Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

The point is that your perception is mistaken. It's not indicating the interest level of the recruit in a school. It's indicating the "interest level" the school has in the recruit, just as the prestige is indicating the prestige of the team, not the recruit.

It's also worth noting that it's cosmetic (seble's words). The only thing you really know based on that column is an approximation of how much effort credit a team has relative to the credit leader; and by extension, you know if you're within signing parameters, or if you have more to do. You don't know who "the leader" is. You can make an assumption, based on whether there's a clear effort leader or not, but there's no "word on the street" giving you definitive information on where the recruit is leaning. Signing odds and interest level are not the same thing, and are not independently linked to each other. They're both based on how much effort credit a team has relative to the effort credit leader (again, seble's words, paraphrased).

If this is the case why don't we see DII and DIII schools at high and very high on D1 recruits after D1 schools put more effort in? - because it represents the recruits interest in the school.

Because as I have said, the effort is corrected by prestige and preferences. And there is a limit of 20 HV, 1 CV, and APs that you assign.

Each of those individual efforts is corrected before being applied to the total. A Div-2 team might only be able to get 40% or 50% of the effort for each AP and each CV and each HV .. so in the end, they may not be able to get credit for more than 40% or 50% of the effort of the Div-1 team. In my calculations before, I showed that it takes at the very minimum 53.8% effort to be High (which would corralate to 35% probability, which would correlate to High) .. if you can't get more effort than that, then you will stay at moderate. If you can't get mroe effort than 67% of the lead team's effort (after both are corrected for prestige and preferences), then you will stay at High .. if you can get about 67% of the effort then you will be Very High.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 12:12:00 PM (view original):
If a D2 school continues to put in effort against a D1 school for a recruit and didn't give up under your theory they'd still be listed at high.

They can only put in so much effort (see my above post) and effort is MODIFIED by prestige, meaning a CV by Div-2 is worth less than a CV by Div-1 .. and they may not be able to get to the threshold of getting to High or Very High.

Also, they are limited bt definition to Moderate until the second session starts.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 12:12:00 PM (view original):
If a D2 school continues to put in effort against a D1 school for a recruit and didn't give up under your theory they'd still be listed at high.

They can only put in so much effort (see my above post) and effort is MODIFIED by prestige, meaning a CV by Div-2 is worth less than a CV by Div-1 .. and they may not be able to get to the threshold of getting to High or Very High.

Also, they are limited bt definition to Moderate until the second session starts.

Right. I think the hang up here is that "interest level" sounds like how excited one party is about the other. That's really not what it's telling you, in either direction. It's telling you how much effort credit has been accumulated by a team, relative to the effort credit leader. That's it.

It occurs to me that this could be an important discussion for NEW COACHES to understand. koopman and hughes are talking about some subtle things here, and a new coach may not immediately need all that detail, but the basic concepts and definitions are useful at any level. You can also see by this thread how easy it is to misunderstand.

I personally think you guys are just putting a spin on it to justify it. It's not reality.

It's not meant to mimic reality. It's meant to incentivize battling. Seble said several times that a problem with 2.0 was that a lot of times the first team on a recruit got him and the system discouraged battling. With giving a chance to the 2nd or 3rd team, it gives more incentive to throw your hat in the ring.

I think that 3.0 does this. I've already tried battling for top 100 guys because I knew that even if I was behind, I still had a chance so I kept battling. The battling aspect of recruiting is what makes it really exciting in my opinion. Maybe there are different ways to encourage it besides the RNG of signing but that's what was chosen by Seble. But it's not to promote realism.

Posted by Benis on 10/24/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):
It's not meant to mimic reality. It's meant to incentivize battling. Seble said several times that a problem with 2.0 was that a lot of times the first team on a recruit got him and the system discouraged battling. With giving a chance to the 2nd or 3rd team, it gives more incentive to throw your hat in the ring.

I think that 3.0 does this. I've already tried battling for top 100 guys because I knew that even if I was behind, I still had a chance so I kept battling. The battling aspect of recruiting is what makes it really exciting in my opinion. Maybe there are different ways to encourage it besides the RNG of signing but that's what was chosen by Seble. But it's not to promote realism.

