Posted by Benis on 2/1/2018 7:43:00 PM (view original):

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.

In consecutive recruiting seasons, I landed 1 star centers. Top 30 or better at their position. So no, a low prestige D1 team or a D2 team getting those centers does not make that team VERY BAD.

And you've also missed my point. So I'll repeat it... spread some of your resources out to backup targets at D1 so when you ***** and moan about losing your "dice rolls" you still bring in decent talent.

Almost the same thing as "battling D3"... but yeah, no, not the same thing at all.

Posted by craigaltonw on 2/2/2018 12:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2018 7:43:00 PM (view original):

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.

In consecutive recruiting seasons, I landed 1 star centers. Top 30 or better at their position. So no, a low prestige D1 team or a D2 team getting those centers does not make that team VERY BAD.

And you've also missed my point. So I'll repeat it... spread some of your resources out to backup targets at D1 so when you ***** and moan about losing your "dice rolls" you still bring in decent talent.

Almost the same thing as "battling D3"... but yeah, no, not the same thing at all.

You mean Lubsy? The big with 56 ath and 50 defense?

Uh yeah, if you're in a competitive conference in D1 and you have guys like that then you're gonna get steam rolled.

Also, yes, D1 coaches already do prepare for and sign backups (at least the good ones do).

If you want proof of that - go look at the D2 and D3 conference chat and count how many times people whine about 'their guys' getting poached by higher level teams.

D1, D2 and D3 are not all that different. You should stop saying they are.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/2/2018 8:05:00 AM (view original):
D1, D2 and D3 are not all that different. You should stop saying they are.

What! 2 and 3 are similar. 1 is basically a different game.

Posted by cubcub113 on 2/2/2018 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/2/2018 8:05:00 AM (view original):
D1, D2 and D3 are not all that different. You should stop saying they are.

What! 2 and 3 are similar. 1 is basically a different game.

Just don't bother.

It simply isn't that different. You guys act like it's comparing apples to unicylces. It's green apples to red apples.

I recognize that some refuse to battle for players in D3. And maybe even D2. I don't at WCSU. The Little East-Smith doesn't. I didn't at Lander. The Peach Belt-Rupp didn't.

If that's not it, all levels are just resource allocation to get the product you desire.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/2/2018 8:05:00 AM (view original):
D1, D2 and D3 are not all that different. You should stop saying they are.

D1 : totally different.

D2: a bit like D3 but strategy is different.

K.

Mike : I never really battle in D2 unless a D1 makes a late push in second session. If I am not well invested in a player, at D2, I don't even bother in the second session.

D1 : all battles and cunning moves

Baseline prestige doesn't matter either I guess.

Posted by zorzii on 2/2/2018 8:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/2/2018 8:05:00 AM (view original):
D1, D2 and D3 are not all that different. You should stop saying they are.

D1 : totally different.

D2: a bit like D3 but strategy is different.

No, they aren't.

Biggest difference is the amount of resources. You have to be very careful not to **** them away in D3 because you just don't have much. In D1, we can throw out multiple HV and a CV to "test the waters". In D3, and to a lesser extent D2, you have to decide if you have a legit shot at the prospect.

I will admit that it's "easier" to find comparable players in D2/D3 when you feel you'll miss your top priority. And, if you're not competing for prospects in D1, you're not reaching high enough.

And, of course, we know D1 prospects won't sign with D2/D3 until RS2 so there's a much better chance that your top priority will get snatched away in RS1 by a higher level.

But, honestly, that's about it.

Resources except in D3, are not a problem. In D2, I have enough.

Battles and strategy make for a different game in D1... You need to scout opponents carefully, learn about their way of playing...

So...

It takes the same amount of skill/luck/ability to take over a low level rebuild and get to the FF in D3 as it does in D1?

Posted by zorzii on 2/2/2018 9:08:00 AM (view original):
Resources except in D3, are not a problem. In D2, I have enough.

Battles and strategy make for a different game in D1... You need to scout opponents carefully, learn about their way of playing...

I've already pointed out that I battle at D3 and did so at D2. If you choose not to battle, of course it's different. But you could avoid them at D1. At least serious ones.

I felt I had enough cash for HV/CV at D2 but felt short on scouting budget. I feel short on both at D3.