Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/17/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

one could code the game in any permutation of these - and folks at any level could pursue tactics knowing that thems the breaks. No a priori reason that one way or the other is "right"

factors like realism, gameplay and what will make a marketable product become relevant in deciding how these things should work. WIS has made some choices with which folks may agree or disagree, but there is, in my view, no abstract right answer

Well, the biggest problem here, once you get past the incessant EE whining, is that D1 users absolutely hate losing players to D2 teams. Despite Benis' "Thems the breaks" philosophy, which he only applies to certain situations because he's a raging hypocrite, a lot of users don't accept it. I'm in D3 so it doesn't apply to me but I understand their frustration. Realistically, virtually any high level D1 school calling a recruit kind of late will likely get said recruit from the D2 school. But that's a bad model for an internet game. So we have what we have. By having "brackets" for D1 projected like the following, it's resolved.

D1 only - 75%
D2 possible - 15%
D3 possible - 10%

It doesn't have to be the best 75% that will reject any attention from D2/3 but the D1 users would have their own special little pool to choose from. And, in RS2, they'll know if their new back-up is accepting offers from D2/3 schools and that they just might lose before they can even get their foot in the door. Then, when they inevitably post "WAAAAH, my 11th option signed with W Conn St in D3. That's not realistic" we can all mock them and say "Hey, dumbass, did you see that he was accepting offers from D2/3 teams?"

You argument does not take into account one if the most important factor in this game : balance. To compete in D1, you need 80 ath almost everywhere, 80 def too ... so when a d2 team gets that miracle player, it not only isn't good for d1, it's not good for d2. In D1, it prevents the losing team to reach a competitive level and in D2, it puts a freak in the competition way too early as a frosh. I saw freaks being developed and start to give a massive edge to some d2 or d3 teams but they were all developed and reached that freakish level as juniors or seniors.

Posted by zorzii on 12/17/2016 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/17/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

one could code the game in any permutation of these - and folks at any level could pursue tactics knowing that thems the breaks. No a priori reason that one way or the other is "right"

factors like realism, gameplay and what will make a marketable product become relevant in deciding how these things should work. WIS has made some choices with which folks may agree or disagree, but there is, in my view, no abstract right answer

Well, the biggest problem here, once you get past the incessant EE whining, is that D1 users absolutely hate losing players to D2 teams. Despite Benis' "Thems the breaks" philosophy, which he only applies to certain situations because he's a raging hypocrite, a lot of users don't accept it. I'm in D3 so it doesn't apply to me but I understand their frustration. Realistically, virtually any high level D1 school calling a recruit kind of late will likely get said recruit from the D2 school. But that's a bad model for an internet game. So we have what we have. By having "brackets" for D1 projected like the following, it's resolved.

D1 only - 75%
D2 possible - 15%
D3 possible - 10%

It doesn't have to be the best 75% that will reject any attention from D2/3 but the D1 users would have their own special little pool to choose from. And, in RS2, they'll know if their new back-up is accepting offers from D2/3 schools and that they just might lose before they can even get their foot in the door. Then, when they inevitably post "WAAAAH, my 11th option signed with W Conn St in D3. That's not realistic" we can all mock them and say "Hey, dumbass, did you see that he was accepting offers from D2/3 teams?"

You argument does not take into account one if the most important factor in this game : balance. To compete in D1, you need 80 ath almost everywhere, 80 def too ... so when a d2 team gets that miracle player, it not only isn't good for d1, it's not good for d2. In D1, it prevents the losing team to reach a competitive level and in D2, it puts a freak in the competition way too early as a frosh. I saw freaks being developed and start to give a massive edge to some d2 or d3 teams but they were all developed and reached that freakish level as juniors or seniors.

MikeT doesn't like me too much does he? Thanks for quoting this Zorzii.

I just think you're a hypocrite. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by zorzii on 12/17/2016 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/17/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

one could code the game in any permutation of these - and folks at any level could pursue tactics knowing that thems the breaks. No a priori reason that one way or the other is "right"

factors like realism, gameplay and what will make a marketable product become relevant in deciding how these things should work. WIS has made some choices with which folks may agree or disagree, but there is, in my view, no abstract right answer

Well, the biggest problem here, once you get past the incessant EE whining, is that D1 users absolutely hate losing players to D2 teams. Despite Benis' "Thems the breaks" philosophy, which he only applies to certain situations because he's a raging hypocrite, a lot of users don't accept it. I'm in D3 so it doesn't apply to me but I understand their frustration. Realistically, virtually any high level D1 school calling a recruit kind of late will likely get said recruit from the D2 school. But that's a bad model for an internet game. So we have what we have. By having "brackets" for D1 projected like the following, it's resolved.

