WOTS Question Topic

bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
I was wondering if anyone has ever posted something that clarifies what some of the various WOTS verbiage means. I did a search and didn't turn anything up, but it's certainly possible I didn't look properly as I'm not perfect.

I'm trying to understand WOTS better and if there is some info on this it would be helpful. Thanks.
9/26/2012 9:03 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
No one has any info on this?
9/27/2012 12:52 PM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie
I think there's only a couple different levels.

For instance;  "very solid", "very tight" and "very high priority" mean basically the same thing.   I even had the WOTS for one recruit switch form solid to tight to high priority back to solid without spending anything after the first cycle.

The others where you're the only team being considered are also basically the same:
"leaning towards.. but sources tell us he's not 100% sold" 
"early frontrunner..but the family tells us he's not sold"
"likes him... but he may not be a priority for them"
"some attention... but he's keeping his options wide open"
"some attention... but our sources say he's very open to other offers"
9/27/2012 1:15 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
thats good advice.

there are 9 messages you can have when a recruit is considering 1 school, these represent 2 levels of effort. the lower level has 6 messages, the high one has 3, and they all mean the exact same thing. the 3 high ones are the very solid, *very* etc type messages.

when 2 schools are being considered, there are also 2 options, although im not sure how many different messages there might be for it. basically, its close, or its not. however, FSS shows close even after you get the "far ahead" or "far behind" (but still considering both) scholarship messages. so close doesn't really mean close by scholarship message standards. 

when 3 or more schools are being considered, it will tell you which are primary and which are backups. i think that is similar to how it works with 2 schools - it compares everyone to the front runner, and if they are within a margin of closeness (again, more than the range of scholarship messages - this was obviously built for d1), it will say something like, player X is really interested in school A and school B at this point - schools C and D appear to be fallback options.

thats pretty much it. if you want to research the exact amount of efforts it takes at various levels (and it varies by divisional play, sort of), to get a player to consider you tightly or loosely, that would probably be worthwhile, but i havent done it myself, i just have some modest approximations.
9/27/2012 3:12 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
I thought there were 3 levels of considering two schools - too close to call, leaning one way, and leaning strongly one way.
9/27/2012 3:14 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by dahsdebater on 9/27/2012 3:14:00 PM (view original):
I thought there were 3 levels of considering two schools - too close to call, leaning one way, and leaning strongly one way.
i thought this might be the case a while back, so i did a study, and there are only 2 levels. girt/daalter has said this early on, so i just took his word for it, but about 6 months ago or something i thought gee, 9 messages sure seem like they'd be split 3/3/3, not 3/6, so i checked myself. but its 3/6.
9/27/2012 3:17 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
So of the three apparent message types, which are actually the same (don't have the exact verbage, but you'll get the idea):

Recruit is torn between school A and school B.

Recruit is leaning towards school A.

School B is a fallback option at this stage.

Are the second and third really the same?
9/27/2012 3:21 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
I believe the fallback message is for battles  of 3 or more teams. For example, Player is struggling between A and B. C looks like a fallback at this point. 
9/27/2012 3:30 PM
Weena
Posts: 579 (0)
Hall of Famer
227 1 1 1 531 1 27
Rookie

A couple of things I have discovered about WOTS are interesting to me. I have noticed that, at least at DI, there are variances by position and time. For example, I was recruiting the #48 SF and the #53 C. I had $8K into the SF and he was "keeping his options open" but I had $6K into the C and he was "very tight". Both were within 350 miles of my campus so I only used HVs not CVs. No promises were made to either player. The next day, with 2 cycles remaining till signing, the SF was now tight also. The only recruiting effort I added was one phone call per cycle. I have noticed this positional variance several times over many recruiting classes. I have not done a formal study on it to validate the specific break points but I believe it is true.  

9/27/2012 3:41 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
Ok, not the fallback message then.  That's a semantic argument.  What about the one where it says "recruit definitely prefers school A"
9/27/2012 7:17 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by dahsdebater on 9/27/2012 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Ok, not the fallback message then.  That's a semantic argument.  What about the one where it says "recruit definitely prefers school A"
study it yourself, like i did. only took me 1 season (3 days), and about a half hour, maybe it was a bit more actually its been a while. and i did have 2 teams recruiting.

all you have to do is track relationships between messages. FSS updates each night, with usually, only considering credit involved. so you know any message you get second is at least as strong as the first. get enough of those relationships, and you know the meaning of the messages. 

i used FSS messages on players i didn't recruit, where i felt it was a safe assumption the school had not redshirted the player, but i kept an eye on those because its possible one or something could be a bad assumption. but i doubt it, i picked top top players in my area where i was comfortable with the methods of the coaches. nobody should have been pulling ships or redshirting those guys.

9/28/2012 1:08 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by Weena on 9/27/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):

A couple of things I have discovered about WOTS are interesting to me. I have noticed that, at least at DI, there are variances by position and time. For example, I was recruiting the #48 SF and the #53 C. I had $8K into the SF and he was "keeping his options open" but I had $6K into the C and he was "very tight". Both were within 350 miles of my campus so I only used HVs not CVs. No promises were made to either player. The next day, with 2 cycles remaining till signing, the SF was now tight also. The only recruiting effort I added was one phone call per cycle. I have noticed this positional variance several times over many recruiting classes. I have not done a formal study on it to validate the specific break points but I believe it is true.  

i believe there is some truth here too... people would do well to consider this post carefully
9/28/2012 1:11 PM
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
Posted by Weena on 9/27/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):

A couple of things I have discovered about WOTS are interesting to me. I have noticed that, at least at DI, there are variances by position and time. For example, I was recruiting the #48 SF and the #53 C. I had $8K into the SF and he was "keeping his options open" but I had $6K into the C and he was "very tight". Both were within 350 miles of my campus so I only used HVs not CVs. No promises were made to either player. The next day, with 2 cycles remaining till signing, the SF was now tight also. The only recruiting effort I added was one phone call per cycle. I have noticed this positional variance several times over many recruiting classes. I have not done a formal study on it to validate the specific break points but I believe it is true.  

Do you remember the overall ranks of the recruits?
9/28/2012 7:07 PM
Weena
Posts: 579 (0)
Hall of Famer
227 1 1 1 531 1 27
Rookie
The SF was #233 and the C was #263. In overall skill ratings, the SF was a 569 and the C was a 554. My team prestige was C+.
9/29/2012 2:04 AM (edited)
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
Posted by Weena on 9/29/2012 2:04:00 AM (view original):
The SF was #233 and the C was #263. In overall skill ratings, the SF was a 569 and the C was a 554. My team prestige was C+.
The SF probably had higher expectations than the C bring that he was ranked higher, if you put the same effort in to each
9/30/2012 10:25 AM
WOTS Question Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.