Posted by bhask2 on 10/24/2019 10:13:00 PM (view original):
I have a similar question regarding D1 recruiting. I have played for a long time but now have moved up to D1 almost exclusively. How many times do you have to lose out on a recruiting battle when you are heavily favored before things turn in your favor? Getting extremely frustrated! 76% to 24%. Over a SIM team with less prestige! And I did all the things I needed to in terms of AP and HV. And this is only the latest example of probably five or six. am I missing something?

Yup that's the game now. You're going to take some bad beats and d1 has the most dice rolls. You'll eventually won some longshots if you play long enough.

I hope I don't take this thread off course, but I figure it's better than opening a new thread and it is a situation that building a D1 team faces.

This season or next will be my first season where I'll potentially be dealing with an early entry. How do you guys approach this situation? Hypothetically - If I have only one open schollie (to simplify things), do you try to sign a guy with an early preference and then use your remaining points on a late preference player that may be easier to get?

I don't want to overly simplify things. I know this is dependent on so many things (recruits available, how recruiting is playing out, how many scholarships, if player is likely staying / going or on the fence, etc.). I just want to pick some brains so I don't entirely ruin a season with a bad recruiting session. Lord knows, I've already done that several times since I got back into HD.

You’ll get different answers. My approach is if I am recruiting numerous guys with EE potential - and determining whether the guy projects to be an EE candidate and when is a vital skill and a key determinant for D1 success, IMO - I am going to want to focus on having replacements already on my roster. This is the primary reason I am less likely to take walkons in any given year.

I prioritize every year, and every team is a little different. Last season with UConn, I had 2 juniors who were top 10 guys, so it was pretty obvious they were likely going. Since I already had “filler” to get me through this year, I wanted to concentrate on getting more top level talent for the future. I had two scholarships to work with the first session, and I targeted one early signee, and a handful of late guys. With enough early attention and promises, I was able to lock in Smith without significant visit investments (a CV, and maybe 5 HV). So then I could concentrate on getting in position on some other guys. I targeted two guys I figured I would have to “battle” for, and I knew I would have the resources to do enough visits to at least take a shot. I also cultivated some other options, so I could fall back if I wanted to. As it happened, one of those battles materialized (which I won), and the other did not, so I filled my spots relatively easily. I had to promise starting spots to get in good position for the top 3, and that’s the big drawback.

I think it is also important to figure out a small pool of top targets and to try as hard as possible to be decisive - If you keep switching who you are going after, you miss out on the AP.

All I have to add to this....

Please, no one call shoe a God anymore. My stomach turned and my eyes rolled. Haha

Shoe is very helpful and while i don't agree with all his analysis I agree with most of it. His understanding of how the game works is in the top 10 of posters.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/28/2019 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Shoe is very helpful and while i don't agree with all his analysis I agree with most of it. His understanding of how the game works is in the top 10 of posters.

Considering there are about 20 active posters who have more than 30 seasons under their belt, that's pretty good!

Right. Shoe understands the game more than Benis.

Fixed.

Well I am one of the 20 posters so you got a 50/50 shot. Topdogg 50/50 type of shot.

I love 50/50! I think benis and I understand the game pretty well also. I just like to push shoes buttons. He likes to push mine. It's all in forum fun! It's just what we do.

Topdogg 50/50 lmao.

After losing my last two 70% to 30% draws, I'm starting to come around to his math.

Posted by Basketts on 10/28/2019 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Topdogg 50/50 lmao.

After losing my last two 70% to 30% draws, I'm starting to come around to his math.

Thank you! I have some followers out there! Joining the wagon!

All kidding aside, I obviously know the odds are what they are, when it comes to rolls. I'm just one that has seen so many lost recruits while leading, that they all feel 50/50. It's my way of not getting my hopes up, either direction.

"5) Related to 4, the final odds you see have been stretched to favor the winner. So the “underdog” is quite a bit closer to you in terms of accumulated effort credit than the odds show. If the odds weren’t stretched, that 74-26 battle would have been more like 61-39. It’s still an upset and a surprise, which is in the game by design because the developers want some surprise and unpredictability; but without the stretching, while it wouldn’t *feel* like such an upset, it would mean the leader would lose more often."

Ive never heard of this "stretching" before. Is that something from seble, or is it from some mathematical calculation you've done over the years? I'm curious to understand the need for this, and how it impacts recruiting. It shows teams being farther apart than they actually are? Or does it actually give an advantage to whichever team is the leader?

Posted by mlitney on 10/30/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
"5) Related to 4, the final odds you see have been stretched to favor the winner. So the “underdog” is quite a bit closer to you in terms of accumulated effort credit than the odds show. If the odds weren’t stretched, that 74-26 battle would have been more like 61-39. It’s still an upset and a surprise, which is in the game by design because the developers want some surprise and unpredictability; but without the stretching, while it wouldn’t *feel* like such an upset, it would mean the leader would lose more often."

Ive never heard of this "stretching" before. Is that something from seble, or is it from some mathematical calculation you've done over the years? I'm curious to understand the need for this, and how it impacts recruiting. It shows teams being farther apart than they actually are? Or does it actually give an advantage to whichever team is the leader?

It’s from seble, and was implemented during beta. I think it was probably supposed to be an appeasement to the folks who thought underdogs would win too often. The idea was to give an extra advantage to the leader. It backfired, IMO, especially when they decided to show the final odds after the battles. Unless folks know and understand this detail, they tend to think a 26-74 upset represents a much larger discrepancy in effort credit than it is in reality.

Posted by mlitney on 10/30/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
"5) Related to 4, the final odds you see have been stretched to favor the winner. So the “underdog” is quite a bit closer to you in terms of accumulated effort credit than the odds show. If the odds weren’t stretched, that 74-26 battle would have been more like 61-39. It’s still an upset and a surprise, which is in the game by design because the developers want some surprise and unpredictability; but without the stretching, while it wouldn’t *feel* like such an upset, it would mean the leader would lose more often."

Ive never heard of this "stretching" before. Is that something from seble, or is it from some mathematical calculation you've done over the years? I'm curious to understand the need for this, and how it impacts recruiting. It shows teams being farther apart than they actually are? Or does it actually give an advantage to whichever team is the leader?

Seble described this in Beta. It only adds a few % points. Not as much as your example here.