Posted by johnsensing on 1/27/2020 2:52:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that if two-period recruiting isn't getting nuked (I am not holding my breath), the EE situation could be fixed with two small, interrelated tweaks:

1. APs are overvalued -- they are at least 2x stronger than they should be, IMO. Reduce their strength by 1/2 (at least). This is not just an EE problem.
2. Everyone gets a set value of APs, no matter how many scholarships you have open (or alternatively, have the floor be at 70, and you get 10 points per open scholly).

Right now if you have one or two open schollys, and you have multiple EEs (expected or not), you are screwed even if you plan for it, because teams with 4/5/6 open schollys have a massive lead in APs on the late preference guys, and you are disadvantaged in battling during the first session, because you've got to plan for EEs.

PS. It's crazy to me that so many of you are deliberately keeping attributes low to try to avoid EEs (I've never done that, apparently I'm working at a competitive disadvantage). As others have said, that is a sign that all is not well with the incentives in DI.

interesting perspective there. one thing i've thought could be nice for recruiting overall is to have a little less money (at least in d1, no idea if d2/d3 are different) - it feels like its too easy for coaches to max spending on players. not necessarily easy to max AP, but dollars - seems like it would add strategy if cash was a little tighter. i think that could dovetail with AP being a lot more even, the concern about the cash tightening is giving big classes too much advantage, but i think the two could work together nicely.

on the keeping attributes low bit - i do think its valuable, but i don't think its essential, or even close. coaches who are looking to join d1 or join the high ranks need to worry about it, you won't have that many players where it makes a big difference to hold them back, and it doesn't majorly disadvantage you against the top coaches or anything.

its not like i had a significant increase in success when i started EE manipulation, but i do think in particular, it would have taken me much longer to get the 3peat i wanted in d1 (which by luck ended up being 1 5peat and 1 3peat) if i didn't have a comprehensive EE management strategy - note that EE manipulation is only a minority part of the overall EE strategy. folks who aren't into EE manipulation can still be really successful with other components of an EE management strategy.

this isn't really a reply to john, but i kind of want to elaborate on the whole EE management strategy deal. the first part is just really trying to understand the mechanics - specifically, how does the big board translate to odds of leaving and where are the 'thresholds' where players' odds of leaving increases or decreases dramatically, in just a small # of spots on the board - as well as how player ratings translate to big board rankings. those are the major items, but there is some other stuff in the mechanics bucket. info on the odds of leaving based on big board ranking can be found on the forums.

once you have the essential knowledge of the EE system along with the ability to project the EE odds for any given recruit, its time to start optimizing. in short, you want to find a way to get really good players without having to incur massive EE losses. i think a good starting point is to assess player value. there are some roles where a safe, 4 year player - even a top of the line one - is going to be significantly disadvantaged against a top EE junior, or even soph (an example might be a top tier scoring pg). in other roles, that 4 year player is almost as good at his peak - occasionally even better - and its just not worth taking the EE hit there (an example might be a non scoring big). and even within EEs, there are EE juniors and EE sophmores (not just luck - but guys who are so highly rated they are 50% or higher as sophmores).

from there, the diminishing returns philosophy takes over. if you are recruiting a guy who is going to be a cornerstone of your offense, getting a likely going junior is probably quite practical. i personally don't like the on the fence and up sophs, just because for offense, you basically just can finally be good with end-of-soph year iq - i feel like you get double the offense out of juniors (2 high end scoring NTs, instead of 1) for only 50% extra seasons (3yr vs 2yr). however, i am typically pressing, where you need more depth - and the more depth you need, the harder it is to juggle EEs. on man/zone teams, i'd definitely take those sophs - i took one recently on a m2m team, and he was so important, i pushed his ratings as hard as i could and he left as a soph - but not before bringing home the title. this is just an example of the kind of thinking folks should be doing, pursuant to their own situations.