D1 only - 75%
D2 possible - 15%
D3 possible - 10%

It doesn't have to be the best 75% that will reject any attention from D2/3 but the D1 users would have their own special little pool to choose from. And, in RS2, they'll know if their new back-up is accepting offers from D2/3 schools and that they just might lose before they can even get their foot in the door. Then, when they inevitably post "WAAAAH, my 11th option signed with W Conn St in D3. That's not realistic" we can all mock them and say "Hey, dumbass, did you see that he was accepting offers from D2/3 teams?"

You argument does not take into account one if the most important factor in this game : balance. To compete in D1, you need 80 ath almost everywhere, 80 def too ... so when a d2 team gets that miracle player, it not only isn't good for d1, it's not good for d2. In D1, it prevents the losing team to reach a competitive level and in D2, it puts a freak in the competition way too early as a frosh. I saw freaks being developed and start to give a massive edge to some d2 or d3 teams but they were all developed and reached that freakish level as juniors or seniors.

But all D2 teams could have recruited said freak, right?

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/17/2016 12:01:00 PM (view original):
If there are 2 D-2 schools putting a lot of money into a recruit, I think it's problematic for a D-1 to jump in at the last minute, although it doesn't happen all that often. That's why I had suggested to slightly increase the recruit population.

If I'm the owner of the game, I want something that is both an enjoyable experience for the user, but at the same time challenging.

If someone pops in and says "I agree" to this "If there are 2 D-2 schools putting a lot of money into a recruit, I think it's problematic for a D-1 to jump in at the last minute", my head might explode as it's been exactly what I've been yammering on about.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 12/17/2016 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/17/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

one could code the game in any permutation of these - and folks at any level could pursue tactics knowing that thems the breaks. No a priori reason that one way or the other is "right"

factors like realism, gameplay and what will make a marketable product become relevant in deciding how these things should work. WIS has made some choices with which folks may agree or disagree, but there is, in my view, no abstract right answer

Well, the biggest problem here, once you get past the incessant EE whining, is that D1 users absolutely hate losing players to D2 teams. Despite Benis' "Thems the breaks" philosophy, which he only applies to certain situations because he's a raging hypocrite, a lot of users don't accept it. I'm in D3 so it doesn't apply to me but I understand their frustration. Realistically, virtually any high level D1 school calling a recruit kind of late will likely get said recruit from the D2 school. But that's a bad model for an internet game. So we have what we have. By having "brackets" for D1 projected like the following, it's resolved.

D1 only - 75%
D2 possible - 15%
D3 possible - 10%

It doesn't have to be the best 75% that will reject any attention from D2/3 but the D1 users would have their own special little pool to choose from. And, in RS2, they'll know if their new back-up is accepting offers from D2/3 schools and that they just might lose before they can even get their foot in the door. Then, when they inevitably post "WAAAAH, my 11th option signed with W Conn St in D3. That's not realistic" we can all mock them and say "Hey, dumbass, did you see that he was accepting offers from D2/3 teams?"

You argument does not take into account one if the most important factor in this game : balance. To compete in D1, you need 80 ath almost everywhere, 80 def too ... so when a d2 team gets that miracle player, it not only isn't good for d1, it's not good for d2. In D1, it prevents the losing team to reach a competitive level and in D2, it puts a freak in the competition way too early as a frosh. I saw freaks being developed and start to give a massive edge to some d2 or d3 teams but they were all developed and reached that freakish level as juniors or seniors.

But all D2 teams could have recruited said freak, right?

To shorten this discussion, the reason I ask is because I'm not interested in "punishing" a user for doing all the right things. If this D2 owner was the only one willing to take the chance of possibly wasting resources on this freak, good on him. Let the winner enjoy the spoils of victory.

They are getting the freak too easily. D1 battles all first session. D2 sits and wait. Calipari gets a call from his AD: John, the five stars has decided to go to Alabama. I know, I know, we did all we could... There is this all-american in our backyard says he hasn't got any serious D1 looks yet, I say we move on him. .. And then the second period arrives, he has a scholly from Kentucky but still signs D2.., Come on. It's not like we are on the last day.

No, D2 is dumping resources into said player in RS1 while D1 battles for a better player. Loser of D1 battle shows up late to the party. Sorry, the prettiest girl left is already drunk and hanging onto the skinny nerd. Football player has to settle for the fat chick.

I don't care what happens in real life. For the 100th time, real life is a bad business model for this internet game.

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/17/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/17/2016 11:38:00 AM (view original):
"If you kept the divisions separate for recruiting, some of the problems would be addressed automatically and would eliminate a lot of frustration for coaches."

You could also turn chess into checkers. It becomes a simpler game, but that would destroy it as a game of chess. It kind of surprises me that some guys want HD chess turned into HD checkers.

I'm bored and basically snowed/iced in today with almost nothing to do, so I'll play along.

