My guess is 70/30 is won by 70 about 70% of the time. Or will be once enough data is collected.

I really wish people would stop using "coin flip" because that implies 50/50. 70/30 is not 50/50. Duh.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2017 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Define "most appealing".

Just as in the game. If I'm a player and a coach offers me a start, minutes, attention, home visits etc and is a higher prestige school, then that's the school that I would be most interested in. Even if it comes out to a 51% advantage(by game definition).

I'm sure you know that's not how it works in the real world.

Tons of schools offer those things. Some kids pick schools because the girls were prettier, the weather was nicer, their uncle went there, their buddies are going their, their mom hates LSU, etc, etc.

Effort does not necessarily mean a recruit attends your school.

Football but I recall Nkemdiche committing to Clemson. His momma threw a fit, his brother was going to Ole Miss and he changed his mind. Seems now that Ole Miss was paying everybody but the kid wanted Clemson, and Clemson was the better choice, but he went elsewhere.

Yep! Exactly! Again, why not put those elements into the game?

And if those factors are part of the real life equation, then it is my belief the signing advantage should be minimized.

What you listed are factors, but very small and not to the extent of 70/30.

WifS added "preferences". I'm not sure they play a big enough role, it does seem like "most effort" is still the overwhelming factor, but they are part of the equation.

In a traditional software environment, the creators would look at data gathered over time and evaluate the statistical variations of the performance and adjust as necessary. In HD, I would imagine the minimum amount of data needed to see if the 70/30's are shaking out that way may be multiple seasons. I am convinced there will be some tweaking in order, maybe lots, but rushing into it could be worse than the issues we have now.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

First off, we know that coaches who put in the most "effort" don't always win the recruit. "Upsets" happen all the time, where a kid goes to a school that was not thought to be the leader.

The signing odds and considering tab don't mean what you're reading into them. Because it's a game, and games need to have real defined parameters, there is such a thing as "effort credit" in this game, even though such a thing does not exist as a quantifiable figure in real life. To maintain the realism, the effort credit is not shown to us directly, but through a more ambiguous figure, called the considering tab. I think a lot of people assume the considering tab is an indication of how the recruit views the school. That is the wrong way to look at it. The considering tab is meant to give us an idea of how much effort credit we have relative to the effort credit leader. That's all. In that light, it's better to look at it as a reflection of how high of a priority the recruit is for the school, not the other way around. In real world terms, this is not the kid telling us what his top teams are, in order; this is a sports publication issuing speculation about where he's likely to land.

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/6/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Most people when making big one-time decisions don't typically go with some huge discrepancy in favoring one item or another (they will usually pick the one leading in all these cases).

When buying a house or new vehicle (or choosing a college in this case), usually don't pick the one you like less (especially when nothing has change to influence you in some other way late in the process).

I can understand when choosing between having burgers or tacos for dinner, sometime you just say screw it I want a bit of variety and choose something that you like less, but its not like the recruit goes to college more than once in HD.

I don't think going back to the days of 51 always beating 49, but something in-between where maybe the roll only occurs all are VH (and the effort is more along 55/45 at most) is a better compromise.

They do go to the school they like more. Sometimes, in the case of an upset, the school they like more is not the one the general public expected.

The difference in effort credit for teams in signing range does not go any wider than 63-37, as seble told us a team down by that margin is not in signing range. It might be 62-38, it might be 60-40, it might even be closer (probably not much). The more you narrow that range, the less battles we will have. Right now, you can fight with a team up roughly 2 letter grades (so C+ vs A+) and be on the cusp of signing range if you both go all the way in. I think that's about right. That represents about the difference between the conference champ, and the 8th or 9th place team. A range this wide promotes good competitiveness within the conference for recruits, which is, IMO, the most important factor.

Anyone here old enough to have played APBA or Stratomatic baseball? Rolling three dice.....or rolling that weird multi sided die.....probability

Posted by mullycj on 3/6/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):
What sone if you (berg) don't get is they DID put in features that keep the team with the most $ spent from winning ...... they are called PREFERENCES. Do we really need preferences and recruiting upsets now?

I'd rather have some ambiguity than everyone knowing exactly what needs to be done to win.

As I said, I don't think the current system is working right either, but I do believe there should be things we can't control and can't have any way of knowing either, just as in real life a coach can't control whether or not his school is near someone's girlfriend or has a night club nearby that the kids like to go to.

This is just an 'agree to disagree' situation. You want the game to be 100% transparent and I don't. We both have our reasons and neither of us is necessarily wrong, because it's a simulation game on the internet.

Posted by hoosierkyle on 3/6/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

I agree 100%. The thing I was most excited about was leveling the playing field. I've experienced it at the top and at the bottom, it was frustrating.

