OK, I've avoided trying to say this outright but here goes:

What is the difference between 78 and 80 AP per cycle? Obviously two but what effect does it have on a recruit? You put those 2 AP on a back-up option or two. That is probably enough to keep D2 away from an early signer. Then, if you lose your primaries, you've got a back-up plan.

Why is the prevalent attitude 80 AP every cycle, 20 HV, CV, 25m and start? We know that it's going to come down to a dice roll for good players. Do you feel that much more comfortable if you're at 55 instead of 53?

Posted by zorzii on 2/1/2018 7:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 6:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 1/31/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

No disrespect guy (and I'm a little late here)... But i assume these coaches are dealing with a level of talent that coaches like you and i haven't reached yet.

You or i might be able to just take any quality player and do well with implementing him into our team/system. But if someone is building a championship caliber team, replacing a missed target isn't always "easy".

Once again, this game isn't real life. But think about Duke, Kentucky, Kansas..... If they are aiming for the #6 PG in the country, and miss, sure they can find a quality player and end up with the #41 PG instead. But they may not be winning a title as soon as they hoped. Maybe Final Four is their peak.

Also, to grow as a team and coach, you have to "reach up" for better guys. I'm sure these coaches aren't looking for one, and only one, target to pursue. But it does throw a wrench in things when you lose a battle for your main target. We all experience that. And "enough money" doesn't always equal out to signing the recruit all the time in 3.0.

And my last point is about "there are enough recruits to always land decent players....". That is true to an extent. But do you think Duke goes out and says..... "Ok we really want Marvin Bagley III! But there are plenty of decent guys out here. So if we miss on him, no big deal. There's plenty of back ups"..... Champion teams want championship recruits. (I HATE Duke! Not sure why I'm using them as an example). And you can't get those studs without major effort.

They go Marvin Bagley, R.J. Barrett (future fav of mine), and if they miss, they patch. The dropoff is huge.

"The dropoff is huge"

That's the point i was getting at. If you're at a championship level, missing a stud recruit is a dagger. Which is why people get upset about it. Sure they can find some quality back up options. But the difference between getting the target, and "landing a decent player", could be the difference between a national title or a second round exit in some cases i would assume.

Having said that, i do not play D1. But i can't imagine I'm wrong about this. No one would be upset if they miss on a player they invested in. They would just go land a decent player.

gotta swing for the fences if you wanna hit the home run sometimes.

Everyone is upset when they don't get a player they covet. I'm not winning a NC at UNC-A but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have been disappointed to lose anyone I wanted. I have two more targets in RS2. I want them both, I need them both, but I don't think I'm going to get them both. I might miss both. Might be the difference between sneaking into the NT at 64 or going to the PI. Or even missing the PI.

So I should be less bothered because I'm not a NC-quality team? That's silliness.

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/1/2018 7:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 6:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 1/31/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

No disrespect guy (and I'm a little late here)... But i assume these coaches are dealing with a level of talent that coaches like you and i haven't reached yet.

You or i might be able to just take any quality player and do well with implementing him into our team/system. But if someone is building a championship caliber team, replacing a missed target isn't always "easy".

Once again, this game isn't real life. But think about Duke, Kentucky, Kansas..... If they are aiming for the #6 PG in the country, and miss, sure they can find a quality player and end up with the #41 PG instead. But they may not be winning a title as soon as they hoped. Maybe Final Four is their peak.

Also, to grow as a team and coach, you have to "reach up" for better guys. I'm sure these coaches aren't looking for one, and only one, target to pursue. But it does throw a wrench in things when you lose a battle for your main target. We all experience that. And "enough money" doesn't always equal out to signing the recruit all the time in 3.0.

And my last point is about "there are enough recruits to always land decent players....". That is true to an extent. But do you think Duke goes out and says..... "Ok we really want Marvin Bagley III! But there are plenty of decent guys out here. So if we miss on him, no big deal. There's plenty of back ups"..... Champion teams want championship recruits. (I HATE Duke! Not sure why I'm using them as an example). And you can't get those studs without major effort.

