"real life" and "realism" arguments make me laugh. Most of you only want "realism" when it works for you. You know when schools contact recruits in "real life"? One answer is "Not a month before signing day." Which is pretty much what contacting a guy for the 1st time in 2nd session equates to.

Posted by zorzii on 10/2/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 10/2/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Many of the issues chapel has would be fixed if the value of APs were lessened. Right now if you're battling for an elite recruit, you're heavily incentivized to maximize APs on that recruit (indeed, per other threads, you're apparently not "all in" on a recruit unless you're putting 80 APs in each cycle). Lessen the value of APs, and people can unlock second session recruits without feeling like they're harming (as much) their ability to win all-in-type battles. This seems pretty obvious to me.

Also agree with the idea that adding some late-bloomer type JUCOs in session 2 could be a partial fix.

In all-in scenarios, John, ap IS THE SOLE STRATEGY LEFT.

We all are capped in cv, hv.

My point exactly. If the power of an AP is reduced, you're no longer incentivized to jam 80 onto a guy you're all-in on.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2017 2:28:00 PM (view original):
"real life" and "realism" arguments make me laugh. Most of you only want "realism" when it works for you. You know when schools contact recruits in "real life"? One answer is "Not a month before signing day." Which is pretty much what contacting a guy for the 1st time in 2nd session equates to.

This is a pretty good argument for changing the game so that we have only 1 recruiting session. Good thinking -- thanks, mike.

Posted by johnsensing on 10/2/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/2/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 10/2/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Many of the issues chapel has would be fixed if the value of APs were lessened. Right now if you're battling for an elite recruit, you're heavily incentivized to maximize APs on that recruit (indeed, per other threads, you're apparently not "all in" on a recruit unless you're putting 80 APs in each cycle). Lessen the value of APs, and people can unlock second session recruits without feeling like they're harming (as much) their ability to win all-in-type battles. This seems pretty obvious to me.

Also agree with the idea that adding some late-bloomer type JUCOs in session 2 could be a partial fix.

In all-in scenarios, John, ap IS THE SOLE STRATEGY LEFT.

We all are capped in cv, hv.

My point exactly. If the power of an AP is reduced, you're no longer incentivized to jam 80 onto a guy you're all-in on.

The impact of AP's have already been reduced again were back to the A+ should get any recruit we want , they already nerfed it , i doubt it keeps happening until a new 4.0 comes out

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/2/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I don't think chapel is coming across as being entitled. I take his comment as one stemming from confusion. Prestige could be graphed in a linear fashion, with the worst DIII C- prestige being the lowest numerical value and the highest DI A+ being the highest numerical value. The difference in recruiting impact between even the best DII team and an A+ DI team should be massive. 3.0 does not seem to make that distinction during the 2nd session. It confuses me as well.

Where do you draw the line? Should 1 AP from an A+ D1 wipe out 500 AP + 20 HV + 1 CV + promises from a C- D2? If not, how many APs from the D1 should overcome the D2 effort?

I don't think it should be much at all to at least get the player to wait to sign with the D2 school until he determines if the A+ school is serious. I think a scholarship and any guaranteed minutes with an A+ school should sway the recruit. I think the appeal of seeing the court at a school like U. Conn, UK or another high prestige school should be more appealing that starting at a D2 school. That's just my opinion though.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/2/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I don't think chapel is coming across as being entitled. I take his comment as one stemming from confusion. Prestige could be graphed in a linear fashion, with the worst DIII C- prestige being the lowest numerical value and the highest DI A+ being the highest numerical value. The difference in recruiting impact between even the best DII team and an A+ DI team should be massive. 3.0 does not seem to make that distinction during the 2nd session. It confuses me as well.

Where do you draw the line? Should 1 AP from an A+ D1 wipe out 500 AP + 20 HV + 1 CV + promises from a C- D2? If not, how many APs from the D1 should overcome the D2 effort?

