This thread has some gems that should be preserved for posterity. On one side of the coin are these two gems:

1. "If I'm very high and another is high and gets the recruit, I'll jump ship…” How does a person with such tiny tolerance for frustration even get through the day? If you get a knot in your sneaker shoelaces, do you throw them away? If you drip your milk on your shirt, do you throw it away? If you get a "B" in arithmetic when you expected an "A," do you leave school and run away from home? Or was the "jump ship" crap just random chest-thumping?
2. "If I'm VH on one school and H on another, and I only get to choose between the two schools once in my lifetime, which school will I as a rational person select?” If you're not making your choice based on the quality of your major department and the faculty therein, on the suitability of campus housing and campus life, on the relationships you might develop with your major professor, on the opportunities available to you to do meaningful research, on a multitude of other relevant factors, you aren't making a rational choice anyway.

On the other side of the coin, as to HD2.0, these lines ought to be on the top of every thread until they sink in: "In the end, if you can accept that recruiting is now a question of probability, and not determined by who "won" the effort credit bidding game, you'll get used to winning some and losing some, and go about your day. If you can't tolerate it, that is what it is… Probability is the measure of likelihood that something will happen. Randomness is the lack of ability to measure the likelihood that something will happen. They are not synonyms.” Truth.

Who was Coachspud before the username change?

After the clock runs out on HD games I think sometimes the team with more points should lose the game, not really often, but often enough to keep things fun and interesting.

Posted by whitey34 on 9/20/2016 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shfcbl on 9/20/2016 7:30:00 PM (view original):
No it wasn't. But I enjoy the platform because of how it simulates many of the facets of college basketball, which is anything but predictable.

I mean I am best friends with D3 head coach and this is nothing compared to the nonsensical stuff he's heard for why he lost a kid who he thought he had to someone else. That point might not do anything for you, but it's pretty amusing to me that I am complaining about how it makes no sense I didn't get that recruit just like he does.

The thing is tho: we are paying to get screwed by randomness. Your friend is getting paid to get screwed. If I'm paying for something I want more control of the results. I don't want randomness to set me back 3-4 seasons. This recruiting takes more time and can screw you. Time is precious. Time is money. The game has been fun, but not if it leads to a waste of time.

Then don't pay ... This is not hard at all.

Also, your pot shots at me are silly. I didn't design the game. I just play it. But only if I feel like paying for it.

If you want to pay to play then do so. If you don't, then don't renew. This is not a hard concept.

But your .. if they do this, I am going to take my ball and go home does not work. They did it .. either take your ball and go home (like you threatened) or continue to pay to play.

1. "If I'm very high and another is high and gets the recruit, I'll jump ship…” How does a person with such tiny tolerance for frustration even get through the day? If you get a knot in your sneaker shoelaces, do you throw them away? If you drip your milk on your shirt, do you throw it away? If you get a "B" in arithmetic when you expected an "A," do you leave school and run away from home? Or was the "jump ship" crap just random chest-thumping?

Still in command of your #1 ***** position!

Posted by vandydave on 9/21/2016 12:56:00 AM (view original):
After the clock runs out on HD games I think sometimes the team with more points should lose the game, not really often, but often enough to keep things fun and interesting.

But you see, in game play they do actually do that (pretty much).

In game play, each and every play has a random outcome based on probability. Every play is run in series, one after the other until the time runs out.

If they were to run a specific matchup 1000 times, one team might win 60% of the time and the other 40% of the time .. sometimes it might be 50% / 50% or 95% / 5% (of course, based on the players on the team and their ratings). But the only game that matters is the ONE they run based on the schedule that we see. In that one game run, the 5% team could (and sometimes DOES) beat the 95% team to get an upset victory.

In fact, when they run the engine to do predictions (and not our games), they do run it dozens (or hundreds) of times to try to make their predictions more accurate. For example:

Week4

I just can't resist anymore. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POACHING! Never was. The concept was invented by coaches who got recruits to consider them and confused that with owning them. Already, I've seen complaints on the forums that 3.0 didn't "fix" poaching. My guess is that with an early/late recruiting period structure the poaching segment is going to be that much more disappointed.

Posted by rsvphr on 9/21/2016 8:05:00 AM (view original):
I just can't resist anymore. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POACHING! Never was. The concept was invented by coaches who got recruits to consider them and confused that with owning them. Already, I've seen complaints on the forums that 3.0 didn't "fix" poaching. My guess is that with an early/late recruiting period structure the poaching segment is going to be that much more disappointed.

There certainly is such a thing as poaching. You know what it is and you named it. It therefore has to exist, otherwise no one knows what you are talking about.