the other parts of diminishing returns should really feel old hat, it should be the same stuff you are doing elsewhere. if you already have great bigs in the last couple classes, you probably don't really benefit much from having another insane big in this class - better off to get the 4yr guy, and maybe go get an EE guard instead. when i started d1, i just got the best players i could without regard to anything - but after my first two titles, i lost 3 and 5 EEs, respectively (5 was tied for the record at the time). quite the rude awakening! it made even back to back titles seem like they needed a minor miracle, not to mention a 3 peat (this is only half true, i did manage a back to back with 3/4 titles before i ever started EE planning - but i coached obsessively then - although i also was a rookie, so that sort of balances it out). more recently, i'll build teams that are just as good, but they are a tad less talented and a tad more experienced - and i get hit with WAY fewer EEs. quite often, my EE expectation is only 1, coming off a title. when you can do that, you can really start to string together the great seasons.

so anyway, your EE strategy basically needs to include projecting recruits out and anticipating their EE situation; considering the quality of players not just absolutely but in context of the EE reality; staggering EEs in a way that they don't devastate you (maybe up to 2 per season for man/zone, 1-1.5 for press or something); considering diminishing returns / team planning concepts when recruiting EEs (like you would for anyone, i suppose), making sure the EEs you take provide real bang for the back; and finally, some good old EE manipulation.

the EE manipulation should come last - it builds on the understanding you need to develop anyway. plus its a lot less critical than the rest, and there is a major tradeoff - ratings - where as the rest of EE planning is really just sound strategy. with EE manipulation, you might save an EE every 4 season cycle or so, or even every 2 if you were recruiting crazy amounts of really, really highly rated players (especially if you don't have any EE planning strategy at all). for most programs, EE manipulation will save less than 1 every 4 seasons due to lack of volume, but at the high end of d1, i definitely think its possible to save an EE or even 1.5 per 4 seasons. so, pretty valuable - but its not like you can't be extremely successful without it.

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/27/2020 5:45:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree that D1 coaches are better as well. I think D1 coaches have more game planning to do on a regular basis. Because there's more coaches in D1.

But there's also baseline prestige and such, that separates the opportunity for all the mid majors. Also I think benis noted, most elite coaches at D1 don't get to keep their players 4 seasons every season, and some do. Due to the "randomness" of EEs.

I will also say that D2 coaches have an argument AGAINST being the best as well. Because there's no cap on recruits. So, like in D1 you can only recruit so many 100 everything guys. But in D2, I can out recruit another coach.

So what we have here, is a situation where it's impossible to compare that D1 coaches are better/worse than D2. And each level has to be treated as it's own level, and gauged against itself.

You can only compare to each level in each world independently.

There's so many layers to this thought. I started to say that D1 can prove who the better game planners are, D2 can prove easier, who the better recruiters are. But that's not true either. In D1 rolls can swing recruiting one way or another consistently. In D2, game planning from the S16 (maybe E8) is complex because all teams are elite at that point. My last point is..... I do just as well (in D2) against coaches that only coach D2, as I do against coaches that also coach D1. It's foolish to think that coaches that win D1 titles could just drop down to D2 and win at a HIGHER level because of the coaching quality.

Sorry the the gil length posts. I had to think about this one for a min!

i suggest you play d1 before rendering a verdict on the relative competitiveness :)

i always thought the forum sentiment was overblown, the sentiment that d1 was massively more difficult and that in effect, d1 success was incomparable to d2/d3 success. to me, the quality of coaches wasn't all that much higher - but the quality of recruiting, and the challenges of recruiting, were much, much higher. the forum sentiment has softened considerably, over time.

my overall opinion is that without question, d1 is more challenging, and extreme success in d1 is MUCH more challenging, due to several factors - the moderately higher caliber of coaching, the greatly more competitive recruiting, EEs, and the reality that other high end 1 teams are already so talented that creating real separation between yourself and them can seem impossible at times.

however, i'm not a snob about it like some folks. some people say you can't be a great coach with just d2/d3 success, i don't believe that. i do think you are pretty much locked out of the top 5-10 without it though, because there is sort of no question IMO about where the highest level of play is.

i agree shoe, EE manipulation is just one of those many things that makes a difference in the game of inches, but not in the game of yards. i do think its a lot more important in press than man/zone but still decently marginal.

Posted by Benis on 1/27/2020 7:36:00 PM (view original):
Blocking fake wardo posts. You're welcome everyone.

Thank you! I need to figure out how to do that in my threads. Never tried.

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/27/2020 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/27/2020 5:45:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree that D1 coaches are better as well. I think D1 coaches have more game planning to do on a regular basis. Because there's more coaches in D1.