I don't think it should be much at all to at least get the player to wait to sign with the D2 school until he determines if the A+ school is serious. I think a scholarship and any guaranteed minutes with an A+ school should sway the recruit. I think the appeal of seeing the court at a school like U. Conn, UK or another high prestige school should be more appealing that starting at a D2 school. That's just my opinion though.

Again, not sure where you draw the line on this. Should A+ Arizona always beat any D2 if it simply offers minutes? Same answer if it's B+ Arizona? Or B+ Arizona State? Same answer if it's C+ Northern Arizona? Or D+? They're all D1 and thus theoretically more desirable than any D2.

It's amazing that so many top coaches can identify an "issue" yet fail to see how they can really benefit from tweaking their strategy just a bit to gain a big advantage over their competitors. I've had success putting in small amounts of effort into a few late-signing guys if I anticipate EEs. Diverting ~10 APs per cycle to go to mid-level late-signers (spread amongst 2-3 guys, more if you think you'll have multiple APs) can give you a ton of flexibility if you strike out on your main targets and/or have EEs.

Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

Going back to kcsundevil's question bout where to draw the line, I think it would be different depending on the prestige. I could see a player going to an A+ D2 school over a D- D1 school fairly easily. The D1 school should still have a slight advantage, but not that much in this case. But an A+ D1 Big 6 school, like a Syracuse, Kansas, etc., should have no trouble getting a player from a D2 school, if they are serious. If they start showing a lot of attention, my thinking is that the player would want to wait and see how serious the A+ team is, instead of sending an email saying they would be interested in a scholarship offer, but signing the same cycle before the offer arrives. I am sure that some kind of sliding scale for effort required could be set up.

This is a game not real life. A D2 school dumping resources into a player is just as disappointed in not getting him as you are. You know, a paying customer. If that D1 school is interested, act interested. Your 9th choice for a prom date, asked the day before the prom, isn't going to be all that thrilled with you.

FWIW, the system isn't the problem. The "problem" is the system isn't what you want it to be. Play the game they sell not the one you envision.

Posted by tkimble on 10/2/2017 9:05:00 PM (view original):
It's amazing that so many top coaches can identify an "issue" yet fail to see how they can really benefit from tweaking their strategy just a bit to gain a big advantage over their competitors. I've had success putting in small amounts of effort into a few late-signing guys if I anticipate EEs. Diverting ~10 APs per cycle to go to mid-level late-signers (spread amongst 2-3 guys, more if you think you'll have multiple APs) can give you a ton of flexibility if you strike out on your main targets and/or have EEs.

Ssshhhh. The sharpest guys already know this. If everybody else reads your post, the other-than-sharpest guys will be playing on a par with the best ... oh, wait, that would make good competition, wouldn't it?

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

It's a tradeoff -- are you willing to sacrifice 2-3% chance of landing a top player in order to have a backup for if a 50-50 situation goes against you? What are the marginal returns on APs 77, 78, 79, and 80 on the #1 PG in the country?

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

In real life, Duke and UNC plan intelligently and line up realistic targets early on, so they don't have to demean themselves by lifting recruits from Western New Mexico and Rollins College at the last minute.

HD's upper tier coaches like chapelhillne don't want to have to plan intelligently. They think they should both be able to maximize their first-round odds AND get charity help at other coaches' expense when their initial gambles fail. Fortunately, HD is no longer designed solely for the enjoyment of the elite, long-established few at the top of the chain.

Viva 3.0!

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/3/2017 12:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

In real life, Duke and UNC plan intelligently and line up realistic targets early on, so they don't have to demean themselves by lifting recruits from Western New Mexico and Rollins College at the last minute.

HD's upper tier coaches like chapelhillne don't want to have to plan intelligently. They think they should both be able to maximize their first-round odds AND get charity help at other coaches' expense when their initial gambles fail. Fortunately, HD is no longer designed solely for the enjoyment of the elite, long-established few at the top of the chain.

Viva 3.0!

No, but they do sometimes lift players from baseline B- level teams like Purdue or Arizona State or the like, because that's where the second tier of players should be going. In 3.0, they go to DII schools, which is insane.