They go Marvin Bagley, R.J. Barrett (future fav of mine), and if they miss, they patch. The dropoff is huge.

"The dropoff is huge"

That's the point i was getting at. If you're at a championship level, missing a stud recruit is a dagger. Which is why people get upset about it. Sure they can find some quality back up options. But the difference between getting the target, and "landing a decent player", could be the difference between a national title or a second round exit in some cases i would assume.

Having said that, i do not play D1. But i can't imagine I'm wrong about this. No one would be upset if they miss on a player they invested in. They would just go land a decent player.

gotta swing for the fences if you wanna hit the home run sometimes.

You don’t need 12 future NBA players to compete for championships at D1 in HD 3.0. You don’t even need 6. Hell, some coaches don’t need any.

Losing battles is part of the game now. This is definitely the biggest adjustment most people who played the previous version need to make. In the last version, losing a battle usually meant you screwed up, miscalculated somehow. That isn’t the case anymore. The game doesn’t want teams to be able to amass classes full of EE caliber players year after year, at least not without a lot of luck and skill. Everyone is playing with the same challenges, and the fact that elite teams do sometimes strike out on their top targets is what makes the game competitive, interesting, and more strategic. Long term planning and team building is at a premium now, like it never was before, when elite recruits were functionally reserved for elite teams.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2018 10:39:00 AM (view original):
Everyone is upset when they don't get a player they covet. I'm not winning a NC at UNC-A but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have been disappointed to lose anyone I wanted. I have two more targets in RS2. I want them both, I need them both, but I don't think I'm going to get them both. I might miss both. Might be the difference between sneaking into the NT at 64 or going to the PI. Or even missing the PI.

So I should be less bothered because I'm not a NC-quality team? That's silliness.

I was only talking about Craigs post specifically To me it just sounded like "just take any player". I don't know your situation, And if you're not a NC quality team, of course you have different goals than a championship level team does. As do l.

I'm a coach that usually doesn't go all in on battles for studs. And I'll settle for a good player that no one is watching. I also haven't had a lot of success. Doesn't mean i won't. I'm only 5 seasons in. But i was just stating that hitting a home run and signing a stud recruit CAN make a difference in your team. And in SOME cases, settling for "just take any player" instead may have a major negative impact on your team. That's it.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/1/2018 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/1/2018 7:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 6:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 1/31/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

No disrespect guy (and I'm a little late here)... But i assume these coaches are dealing with a level of talent that coaches like you and i haven't reached yet.

You or i might be able to just take any quality player and do well with implementing him into our team/system. But if someone is building a championship caliber team, replacing a missed target isn't always "easy".

Once again, this game isn't real life. But think about Duke, Kentucky, Kansas..... If they are aiming for the #6 PG in the country, and miss, sure they can find a quality player and end up with the #41 PG instead. But they may not be winning a title as soon as they hoped. Maybe Final Four is their peak.

Also, to grow as a team and coach, you have to "reach up" for better guys. I'm sure these coaches aren't looking for one, and only one, target to pursue. But it does throw a wrench in things when you lose a battle for your main target. We all experience that. And "enough money" doesn't always equal out to signing the recruit all the time in 3.0.

And my last point is about "there are enough recruits to always land decent players....". That is true to an extent. But do you think Duke goes out and says..... "Ok we really want Marvin Bagley III! But there are plenty of decent guys out here. So if we miss on him, no big deal. There's plenty of back ups"..... Champion teams want championship recruits. (I HATE Duke! Not sure why I'm using them as an example). And you can't get those studs without major effort.

They go Marvin Bagley, R.J. Barrett (future fav of mine), and if they miss, they patch. The dropoff is huge.

"The dropoff is huge"

That's the point i was getting at. If you're at a championship level, missing a stud recruit is a dagger. Which is why people get upset about it. Sure they can find some quality back up options. But the difference between getting the target, and "landing a decent player", could be the difference between a national title or a second round exit in some cases i would assume.

