Kansas, Michigan State, Syracuse, UCLA, Oklahoma State, arguably top programs all left. Add Arizona, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Boston College, Colorado, Miami (Fl), Missouri, all A colleges, left also. Add Mississippi State, Ohio State, Rutgers, B programs... And some others. Big Six, A-10 all emptied.

WIS needs to react. The message is clear, if we can't compete, if it's random or ees mess, why would we play? I see Phelan, which has resisted somehow going down next. Capping everything, not declaring ees, making everything, even signing tendancies a roll of the dice, is not a strategic game.

I disagree - There is still a lot of strategy. I think that a lot of people who are leaving have just not learned it yet, for one reason or another. So far, I've been having a lot of success in recruiting with the new engine, but I have a strategy, actually several strategies, depending on the situation. I do hate to see so many leaving though.

Posted by chapelhillne on 11/7/2016 9:48:00 AM (view original):
I disagree - There is still a lot of strategy. I think that a lot of people who are leaving have just not learned it yet, for one reason or another. So far, I've been having a lot of success in recruiting with the new engine, but I have a strategy, actually several strategies, depending on the situation. I do hate to see so many leaving though.

Couldn't agree more with Chap on this one.

totally agree with chap.

most of the people leaving didn't like the concept of the changes and/or decided they didn't want to invest in learning the new elements of the game. that's fine. but how many topics do we need on this?? this has all been said over and over and over.

Also agree with chap. The game has changed. Attrition is (or should have been) expected. That's just how updates go. The last thing WIS needs to do is try to cater to people who have already left. The game as it exists now, while still having some tweaks they should be looking at, is much better than the one that preceded it.

Great players will emerge and re-emerge. Using words like "random" and "parity" is simply inaccurate.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/7/2016 10:06:00 AM (view original):
totally agree with chap.

most of the people leaving didn't like the concept of the changes and/or decided they didn't want to invest in learning the new elements of the game. that's fine. but how many topics do we need on this?? this has all been said over and over and over.

I agree, there probably don't need to be a bunch of threads on this - everyone knew it was coming, and everyone is assuming that tons of new users will flood in to replace everyone.

People will replace the name schools, what will be interesting is if people move to the 'lesser' BCS schools. Somebody will always want to coach at Duke or UNC for the name, but is anyone going to care to coach at Rutgers, Nebraska, Kansas St, Clemson, etc?

I would be real curious to hear the strategies. I suppose folks don't want to reveal their secrets, but here are the main approaches I see:

For my Maryland team (A+ prestige) I had 3 open spots.

1. Go all in on a few recruits. I was able to go all in on 2 highly rated guys with my budget. Unfortunately, they both resulted in battles and I was in a 2 way race for each recruit. Lost one battle already. Other battle is a high / very high situation (me 'behind'). I have maxed out 20 HV and 1 CV and quite a bit of promises and AP. I was very selective with a AP and used them almost entirely on 2 players.

2. Spread things around and play it slow. Put AP on 4-5 different guys. Look for vulnerabilities and go against lower prestige schools. Try to use prestige lever and preference lever to advantage. My experience last recruiting session found this strategy challenging. I was not able to make up the difference in effort since I was spread too thin. This also means settling for inferior players in most cases.

3. I suppose a third strategy would be to go for a mix of the above strategy. Go all in on 1 or 2 players (depending on the size of your class) and then find lesser players that match well. I do not think recruiting from a distance seems very viable is there is a local school interested in the recruit. The HV disadvantage in cost makes it more prohibitive. (If I keep playing, I may need to re-think this. But scouting from far away is much more expensive so it seems like you need some luck to find the good player that matches up well).

4. Find an international and then go local. I doubt many coaches are going "all-in" on internationals due to the cost. Who will blink first? Go hard after and international early and hope to scare others off. Then fill in the class with nearby players.

In sum, I have seen some schools that end up in non-battles for high ranked recruits. I am not sure why this is. I don't know if I've just had bad luck with someone wanting to battle for players near my school? Or if the East coast is too jam packed so there are more battles in this area? I do think being isolated geographically might be an advantage in this new model. You would need some luck with having top recruits nearby, and then most would avoid them due to the cost of a distance battle.

Things I would be very curious to see, but don't have the time or interest in researching:
- how many distance battles are being won by schools far away from recruits?
- how many battles are there actually?
- how often are lower prestige schools winning battles?

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Also agree with chap. The game has changed. Attrition is (or should have been) expected. That's just how updates go. The last thing WIS needs to do is try to cater to people who have already left. The game as it exists now, while still having some tweaks they should be looking at, is much better than the one that preceded it.

Great players will emerge and re-emerge. Using words like "random" and "parity" is simply inaccurate.

No, random and parity are pretty accurate. They introduced a new feature where the team in the lead in terms of effort does not always win (would you prefer luck or uncertainty to randomness), and the stated goal of the update was to ensure that top end recruits went to more teams (increasing parity) than previously.

