Hey guys,
Here is a proposal that might be able to solve the issue of Very High vs High... thanks to those that noted that they liked this idea...

Add another category to a recruit's Preference tab.
Call the category "Signing Erraticness".
Provide 3 possibilities under this category:
1. Very Erratic, making up 10% of the recruit pool. Very Erratic would give every team at Moderate or better an equal chance at signing the recruit.
2. Very Loyal, making up 45% of ghe recruit pool. These players would go 100% of the time to the team in the lead.
3. Average, making up the remaining 45% of the recruit pool. These players would use the current 3.0 formulas in chosing their school.

Very Erratic would allow some longshots to win. Might be worth throwing your hat in this ring to grab a kid that's a little wacky, kooky and crazy.
Very Loyal would allow owners to sign a guy without getting agita.
Average would use standard 3.0 settings.

Anyway, hoping HD kicks the tires on this idea. Adjust the percentages as necessary. Would create some wild jockeying for position. This reminds me of how we added Signing Preference with Early, End of Period 1, Whenever, and Late to the Preferences tab. Provides yet another layer of strategy.

Please identify one current real life college basketball recruit who is "Very Erratic," and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

(Not one who has already signed.)

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 12:27:00 AM (view original):
Please identify one current real life college basketball recruit who is "Very Erratic," and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

(Not one who has already signed.)

Not sure why i can't pick a player who has already signed... so:

- Taurean Thompson signed in July with Syracuse. Over the course of his 18 month recruitment, he was leaning first to Providence, then Seton Hall, then Syracuse, then back to Seton Hall, then Michigan State, then finally Syracuse... final week there were pretty equal odds that between The Hall, Syracuse and Michigan State.

- Kevin Marfo this past Spring had a final five of Providence, Boston College, DePaul, URI and George Washington. Leaned to different schools at different times. Similar effort and last minute push from each school, and he chose George Washington. PC basically lived at his school in Worcester, definitely gave him the most attention and home visits, yet he went with GW for whatever reason.

Abdul Malik Abu was pursued by Providence big time for a year. On decision day he was considered to be equal with PC, NC State and maybe Maryland... chose NC State... while not erratic, and maybe that's not the right word, 3 or 4 teams were considered to have equal chances on signing day, and Abu had the school caps that he chose from.

On the flip side, Very Loyal could include Kris Dunn, who was pursued big time by Providence for a year, but then late was blitzed by Louisville and Connecticut. Dunn decided to go with the coach who showed him the longest and most love throughout the recruiting process.

Those are several off the top of my head.

It's not too difficult to find some unexpected choices or behavior, is it?

Dude, you have to be able to identify the trait in advance of signing if your idea has any basis in reality. You've shown it doesn't.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:32:00 AM (view original):
Dude, you have to be able to identify the trait in advance of signing if your idea has any basis in reality. You've shown it doesn't.

What part of 'on the recruits preference tab' do you not understand?

Posted by hughesjr on 10/2/2016 2:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:32:00 AM (view original):
Dude, you have to be able to identify the trait in advance of signing if your idea has any basis in reality. You've shown it doesn't.

What part of 'on the recruits preference tab' do you not understand?

If you can't see what I'm getting at on your own, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/2/2016 2:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:32:00 AM (view original):
Dude, you have to be able to identify the trait in advance of signing if your idea has any basis in reality. You've shown it doesn't.

What part of 'on the recruits preference tab' do you not understand?

If you can't see what I'm getting at on your own, I'm afraid I can't help you.

You mean how should we know beforehand that Taurean Thompson was going to switch his leaning 7 different times? Personality type maybe... or maybe it's connected to work ethic...? PC pretty quickly realized that the kid was going to drag them along and flip them around so they gave Moderate attention. Boeheim basically ignored him for awhile when he first left his Syracuse lean to lean Seton Hall... then Michigan State...

Izzo spent a lot of time with him, and then from what i read he got back in touch with Boeheim and Izzo was aggravated. Meanwhile Willard at Seton Hall sat there watching. PC was still in the mix. The week he committed 3 schools were equal and PC still had a shot. It's not like this is a one in a million occurrence.