What you meant to say is .. a recruit is not yours until he signs .. and there is nothing wrong with going after any unsigned recruit.

So, poaching exists and is within the rules of game play.

Therefore, there is no need to FIX poaching.

But this type of system makes that practice much harder. For one thing, you have to UNLOCK recruiting actions. For another, recruits sign whenever they want during the period. So there is no waiting until the turn before signings start and jumping on someone. They sign when they sign (at some undetermined point that is unique for each recruit).

Sure, if you pick a guy who is going to only sign during the 2nd period, that is a chance. That means that someone has more time to become interested in your recruit.

There are also many more options to make a recruit like your team. If you pick guys who like your coaching style and your conference and your level of success and your distance from them, etc .. it will be much harder for someone to come in late.

But, it certainly is still a valid strategy to battle for recruits late. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Posted by rsvphr on 9/21/2016 10:02:00 AM (view original):
Point well taken. Poaching just had an "illegal" semantic flavor to it, like you were violating some rule. And the recipients so often reacted with such venom. I also have no problem with making it more of a challenging strategy.

Just so we're all clear, I don't use the term "poaching" to describe the scenario I brought up. That was used in whitey's response to me, and a bit of a mischaracterization of what I said, fwiw. Poaching, as it exists in the recruiting element of HD means recruiting someone else's territory. Since no one "owns" territory in HD, I would agree there is no illegal connotation. It may be mildly frustrating to have bigger fish move in to what you consider your territory, but it's part of the game (still is, in fact).

I use the term "sniping" (as in, what a sniper does) to describe a scenario where someone comes in to get a recruit at the last minute without battling. In other words, eBay style recruiting. Still not illegal. But bad game design. It was a very big source of dissatisfaction for many players, and it is basically the reason why so many coaches are absurdly risk averse - not a good way to design a commodities game, and a terrible simulation of how real life recruiting should feel.

In 3.0, people will still lose players they thought they were going to get, and it will still be frustrating. That's always got to be part of the game, if there's no frustration, there's no joy. But the difference is it will be because of actual battles, based on somewhat realistic and rational recruit decisions, not 100% determined by how much scholarship and conference cash someone had mounted up.

Posted by Arfy on 9/20/2016 8:13:00 PM (view original):
I've smoked enough joints to know there is not much difference between 'high' and 'very high'

Best post in years!

If we all quit, hughesjr will be there to pick up the teams with the best chance of winning.

Posted by rsvphr on 9/21/2016 10:02:00 AM (view original):
Point well taken. Poaching just had an "illegal" semantic flavor to it, like you were violating some rule. And the recipients so often reacted with such venom. I also have no problem with making it more of a challenging strategy.

I think rsvphr and hughes have the exact same ideas about poaching, they just call it different things! I agree with both of you.

Posted by hughesjr on 9/21/2016 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/21/2016 12:56:00 AM (view original):
After the clock runs out on HD games I think sometimes the team with more points should lose the game, not really often, but often enough to keep things fun and interesting.

But you see, in game play they do actually do that (pretty much).

In game play, each and every play has a random outcome based on probability. Every play is run in series, one after the other until the time runs out.

If they were to run a specific matchup 1000 times, one team might win 60% of the time and the other 40% of the time .. sometimes it might be 50% / 50% or 95% / 5% (of course, based on the players on the team and their ratings). But the only game that matters is the ONE they run based on the schedule that we see. In that one game run, the 5% team could (and sometimes DOES) beat the 95% team to get an upset victory.

In fact, when they run the engine to do predictions (and not our games), they do run it dozens (or hundreds) of times to try to make their predictions more accurate. For example:

Week4

And I obviously understand all that. And while this feels like a comparable analogy to a recruiting battle such as high vs very high in recruiting it actually isn't. The specific recruiting battle happens only once. And someone is actually ahead, and someone is behind - not based upon percentages or probabilities, they are literally ahead in the battle. The variables going into the only-happening-once recruiting battle are controlled by the coaches, not by probability-based dice rolls every step of the way in recruiting. To take a set of controlled determined steps and resolve them with one dice roll based upon any set of parameters is simply not a game that interests me any more, especially when the sim engine itself so often is anywhere from unpredictable to nonsensical. It may interest others, fair enough.

"To take a set of controlled determined steps and ..." ... sum them up into one result is neither a dice roll nor a coin flip. It is an expression of probability, a probability that each coach involved influences all along the way, totally unlike a coin flip or a dice roll. I think that's a big part of why the coinflip/diceroll argument gains no traction.