate my point, i can only think of 1 really good example. OR, many times, posted that he thought prestige was 2:1. and he now has retracted that, saying he doesn't think it can be close to that big. there are few coaches, if any, who have a better understanding of this game than OR. hes coached basketball and has done technical work, and of course, has a dozen more championships than any other coach. so if someone like him can make the mistake - ANYONE can. the only way to figure this out is through incredible rigor and open mindedness - and the reality is, most of the best coaches are those with the best intuition. and those with great intuition lean on it, hard (as they should). but things like prestige, HV:CV, are just incredibly conducive to making mistakes, if you are leaning on your intuition. so its very easy to do. and i dont think most coaches honestly care enough to actually go figure out what the HV:CV ratio is, nor what the value of prestige is, and it that case - you may as well take the opinions of a few top coaches, and pick one, or average them, or something. but if you *REALLY* want to know, you just can't take the word of anyone, doesn't matter who it is.

Posted by llamanunts on 7/2/2012 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Well, no, you're not likely to lose the money.  If you send the HV he will refuse it and your money won't be spent.

the money is not always refunded.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/2/2012 6:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/1/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
There is definitely a value for for STs, I kind've think the further a player is the more value it has, of course I could be wrong. There have been times when I'm trying to find out if I want to recruit an international player, and I throw a 4 STs at him and he'll consider me without even offering a scholarship. It has much more value than people realize.

+1

again, 99% sure there is an artificial decrease in value of SVs on pulldowns, causing the wide-spread misconception about the value of SVs

Good call.

Date	User
7/2/2012 7:00 PM	zbrent716
Is the Recruiting Value of a Scouting Trip lessened for players that you are trying to "pull down" to your level? That is, for a D3 team, will 5 Scouting Trips to a normal D3 player (no pull-down needed) earn more Recruiting Value than 5 Scouting Trips to a potential pull-down (someone who responded to first contact with a "backup" message)?
7/5/2012 11:33 AM	Customer Support
Yes, you'll get less credit if the player considers you a "backup" option.

thanks for sharing that confirmation zbrent

I think promised starts and minutes should be tied to reputation and loyalty of the coach.  Does anyone know if they are?  I.E. higher the reputation and loyality, the more meaningul the promise (and therefore more credit/recruiting effort).

It seems to me that these factors don't impact recruiting:  from the FAQ: "While your loyalty won't hurt your recruiting efforts"... not sure about Rep... doesn't say in the FAQ.

But, in reality, this should be very important.  Obviously in RL kids go to schools often due to playing time and the coach. 

Posted by zbrent716 on 7/5/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/2/2012 6:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/1/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):
There is definitely a value for for STs, I kind've think the further a player is the more value it has, of course I could be wrong. There have been times when I'm trying to find out if I want to recruit an international player, and I throw a 4 STs at him and he'll consider me without even offering a scholarship. It has much more value than people realize.

+1

again, 99% sure there is an artificial decrease in value of SVs on pulldowns, causing the wide-spread misconception about the value of SVs

Good call.

Date	User
7/2/2012 7:00 PM	zbrent716
Is the Recruiting Value of a Scouting Trip lessened for players that you are trying to "pull down" to your level? That is, for a D3 team, will 5 Scouting Trips to a normal D3 player (no pull-down needed) earn more Recruiting Value than 5 Scouting Trips to a potential pull-down (someone who responded to first contact with a "backup" message)?
7/5/2012 11:33 AM	Customer Support
Yes, you'll get less credit if the player considers you a "backup" option.

wow. i didn't know you could ask CS questions like that. or maybe i did, but wouldn't, because the quality of information back was always too low. i mean really either an issue is a difficult one, and i wouldn't trust CS to answer, or else i was confident enough like in this case, where even if they disagreed, it wouldn't affect my opinion.

however, its not the first time lately ive seen a useful CS ticket come back. for a while there the only CS tickets you saw were the bad ones (if there were others, they were like UFOs, people said they existed but nobody had any proof :). it was almost a joke, maybe something has changed over at WIS in the caring about their customers department, which would be great! seble has been more present too, it gives me hope for the future :)

and thanks for sharing this! always nice for people to get a confirmation. and always nice of CS to get it right, im not sure i was up for another round of defending against a false or misunderstood CS ticket.