Making things "real life" isn't a good thing for HD. Remember those failed little scenarios they tried here and everyone hated....?

Posted by npb7768 on 10/1/2016 11:38:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys,
Here is a proposal that might be able to solve the issue of Very High vs High... thanks to those that noted that they liked this idea...

Add another category to a recruit's Preference tab.
Call the category "Signing Erraticness".
Provide 3 possibilities under this category:
1. Very Erratic, making up 10% of the recruit pool. Very Erratic would give every team at Moderate or better an equal chance at signing the recruit.
2. Very Loyal, making up 45% of ghe recruit pool. These players would go 100% of the time to the team in the lead.
3. Average, making up the remaining 45% of the recruit pool. These players would use the current 3.0 formulas in chosing their school.

Very Erratic would allow some longshots to win. Might be worth throwing your hat in this ring to grab a kid that's a little wacky, kooky and crazy.
Very Loyal would allow owners to sign a guy without getting agita.
Average would use standard 3.0 settings.

Anyway, hoping HD kicks the tires on this idea. Adjust the percentages as necessary. Would create some wild jockeying for position. This reminds me of how we added Signing Preference with Early, End of Period 1, Whenever, and Late to the Preferences tab. Provides yet another layer of strategy.

I'll take that for sure. Maybe decrease very erratic to 5%?

The "issue" with High and very High ...

It is possible for several teams to put in so much recruiting effort on a recruit that all have a chance of success. The more effort they put in (weighted) the better their chances. The teams that are highest of the group get an enhanced chance relative to their effort; the chances of the lower teams are reduced relative to their effort, but not necessarily all the way to zero. If these teams were simply identified as being in one group, we would know nothing of their relative standings. However, they are divided into two sub-groups, identified as High" and "Very High," giving us a glimpse into their relative positions. At any point along the recruiting path each team can improve its standing (unless they are held behind Seble's red light).

The "issue" with High and Very High is ... invisible. Differences of opinion on this topic, yes, but none of these differences of opinion really rise to the level of "issue."

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/2/2016 2:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:32:00 AM (view original):
Dude, you have to be able to identify the trait in advance of signing if your idea has any basis in reality. You've shown it doesn't.

What part of 'on the recruits preference tab' do you not understand?

If you can't see what I'm getting at on your own, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Not sure if I answered your question kc, or if it was a decent answer for what you were looking for?

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/2/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
The "issue" with High and very High ...

It is possible for several teams to put in so much recruiting effort on a recruit that all have a chance of success. The more effort they put in (weighted) the better their chances. The teams that are highest of the group get an enhanced chance relative to their effort; the chances of the lower teams are reduced relative to their effort, but not necessarily all the way to zero. If these teams were simply identified as being in one group, we would know nothing of their relative standings. However, they are divided into two sub-groups, identified as High" and "Very High," giving us a glimpse into their relative positions. At any point along the recruiting path each team can improve its standing (unless they are held behind Seble's red light).

The "issue" with High and Very High is ... invisible. Differences of opinion on this topic, yes, but none of these differences of opinion really rise to the level of "issue."

"The "issue" with High and Very High is ... invisible"

What do you mean by that? (I followed everything else.)

"The "issue" with High and Very High is ... invisible"

What do you mean by that? (I followed everything else.)

Follow the next sentence after the one you quoted and you are in business.

Posted by npb7768 on 10/3/2016 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/2/2016 2:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/2/2016 2:32:00 AM (view original):
Dude, you have to be able to identify the trait in advance of signing if your idea has any basis in reality. You've shown it doesn't.

What part of 'on the recruits preference tab' do you not understand?

If you can't see what I'm getting at on your own, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Not sure if I answered your question kc, or if it was a decent answer for what you were looking for?

No, but you don't have to answer to me obviously. We aren't going to agree, and that's fine.

I've said everything I have to say about 3.0, and now that the dev chats are over I'm planning to disengage from this forum. What's done is done, no sense belaboring my POV to the detriment of those who are enjoying the changes.

I wish you and WIS well in continuing to improve 3.0.

No worries kc.