Posted by Benis on 9/27/2017 8:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2017 8:10:00 PM (view original):
The strength of my FF team was my PG. I didn't do very well in replacing them. As in I didn't replace them. At all. I'm not sure how much better I can explain it.

So your plan was to replace your Sr PG with a Fr PG?

What part of two seasons is confusing you? My plan was obviously to get my next PG when they were JR. Didn't happen. Lost battles/D1 scoops as mentioned. Tried to get good replacements when they were SR. Didn't happen. Lost battles/D1 scoops as mentioned. I took a 3rd/4th option who might not be terrible this season. Ended up playing a SF at PG. The results are what they are.

But this isn't about me. It's about how the game screws zorzi. And only zorzi.

It screws other people, they quit. I will leave Alabama and Tark. It's not happening in D2, we have plenty other options, not in d3, lots of options too. In D1, it does not work, it gets a bit ridiculous when you play the game of recruiting perfectly and end up losing all your targets. Call it working by design, I call it stupid. Because options are closed once it's done. I am not whining. Just wanted to share how can % make a mess out of recruiting sometimes and it goes either way : luck or bad luck and there are no skills in that.

Somebody will take Alabama in Tark.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Or they quit. But then they're not tough.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2017 8:42:00 PM (view original):
Somebody will take Alabama in Tark.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Or they quit. But then they're not tough.

There is no toughness Mike... you screw things, you get tough, you hit the 4% chances, you say : heck, I plan it well but ended on the wrong side yet again, it's been that way almost every season but this one is a record.

Is there whining? Because I'm pretty sure I see whining.

Nope. I am losing interest. I find these outcomes just dumb, like I find ees penalties just dumb. Not good for this game at all. I have said my thoughts, I respect yours Mike. We just don't agree.

OK. But are they only "dumb" when they effect you? Because losing battles and EE have been the same for a year now. This isn't new but now you're quitting.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I think the parameters are just right as they are. Right now, you have to be at ~60% of the effort credit of the leader. When all effort and promises are equal, that works out to about 2 full prestige grades; meaning that a C+ team can challenge an A+ team for a recruit and be on the cusp of getting in signing range, depending on preferences. Sometimes he'll be locked out at moderate, sometimes he'll get up to something like a one-in-four-or-five chance.

The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment.

If you want to eliminate the "high" category, fine. But then you won't know anything at all about your chances relative to the leader. I would think that introduces a whole new set of frustrations. I'll adjust either way. Just don't narrow the parameters, because the recruiting game needs to stay competitive for those top recruits. Minnesota needs to be able to compete with Michigan State for recruits, and win them once in a while, even the ones MSU really wants.

Couldn't agree more. I've been screaming this. Just remove the %. I liked HD 2.0 .. you win some you lose some but telling me I SHOULD have won and lost, serves no one.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2017 10:00:00 PM (view original):
OK. But are they only "dumb" when they effect you? Because losing battles and EE have been the same for a year now. This isn't new but now you're quitting.

Dropping teams. And yeah, dumb for everyone winners, lucky ones, losers, unlucky ones. Dumb. Not a good system.

You're sort of missing my point. It's dumb all the time but only dumb enough to "drop teams" when it affects you. That really sounds like a poor loser.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2017 8:15:00 AM (view original):
You're sort of missing my point. It's dumb all the time but only dumb enough to "drop teams" when it affects you. That really sounds like a poor loser.

I don't my losing even when I am on the bad end of it. Check my Pfeiffer defeat in IBA NT, last 15 secs of the 2nd. To me, in this recruiting, I haven't lost. I planned my recruiting carefully (prestige C+), put myself in a position to strenghten my team and get a B- rise next season. But I did not get luck on my side. It's even an euphemism. I did not lose anything, I saw the worst outcomes of an already bad system. I know you do not agree, but it's a point of view. We are not in 2.0, D1 is more democratic but more deterministic results would be welcome. And it would not switch the power to big six schools at all. No conf money anymore, preferences really important, ap (that I do not think us overpowered) to make up for the gap. I had a C+ team, pouring 80 ap, having better prefs than my A team and get to vh...

Resource allotment. This is going to sound spud-like but you spread yourself thin. I'm not saying it wasn't bad luck but, maybe if you were 80/80/33 on those three, maybe you win 2. Hell, maybe you win all three. 53/47 or 33/33/34 seems like a crapshoot either way.

But the point remains. This has been the game for a year. You know this. You have a run of bad luck and now you're all pouty.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2017 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Resource allotment. This is going to sound spud-like but you spread yourself thin. I'm not saying it wasn't bad luck but, maybe if you were 80/80/33 on those three, maybe you win 2. Hell, maybe you win all three. 53/47 or 33/33/34 seems like a crapshoot either way.

But the point remains. This has been the game for a year. You know this. You have a run of bad luck and now you're all pouty.

I had, 5 schollies : 120 ap. Brought a developmental project in, so keeping over 40 wasthe righr choice. People did not have better efforts because they were spread out, but luck changed it all. Why is there worse strategy than mine working? Luck. I think we have to agree to disagree. And I had opened plan B and C, in case I saw someone come agressively on one or many of my three targets but no, I was well in advance and I knew it. So I spent the resources, they went wirh desperate decisions and the poor system rewarded them. It's like running the 100 meters, two are on the picture so close to call and the orher one is not even in sight, maybe one his finger, the judge goes, three in the picture : let's roll to see who won. That's what our recruiting system is.

Not a bad analogy.