I think what causes so much frustration and confusion is I believe no one understands why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance of signing him. I personally think the preferences don't hold enough weight at times and I think the prestige can be overpowered.

That's odd, I believe most think the opposite. At least those who were around pre 3.0

Posted by franklynne on 8/28/2019 11:35:00 AM (view original):
as a D3 school in HD, i can recruit the following 'projected D1' recruit..thanks Seble et al..
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/Ratings.aspx?rid=4791306

Yeah... no one can view the player since we don't have him scouted. But even if we did, wouldn't change the fact that it's irrelevant to the conversation about D2/D3 battling D1s for recruits.

Posted by mullycj on 8/28/2019 11:53:00 AM (view original):
That's odd, I believe most think the opposite. At least those who were around pre 3.0

I wasn't around for 2.0 so maybe I'm missing something. I would like to know if you'd be so kind.

“I think what causes so much frustration and confusion is I believe no one understands why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance of signing him.”

Folks that understand and appreciate what kind of game recruiting is - probabilistic, rather than deterministic - know exactly why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance (less than 20% only in cases of >2 teams battling). It’s the same reason why when you put four aces and one queen in a hat, you will draw the queen about 20% of the time.

Important to keep in mind too, final consideration odds seen post battle do not match the amount of effort credit the teams had. Odds are stretched to favor the effort credit leader, so they win more often than their effort credit lead would suggest. A team has to get to within ~60% of the effort credit as the leader to be in signing range, and at the very low end in a two way battle, that amounts to 20% odds. If the odds weren’t stretched, the longest odds we’d see for post-battle consideration would be in the vicinity of 63-37 in two way battles.

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 8/28/2019 11:53:00 AM (view original):
That's odd, I believe most think the opposite. At least those who were around pre 3.0

I wasn't around for 2.0 so maybe I'm missing something. I would like to know if you'd be so kind.

In 2.0, 50.1 beat 49.9 100% of the time. And teams could rollover a portion of unused cash every year, and amass a big war chest. The net effect was battling was *very* risky, so few would do it. It was a much more narrow prestige range within which it made sense to challenge. This benefitted the top 15-20 teams, who basically got what they wanted every year, so long as they avoided stepping on each other. This issue - widening that feasible challenge range - was essentially the most contentious and divisive issue in the change.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/28/2019 1:24:00 PM (view original):
“I think what causes so much frustration and confusion is I believe no one understands why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance of signing him.”

Folks that understand and appreciate what kind of game recruiting is - probabilistic, rather than deterministic - know exactly why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance (less than 20% only in cases of >2 teams battling). It’s the same reason why when you put four aces and one queen in a hat, you will draw the queen about 20% of the time.

Important to keep in mind too, final consideration odds seen post battle do not match the amount of effort credit the teams had. Odds are stretched to favor the effort credit leader, so they win more often than their effort credit lead would suggest. A team has to get to within ~60% of the effort credit as the leader to be in signing range, and at the very low end in a two way battle, that amounts to 20% odds. If the odds weren’t stretched, the longest odds we’d see for post-battle consideration would be in the vicinity of 63-37 in two way battles.

If I’m understanding this correctly. The percentage odds don’t actually show the effort put forth by each school? So if that’s true what’s the point of showing the percentage odds?

"irrelevant to the conversation about D2/D3 battling D1s for recruits."??
why?? given that there are many D2-D3 teams in HD that have D1 quality players..why??

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/28/2019 1:24:00 PM (view original):
“I think what causes so much frustration and confusion is I believe no one understands why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance of signing him.”

Folks that understand and appreciate what kind of game recruiting is - probabilistic, rather than deterministic - know exactly why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance (less than 20% only in cases of >2 teams battling). It’s the same reason why when you put four aces and one queen in a hat, you will draw the queen about 20% of the time.

