Posted by zorzii on 2/20/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I think shoe3 makes great points but his perspective on the situation is 100% backwards. There's an argument that these things are true in D2 and D3. But in D1, especially with a small set of openings, you can basically afford to max out recruiting actions on everybody you want and hope for the best. You can potentially even come close to maxing out a backup option or 2. Obviously you have to distribute APs, but I still think the importance of critical decision making is clearly decreased at the D1 level. All of the strategic questions he highlights - how much to invest, whether to go all out for one guy or invest in a backup, etc. - are basically nullified when you can afford to do both without giving anything up.

In D3, it's more location than anything else. Can't sign D2 until second session, can't sign D1 until the last day. If you scout D1 and D2 at D3, you won't have enough to find any good D3 players who all look alike or almost at level 1. So D3 needs fixing too.

Isn't that just a choice? If you spend all your money scouting D1/D2, you sort of set yourself up to know nothing about D3 players.

Posted by zorzii on 2/20/2017 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Mike : It is. 80 ap against 40 ap is a huge advantage... So thinking you can be in all battles isn't true.

I recognize that. But dahs stated that you can max out CV/HV on several players in D1. If that's the case, you should be able to be in several battles and no one should ever be unprepared for an EE.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I think shoe3 makes great points but his perspective on the situation is 100% backwards. There's an argument that these things are true in D2 and D3. But in D1, especially with a small set of openings, you can basically afford to max out recruiting actions on everybody you want and hope for the best. You can potentially even come close to maxing out a backup option or 2. Obviously you have to distribute APs, but I still think the importance of critical decision making is clearly decreased at the D1 level. All of the strategic questions he highlights - how much to invest, whether to go all out for one guy or invest in a backup, etc. - are basically nullified when you can afford to do both without giving anything up.

Agreed. Well said.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/20/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Yeah. You used to have to pick which recruits to engage in a battle with by knowing who could afford to dump 77 visits on him, guess opponents priorities, etc. Now you can afford to max your expenditures on a number of guys in D1 and hope to get lucky, even if you can't actually gain an edge. You don't need to put in the critical thinking during the decision making stage because mistakes are less costly and more likely to work out anyway.

The game isn't over when you win or lose a recruit, so don't evaluate strategy based on winning or losing a recruit. Critical thinking comes in at many points in the process of building a team; how far to reach, how to prioritize, how much to invest, quality/depth balance, class structure, whether to spend extra resources to try to increase chances with one, or to develop a decent backup, how much emphasis to put on player preferences, when to use resources, how hard to go after elite players whose careers are more volatile (EEs for D1). Strategies in all these areas have opened up in 3.0 beyond the dominant strategy of "avoid battles when you aren't pretty sure you can get to 51" because 51 doesn't always beat 49 anymore. Moving from deterministic commodity distribution to probabilistic commodity distribution was the essential shift in 3.0. It has expanded the number of viable strategies at many decision points, thus increases the value of strategic thinking.

+1

debater, I agree with you and shoe. If D1 is already in such good shape, what would you say to the guys who want more and more advantages for D1?

Spud , this is why logic is not your forte or english is tough for you to understand. It's not about D1 having advantages over D2 and D3. It's D1 teams being able to compete against D1 teams. Unless I live in a spudworld, at the end if recruiting it's d1-d1, d2-d2, d3-d3... So not understanding that very detail make for bad rules. Capping D3 to D2 does not change competition at D3, it helps it out. Limiting D2 effort value at D1 player does not destroy D2 competition, it helps low end D1 teams needing to compete and ees owners needing to salvage their recruiting.

Posted by mrslam34 on 2/20/2017 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/20/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Yeah. You used to have to pick which recruits to engage in a battle with by knowing who could afford to dump 77 visits on him, guess opponents priorities, etc. Now you can afford to max your expenditures on a number of guys in D1 and hope to get lucky, even if you can't actually gain an edge. You don't need to put in the critical thinking during the decision making stage because mistakes are less costly and more likely to work out anyway.

The game isn't over when you win or lose a recruit, so don't evaluate strategy based on winning or losing a recruit. Critical thinking comes in at many points in the process of building a team; how far to reach, how to prioritize, how much to invest, quality/depth balance, class structure, whether to spend extra resources to try to increase chances with one, or to develop a decent backup, how much emphasis to put on player preferences, when to use resources, how hard to go after elite players whose careers are more volatile (EEs for D1). Strategies in all these areas have opened up in 3.0 beyond the dominant strategy of "avoid battles when you aren't pretty sure you can get to 51" because 51 doesn't always beat 49 anymore. Moving from deterministic commodity distribution to probabilistic commodity distribution was the essential shift in 3.0. It has expanded the number of viable strategies at many decision points, thus increases the value of strategic thinking.

+1

+2

Even at d1 you have a limited budget. If you have 3 openings, you can afford to go "all in" on maybe 3 or 4 local players. If you go for the 5-star that everyone else wants, you are choosing to take that risk. That same 5-star that will likely go EE in 2 seasons. There are, and I think this is the biggest division of opinion here, other options. There aren't just two recruits in the entire pool worth having.

Posted by CoachSpud on 2/20/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):
debater, I agree with you and shoe. If D1 is already in such good shape, what would you say to the guys who want more and more advantages for D1?