All I see is 85+% of power schools signing top 60 players. So I don't quite understand this. In Phelan, 27 of the top 37 recruits have signed. Only 1 of those 27 signed with a non big 6.

Posted by acn24 on 11/7/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/7/2016 10:06:00 AM (view original):
totally agree with chap.

most of the people leaving didn't like the concept of the changes and/or decided they didn't want to invest in learning the new elements of the game. that's fine. but how many topics do we need on this?? this has all been said over and over and over.

I agree, there probably don't need to be a bunch of threads on this - everyone knew it was coming, and everyone is assuming that tons of new users will flood in to replace everyone.

People will replace the name schools, what will be interesting is if people move to the 'lesser' BCS schools. Somebody will always want to coach at Duke or UNC for the name, but is anyone going to care to coach at Rutgers, Nebraska, Kansas St, Clemson, etc?

"I agree, there probably don't need to be a bunch of threads on this ..."

I agree with chap, too, of course. But take another look at this thread. One whine followed by six very constructive responses. Very encouraging!

Posted by acn24 on 11/7/2016 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Also agree with chap. The game has changed. Attrition is (or should have been) expected. That's just how updates go. The last thing WIS needs to do is try to cater to people who have already left. The game as it exists now, while still having some tweaks they should be looking at, is much better than the one that preceded it.

Great players will emerge and re-emerge. Using words like "random" and "parity" is simply inaccurate.

No, random and parity are pretty accurate. They introduced a new feature where the team in the lead in terms of effort does not always win (would you prefer luck or uncertainty to randomness), and the stated goal of the update was to ensure that top end recruits went to more teams (increasing parity) than previously.

It's random! I have no other words to describe it. Strategy? I will find one strategy for sure... But when you are stuck in a battle, it comes down to luck. And if you think you need to get these players, sometimes you have to battle. I am sorry to tell you this. Random in players deciding whether to sign or not at a particular time. Sometimes, it gives more time to other teams.

Chapel : maybe you had more luck... If you won roll of the dice, you had luck. D1 needs some fixing... I can't RECRUIT in CLEMSON, Phelan cause I lost two battles... Lost all my money. What's strategic about that? You guys are just being blindfolded. We had more choices before but the system catered too much to power conférences and power teams. Now, it's gone to where luck decides which team will be good. UNC, in PHELAN, won two H battles. It changes a team... to the better. But it's luck.

Posted by acn24 on 11/7/2016 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Also agree with chap. The game has changed. Attrition is (or should have been) expected. That's just how updates go. The last thing WIS needs to do is try to cater to people who have already left. The game as it exists now, while still having some tweaks they should be looking at, is much better than the one that preceded it.

Great players will emerge and re-emerge. Using words like "random" and "parity" is simply inaccurate.

No, random and parity are pretty accurate. They introduced a new feature where the team in the lead in terms of effort does not always win (would you prefer luck or uncertainty to randomness), and the stated goal of the update was to ensure that top end recruits went to more teams (increasing parity) than previously.

Random means decided completely by chance, without influence of consciousness or decision. It implies no real human agency. Humans play a huge role in how battles shape up. Humans prioritize, strategize, and execute to put themselves in positions to win selected recruits. The players who do this the best year in and year out will emerge as the top players. The recruiting portion of the game is now probabilistic, instead of deterministic. It's not "random".

Regarding parity, it's true that 3.0 moves *closer to parity*. As I said, great coaches are going to be great coaches. The cream is going to rise to the top, the people most open to 3.0, and able to adapt to it will likely be the first, but others will figure it out. The primary difference is that the best teams will still undergo tough years from time to time, because sometimes you'll just have to re-build, or get unlucky and lose all your battles, etc. as they do in real life. Winning 7 championships in 13 seasons probably won't happen anymore. I suppose if that means parity to you, it is what it is. To me, that's just reality.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 11/7/2016 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Also agree with chap. The game has changed. Attrition is (or should have been) expected. That's just how updates go. The last thing WIS needs to do is try to cater to people who have already left. The game as it exists now, while still having some tweaks they should be looking at, is much better than the one that preceded it.

Great players will emerge and re-emerge. Using words like "random" and "parity" is simply inaccurate.

No, random and parity are pretty accurate. They introduced a new feature where the team in the lead in terms of effort does not always win (would you prefer luck or uncertainty to randomness), and the stated goal of the update was to ensure that top end recruits went to more teams (increasing parity) than previously.

Random means decided completely by chance, without influence of consciousness or decision. It implies no real human agency. Humans play a huge role in how battles shape up. Humans prioritize, strategize, and execute to put themselves in positions to win selected recruits. The players who do this the best year in and year out will emerge as the top players. The recruiting portion of the game is now probabilistic, instead of deterministic. It's not "random".

