Posted by bhansalid00 on 8/2/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):
I've played D2 and high D1 since the 3.0 release, and I preferred D2 by a mile. In general, if your favorite part of the game is scouting and recruiting, you'll prefer D2. You have to decide how much to scout D1 vs D2, where to scout, and when to fight for recruits vs bail. I enjoy all of that. If your favorite part is managing an intricate set of probabilities and risk, you'll prefer D1 (managing early entries, finding complementary talent when you have walk-ons, etc). I just found D1 to be too arbitrary for my tastes, but to each their own.

And since I'm a masochist, I'm just about to start at Presque Isle in D3. We'll see how that goes.

Maine Presque Isle in Knight?? I just left there to move up to D2. It's definitely a challenging place to build a contender. Good luck!

Posted by shoe3 on 8/2/2018 7:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/2/2018 5:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/2/2018 8:46:00 AM (view original):
“But you need to deal with randomness of EEs so that's frustrating.”

Early entries are not “random”. No one loses their backup 650 OVR sophomore PG to the riches of the fake NBA. Elite commodities are volatile. They are expensive to get, and they may not fulfill the term. High risk, high reward. What Benis means to say is at D1 you need to decide how much of that volatility your team is willing to take on. You have to assess every recruit not only for how good he is/will be, but for when he may be good enough to possibly leave.

If you are surprised by a guy who leaves early, you either don’t know how the system works, or you didn’t properly assess your commodity. In other words, user error. Or as Benis would say, “Derp.”

"No one loses their backup 650 OVR sophomore PG to the riches of the fake NBA"

Would a player with.... 90 ATH, 90 SPD, 90 DEF, 90 PER, 90 BH, 90 PAS, 90 ST, 20 WE not go pro early? Especially as a sophomore? I honestly don't know because I don't play D1.

And also, don't some players decide to stay even if they're well worthy of the draft? I don't know this answer either, but I would think that would be the case. If not, it would just be a numbers thing, like..... once your player gets to "this" number, he leaves.

if it's not a set number that causes players to leave, or if it's not just the top 60 players leave, then it IS in fact, random.

no?

No. That isn’t what random means. Random means without method. Early entries are determined based on probability. There is definitely a method, it’s not arbitrary or haphazard. There is something like a “random number generator” that gets used at the end to determine if a player *who is good enough to be drafted* will leave or stay. The use of RNG doesn’t mean the process is random. RNGs get used in every possession of every game - it doesn’t mean the game results are “random”. They’re based on series of events whose outcomes are determined by probability, and not absolute, fixed equations. “Random” gets mis-used as a way to disparage the game that exists by people who want a more fixed, predictable, and gameable process.

It doesn’t really matter, but the example of a player with 90 in all the cores but 0-1 in all non-cores would be something of a unicorn. Theoretically, such a player may reach criteria to be considered for early entry (though more likely if you take away 30 points in stamina and 20 points of WE, and give him 50 in LP). You don’t see many players with elite athleticism and no rebounding or block ability, and durability below 15 is rare, too. A player with 90 in all the cores is most likely going to have an OVR in the 750 range, not 650.

I agree that my player type was odd and rare. But unicorns exist in this game. Not in the masses (or it wouldn't be considered a unicorn would it!). Like I have a 3 year starter that became a senior this season, and redshirted him his senior year, and didn't lose a point of WE. No one said they have seen that before.

And I understand the difference between random and probability as a definition. But in Benis' example, the two words are roughly the same. If the #10 guy on the big board decides to stay, the term random fits there. The coach has no control over why he stayed or left. Also, the probability that he stayed was really low. But again, the coach had no control over why he stayed or left. The game just picked what happened.

In 1000 different examples, sure, probability and random can be totally different things. But I don't see how it's different in what we're discussing

“And I understand the difference between random and probability as a definition. But in Benis' example, the two words are roughly the same. If the #10 guy on the big board decides to stay, the term random fits there. The coach has no control over why he stayed or left. Also, the probability that he stayed was really low. But again, the coach had no control over why he stayed or left. The game just picked what happened.”

The probability simulates a choice someone else makes. Coaches in real life don’t control whether their elite players stay or go. The player makes that choice, not the coach. That doesn’t mean it’s “random”. It means the coach has enjoyed high reward from a risk/reward choice made - like a recruiting battle where everyone thought a kid was going to go D1, but he chose to be a big fish in a small pond at Coker instead.

