Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hulnder on 8/15/2018 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 4:23:00 AM (view original):
I have question that could have an impact on these rolls...

preferences... are they factored in to the percentages? Or are they factored in at the decision time?

Team A puts in 1000 points worth of effort and has all very bad preferences

Team B puts in 500 points worth of effort and has all very good preferences

is that a 67/33 split (1000/500) and THEN the recruit makes a decision, factoring in the preferences after the fact?

or is that more like a 60/40 or 55/45 possibility? Because the preferences are factored in from the beginning, and give somewhat of an overall boost to Team B because of the preference advantage, and then the decision is made by the recruit?

The bigger question is why would a kid even consider a school if all his preferences are bad? No matter who many attention points you dump on him, he shouldn't even be considering you IMO.

Let's say your preferences are

- wants rebuild
- perimeter offense
- motion offense
- press defense

Coach Cal and Kentucky come calling while running a LP focused offense in Flex/M2M, are you going to turn them down to go play at Maine Presque Island because their preferences match?

To me.... this answer is yes honestly.

I think the "rebuild" preference is goofy somewhat. But if I want to play for a rebuild, I don't wanna go to UK. Specifically. Because I want to play for a turd apparently. If I wanted to go to UK and play for a title, and a dominant historical team, my preference would say that I want success.

But I don't wanna play for a successful team. I'd prefer to play for Toilet Bowl U.

But I don't think "rebuild" should be a preference we see more that 10 out of 1000 recruits. Because that's not a realistic thing that kids want very often.

They're called preferences for a reason. It's not a requirement.

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hulnder on 8/15/2018 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 4:23:00 AM (view original):
I have question that could have an impact on these rolls...

preferences... are they factored in to the percentages? Or are they factored in at the decision time?

Team A puts in 1000 points worth of effort and has all very bad preferences

Team B puts in 500 points worth of effort and has all very good preferences

is that a 67/33 split (1000/500) and THEN the recruit makes a decision, factoring in the preferences after the fact?

or is that more like a 60/40 or 55/45 possibility? Because the preferences are factored in from the beginning, and give somewhat of an overall boost to Team B because of the preference advantage, and then the decision is made by the recruit?

The bigger question is why would a kid even consider a school if all his preferences are bad? No matter who many attention points you dump on him, he shouldn't even be considering you IMO.

Let's say your preferences are

- wants rebuild
- perimeter offense
- motion offense
- press defense

Coach Cal and Kentucky come calling while running a LP focused offense in Flex/M2M, are you going to turn them down to go play at Maine Presque Island because their preferences match?

To me.... this answer is yes honestly.

I think the "rebuild" preference is goofy somewhat. But if I want to play for a rebuild, I don't wanna go to UK. Specifically. Because I want to play for a turd apparently. If I wanted to go to UK and play for a title, and a dominant historical team, my preference would say that I want success.

But I don't wanna play for a successful team. I'd prefer to play for Toilet Bowl U.

But I don't think "rebuild" should be a preference we see more that 10 out of 1000 recruits. Because that's not a realistic thing that kids want very often.

They're called preferences for a reason. It's not a requirement.

No, not preference. Bull ****! lol

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hulnder on 8/15/2018 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 4:23:00 AM (view original):
I have question that could have an impact on these rolls...

preferences... are they factored in to the percentages? Or are they factored in at the decision time?

Team A puts in 1000 points worth of effort and has all very bad preferences

Team B puts in 500 points worth of effort and has all very good preferences

is that a 67/33 split (1000/500) and THEN the recruit makes a decision, factoring in the preferences after the fact?

or is that more like a 60/40 or 55/45 possibility? Because the preferences are factored in from the beginning, and give somewhat of an overall boost to Team B because of the preference advantage, and then the decision is made by the recruit?

The bigger question is why would a kid even consider a school if all his preferences are bad? No matter who many attention points you dump on him, he shouldn't even be considering you IMO.

Let's say your preferences are

- wants rebuild
- perimeter offense
- motion offense
- press defense

Coach Cal and Kentucky come calling while running a LP focused offense in Flex/M2M, are you going to turn them down to go play at Maine Presque Island because their preferences match?

To me.... this answer is yes honestly.

I think the "rebuild" preference is goofy somewhat. But if I want to play for a rebuild, I don't wanna go to UK. Specifically. Because I want to play for a turd apparently. If I wanted to go to UK and play for a title, and a dominant historical team, my preference would say that I want success.

But I don't wanna play for a successful team. I'd prefer to play for Toilet Bowl U.

But I don't think "rebuild" should be a preference we see more that 10 out of 1000 recruits. Because that's not a realistic thing that kids want very often.

They're called preferences for a reason. It's not a requirement.

That's fair. But I just think if rebuild was a person's preference, that says a lot about the mindset or the intentions of a recruit. If he prefers to play for a school that's rebuilding (in comparison to just flat out being open to anything), he doesn't want to play for a winner.

At least that's the way i interpret it. Reading between the lines. If he was open to playing for a winner, there would be no preference.

But this is all based on mindset. Not actually the way this game is played

I agree that the "wants a rebuild" is not realistic. Basically when a kid says he want a rebuild, he want to play. But their is already a preference for that. Could just get rid of it all together if I had my choice.

Posted by zorzii on 8/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
0,81% chances of that happening. I find it dumb Arfy, against these rolls, make battles be vh-vh, hide %

Has anyone tracked these percentages against results enough to see if they are actually accurate in predicting final results? I'm starting to doubt it.

