I’m not going to get as detailed as gil, but I think my eyeball perception basically tracks with some of both of his hypotheses. I think preferences are a bit more important than he does, or at least can be.

My impression is that prestige basically works like the hypothesis#2 linear formula. The higher the rank of the player, the more AP accumulation he will *generally* require. Preferences being equal, a team with higher prestige will unlock effort/actions faster than teams with mediocre or lower prestige.

Preferences work to modify that linear formula. In a lot of battles, preference profiles for the competing teams end up being a wash, and in that case, of course it doesn’t matter much. But in cases where one team has a clear preference advantage over its rival, I think it *can* end up being as big a modifying factor as prestige, particularly if the player wants rebuild, and doesn’t care about things like longevity and conference strength.

Zorzii could shed shed some light on this for us, if he could tell us the approximate position ranking (if applicable) and how the preference profiles looked, of the players in question.

My team is A+ D2 on three D1 players.

Player 1 is 611 rated, took 205 ap to unlock the scholly. At 242, I still did not unlock the promise minutes, the promise start.
Wants to play, Wants rebuild : Very bad Strong defense Good
Player 2 is 611 rated 90 AP to unlock the scholly
Wants success Very good, wants long time coach very good
Player 3 is 575 rated, 28 AP to unlock the scholly
Wants success very good, Strong conference Good

I guess the Wants rebuild very bad hits really hard.

Posted by zorzii on 5/11/2020 10:00:00 AM (view original):
My team is A+ D2 on three D1 players.

Player 1 is 611 rated, took 205 ap to unlock the scholly. At 242, I still did not unlock the promise minutes, the promise start.
Wants to play, Wants rebuild : Very bad Strong defense Good
Player 2 is 611 rated 90 AP to unlock the scholly
Wants success Very good, wants long time coach very good
Player 3 is 575 rated, 28 AP to unlock the scholly
Wants success very good, Strong conference Good

I guess the Wants rebuild very bad hits really hard.

its player position ranking that we are looking for - such as PF 150.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/11/2020 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I’m not going to get as detailed as gil, but I think my eyeball perception basically tracks with some of both of his hypotheses. I think preferences are a bit more important than he does, or at least can be.

My impression is that prestige basically works like the hypothesis#2 linear formula. The higher the rank of the player, the more AP accumulation he will *generally* require. Preferences being equal, a team with higher prestige will unlock effort/actions faster than teams with mediocre or lower prestige.

Preferences work to modify that linear formula. In a lot of battles, preference profiles for the competing teams end up being a wash, and in that case, of course it doesn’t matter much. But in cases where one team has a clear preference advantage over its rival, I think it *can* end up being as big a modifying factor as prestige, particularly if the player wants rebuild, and doesn’t care about things like longevity and conference strength.

Zorzii could shed shed some light on this for us, if he could tell us the approximate position ranking (if applicable) and how the preference profiles looked, of the players in question.

i dont disagree that in a battle, preferences could potentially be as important as prestige - but i am saying something very different.

what im saying is there have always been a number of areas where the player's level is compared to the schools level to determine things like odds of a redshirt or whether a player can be recruited or what. i believe preferences mean nothing in this regard, and this has nothing to do with prestige's influence on effort. i think there are two totally distinct processes - one in which the level of the player and school are compared to establish stuff like redshirt reactions and the big AP range - and a second where efforts are modified (both unlocking efforts and recruiting efforts) in the normal fashion we talk about all the time around here.

an example of the 1st thing is how a slightly higher a+ school can recruit a #1 player with ~50 AP (which is then modified by prefs, so maybe its 44, maybe its 55, whatever), while a slightly lower a+ school can recruit a #1 player with ~100 AP (which is then modified by prefs). the prestige difference between the two schools could be 1%, or 5%, or even 10% - but no way it is justifying that double AP with its % effort modifier. it is the level of player to level of school comparison that is swinging that hard.

i can't remember if that ~100 AP is really 100AP, most of my d1 schools have been on the higher level of AP where all players are cheap. but i have seen a number of guys with lower A+s that were about double, maybe it was 80, but it was a really noticeable jump that was massively bigger than a 5% swing in prestige could come close to explaining.

Two are int, 39SF.

The only thing I disagree with here, is randomness being involved. And I love "random" for HD conversations! But it just doesn't make sense to me in this situation

I feel it's blatantly obvious. And that it's preferences and talent/rank/overall rating/ability. Sure that's 4 different things, but it's really not to me.

Good players take more, bad players take less. The one thing I wish they'd factor in to the game is timing should bring that amount down. Like on the last day of recruiting, an A+ UCLA has filled his ships but he's very high on a guy, but no one can unlock him, or if they do, 15 HV won't get ya passed low. That's goofy to me. Sure, a crappy D3 team shouldn't get a 5* for cheap or anything. But on the last day?! Effort from decent schools should chip in to that.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/11/2020 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/11/2020 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I’m not going to get as detailed as gil, but I think my eyeball perception basically tracks with some of both of his hypotheses. I think preferences are a bit more important than he does, or at least can be.