Some folks prefer a more deterministic game, with fewer variables to manage, and that’s ok. D2 will probably be a better experience for them. It’s a valid preference. But it’s not valid to call the EE process random.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/2/2018 9:01:00 PM (view original):
“And I understand the difference between random and probability as a definition. But in Benis' example, the two words are roughly the same. If the #10 guy on the big board decides to stay, the term random fits there. The coach has no control over why he stayed or left. Also, the probability that he stayed was really low. But again, the coach had no control over why he stayed or left. The game just picked what happened.”

The probability simulates a choice someone else makes. Coaches in real life don’t control whether their elite players stay or go. The player makes that choice, not the coach. That doesn’t mean it’s “random”. It means the coach has enjoyed high reward from a risk/reward choice made - like a recruiting battle where everyone thought a kid was going to go D1, but he chose to be a big fish in a small pond at Coker instead.

Some folks prefer a more deterministic game, with fewer variables to manage, and that’s ok. D2 will probably be a better experience for them. It’s a valid preference. But it’s not valid to call the EE process random.

How are these two scenarios not exactly the same.....

1) i'm a D2 coach, and you're a D2 coach. You target a 650 OVR freshman with early signing preference. The last day of RS1 comes and goes, you're going to get your guy. Me, same scenario, except my guy is 550 OVR (and generally much worse in every way than yours). The last day of RS1 comes, and here comes D1 poacher to rip my recruit away on the last cycle....... this is random.

2) I have the #5 guy on the big board. You have the #45 guy on the big board. My guy stays, your guy goes...... this is random.

In example 1, sure both you and I could change our recruiting efforts and only aim for guys in the 300 OVR range, but that just doesn't play out to success

in example 2, sure both you and i could change our recruiting efforts and only aim for guys in the 300 OVR range, but again, that just doesn't play out to success.

As darnoc pointed out recently, you don't have to have all EE talent to win, which I get. But I can guarantee that's not a recipe for success. And the "probability" is much lower when you have no EE players. I agree that THIS is where your probability comes in. We have the choice on who to target. But once they are on our teams, it becomes random if they leave or not. Probability is created by choices we can influence. If the top player in the country decides to stay, nothing was done to influence the choices of that recruit.

Those two scenarios are similar, in that the word “random” is a poor way to describe both. Random means without method. It does not apply accurately to situations like these, mostly a sum of choices made by various players, with some chance involved to simulate the element of choices *other people make*.

In example 1, successful D2 coaches tailor their scouting and recruiting to their region, and their own taste for risk. No one targets 300 OVR recruits.

In example 2, successful D1 coaches manage their classes to ensure they always have enough talent and IQ to stay competitive. They understand that everyone wants elite talent, and they will have to manage variables and contingencies to maintain a high level team. Many coaches primarily target players *just below* EE level, but again, no one is targeting 300 OVR players.

Also, coaches do influence EE probability in how they develop players on their team. It’s another risk/reward choice. A 700 4-year recruit with 99 work ethic and potential to break 1000 could be in EE range after one year, if the coach pursues a development plan to maximize his growth. While likely no plan will keep that kind of player off the big board for 3 years, the coach can affect the probability. But it comes at a cost - he’s probably not developing at least one important skill area, so the player’s value is not maximized. There’s no right or wrong way to do it, it’s a coaches decision based on his/her strategy and taste for risk.

Example 1, it's random. Period. If a D1 human decides to pursue ANY recruit led by a D2 human, he wins. It's random in the fact that one D2 coach may sneak away with a 700+ recruit if no one sees. It's random that if a D2 coach aims for a 400+ OVR player and a D1 comes for him, and not the first guy. There's absolutely zero probability in that.

Example 2, I completely understand your assessment. And its actually true to what you are saying. I'm saying something different tho.

i'm saying once you are past the point of your description... doing whatever you can to keep your EE player in school.... THEN the game has a coin toss. He goes or stays. Yes it was influenced by your efforts. BUT in the case of 2 separate recruits that are 1000+, AND more than worthy of going pro, if one stays and one goes, you think that's probability?! (And yes I agree that players make their own decisions)

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/3/2018 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Example 1, it's random. Period. If a D1 human decides to pursue ANY recruit led by a D2 human, he wins. It's random in the fact that one D2 coach may sneak away with a 700+ recruit if no one sees. It's random that if a D2 coach aims for a 400+ OVR player and a D1 comes for him, and not the first guy. There's absolutely zero probability in that.