Posted by hulnder on 8/15/2018 9:47:00 PM (view original):
I agree that the "wants a rebuild" is not realistic. Basically when a kid says he want a rebuild, he want to play. But their is already a preference for that. Could just get rid of it all together if I had my choice.

Kind of agree. I argued to drop the success preference - because it’s incorporated into wants to play and overall prestige - and replacing it with an academic vs pro ball preference, where players who wanted academics would value higher team GPA, and players who wanted pro ball would value high team IQs at all levels, and draft picks at D1.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Arfy on 8/15/2018 4:36:00 PM (view original):
None of this had anything to do with preferences fyi. I was ahead in pref as well on this last one.

I know. We just took your topic and ran somewhere else with it. Haha

Good chit.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 8/15/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
0,81% chances of that happening. I find it dumb Arfy, against these rolls, make battles be vh-vh, hide %

Has anyone tracked these percentages against results enough to see if they are actually accurate in predicting final results? I'm starting to doubt it.

Benis tried to but to get a Large enough sample it takes seasons.....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 8/16/2018 1:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 8/15/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
0,81% chances of that happening. I find it dumb Arfy, against these rolls, make battles be vh-vh, hide %

Has anyone tracked these percentages against results enough to see if they are actually accurate in predicting final results? I'm starting to doubt it.

Benis tried tonight but to gets Large enough sample it takes seasons.....

Here is what I did previously.

High wins in a VH-H battle approximately 28% of the time so yeah I think it's probably accurate in predicting final results.

The VH-VH-H result is weird but it's only 50 battles. Seems like it's big enough... but guess not.

Posted by zorzii on 8/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
0,81% chances of that happening. I find it dumb Arfy, against these rolls, make battles be vh-vh, hide %

Don't care about showing %, but strongly agree that battles should only be VH/VH. The current method is just dumb.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/16/2018 8:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
0,81% chances of that happening. I find it dumb Arfy, against these rolls, make battles be vh-vh, hide %

Don't care about showing %, but strongly agree that battles should only be VH/VH. The current method is just dumb.

Get rid of the high category. Cool with me. Everyone who meets the existing criteria for signing range can be listed as very high. It gives people less information, and I suspect most will be even more annoyed, but I’ll adjust fine.

I really don't think that's what he or most people mean. Rather eliminate the chance of someone with less than 40% effort from ever signing a recruit. But that would just reward the smarter players and we cant have that.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2018 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hulnder on 8/15/2018 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/15/2018 4:23:00 AM (view original):
I have question that could have an impact on these rolls...

preferences... are they factored in to the percentages? Or are they factored in at the decision time?

Team A puts in 1000 points worth of effort and has all very bad preferences

Team B puts in 500 points worth of effort and has all very good preferences

is that a 67/33 split (1000/500) and THEN the recruit makes a decision, factoring in the preferences after the fact?

or is that more like a 60/40 or 55/45 possibility? Because the preferences are factored in from the beginning, and give somewhat of an overall boost to Team B because of the preference advantage, and then the decision is made by the recruit?

The bigger question is why would a kid even consider a school if all his preferences are bad? No matter who many attention points you dump on him, he shouldn't even be considering you IMO.

Let's say your preferences are

- wants rebuild
- perimeter offense
- motion offense
- press defense

Coach Cal and Kentucky come calling while running a LP focused offense in Flex/M2M, are you going to turn them down to go play at Maine Presque Island because their preferences match?

To me.... this answer is yes honestly.

I think the "rebuild" preference is goofy somewhat. But if I want to play for a rebuild, I don't wanna go to UK. Specifically. Because I want to play for a turd apparently. If I wanted to go to UK and play for a title, and a dominant historical team, my preference would say that I want success.

But I don't wanna play for a successful team. I'd prefer to play for Toilet Bowl U.

But I don't think "rebuild" should be a preference we see more that 10 out of 1000 recruits. Because that's not a realistic thing that kids want very often.

They're called preferences for a reason. It's not a requirement.

That's fair. But I just think if rebuild was a person's preference, that says a lot about the mindset or the intentions of a recruit. If he prefers to play for a school that's rebuilding (in comparison to just flat out being open to anything), he doesn't want to play for a winner.

At least that's the way i interpret it. Reading between the lines. If he was open to playing for a winner, there would be no preference.

But this is all based on mindset. Not actually the way this game is played

I always saw the “wants rebuild” as the player wants to be Top Dog on the roster or the savior of the program.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/16/2018 8:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):
0,81% chances of that happening. I find it dumb Arfy, against these rolls, make battles be vh-vh, hide %

Don't care about showing %, but strongly agree that battles should only be VH/VH. The current method is just dumb.

Do 60-40 as VH v H

Then 55-45 (or closer) as VH v VH

Done.

Posted by mullycj on 8/16/2018 1:18:00 PM (view original):
I really don't think that's what he or most people mean. Rather eliminate the chance of someone with less than 40% effort from ever signing a recruit. But that would just reward the smarter players and we cant have that.

Mully I know you how this works, so it sure looks like you’re trying to mislead folks.

To clarify - the odds people see at the end is not “effort”. The odds are stretched to favor the team ahead in credit. In terms of effort, the range is *already* about 60% of the credit leader. If the final odds were straight, the largest discrepancy we would see at the end is 63-37 in a two way battle.

What you and JS mean is that you would rather the range between teams that can battle for a given recruit be smaller - in effect, making prioritization less important. Risk aversion is not “smarter”. This doesn’t benefit “smarter” coaches, it benefits longer term coaches of more established teams.