My impression is that prestige basically works like the hypothesis#2 linear formula. The higher the rank of the player, the more AP accumulation he will *generally* require. Preferences being equal, a team with higher prestige will unlock effort/actions faster than teams with mediocre or lower prestige.

Preferences work to modify that linear formula. In a lot of battles, preference profiles for the competing teams end up being a wash, and in that case, of course it doesn’t matter much. But in cases where one team has a clear preference advantage over its rival, I think it *can* end up being as big a modifying factor as prestige, particularly if the player wants rebuild, and doesn’t care about things like longevity and conference strength.

Zorzii could shed shed some light on this for us, if he could tell us the approximate position ranking (if applicable) and how the preference profiles looked, of the players in question.

i dont disagree that in a battle, preferences could potentially be as important as prestige - but i am saying something very different.

what im saying is there have always been a number of areas where the player's level is compared to the schools level to determine things like odds of a redshirt or whether a player can be recruited or what. i believe preferences mean nothing in this regard, and this has nothing to do with prestige's influence on effort. i think there are two totally distinct processes - one in which the level of the player and school are compared to establish stuff like redshirt reactions and the big AP range - and a second where efforts are modified (both unlocking efforts and recruiting efforts) in the normal fashion we talk about all the time around here.

an example of the 1st thing is how a slightly higher a+ school can recruit a #1 player with ~50 AP (which is then modified by prefs, so maybe its 44, maybe its 55, whatever), while a slightly lower a+ school can recruit a #1 player with ~100 AP (which is then modified by prefs). the prestige difference between the two schools could be 1%, or 5%, or even 10% - but no way it is justifying that double AP with its % effort modifier. it is the level of player to level of school comparison that is swinging that hard.

i can't remember if that ~100 AP is really 100AP, most of my d1 schools have been on the higher level of AP where all players are cheap. but i have seen a number of guys with lower A+s that were about double, maybe it was 80, but it was a really noticeable jump that was massively bigger than a 5% swing in prestige could come close to explaining.

From what I can tell, what you say here is very much in line with my second paragraph.

The only other thing I would say is that for high-ish level Big 6 D1 programs, I don’t recall recruits taking more than ~60 or so to unlock a scholarship. If you’re talking about unlocking visits without a scholarship offer, your numbers make more sense. I don’t tend to heavily recruit many players who are not decent preference matches, so my pool is limited to not-horrible preference matches. But I do sometimes go after the local guy who wants to play far away, or the player who wants a rebuild, and 60 is about the max in those cases, as far as I can recall.

Posted by zorzii on 5/11/2020 10:00:00 AM (view original):
My team is A+ D2 on three D1 players.

Player 1 is 611 rated, took 205 ap to unlock the scholly. At 242, I still did not unlock the promise minutes, the promise start.
Wants to play, Wants rebuild : Very bad Strong defense Good
Player 2 is 611 rated 90 AP to unlock the scholly
Wants success Very good, wants long time coach very good
Player 3 is 575 rated, 28 AP to unlock the scholly
Wants success very good, Strong conference Good

I guess the Wants rebuild very bad hits really hard.

Is player 2 the #39SF? That would make most sense to me.

The high OVR guy who wants rebuild is rejecting you both ways. On one hand, he has a strong aversion to an A+ prestige team. On the other hand, he’d probably much rather play at D1, because of his high OVR (whether he’s the int’l or the #39 guy, either would make sense I think). So the kind of team that’s going to get this guy interested for the least AP is likely to be a Big 6 bottom feeder. Rutgers or bust.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/11/2020 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/11/2020 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/11/2020 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I’m not going to get as detailed as gil, but I think my eyeball perception basically tracks with some of both of his hypotheses. I think preferences are a bit more important than he does, or at least can be.

My impression is that prestige basically works like the hypothesis#2 linear formula. The higher the rank of the player, the more AP accumulation he will *generally* require. Preferences being equal, a team with higher prestige will unlock effort/actions faster than teams with mediocre or lower prestige.

Preferences work to modify that linear formula. In a lot of battles, preference profiles for the competing teams end up being a wash, and in that case, of course it doesn’t matter much. But in cases where one team has a clear preference advantage over its rival, I think it *can* end up being as big a modifying factor as prestige, particularly if the player wants rebuild, and doesn’t care about things like longevity and conference strength.

Zorzii could shed shed some light on this for us, if he could tell us the approximate position ranking (if applicable) and how the preference profiles looked, of the players in question.

i dont disagree that in a battle, preferences could potentially be as important as prestige - but i am saying something very different.

what im saying is there have always been a number of areas where the player's level is compared to the schools level to determine things like odds of a redshirt or whether a player can be recruited or what. i believe preferences mean nothing in this regard, and this has nothing to do with prestige's influence on effort. i think there are two totally distinct processes - one in which the level of the player and school are compared to establish stuff like redshirt reactions and the big AP range - and a second where efforts are modified (both unlocking efforts and recruiting efforts) in the normal fashion we talk about all the time around here.

an example of the 1st thing is how a slightly higher a+ school can recruit a #1 player with ~50 AP (which is then modified by prefs, so maybe its 44, maybe its 55, whatever), while a slightly lower a+ school can recruit a #1 player with ~100 AP (which is then modified by prefs). the prestige difference between the two schools could be 1%, or 5%, or even 10% - but no way it is justifying that double AP with its % effort modifier. it is the level of player to level of school comparison that is swinging that hard.

i can't remember if that ~100 AP is really 100AP, most of my d1 schools have been on the higher level of AP where all players are cheap. but i have seen a number of guys with lower A+s that were about double, maybe it was 80, but it was a really noticeable jump that was massively bigger than a 5% swing in prestige could come close to explaining.