Example 2, I completely understand your assessment. And its actually true to what you are saying. I'm saying something different tho.

i'm saying once you are past the point of your description... doing whatever you can to keep your EE player in school.... THEN the game has a coin toss. He goes or stays. Yes it was influenced by your efforts. BUT in the case of 2 separate recruits that are 1000+, AND more than worthy of going pro, if one stays and one goes, you think that's probability?! (And yes I agree that players make their own decisions)

Nope. If the outcome is based on the choices someone else makes, “random” doesn’t work. Remember, random means without method, arbitrary, haphazard. Random would be the system just assigning recruits to teams without scouting or recruiting. You make a choice to go after a guy. Another person makes a choice to go after, or pass on him. Your lack of control over what other people choose does not make the process random.

In short, yes. When one of the top 10 Big Board players decides to stay, this is based on probability. It was not “random” (without method, arbitrary, etc). The probability for him to stay was *low*, but it’s not a “random” outcome. Probability for potential lottery picks to stay is low, let’s say 5-10%. That means 1 in 10-20 will choose to stay. That’s how probability works. It’s jot just risk, sometimes there’s reward, too. :)

I know people sometimes think this is all just semantics. It’s not. People misuse terms for a reason, the same reason they stupidly use bad analogies like “bingo” to describe certain processes. They want to disparage the game, and the people who enjoy and/or succeed with it. Joeykw18 isn’t just incredibly lucky to have Vermont on the verge of 3 titles in 4 years. He’s not playing a random game. He’s not employing random strategies. He understands the probabilities better than most, and has devised the best strategies to maximize his chances. That’s how big, competitive multi-player games work.

Ok

What about this.... and keep in mind, I don't play D1. So this is a real question from me. And I haven't looked at Joey18s team.

But being at Vermont, does Joey have the same realistic chances at EE caliber players year in and year out? Like A+ baseline prestige schools do? Big 6 schools. Because if not, he's not getting EE caliber players at a high number. And he may not be bit by the EE bug as often. If this is true, I'd say he gets more credit for turning water into wine, which is a better accomplishment.

if this is not true, then ignore this concept as a possibility

Vermont has 4 underclassmen on the big board. He has had lots of EE caliber talent.

Hes benefitting a bit from the geography of this world, where BC and UConn have been vacant and/or mishandled since 3.0. But he’s executing well.

Posted by Benis on 8/2/2018 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 8/2/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):
I've played D2 and high D1 since the 3.0 release, and I preferred D2 by a mile. In general, if your favorite part of the game is scouting and recruiting, you'll prefer D2. You have to decide how much to scout D1 vs D2, where to scout, and when to fight for recruits vs bail. I enjoy all of that. If your favorite part is managing an intricate set of probabilities and risk, you'll prefer D1 (managing early entries, finding complementary talent when you have walk-ons, etc). I just found D1 to be too arbitrary for my tastes, but to each their own.

And since I'm a masochist, I'm just about to start at Presque Isle in D3. We'll see how that goes.

Maine Presque Isle in Knight?? I just left there to move up to D2. It's definitely a challenging place to build a contender. Good luck!

Thanks! I'm actually going to Allen, not Knight. But yeah, I'm looking forward to the challenge.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 8/3/2018 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/2/2018 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 8/2/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):
I've played D2 and high D1 since the 3.0 release, and I preferred D2 by a mile. In general, if your favorite part of the game is scouting and recruiting, you'll prefer D2. You have to decide how much to scout D1 vs D2, where to scout, and when to fight for recruits vs bail. I enjoy all of that. If your favorite part is managing an intricate set of probabilities and risk, you'll prefer D1 (managing early entries, finding complementary talent when you have walk-ons, etc). I just found D1 to be too arbitrary for my tastes, but to each their own.

And since I'm a masochist, I'm just about to start at Presque Isle in D3. We'll see how that goes.

Maine Presque Isle in Knight?? I just left there to move up to D2. It's definitely a challenging place to build a contender. Good luck!

Thanks! I'm actually going to Allen, not Knight. But yeah, I'm looking forward to the challenge.

I've always had a soft spot for Maine-Presque Isle since it was my first school in the game. Thought about grabbing it a couple times since 3.0 started just to see the differences the new recruiting places on the locale. Good luck there!