But there's also baseline prestige and such, that separates the opportunity for all the mid majors. Also I think benis noted, most elite coaches at D1 don't get to keep their players 4 seasons every season, and some do. Due to the "randomness" of EEs.

I will also say that D2 coaches have an argument AGAINST being the best as well. Because there's no cap on recruits. So, like in D1 you can only recruit so many 100 everything guys. But in D2, I can out recruit another coach.

So what we have here, is a situation where it's impossible to compare that D1 coaches are better/worse than D2. And each level has to be treated as it's own level, and gauged against itself.

You can only compare to each level in each world independently.

There's so many layers to this thought. I started to say that D1 can prove who the better game planners are, D2 can prove easier, who the better recruiters are. But that's not true either. In D1 rolls can swing recruiting one way or another consistently. In D2, game planning from the S16 (maybe E8) is complex because all teams are elite at that point. My last point is..... I do just as well (in D2) against coaches that only coach D2, as I do against coaches that also coach D1. It's foolish to think that coaches that win D1 titles could just drop down to D2 and win at a HIGHER level because of the coaching quality.

Sorry the the gil length posts. I had to think about this one for a min!

i suggest you play d1 before rendering a verdict on the relative competitiveness :)

i always thought the forum sentiment was overblown, the sentiment that d1 was massively more difficult and that in effect, d1 success was incomparable to d2/d3 success. to me, the quality of coaches wasn't all that much higher - but the quality of recruiting, and the challenges of recruiting, were much, much higher. the forum sentiment has softened considerably, over time.

my overall opinion is that without question, d1 is more challenging, and extreme success in d1 is MUCH more challenging, due to several factors - the moderately higher caliber of coaching, the greatly more competitive recruiting, EEs, and the reality that other high end 1 teams are already so talented that creating real separation between yourself and them can seem impossible at times.

however, i'm not a snob about it like some folks. some people say you can't be a great coach with just d2/d3 success, i don't believe that. i do think you are pretty much locked out of the top 5-10 without it though, because there is sort of no question IMO about where the highest level of play is.

I'm not saying anything about D1 coaches bad or good, nor am I saying anything bad or good about D2 coaches, that has not been discussed here by all.

i will agree with you on one thing, that without question, long success at D1 is more impressive than anything you can do at D2/D3. There's no doubt about that. Because of the various issues that come with EEs and things. But that wasn't what I was referring to. Doing something more impressive, and being the best coach, are two different things.

Take that Joeykw18 guy. I've never spoke a word with him. But that run at Vermont that he had was one damn good accomplishment! Amazing. Nothing at D2/D3 can ever match that. But no disrespect to Joey18 at all, but I'm not sure that he's considered to be the best coach in HD. Or even D1. Maybe he is! I don't know.

My point again, was that every accomplishment at different levels is measured against that level. I doubt Joeyk comes to D2 and completely dominates because he may be the best coach in D1. I doubt I go to D1 and dominate just because I'm the best coach at D2 (I'm not the best coach. I just used myself as an example).

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/27/2020 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/27/2020 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/27/2020 5:45:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree that D1 coaches are better as well. I think D1 coaches have more game planning to do on a regular basis. Because there's more coaches in D1.

But there's also baseline prestige and such, that separates the opportunity for all the mid majors. Also I think benis noted, most elite coaches at D1 don't get to keep their players 4 seasons every season, and some do. Due to the "randomness" of EEs.

I will also say that D2 coaches have an argument AGAINST being the best as well. Because there's no cap on recruits. So, like in D1 you can only recruit so many 100 everything guys. But in D2, I can out recruit another coach.

So what we have here, is a situation where it's impossible to compare that D1 coaches are better/worse than D2. And each level has to be treated as it's own level, and gauged against itself.

You can only compare to each level in each world independently.

There's so many layers to this thought. I started to say that D1 can prove who the better game planners are, D2 can prove easier, who the better recruiters are. But that's not true either. In D1 rolls can swing recruiting one way or another consistently. In D2, game planning from the S16 (maybe E8) is complex because all teams are elite at that point. My last point is..... I do just as well (in D2) against coaches that only coach D2, as I do against coaches that also coach D1. It's foolish to think that coaches that win D1 titles could just drop down to D2 and win at a HIGHER level because of the coaching quality.