Regarding parity, it's true that 3.0 moves *closer to parity*. As I said, great coaches are going to be great coaches. The cream is going to rise to the top, the people most open to 3.0, and able to adapt to it will likely be the first, but others will figure it out. The primary difference is that the best teams will still undergo tough years from time to time, because sometimes you'll just have to re-build, or get unlucky and lose all your battles, etc. as they do in real life. Winning 7 championships in 13 seasons probably won't happen anymore. I suppose if that means parity to you, it is what it is. To me, that's just reality.

Shoe3 : Say Team A has A- prestige, team B has B prestige. both have good préférences. They need a PG, that one is close to campus. They battle... They all go hard... At the end, the outcome is a roll of the dice... The thing is capped. So they cannot take more décisions in this once they put 20 HVS, 1CV, promised a start, promised minutes... AP is capped at 80... They go hard. If Team B wins at H, it leaves team A with the resources to get into one other battle or two or three, depending on the number of schollies. All top players are battled for, team A wants to have a slice of the pie, say it loses all remaining battles, but really prioritized well... Isn't this luck and random? The décisions before is not random... But in D1, you cannot be competitive unless you land high development players or top recruits... And they are all battled for. When you have lost all your resources on battles you had to take... You are done.

The difference before was that if B saw A- on a recruit, B could calculate how much money it needed to get the recruit or back-off before, or wait on A- to make mistakes and get too deep into other battles before striking. Now, it's all capped... So everyone damn team will get to the MAX if needed. It comes down to a roll of the dice.

I know you guys think I am complaining, but in my case, luck changed my Clemson team, not my décisions. I haven't won any player... So out of 4 recruits, I only got 1 in two years. Right now, I am not paying for it, but in two years I will... And it's a bump in progression or in my chance to win. The thing is also, I can't really dig deep enough in the scouting to see high potential players... I'd have to see all of them to find the gems, and search for green potential on key stats. I haven't seen any so far or the ones I saw were either signed or caught in a battle. with not money left, I can't get back in the lottery.

You either accept that it's based on probability now, or you don't. If you accept it's based on probability, you adapt your strategy.

Sometimes you lose lose all your battles. Happened to me over and over in beta. I adjusted, and I developed strategies to avoid ever being "done".

You need to look beyond your own nose here, and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all - I mean in the sense that it's not just about what your team can do, is doing, or has done. All your opponents are operating in the same conditions, with the same risks and available rewards. Those recruits are going to go somewhere. It's your job to figure out how to find and get good matches for your team. That's what the game is now. At high D1, the game is no longer going to be about calculating how much everyone has to spend and then avoiding battles. Risk aversion is no longer rewarded. It's tolerated, you can develop strategies to avoid battles if they're unacceptable to you; but it's no longer a dominant winning strategy for moving to the top. You have to plan long term, have class balance and depth to withstand tough recruiting years (like Clemson's), and gameplanning is going to mean more. That's 3.0.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 11/7/2016 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Also agree with chap. The game has changed. Attrition is (or should have been) expected. That's just how updates go. The last thing WIS needs to do is try to cater to people who have already left. The game as it exists now, while still having some tweaks they should be looking at, is much better than the one that preceded it.

Great players will emerge and re-emerge. Using words like "random" and "parity" is simply inaccurate.

No, random and parity are pretty accurate. They introduced a new feature where the team in the lead in terms of effort does not always win (would you prefer luck or uncertainty to randomness), and the stated goal of the update was to ensure that top end recruits went to more teams (increasing parity) than previously.

Random means decided completely by chance, without influence of consciousness or decision. It implies no real human agency. Humans play a huge role in how battles shape up. Humans prioritize, strategize, and execute to put themselves in positions to win selected recruits. The players who do this the best year in and year out will emerge as the top players. The recruiting portion of the game is now probabilistic, instead of deterministic. It's not "random".

Regarding parity, it's true that 3.0 moves *closer to parity*. As I said, great coaches are going to be great coaches. The cream is going to rise to the top, the people most open to 3.0, and able to adapt to it will likely be the first, but others will figure it out. The primary difference is that the best teams will still undergo tough years from time to time, because sometimes you'll just have to re-build, or get unlucky and lose all your battles, etc. as they do in real life. Winning 7 championships in 13 seasons probably won't happen anymore. I suppose if that means parity to you, it is what it is. To me, that's just reality.

Very eloquently stated, shoe3. I really hope guys take the time to read this before they continue to harp on "random" and "luck." They'll learn a lot and enjoy the game more. In the interim, I look forward to moving up and recruiting against some of these guys whose level of understanding of 3.0 is that it is "random." I look forward in a different way to recruiting against guys who understand the game as well as you and chap, for just two examples.

"Those recruits are going to go somewhere. It's your job to figure out how to find and get good matches for your team. That's what the game is now."