Important to keep in mind too, final consideration odds seen post battle do not match the amount of effort credit the teams had. Odds are stretched to favor the effort credit leader, so they win more often than their effort credit lead would suggest. A team has to get to within ~60% of the effort credit as the leader to be in signing range, and at the very low end in a two way battle, that amounts to 20% odds. If the odds weren’t stretched, the longest odds we’d see for post-battle consideration would be in the vicinity of 63-37 in two way battles.

If I’m understanding this correctly. The percentage odds don’t actually show the effort put forth by each school? So if that’s true what’s the point of showing the percentage odds?

You are understanding correctly, and that’s a good question. It wasn’t shown coming out of beta, but during seble’s severance sabbatical, the powers that be decided to make that their big centerpiece update. :l

Some folks (mully) disagree, but I think showing the odds has caused way too much unnecessary confusion, resentment, and dissatisfaction, far outweighing the benefit of the community being able to more closely pinpoint the relative value of all the recruiting actions.

Posted by franklynne on 8/28/2019 1:43:00 PM (view original):
"irrelevant to the conversation about D2/D3 battling D1s for recruits."??
why?? given that there are many D2-D3 teams in HD that have D1 quality players..why??

I'll back up.

In real life, d2 and d3 teams do not "battle" against d1 schools for recruits.

In real life, players do not choose to go to a d3 school when they have a full ride scholarship offer from a d1 school. Especially a B6 school.

In HD, these instances are common place and the norm.

Therefore, HD recruiting is not like real life recruiting.

I seriously can't dumb it down any more than this.

Posted by Benis on 8/28/2019 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by franklynne on 8/28/2019 1:43:00 PM (view original):
"irrelevant to the conversation about D2/D3 battling D1s for recruits."??
why?? given that there are many D2-D3 teams in HD that have D1 quality players..why??

I'll back up.

In real life, d2 and d3 teams do not "battle" against d1 schools for recruits.

In real life, players do not choose to go to a d3 school when they have a full ride scholarship offer from a d1 school. Especially a B6 school.

In HD, these instances are common place and the norm.

Therefore, HD recruiting is not like real life recruiting.

I seriously can't dumb it down any more than this.

I’ll add to this. D2/D3 schools battling for top 100 recruits is unrealistic. However there are D3 schools in real life that shoot for D1 caliber players that may get overlooked or can’t meet the requirements. So D2/D3 teams snagging low caliber D1 guys is realistic.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/28/2019 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/28/2019 1:24:00 PM (view original):
“I think what causes so much frustration and confusion is I believe no one understands why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance of signing him.”

Folks that understand and appreciate what kind of game recruiting is - probabilistic, rather than deterministic - know exactly why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance (less than 20% only in cases of >2 teams battling). It’s the same reason why when you put four aces and one queen in a hat, you will draw the queen about 20% of the time.

Important to keep in mind too, final consideration odds seen post battle do not match the amount of effort credit the teams had. Odds are stretched to favor the effort credit leader, so they win more often than their effort credit lead would suggest. A team has to get to within ~60% of the effort credit as the leader to be in signing range, and at the very low end in a two way battle, that amounts to 20% odds. If the odds weren’t stretched, the longest odds we’d see for post-battle consideration would be in the vicinity of 63-37 in two way battles.

If I’m understanding this correctly. The percentage odds don’t actually show the effort put forth by each school? So if that’s true what’s the point of showing the percentage odds?

You are understanding correctly, and that’s a good question. It wasn’t shown coming out of beta, but during seble’s severance sabbatical, the powers that be decided to make that their big centerpiece update. :l

Some folks (mully) disagree, but I think showing the odds has caused way too much unnecessary confusion, resentment, and dissatisfaction, far outweighing the benefit of the community being able to more closely pinpoint the relative value of all the recruiting actions.

Do you think factoring in the effort put forth in the odd percentages would clear up some confusion?

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/28/2019 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by franklynne on 8/28/2019 1:43:00 PM (view original):
"irrelevant to the conversation about D2/D3 battling D1s for recruits."??
why?? given that there are many D2-D3 teams in HD that have D1 quality players..why??

I'll back up.

In real life, d2 and d3 teams do not "battle" against d1 schools for recruits.