Sorry the the gil length posts. I had to think about this one for a min!

i suggest you play d1 before rendering a verdict on the relative competitiveness :)

i always thought the forum sentiment was overblown, the sentiment that d1 was massively more difficult and that in effect, d1 success was incomparable to d2/d3 success. to me, the quality of coaches wasn't all that much higher - but the quality of recruiting, and the challenges of recruiting, were much, much higher. the forum sentiment has softened considerably, over time.

my overall opinion is that without question, d1 is more challenging, and extreme success in d1 is MUCH more challenging, due to several factors - the moderately higher caliber of coaching, the greatly more competitive recruiting, EEs, and the reality that other high end 1 teams are already so talented that creating real separation between yourself and them can seem impossible at times.

however, i'm not a snob about it like some folks. some people say you can't be a great coach with just d2/d3 success, i don't believe that. i do think you are pretty much locked out of the top 5-10 without it though, because there is sort of no question IMO about where the highest level of play is.

I'm not saying anything about D1 coaches bad or good, nor am I saying anything bad or good about D2 coaches, that has not been discussed here by all.

i will agree with you on one thing, that without question, long success at D1 is more impressive than anything you can do at D2/D3. There's no doubt about that. Because of the various issues that come with EEs and things. But that wasn't what I was referring to. Doing something more impressive, and being the best coach, are two different things.

Take that Joeykw18 guy. I've never spoke a word with him. But that run at Vermont that he had was one damn good accomplishment! Amazing. Nothing at D2/D3 can ever match that. But no disrespect to Joey18 at all, but I'm not sure that he's considered to be the best coach in HD. Or even D1. Maybe he is! I don't know.

My point again, was that every accomplishment at different levels is measured against that level. I doubt Joeyk comes to D2 and completely dominates because he may be the best coach in D1. I doubt I go to D1 and dominate just because I'm the best coach at D2 (I'm not the best coach. I just used myself as an example).

Your gonna rail Gillispie1 and Darnonc2909 and mean while I typically agree with Benis however he may or may not believe in his own statbook.

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/27/2020 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/27/2020 2:52:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that if two-period recruiting isn't getting nuked (I am not holding my breath), the EE situation could be fixed with two small, interrelated tweaks:

1. APs are overvalued -- they are at least 2x stronger than they should be, IMO. Reduce their strength by 1/2 (at least). This is not just an EE problem.
2. Everyone gets a set value of APs, no matter how many scholarships you have open (or alternatively, have the floor be at 70, and you get 10 points per open scholly).

Right now if you have one or two open schollys, and you have multiple EEs (expected or not), you are screwed even if you plan for it, because teams with 4/5/6 open schollys have a massive lead in APs on the late preference guys, and you are disadvantaged in battling during the first session, because you've got to plan for EEs.

PS. It's crazy to me that so many of you are deliberately keeping attributes low to try to avoid EEs (I've never done that, apparently I'm working at a competitive disadvantage). As others have said, that is a sign that all is not well with the incentives in DI.

interesting perspective there. one thing i've thought could be nice for recruiting overall is to have a little less money (at least in d1, no idea if d2/d3 are different) - it feels like its too easy for coaches to max spending on players. not necessarily easy to max AP, but dollars - seems like it would add strategy if cash was a little tighter. i think that could dovetail with AP being a lot more even, the concern about the cash tightening is giving big classes too much advantage, but i think the two could work together nicely.

on the keeping attributes low bit - i do think its valuable, but i don't think its essential, or even close. coaches who are looking to join d1 or join the high ranks need to worry about it, you won't have that many players where it makes a big difference to hold them back, and it doesn't majorly disadvantage you against the top coaches or anything.

its not like i had a significant increase in success when i started EE manipulation, but i do think in particular, it would have taken me much longer to get the 3peat i wanted in d1 (which by luck ended up being 1 5peat and 1 3peat) if i didn't have a comprehensive EE management strategy - note that EE manipulation is only a minority part of the overall EE strategy. folks who aren't into EE manipulation can still be really successful with other components of an EE management strategy.