I agree with everything you said .. but I personally think it does more closely model real recruiting.

I mean, now USC can battle Alabama for a recruit that is within 300 miles of the Alabama campus. Before, it was a lock to the A+ team within the 360. Now USC can afford 20HV and a CV and max out along with Alabama on that guy. Before, no one tried because you could not get them.

I do understand some people don't like it.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/24/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):
It's not meant to mimic reality. It's meant to incentivize battling. Seble said several times that a problem with 2.0 was that a lot of times the first team on a recruit got him and the system discouraged battling. With giving a chance to the 2nd or 3rd team, it gives more incentive to throw your hat in the ring.

I think that 3.0 does this. I've already tried battling for top 100 guys because I knew that even if I was behind, I still had a chance so I kept battling. The battling aspect of recruiting is what makes it really exciting in my opinion. Maybe there are different ways to encourage it besides the RNG of signing but that's what was chosen by Seble. But it's not to promote realism.

I agree with everything you said .. but I personally think it does more closely model real recruiting.

I mean, now USC can battle Alabama for a recruit that is within 300 miles of the Alabama campus. Before, it was a lock to the A+ team within the 360. Now USC can afford 20HV and a CV and max out along with Alabama on that guy. Before, no one tried because you could not get them.

I do understand some people don't like it.

Right, I agree. In that respect it does more closely represent reality. In 2.0 top 100 guys would sign with only a single team putting effort in. Obviously in real life this would never ever happen.

I also totally understand why people don't like it. Its very polarizing.

Without changing the functionality or emphasis on battling, they could make a cosmetic tweak to a cosmetic feature, and automatically bump the team that signs the recruit to very high upon signing. I'd prefer people just adapt their mindset, and accept that the credit leader doesn't always win the recruit in 3.0, but I could go along with this.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Without changing the functionality or emphasis on battling, they could make a cosmetic tweak to a cosmetic feature, and automatically bump the team that signs the recruit to very high upon signing. I'd prefer people just adapt their mindset, and accept that the credit leader doesn't always win the recruit in 3.0, but I could go along with this.

That might make some puzzling events. Imagine the confusion if a coach puts in NO effort, goes from High to Very High because he wins the recruit ... and he reveals that he was upped to VH without any additional effort. There is already enough wailing from guys who don't (or won't) comprehend H vs. VH as it is now.

Agree with Spud.

They made modifications that make it a game of luck. As I said, not interested in playing that and despite all of the spins and justifications you guys want to create, it's still a crap game now because of the changes that they made. The point of playing a game like this is competitipn, when the game starts rewarding lesser performance it ruins the entire thing. I'm sure more people agree with me than agree with you two and you'll see that with how low the sub #s get.

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Spud.

Me too .. WTF, it is a cold day in #^$@

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 5:07:00 PM (view original):
They made modifications that make it a game of luck. As I said, not interested in playing that and despite all of the spins and justifications you guys want to create, it's still a crap game now because of the changes that they made. The point of playing a game like this is competitipn, when the game starts rewarding lesser performance it ruins the entire thing. I'm sure more people agree with me than agree with you two and you'll see that with how low the sub #s get.

I just play the game they provide if I think it worth paying for. I am not going argue what is best or not best. All I can do is decide if I want to pay to play this game. I still do, so I will.

I still think it is a game of skill .. I have to scout the best players in a certain area, I need to figure out how big of an area it is and to what level I want to scout the guys. Which ones I think are best and recruit them. If I win, I do .. if not I recruit a different one. I love the new recruiting. Some people don't.

You also get to make that choice. As does every single coach.

If enough people quit the game and they fold up tent .. then they do. As long as they offer the game and I am satisfied with it, then I will continue to play. If they shut it down. I'll do something else. No big deal either way to me.

"They made modifications that make it a game of (realistic probabilities). As I said, not interested in playing that and despite all of the (analysis), it's still a crap game now because (of my intolerance for ambiguity and/or inability to adapt and navigate new strategies). The point of playing a game like this is competition, when the game starts rewarding (strategic planning, flexibility, and an understanding of how probabilities work) it ruins the entire thing (for people who were used to and happy with a system they had figured out)."

Fixed it for you.