The biggest problem for many coaches in regards to caps is when D1 competes against D1, both teams typically max out on HV and CV, usually give a start and some minutes, and wait out a luck-filled snoozefest. That is why many D1 coaches want to up the caps or remove the caps. There is a debate, and its not cut and dry, but this is the main reasoning.

Spud, who cares if D1 has natural advantages over DII (just like in Real Life) ??? DII doesn't directly compete against D1 for titles. DII competes against DII at the end of the day. Why this obsession? DII teams are not trying to win the D1 title.

Any advantage/disadvantages that DII has is the same across all of DII, EVERY DII COACH WILL HAVE THE SAME EQUAL DISADVANTAGE (vs. D1) OR ADVANTAGE (vs. DIII)

As a DII coach, you should only be concerned about being on an equal playing field with the rest of DII.

I feel like this is a simple fact that has been repeated ad nauseum. I know that your talking points will not change, but I feel like just repeating it one more time.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/20/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Yeah. You used to have to pick which recruits to engage in a battle with by knowing who could afford to dump 77 visits on him, guess opponents priorities, etc. Now you can afford to max your expenditures on a number of guys in D1 and hope to get lucky, even if you can't actually gain an edge. You don't need to put in the critical thinking during the decision making stage because mistakes are less costly and more likely to work out anyway.

The game isn't over when you win or lose a recruit, so don't evaluate strategy based on winning or losing a recruit. Critical thinking comes in at many points in the process of building a team; how far to reach, how to prioritize, how much to invest, quality/depth balance, class structure, whether to spend extra resources to try to increase chances with one, or to develop a decent backup, how much emphasis to put on player preferences, when to use resources, how hard to go after elite players whose careers are more volatile (EEs for D1). Strategies in all these areas have opened up in 3.0 beyond the dominant strategy of "avoid battles when you aren't pretty sure you can get to 51" because 51 doesn't always beat 49 anymore. Moving from deterministic commodity distribution to probabilistic commodity distribution was the essential shift in 3.0. It has expanded the number of viable strategies at many decision points, thus increases the value of strategic thinking.

I agree for the most part, that the game as a whole is improved and more interesting.

However, in the specific situation of sitting through a high level D1 battle where everyone is maxed out, there is pretty much no strategy in that particular situation. That one aspect is not fun and mostly determined by chance

As far as the rest of the game, I agree with you about 95%.

Posted by zorzii on 2/20/2017 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Spud , this is why logic is not your forte or english is tough for you to understand. It's not about D1 having advantages over D2 and D3. It's D1 teams being able to compete against D1 teams. Unless I live in a spudworld, at the end if recruiting it's d1-d1, d2-d2, d3-d3... So not understanding that very detail make for bad rules. Capping D3 to D2 does not change competition at D3, it helps it out. Limiting D2 effort value at D1 player does not destroy D2 competition, it helps low end D1 teams needing to compete and ees owners needing to salvage their recruiting.

Your points are correct and well stated. This should be clear to people.

WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?

I fully understand the long term Div I guys might have a problem with the new recruiting. But as a Div III coach I love the 3.0 recruiting. The reason why: I can actually recruit Div I players. Is that realistic? No! But neither is having unlimited HV or even 20. We have to remember it is a game. Not real life. To confirm that all you have to do is look at the Div I top 25. Teams are in the top 25 that would have slim chance to do so in RL. Of course, part of the reason for that is the coaching vacancies in the major conferences. Bottom line is, it is an imperfect game. Things that some coaches like, others don't.

"However, in the specific situation of sitting through a high level D1 battle where everyone is maxed out, there is pretty much no strategy in that particular situation. That one aspect is not fun and mostly determined by chance "

I feel a little bit like you undervaluing the decision of when, how, if to do this. Doing it early, trying to avoid being the third team in, who you should try to max out, how much to leave in reserve, how many AP should you invest, these are all decisions that need to be made. For me it isn't "I'll max out these three guys and pray".

I think I just disagree with the basic premise that high D1 recruiting is boring.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?

Your example is different. That's not a luck filled snoozefest at all. I accept that probability is a part of 3.0 and I like that aspect for the most part.

I don't like that D1 coaches are too limited in options to allocate effort.. They max out what they can do, then have to sit around and wait .That is the snoozefest.

When 65% loses, I accept it....but I want more control and less limitations as a D1 coach over recruiting effort.

Posted by tompkinsaj on 2/20/2017 4:55:00 PM (view original):
I fully understand the long term Div I guys might have a problem with the new recruiting. But as a Div III coach I love the 3.0 recruiting. The reason why: I can actually recruit Div I players. Is that realistic? No! But neither is having unlimited HV or even 20. We have to remember it is a game. Not real life. To confirm that all you have to do is look at the Div I top 25. Teams are in the top 25 that would have slim chance to do so in RL. Of course, part of the reason for that is the coaching vacancies in the major conferences. Bottom line is, it is an imperfect game. Things that some coaches like, others don't.

That's fine and all. I love DII recruiting in 3.0. I don't do DIII, but I assume it would be a blast.

I just think the game is still flawed when DII and DIII recruiting is more enjoyable than DI recruiting. While you might be an exception (and that's fine), my belief is that many players (especially new ones learning the game) would prefer to coach D1 schools.