Prettty happy I did not take advices from shoe and MikeT. My strat, that does not work in crowded areas because location is key in 3.0 (ask TheOnly), helped me signed two three stars and one four stars as a C+ in the first session. In Phelan Southeast as a A, I prolly get 2-3 signings out of the five I got in the Northeast. Spread the recruits accordingly...

Here’s the thing zorzi, and this is what makes this game so good in my opinion, is that there isn’t “one strategy “. There are lots of was to recruit, build teams, choose schools, etc. there is no one way you have to do it. That’s a good thing. It’s also why I think this version is better than 2.0. You no longer need an a prestige school to compete at d1.

But sometimes, location has too much impact. You are surrounded, you are doomed, you are all alone, profit... Why not spread recruits where owners are. I was not alone in UMass, I had competition on three recruits, got to where I needed to have a solid shot. The Shoe strat, if he does not lie, would have been to think about plan B, C, while doing this... Which is crap because I would of lost recruits in the process and have a worst team than expected. As for MikeT, he would of backed off on some recruits to strenghthen other positions when he felt competition was too intense (I did have competition from everywhere).


Now, will become legit. The plan for UMass is working.

Big question - did you battle and have to "roll" for any of those recruits? Because your argument sounds pretty good as long as you stay vague, but the point Mike and Shoe have made in the past is that recruiting in areas with a lot of competition and/or recruiting top level talent as a C+ school carries inherent risk.

If you took a risky strategy and it paid off, then good for you, but it doesn't make your strategy the best. I signed a 5* C and a 4* PF at C+ UT-Arlington last season, but struck out on both higher value players I targeted this season and ended up having to settle for a decent PG (who will be redshirted) and a walk-on. You win some, you lose some. Your strategy is only the best strategy if you can guarantee that you win every single battle.

I had to roll twice and expend a lot of resources to push a D+ team to moderate... at the same time, it made me vulnerable against other teams,recruits were won on a roll in these cases.

Okay so this just so happens to be an instance where that strategy worked out. I personally wish I would have been more conservative this past season and shot for higher potential players in the 550s range instead of losing upper tier recruits to schools like Duke and Auburn.

So you had 4 rolls? If you were 80% in each of those you have a 40% chance of winning all 4. In the more-likely event you were at 75% in each, it's 32%. If there was some kind of typical distribution - say 2 you had 75%, one at 60%, one at 50% - you had a total chance of winning all 4 rolls of 17%.

So you want to come on here, brag about your class, and call out two other coaches because you got 1 in 6 lucky? You're not making them look dumb in that scenario.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/20/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
So you had 4 rolls? If you were 80% in each of those you have a 40% chance of winning all 4. In the more-likely event you were at 75% in each, it's 32%. If there was some kind of typical distribution - say 2 you had 75%, one at 60%, one at 50% - you had a total chance of winning all 4 rolls of 17%.

So you want to come on here, brag about your class, and call out two other coaches because you got 1 in 6 lucky? You're not making them look dumb in that scenario.

No he only had two rolls.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/20/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
So you had 4 rolls? If you were 80% in each of those you have a 40% chance of winning all 4. In the more-likely event you were at 75% in each, it's 32%. If there was some kind of typical distribution - say 2 you had 75%, one at 60%, one at 50% - you had a total chance of winning all 4 rolls of 17%.

So you want to come on here, brag about your class, and call out two other coaches because you got 1 in 6 lucky? You're not making them look dumb in that scenario.

They praise the conservative approach. But strategy-wise, if you need to get better, push for more talent. I did not get lucky, I just evaluated my battles well. But my point was : spread the recruits around campus where the active owners are.

If you rolled twice and won both times, you got lucky. Targeting upper tier talent is not the only way to improve your team; Sieben on my UTA team was a lower ranked player with extremely high potential that I didn't have to battle any D1s for.

Posted by zorzii on 3/20/2018 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/20/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
So you had 4 rolls? If you were 80% in each of those you have a 40% chance of winning all 4. In the more-likely event you were at 75% in each, it's 32%. If there was some kind of typical distribution - say 2 you had 75%, one at 60%, one at 50% - you had a total chance of winning all 4 rolls of 17%.

So you want to come on here, brag about your class, and call out two other coaches because you got 1 in 6 lucky? You're not making them look dumb in that scenario.

They praise the conservative approach. But strategy-wise, if you need to get better, push for more talent. I did not get lucky, I just evaluated my battles well. But my point was : spread the recruits around campus where the active owners are.

You’re creating the narrative you want to hear. They champion the conservative approach when you (and other coaches) come on the forums crying when you lose battles on 2 or 3 kids, and then further complain you had to take a bunch of walk ons. Had you lost those two dice rolls this would have been a very different thread.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/20/2018 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/20/2018 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/20/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
So you had 4 rolls? If you were 80% in each of those you have a 40% chance of winning all 4. In the more-likely event you were at 75% in each, it's 32%. If there was some kind of typical distribution - say 2 you had 75%, one at 60%, one at 50% - you had a total chance of winning all 4 rolls of 17%.

So you want to come on here, brag about your class, and call out two other coaches because you got 1 in 6 lucky? You're not making them look dumb in that scenario.

They praise the conservative approach. But strategy-wise, if you need to get better, push for more talent. I did not get lucky, I just evaluated my battles well. But my point was : spread the recruits around campus where the active owners are.

You’re creating the narrative you want to hear. They champion the conservative approach when you (and other coaches) come on the forums crying when you lose battles on 2 or 3 kids, and then further complain you had to take a bunch of walk ons. Had you lost those two dice rolls this would have been a very different thread.

I would not start a thread if I lost two rolls and would not whine. I just feel the way teams are spaced out and the number of recruits made it possible to strategize well, in contrario, that is not possible in a crowded area like southeast Phelan. You get battles for 524 pg with little upside. So my point is rethink how recruits are generated so I do not take walk-ons forever...

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/20/2018 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/20/2018 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/20/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
So you had 4 rolls? If you were 80% in each of those you have a 40% chance of winning all 4. In the more-likely event you were at 75% in each, it's 32%. If there was some kind of typical distribution - say 2 you had 75%, one at 60%, one at 50% - you had a total chance of winning all 4 rolls of 17%.

So you want to come on here, brag about your class, and call out two other coaches because you got 1 in 6 lucky? You're not making them look dumb in that scenario.

They praise the conservative approach. But strategy-wise, if you need to get better, push for more talent. I did not get lucky, I just evaluated my battles well. But my point was : spread the recruits around campus where the active owners are.

You’re creating the narrative you want to hear. They champion the conservative approach when you (and other coaches) come on the forums crying when you lose battles on 2 or 3 kids, and then further complain you had to take a bunch of walk ons. Had you lost those two dice rolls this would have been a very different thread.

Haha yup pretty much.

"So my point is rethink how recruits are generated so I do not take walk-ons forever..."
seems to me MikeT is right..Structure recruiting so zorzii wins..

Zorzii needs an easier game, devs! What the hell is the hold up on this?