From what I can tell, what you say here is very much in line with my second paragraph.

The only other thing I would say is that for high-ish level Big 6 D1 programs, I don’t recall recruits taking more than ~60 or so to unlock a scholarship. If you’re talking about unlocking visits without a scholarship offer, your numbers make more sense. I don’t tend to heavily recruit many players who are not decent preference matches, so my pool is limited to not-horrible preference matches. But I do sometimes go after the local guy who wants to play far away, or the player who wants a rebuild, and 60 is about the max in those cases, as far as I can recall.

you tend to avoid top ranked players, i think this is why you haven't seen it. when i had a lower A+ team, it was all single digits ranked players who i had the issue with, of 50ish AP not cutting it. i also was in my like, first ever 3.0 season or something, so its possible im mistaken.

at this point, i am bought into a study. im thinking i'll pick up a d2 team purely to experiment with this (im sure about the experimental team, im not sure about it being d2), and will begin convincing chap he has to let me spend a couple dozen AP per team experimenting on this subject. i hoped i had notes on the early days where i had that A+ more than 50ish AP situation, but i see a clear line in my notes where i am cursing at myself for losing everything prior to that point... so i definitely don't have it. will have to redo it.

if anyone has a team or two that can spare a couple dozen AP sometimes, and would like to contribute to this effort, please let me know, i would appreciate it!

man, we went after the #2 PF, like almost an 800 rated player on vandy (a prestige), and it was only 40 something AP to unlock him. i would have expected that to be more based on what i just said. perhaps i am wrong on this one, but i REALLY thought i saw guys who were above the 50 mark - which makes sense historically. in the olden days, somewhere in the B- range was the cutoff where players could only be slightly above you - not way above you - like you could get elsewhere in d1. and then A+ in the olden days, somewhere in there, was the cutoff where no player could be above you at all. so when this happened to me, it felt instantly familiar. but anyway, i'll sort this all out pretty quickly here and let folks know what's what...

edit: DUH he was within 70 miles. whew. the theory lives on!

“you tend to avoid top ranked players, i think this is why you haven't seen it”

LOL, no. I’ve had top ranked (single digit) players on all 3 big6 teams for the last 4-5 seasons at least. I recruit multiple every year. Just because I *also* recruit lower classes of players as projects or backups doesn’t mean I “tend to avoid top ranked players”. That’s just a silly statement.

As I said, it’s possible I miss this because I tend to avoid bad preference matches (of any caliber). I generally don’t go for a guy with more than one negative preference, certainly not wants rebuild and far away at the same time (theoretically I might go after one of those types as a project/backup, if I could be fairly sure he wouldn’t get other A level teams after him; but I don’t think I’ve done that yet, it would be a unique situation. Never say never though.)

Posted by shoe3 on 5/11/2020 4:02:00 PM (view original):
“you tend to avoid top ranked players, i think this is why you haven't seen it”

LOL, no. I’ve had top ranked (single digit) players on all 3 big6 teams for the last 4-5 seasons at least. I recruit multiple every year. Just because I *also* recruit lower classes of players as projects or backups doesn’t mean I “tend to avoid top ranked players”. That’s just a silly statement.

As I said, it’s possible I miss this because I tend to avoid bad preference matches (of any caliber). I generally don’t go for a guy with more than one negative preference, certainly not wants rebuild and far away at the same time (theoretically I might go after one of those types as a project/backup, if I could be fairly sure he wouldn’t get other A level teams after him; but I don’t think I’ve done that yet, it would be a unique situation. Never say never though.)

well maybe your A+ was high enough or they were low enough ranked. i didn't mean anything by my comment - i just have gotten the impression you don't buy into the ultra flashy players for whom this phenomenon can occur. i believe in reality, player ranking is just a ranking based on the player position score, and its truly the score behind the scenes which is the driver of all of this we are discussing.

i dont think prefs or your handling of them has anything to do with it - but i think i can prove it one way or another relatively trivially, so i will go do that and circle back!

GIllispie I am going to send a report of all of the guys I touched for my D3 A+ team and D2 D+ (rebuild) after I finish recruiting for each. I am really confident that preference has a large affect on unlocking. In fact, I use preferences to decide who to go for first at D3 recruiting projected D1s.

awesome, thanks! i tracked unlocking for a bit but it was all at high d1 or the lowest level of d3, and often the way things look at the edges differs from everywhere else. much appreciated. if possible, please include position rank (if they have one), and if any players are 70 miles or less, please include that as well.

Let me make sure to set a reminder lol.