I'm batting like 10% right now on these coin flips and it's starting to destroy the programs I've worked hard to build. And it's impossible to sustain high Big 6 programs on 2 star talent that you know you can land. Back to the drawing board.

I can think of one that counts towards your 10%, Kyle! :)

I have lost my fair share of players by the dice roll. However I like it and am learning from it. The big things are to press everyone else down to moderate and have backups in the wings. I am seeing more diversity in the signing of players which will lead to greater competition. Gone will be the days when a coach can just recruit and sit back on autopilot until the Final Four before having to pay attention.

Also there is more strategy now. How much do you spend on taking a shot at an early signing? Do you blow it all and have nothing left? Do you hold some back and reduce your odds but have extra to cover your bases? All these new challenges the best coaches adapt to and the others struggle with.

Real world comparisons would be the NFL rule made in 1978 called the Mel Blount rule and the 1979 introduction of the three point line to the NBA. Those changes were harshly viewed at first but opened up the NFL and NBA game to be as popular as they have become. These changes are opening up the game for WIS players.

Posted by hawkfan1992 on 3/6/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hoosierkyle on 3/6/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

I agree 100%. The thing I was most excited about was leveling the playing field. I've experienced it at the top and at the bottom, it was frustrating.

I'm batting like 10% right now on these coin flips and it's starting to destroy the programs I've worked hard to build. And it's impossible to sustain high Big 6 programs on 2 star talent that you know you can land. Back to the drawing board.

I can think of one that counts towards your 10%, Kyle! :)

Good call hawk fan.

I even remember shutting down on that recruit and not giving full amounts of AP or Visits. I was stunned.

Most important point in the thread: “I think a lot of people assume the considering tab is an indication of how the recruit views the school. That is the wrong way to look at it. The considering tab is meant to give us an idea of how much effort credit we have relative to the effort credit leader.”

Exactly. The considering tab doesn’t have the kid in it at all, just your effort and the coaches' efforts. The kid only comes in at the very end.

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/6/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Most people when making big one-time decisions don't typically go with some huge discrepancy in favoring one item or another (they will usually pick the one leading in all these cases).

When buying a house or new vehicle (or choosing a college in this case), usually don't pick the one you like less (especially when nothing has change to influence you in some other way late in the process).

I can understand when choosing between having burgers or tacos for dinner, sometime you just say screw it I want a bit of variety and choose something that you like less, but its not like the recruit goes to college more than once in HD.

I don't think going back to the days of 51 always beating 49, but something in-between where maybe the roll only occurs all are VH (and the effort is more along 55/45 at most) is a better compromise.

I think this approach might be a good compromise. I like the fact that it's not always the leader that wins because it gives your team a shot if you can just get to high. But, I think Very High to Very High would be better for the coin flips, and like buddhagamer said, making it 55% to 45% at the most. And then get rid of the printed odds. But, I like the current system even though I have come out on the losing end several times.

I also would say that one bad recruiting year does not seem to kill a program. Two season ago, skinzfan lost a ton of coin flips in the same year, and He only had like 3 good players left. I think he took 4-5 walk-ons. Two seasons later he is 14-10, with a 19 RPI so he should make the NT, and he has a really nice group that he signed last season. It's difficult to maintain a team of all 4-5 stars. But I don't know that this is a bad thing.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

First off, we know that coaches who put in the most "effort" don't always win the recruit. "Upsets" happen all the time, where a kid goes to a school that was not thought to be the leader.

The signing odds and considering tab don't mean what you're reading into them. Because it's a game, and games need to have real defined parameters, there is such a thing as "effort credit" in this game, even though such a thing does not exist as a quantifiable figure in real life. To maintain the realism, the effort credit is not shown to us directly, but through a more ambiguous figure, called the considering tab. I think a lot of people assume the considering tab is an indication of how the recruit views the school. That is the wrong way to look at it. The considering tab is meant to give us an idea of how much effort credit we have relative to the effort credit leader. That's all. In that light, it's better to look at it as a reflection of how high of a priority the recruit is for the school, not the other way around. In real world terms, this is not the kid telling us what his top teams are, in order; this is a sports publication issuing speculation about where he's likely to land.

I like the way this is described. "The considering tab is meant to give us an idea of how much effort credit we have relative to the effort credit leader. That's all. In that light, it's better to look at it as a reflection of how high of a priority the recruit is for the school, not the other way around. In real world terms, this is not the kid telling us what his top teams are, in order; this is a sports publication issuing speculation about where he's likely to land." If you think of it in this perspective, then it's not so much of an upset - in other words, almost 70% of the sports writers thought he was going to school A, but the kid obviously saw something in School B that the writers didn't take into account. Maybe they should change the name of the considering tab to "Word on the Street" again or something else. Also, if a recruit has a "High" amount of consideration for a school, then it's not a huge shock if he goes there. If it was Very Low, that would be a different story.