Having said that, i do not play D1. But i can't imagine I'm wrong about this. No one would be upset if they miss on a player they invested in. They would just go land a decent player.

gotta swing for the fences if you wanna hit the home run sometimes.

You don’t need 12 future NBA players to compete for championships at D1 in HD 3.0. You don’t even need 6. Hell, some coaches don’t need any.

Losing battles is part of the game now. This is definitely the biggest adjustment most people who played the previous version need to make. In the last version, losing a battle usually meant you screwed up, miscalculated somehow. That isn’t the case anymore. The game doesn’t want teams to be able to amass classes full of EE caliber players year after year, at least not without a lot of luck and skill. Everyone is playing with the same challenges, and the fact that elite teams do sometimes strike out on their top targets is what makes the game competitive, interesting, and more strategic. Long term planning and team building is at a premium now, like it never was before, when elite recruits were functionally reserved for elite teams.

Never played D1 in 3.0. So I'll take your word for it.

I'm not saying anything complex here. I'm also not saying you have to have a team of all studs. You could basically sum up what I'm getting at, by saying.... If you want to be great at something, you have to try hard. And not just take what's given to you.

That's it.

I think you're missing my point. Everyone is trying to get somebody. It's somebody they obviously need. No matter if your goal is the NC or .500, you're still disappointed when you don't get "your guy". Most of the complaints here center around what happens when you don't get "your guy". And most of those complainers had no contingency plan even though they KNOW they may not get their "guy". So they think the solution is to change the system.

Those of us on the low end of D1 fully recognize we may not get "our guy". Really good chance we won't. But that doesn't lessen the disappointment.

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 4:19:00 PM (view original):
zorzii is basically saying that lower prestige teams shouldn't have a shot at the top recruits for their own good. Using context clues, I see that he has a Clemson team with a lot of walk-ons. As you've pointed out in past threads, zorzii is only going to complain about things and ask for changes in the game that will make his team better.

You're a lower prestige team, and like me, you want to be able to have a shot at higher recruits even if there's a chance of a higher prestige team swooping in and taking them with much less effort. We're both biased, as we only have low prestige teams in D1. zorzii is biased, as his high prestige B6 team is losing a lot of battles resulting in walk-ons.

What I'm wondering is whether or not there's someone who primarily manages high prestige B6 teams who agree with our point of view, or someone who primarily manages low prestige D1 teams who agree with zorzii's point of view purely based on logic. Otherwise, this thread is going to continue to be a circle-jerk of "well I want the game to be this way so that my team can be better" comments.

I've got Oregon State as my only D1 team and the rest at D2 but I'll be that guy that you want to hear. I LIKE the fact that lower rated teams have a chance to get the best recruits. Yes, it is frustrating as hell to lose when you are ahead VH to H. It's also very, VERY frustrating to coach a D2 team, be in on a recruit for the first 4 days and then lose him to a D1 school who lost their dice roll.

But if lower prestige D1 schools don't have access to those superstar type players, isn't it essentially 2.0 all over again with the big boys staking their claim to all the studs and the smaller guys getting stuck with the crumbs and leftovers? Why SHOULDN'T the coach at C-/D+ prestige directional school have a chance to sign a program changer? Why should the elite schools get ALL the studs, simply because the coaches there were fortunate enough to start the game before the lower prestige coaches and had more time to climb the ladder?

I very much agree with what John posted earlier about preferences being even MORE important and carrying even more weight in a recruit's decision. It makes literally NO sense that a recruit who wants a rebuild should go to a high prestige school just to sit on the bench his first season. It makes literally NO sense that a recruit who wants to play should agree to go to a school where he isn't promised playing time and it makes NO sense that if he does go to a school that promises him playing time and fails to deliver that that school/coach isn't punished in a major way for not fulfilling those promises.

Yes, we ALL get frustrated losing battles when we're ahead. Every one of us does. But it's the nature of the game that sometimes those things will happen. And yes, it can wreck a class if you're not careful. But damn it, the game is spoonfed to us enough as it is, no need to make it even LESS about strategy and choices.

