Per the original thread discussion, being tight with a recruit is definitely a product of prestige-adjusted effort given and the expectations of a recruit. For example, 5-star recruits require more effort to get tight with than a 3-star.

The player side of it would explain the inconsistencies with everyone's recollections and estimates

Posted by bistiza on 9/27/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
I assume what it usually really means is that the coach hasn't sunk a lot of money into him (because they haven't been battling and haven't needed to)? 

It can't mean that, because I've sunk a decent amount of a budget into a recruit to pull him down before without battling and it still said he may not be a high priority for me. In fact, he was the single highest priority recruit for me, and one of the highest priorities I've ever had in my time playing this game.

If the WOTS message led someone to battle me for him, they would have been making a huge mistake, because I would have launched my entire budget at them with no care for not filling two more spots that were left (out of five that existed to begin the recruiting).  It would have been HVs and CVs and I doubt many people could have any chance of matching what I had left at that point.

So I do not believe for one second the WOTS when it says "he's not a high priority for them", at least when it's a human coach.

Bistiza's experience with this message is 100% consistent with what I have experienced many times, with zero contrary examples.  I don't believe that the "may not be a priority" message is the same as the "wide open" etc. category.

I am aware that some coaches with far greater experience than my own disagree:

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=459730

Maybe I'm full of sh__, ahem, peanuts.  I'll study it as best I can over the next two-three-four seasons or so.

Posted by point_piper on 9/30/2012 2:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 9/27/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
I assume what it usually really means is that the coach hasn't sunk a lot of money into him (because they haven't been battling and haven't needed to)? 

It can't mean that, because I've sunk a decent amount of a budget into a recruit to pull him down before without battling and it still said he may not be a high priority for me. In fact, he was the single highest priority recruit for me, and one of the highest priorities I've ever had in my time playing this game.

If the WOTS message led someone to battle me for him, they would have been making a huge mistake, because I would have launched my entire budget at them with no care for not filling two more spots that were left (out of five that existed to begin the recruiting).  It would have been HVs and CVs and I doubt many people could have any chance of matching what I had left at that point.

So I do not believe for one second the WOTS when it says "he's not a high priority for them", at least when it's a human coach.

Bistiza's experience with this message is 100% consistent with what I have experienced many times, with zero contrary examples.  I don't believe that the "may not be a priority" message is the same as the "wide open" etc. category.

I am aware that some coaches with far greater experience than my own disagree:

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=459730

Maybe I'm full of sh__, ahem, peanuts.  I'll study it as best I can over the next two-three-four seasons or so.

in d2, d3, and even low d1, the amount of effort it takes to push WOTS into the high category can be VERY substantial. what i would look for, if i were you, was for cases where you were recruiting a player alone. watch the wots updates and see if you ever go from one of the ones you consider to be an inbetween category, to anything else (when you dont spend more money in between). if so, track what that is... eventually you will either see ones you think are medium becoming low, or there are 2 categories. considering credit can push a medium to a high.

Posted by gillispie on 9/28/2012 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timhunter44 on 9/28/2012 12:10:00 PM (view original):
I know I am going to get clobbered for this question, but how inefficient are CVs versus HVs at less than 250 miles in D1? I never even bothered to think about it before.

clobbered? i should hope not.

the real question here is, what is a CV worth in terms of HVs? and the answer you will get is the same for d1, d2, d3. at 250 miles, a HV is worth about 400, and a CV, around 1000 (thats really at 200 miles, but im sure that is close enough - you can check exactly the amouts if you like, takes about 2 seconds if you have a recruiting going, which i dont). that suggests that if a CV is worth 2.5HV, you could go either way.

on the forums, people generally believe in CV:HV values somewhere between 2 and 2.5. if its 2.5, you are fine. I am firmly in the 2:1 camp, which means with 2 HVs, you get the same effort for 800 that you could get for 1000 - meaning CVs waste 20% of your money. so its somewhere in there - based on popular opinion, using CVs are anywhere from even to wasting 20% of your money.