this isn't really a reply to john, but i kind of want to elaborate on the whole EE management strategy deal. the first part is just really trying to understand the mechanics - specifically, how does the big board translate to odds of leaving and where are the 'thresholds' where players' odds of leaving increases or decreases dramatically, in just a small # of spots on the board - as well as how player ratings translate to big board rankings. those are the major items, but there is some other stuff in the mechanics bucket. info on the odds of leaving based on big board ranking can be found on the forums.

once you have the essential knowledge of the EE system along with the ability to project the EE odds for any given recruit, its time to start optimizing. in short, you want to find a way to get really good players without having to incur massive EE losses. i think a good starting point is to assess player value. there are some roles where a safe, 4 year player - even a top of the line one - is going to be significantly disadvantaged against a top EE junior, or even soph (an example might be a top tier scoring pg). in other roles, that 4 year player is almost as good at his peak - occasionally even better - and its just not worth taking the EE hit there (an example might be a non scoring big). and even within EEs, there are EE juniors and EE sophmores (not just luck - but guys who are so highly rated they are 50% or higher as sophmores).

from there, the diminishing returns philosophy takes over. if you are recruiting a guy who is going to be a cornerstone of your offense, getting a likely going junior is probably quite practical. i personally don't like the on the fence and up sophs, just because for offense, you basically just can finally be good with end-of-soph year iq - i feel like you get double the offense out of juniors (2 high end scoring NTs, instead of 1) for only 50% extra seasons (3yr vs 2yr). however, i am typically pressing, where you need more depth - and the more depth you need, the harder it is to juggle EEs. on man/zone teams, i'd definitely take those sophs - i took one recently on a m2m team, and he was so important, i pushed his ratings as hard as i could and he left as a soph - but not before bringing home the title. this is just an example of the kind of thinking folks should be doing, pursuant to their own situations.

the other parts of diminishing returns should really feel old hat, it should be the same stuff you are doing elsewhere. if you already have great bigs in the last couple classes, you probably don't really benefit much from having another insane big in this class - better off to get the 4yr guy, and maybe go get an EE guard instead. when i started d1, i just got the best players i could without regard to anything - but after my first two titles, i lost 3 and 5 EEs, respectively (5 was tied for the record at the time). quite the rude awakening! it made even back to back titles seem like they needed a minor miracle, not to mention a 3 peat (this is only half true, i did manage a back to back with 3/4 titles before i ever started EE planning - but i coached obsessively then - although i also was a rookie, so that sort of balances it out). more recently, i'll build teams that are just as good, but they are a tad less talented and a tad more experienced - and i get hit with WAY fewer EEs. quite often, my EE expectation is only 1, coming off a title. when you can do that, you can really start to string together the great seasons.

so anyway, your EE strategy basically needs to include projecting recruits out and anticipating their EE situation; considering the quality of players not just absolutely but in context of the EE reality; staggering EEs in a way that they don't devastate you (maybe up to 2 per season for man/zone, 1-1.5 for press or something); considering diminishing returns / team planning concepts when recruiting EEs (like you would for anyone, i suppose), making sure the EEs you take provide real bang for the back; and finally, some good old EE manipulation.

the EE manipulation should come last - it builds on the understanding you need to develop anyway. plus its a lot less critical than the rest, and there is a major tradeoff - ratings - where as the rest of EE planning is really just sound strategy. with EE manipulation, you might save an EE every 4 season cycle or so, or even every 2 if you were recruiting crazy amounts of really, really highly rated players (especially if you don't have any EE planning strategy at all). for most programs, EE manipulation will save less than 1 every 4 seasons due to lack of volume, but at the high end of d1, i definitely think its possible to save an EE or even 1.5 per 4 seasons. so, pretty valuable - but its not like you can't be extremely successful without it.

Diminishing return is king I even use it in today's division One but I find going after locked targets is pie. I wonder how long kinda like my classes at high school. How long they are going to keep denying I am pretty sure this needs to be reviewed for soft caps remark.

I agree that D1 is more challenging.

But honestly, if you're good at HD, you're good at all levels. There are different nuances and strategies at each division but if you understand the fundamentals of HD then your success will translate as you move up.

There are TONS of d1 coaches that could barely make the tourney at d2/d3. They've just been playing for a really long time. It doesn't make them good at the game.

The top 10 coaches in any world in d2 are just as good at HD as the top 10 in D1 IMO.

Holy smokes. Just lost another EE not on the big board in Tark. Breaking records all over the place these days!