My first

Pretty sure dcy is also somebody else but I still agree. And have been waiting a year to give a serious

Might drop a "+1" if he keeps going. And, holy hell, can't wait to use "well said".

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):
I would prefer to remove the overall cap on HVs and move to a per cycle cap. Something like 5 HVs maximum per cycle.

This would prevent the poaching HV "lovebomb" and encourage people to get in on a guy earlier (although would be problematic for new coaches taking over in 2nd session)

But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.

I could get behind an idea like this as well. It would even allow D2 teams to compete for the fringe D1 players against lower prestige D1 schools.

For what it's worth, I wish ALL players were able to be signed by ANY school in RS1. Put enough effort in as a D2 school and you shouldn't have to wait until RS2 to sign a lower rated D1 player. Tweak the coding so that any who is going EE announces it to that particular coach at the beginning of RS1. That coach now knows what players he'll need to replace due to graduation/EE's. Plan accordingly or lose, simple as that. Add a day or two to RS1 and do away with RS2 completely. Problem (potentially)m solved. Haven't really thought through the ramifications of doing it like that, but it's got to be better than the current EE set-up.

Posted by dcy0827 on 2/1/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):
I would prefer to remove the overall cap on HVs and move to a per cycle cap. Something like 5 HVs maximum per cycle.

This would prevent the poaching HV "lovebomb" and encourage people to get in on a guy earlier (although would be problematic for new coaches taking over in 2nd session)

But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.

I could get behind an idea like this as well. It would even allow D2 teams to compete for the fringe D1 players against lower prestige D1 schools.

For what it's worth, I wish ALL players were able to be signed by ANY school in RS1. Put enough effort in as a D2 school and you shouldn't have to wait until RS2 to sign a lower rated D1 player. Tweak the coding so that any who is going EE announces it to that particular coach at the beginning of RS1. That coach now knows what players he'll need to replace due to graduation/EE's. Plan accordingly or lose, simple as that. Add a day or two to RS1 and do away with RS2 completely. Problem (potentially)m solved. Haven't really thought through the ramifications of doing it like that, but it's got to be better than the current EE set-up.

I think the majority of us would like to get rid of the two recruiting sessions. Turned out to be such a bad idea.

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/1/2018 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/1/2018 7:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 6:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 1/31/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

No disrespect guy (and I'm a little late here)... But i assume these coaches are dealing with a level of talent that coaches like you and i haven't reached yet.

You or i might be able to just take any quality player and do well with implementing him into our team/system. But if someone is building a championship caliber team, replacing a missed target isn't always "easy".

Once again, this game isn't real life. But think about Duke, Kentucky, Kansas..... If they are aiming for the #6 PG in the country, and miss, sure they can find a quality player and end up with the #41 PG instead. But they may not be winning a title as soon as they hoped. Maybe Final Four is their peak.

Also, to grow as a team and coach, you have to "reach up" for better guys. I'm sure these coaches aren't looking for one, and only one, target to pursue. But it does throw a wrench in things when you lose a battle for your main target. We all experience that. And "enough money" doesn't always equal out to signing the recruit all the time in 3.0.

And my last point is about "there are enough recruits to always land decent players....". That is true to an extent. But do you think Duke goes out and says..... "Ok we really want Marvin Bagley III! But there are plenty of decent guys out here. So if we miss on him, no big deal. There's plenty of back ups"..... Champion teams want championship recruits. (I HATE Duke! Not sure why I'm using them as an example). And you can't get those studs without major effort.

They go Marvin Bagley, R.J. Barrett (future fav of mine), and if they miss, they patch. The dropoff is huge.

"The dropoff is huge"

That's the point i was getting at. If you're at a championship level, missing a stud recruit is a dagger. Which is why people get upset about it. Sure they can find some quality back up options. But the difference between getting the target, and "landing a decent player", could be the difference between a national title or a second round exit in some cases i would assume.

Having said that, i do not play D1. But i can't imagine I'm wrong about this. No one would be upset if they miss on a player they invested in. They would just go land a decent player.

gotta swing for the fences if you wanna hit the home run sometimes.