Here is the break even points for the following CV/HV ratios:

2.0 HV/CV - 360 miles is the break even point:

360 miles:  2.0 x 446 = $892 (HV), and CV is $1044
370 miles:  2.0 x 749 = $1498 (HV) and CV is $1265, so at 370 miles, 1265/749, or 1.69 HV/CV, this means that above this mileage, CVs are surely more cost effective.
================================

The costs at 360 are HV=$445 and CV=$1045, so 1045/445 is 2.35 ... so if one thinks the HV/CV ratio is 2.00 to 2.35, the break even point is 360 miles.

The costs at 200 miles are HV=$415 and CV=$1025, so 1025/415 is 2.47 ... so if one thinks the Ratio is between 2.47 to 2.35 then the break even point is somewhere between 200 and 360 miles.

If one thinks the ratio is 2.5, then the break even point is somewhere under 200 miles and can be calculated by this equation:

2.5 (300+x/5) = 800 + x/5

750 + x/2 = 800 + x/5

Multiple both sides by 10 to use whole numbers and you get:

7500 + 5x  = 8000 + 2x

3x = 500

x = 500 / 3

x = 167 miles

So ... If you think the ratio is 2.0 ... the Break even point is 360 miles.

If you think the ratio is 2.5, the break even point is 160 miles.

If you think the ratio is somewhere between those numbers the break even point is between 200 and 360 miles.

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/30/2012 4:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by point_piper on 9/30/2012 2:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 9/27/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
I assume what it usually really means is that the coach hasn't sunk a lot of money into him (because they haven't been battling and haven't needed to)? 

It can't mean that, because I've sunk a decent amount of a budget into a recruit to pull him down before without battling and it still said he may not be a high priority for me. In fact, he was the single highest priority recruit for me, and one of the highest priorities I've ever had in my time playing this game.

If the WOTS message led someone to battle me for him, they would have been making a huge mistake, because I would have launched my entire budget at them with no care for not filling two more spots that were left (out of five that existed to begin the recruiting).  It would have been HVs and CVs and I doubt many people could have any chance of matching what I had left at that point.

So I do not believe for one second the WOTS when it says "he's not a high priority for them", at least when it's a human coach.

Bistiza's experience with this message is 100% consistent with what I have experienced many times, with zero contrary examples.  I don't believe that the "may not be a priority" message is the same as the "wide open" etc. category.

I am aware that some coaches with far greater experience than my own disagree:

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=459730

Maybe I'm full of sh__, ahem, peanuts.  I'll study it as best I can over the next two-three-four seasons or so.

in d2, d3, and even low d1, the amount of effort it takes to push WOTS into the high category can be VERY substantial. what i would look for, if i were you, was for cases where you were recruiting a player alone. watch the wots updates and see if you ever go from one of the ones you consider to be an inbetween category, to anything else (when you dont spend more money in between). if so, track what that is... eventually you will either see ones you think are medium becoming low, or there are 2 categories. considering credit can push a medium to a high.

Well I did study this this recruiting season, but didn't get enough data.  I only recruited two guys, and in each case I put in enough effort to get to messages I had considered to be in a middle category.  So I never saw any of the messages that all agree are in the "low" category.

One guy went from "Vassar is the favorite -- right now" to "may not be a priority for them" to "sources say he is a very high priority for Vassar".  Then someone else came in just as signing started, leading to a battle and the "definitely leaning towards playing at Vassar" message followed by signing a few cycles later.  He never had any of the "wide open" etc. messages.

The second guy went from "the favorite -- right now" to "may not be a priority for them" where he then stayed on the next WOTS report, followed by signing.  He never moved "back" (the point in contention) to "wide open to other offers" or "keeping his options wide open" either.  That in theory supports my assertion, but is nowhere near enough data.

Having only one team now it could take "years" (in sim terms) to keep studying this.  I have had as many as four at once, which would make it easier, but which could make life harder.