In real life, players do not choose to go to a d3 school when they have a full ride scholarship offer from a d1 school. Especially a B6 school.

In HD, these instances are common place and the norm.

Therefore, HD recruiting is not like real life recruiting.

I seriously can't dumb it down any more than this.

I’ll add to this. D2/D3 schools battling for top 100 recruits is unrealistic. However there are D3 schools in real life that shoot for D1 caliber players that may get overlooked or can’t meet the requirements. So D2/D3 teams snagging low caliber D1 guys is realistic.

You are describing how the game USED to work. Players could be projected as d1 but not get much attention from d1 teams so they would "drop down" To the lower division. But they would almost always choose the higher division team if the offer presented itself. Not impossible, but rare.

Posted by Benis on 8/28/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/28/2019 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by franklynne on 8/28/2019 1:43:00 PM (view original):
"irrelevant to the conversation about D2/D3 battling D1s for recruits."??
why?? given that there are many D2-D3 teams in HD that have D1 quality players..why??

I'll back up.

In real life, d2 and d3 teams do not "battle" against d1 schools for recruits.

In real life, players do not choose to go to a d3 school when they have a full ride scholarship offer from a d1 school. Especially a B6 school.

In HD, these instances are common place and the norm.

Therefore, HD recruiting is not like real life recruiting.

I seriously can't dumb it down any more than this.

I’ll add to this. D2/D3 schools battling for top 100 recruits is unrealistic. However there are D3 schools in real life that shoot for D1 caliber players that may get overlooked or can’t meet the requirements. So D2/D3 teams snagging low caliber D1 guys is realistic.

You are describing how the game USED to work. Players could be projected as d1 but not get much attention from d1 teams so they would "drop down" To the lower division. But they would almost always choose the higher division team if the offer presented itself. Not impossible, but rare.

That’s interesting wonder why they removed that feature. But yeah if the bigger school came around D3 would lose immediately.

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/28/2019 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GM223 on 8/28/2019 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/28/2019 1:24:00 PM (view original):
“I think what causes so much frustration and confusion is I believe no one understands why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance of signing him.”

Folks that understand and appreciate what kind of game recruiting is - probabilistic, rather than deterministic - know exactly why someone can lose a recruit to a team that had 20% or less chance (less than 20% only in cases of >2 teams battling). It’s the same reason why when you put four aces and one queen in a hat, you will draw the queen about 20% of the time.

Important to keep in mind too, final consideration odds seen post battle do not match the amount of effort credit the teams had. Odds are stretched to favor the effort credit leader, so they win more often than their effort credit lead would suggest. A team has to get to within ~60% of the effort credit as the leader to be in signing range, and at the very low end in a two way battle, that amounts to 20% odds. If the odds weren’t stretched, the longest odds we’d see for post-battle consideration would be in the vicinity of 63-37 in two way battles.

If I’m understanding this correctly. The percentage odds don’t actually show the effort put forth by each school? So if that’s true what’s the point of showing the percentage odds?

You are understanding correctly, and that’s a good question. It wasn’t shown coming out of beta, but during seble’s severance sabbatical, the powers that be decided to make that their big centerpiece update. :l

Some folks (mully) disagree, but I think showing the odds has caused way too much unnecessary confusion, resentment, and dissatisfaction, far outweighing the benefit of the community being able to more closely pinpoint the relative value of all the recruiting actions.

Do you think factoring in the effort put forth in the odd percentages would clear up some confusion?

The effort is factored in - the odds are just “stretched”. So it’s not an accurate reflection of how much effort teams have put in.

For example, say two teams with identical prestige and preference profiles are after a recruit. Team A has invested 800 APs. Team B has invested 200. Team B is not in signing range, nor is it particularly close. To get into signing range, team B would have to have invested ~480 APs. That gets them to about 60% of the effort credit leader. But if the battle stops there, the post battle odds will show up as ~80-20. That’s how the stretching works. It favors the effort credit leader, so the leader wins more often. But it also creates the appearance of bigger upsets.