You don’t need 12 future NBA players to compete for championships at D1 in HD 3.0. You don’t even need 6. Hell, some coaches don’t need any.

Losing battles is part of the game now. This is definitely the biggest adjustment most people who played the previous version need to make. In the last version, losing a battle usually meant you screwed up, miscalculated somehow. That isn’t the case anymore. The game doesn’t want teams to be able to amass classes full of EE caliber players year after year, at least not without a lot of luck and skill. Everyone is playing with the same challenges, and the fact that elite teams do sometimes strike out on their top targets is what makes the game competitive, interesting, and more strategic. Long term planning and team building is at a premium now, like it never was before, when elite recruits were functionally reserved for elite teams.

Never played D1 in 3.0. So I'll take your word for it.

I'm not saying anything complex here. I'm also not saying you have to have a team of all studs. You could basically sum up what I'm getting at, by saying.... If you want to be great at something, you have to try hard. And not just take what's given to you.

That's it.

My post has nothing to do with dice rolls or longshots..

To craigalton- If you're a D1 and you make the habit of battling D3 teams then you are likely VERY bad.

Topdogg - you're pretty much dead on. It's not so much you need studs to win a championship (although this is true) it's that the game is much different at D1 than D3. At D3, you can literally do not have to get in to a dice roll EVER and still build a S16 caliber team season after season. Just ask OldDave who is a great D3 coach and who says he avoids dice rolls like the plague.

The reason is that the talent pool for what would make a serviceable D3 players is VERY deep. Obviously this makes sense because you have all D1, D2 and D3 pools to recruit from which amounts to something like 3,000 players. Additionally, take a look at the populations in your world, I'm willing to be that unless you're in Iba, D1 has nearly double the number of humans as D3. So obviously this means less competition.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2018 6:56:00 PM (view original):
My first

Pretty sure dcy is also somebody else but I still agree. And have been waiting a year to give a serious

Might drop a "+1" if he keeps going. And, holy hell, can't wait to use "well said".

For the sake of transparency dcy is another ID I use from time to time. It's my son's but I usually end up playing it more than he does. Teenagers.......

I knew we'd eventually agree on something Mike.

Posted by emy1013 on 2/1/2018 8:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2018 6:56:00 PM (view original):
My first

Pretty sure dcy is also somebody else but I still agree. And have been waiting a year to give a serious

Might drop a "+1" if he keeps going. And, holy hell, can't wait to use "well said".

For the sake of transparency dcy is another ID I use from time to time. It's my son's but I usually end up playing it more than he does. Teenagers.......

I knew we'd eventually agree on something Mike.

Well, since I recall we are BFF and hate the younger generation's belief that when they screw up someone should just fix it for them, I'm not surprised you're my first .

WELL SAID!!!!

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2018 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 2/1/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):
I would prefer to remove the overall cap on HVs and move to a per cycle cap. Something like 5 HVs maximum per cycle.

This would prevent the poaching HV "lovebomb" and encourage people to get in on a guy earlier (although would be problematic for new coaches taking over in 2nd session)

But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.

I could get behind an idea like this as well. It would even allow D2 teams to compete for the fringe D1 players against lower prestige D1 schools.

For what it's worth, I wish ALL players were able to be signed by ANY school in RS1. Put enough effort in as a D2 school and you shouldn't have to wait until RS2 to sign a lower rated D1 player. Tweak the coding so that any who is going EE announces it to that particular coach at the beginning of RS1. That coach now knows what players he'll need to replace due to graduation/EE's. Plan accordingly or lose, simple as that. Add a day or two to RS1 and do away with RS2 completely. Problem (potentially)m solved. Haven't really thought through the ramifications of doing it like that, but it's got to be better than the current EE set-up.

I think the majority of us would like to get rid of the two recruiting sessions. Turned out to be such a bad idea.

I'm not really sure why people are supportive of a per cycle cap for APs but a hard cap for HVs. I'd prefer the other way around. I really haven't heard a reason why this would be worse other than the "more openings will automatically win and everyone would be afraid to battle" excuse but I don't really believe that one.