The problem is we aren't playing chess or checkers. At least in those games there are no dice rolls and it's more about skill, so that analogy fails right off the bat.

I presented a potential solution, so what I would like for you to do is to list all the cons/arguments against why we shouldn't keep the divisions separate.

Oops, it's your response that fails, but thanks for "playing along." I realize that some guys' understanding of HD stops at the level of "dice rolls" or "coin flips." But in HD there are no dice rolls, only probabilities that you influence all along, right up to the end of the process where the probabilities that you create are finally applied. Apples and oranges. Elephants and gophers. D1 welfare such as cutting the competition for recruits is, well, something that D1 coaches who are there on merit should argue against.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/17/2016 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 12/17/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/17/2016 11:38:00 AM (view original):
"If you kept the divisions separate for recruiting, some of the problems would be addressed automatically and would eliminate a lot of frustration for coaches."

You could also turn chess into checkers. It becomes a simpler game, but that would destroy it as a game of chess. It kind of surprises me that some guys want HD chess turned into HD checkers.

I'm bored and basically snowed/iced in today with almost nothing to do, so I'll play along.

The problem is we aren't playing chess or checkers. At least in those games there are no dice rolls and it's more about skill, so that analogy fails right off the bat.

I presented a potential solution, so what I would like for you to do is to list all the cons/arguments against why we shouldn't keep the divisions separate.

Oops, it's your response that fails, but thanks for "playing along." I realize that some guys' understanding of HD stops at the level of "dice rolls" or "coin flips." But in HD there are no dice rolls, only probabilities that you influence all along, right up to the end of the process where the probabilities that you create are finally applied. Apples and oranges. Elephants and gophers. D1 welfare such as cutting the competition for recruits is, well, something that D1 coaches who are there on merit should argue against.

If you put in 62% recruiting effort and you are listed as "very high" and lose, how is that having an influence on what school he decides to play for? Up until that point, then yes you do have an influence. But to say there is no randomness involved is completely false.

Still waiting for an answer to the original topic you were trying to argue about. I'll put it in bold type so you can see it this time.

I presented a potential solution, so what I would like for you to do is to list all the cons/arguments against why we shouldn't keep the divisions separate.

Because, as best I can tell, there is no "line" as to what constitutes a D1 player. Say it's 550 as a freshman. That's fair enough. But are all 550 created equally? Of course not.

So, then, I guess you're simply calling for a D1 base, D2 base and D3 base. Just three different groups to choose from. There's no real harm in other than, if a few D2 teams have what we'd call a "super class", it really limits the options to catch them. One way now would be to land the white whale from D1. That would be removed. Of course, if a D2 user just said "Screw it, I can't beat those guys for 3 more seasons", he could move up or down.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Because, as best I can tell, there is no "line" as to what constitutes a D1 player. Say it's 550 as a freshman. That's fair enough. But are all 550 created equally? Of course not.

So, then, I guess you're simply calling for a D1 base, D2 base and D3 base. Just three different groups to choose from. There's no real harm in other than, if a few D2 teams have what we'd call a "super class", it really limits the options to catch them. One way now would be to land the white whale from D1. That would be removed. Of course, if a D2 user just said "Screw it, I can't beat those guys for 3 more seasons", he could move up or down.

But there is a line, for instance, when you to go use the scouting service for each state, it specifies what division each recruit is in. That's how you would differentiate from D-1, D-2 and D-3.

In reply to your second paragraph, all you do is generate a few low D-1 caliber players here and there at the D-2 level. Do the same for D-3. It doesn't really change anything from before other than eliminating a messy situation between D-1 and D-2 teams fighting for players.

I have a D-2 team in addition to a D-1 team, but no way do I think I should be allowed to be able to get mid to high tier D-1 type players. It would create too much of an imbalance, if that's the argument anyone is presenting.

I don't really have a problem with what you propose. But, if I had to create one in order to troll you, I guess there might be an issue with the creation of a "few low D-1 caliber players here and there at the D-2 level. Do the same for D-3" suggestion. As a D3, I don't really venture out too far because I just don't have the funds to fight for players 500 miles away. So, essentially, if I don't have any of those low D-1 caliber players in the Northeast, I'm not getting one. If I'm getting to the E8 and getting smoked by CA and TX teams that are getting those guys, I'm not amused.

"I presented a potential solution, so what I would like for you to do is to list all the cons/arguments against why we shouldn't keep the divisions separate. "

WIS HAD the solution in the last version, but as usual ****** it up. You have some guys in DI that can be recruited by DII and some that cannot, depending on how GOOD they are. You have some guys in DII that can be recruited by DIII and some that cannot, depending on how GOOD they are.

They should not have moved away from that. A+ DI teams shouldn't be battling for the same guys as DII teams, and up until this crap they didn't.
So you don't need to keep divisions totally separate. I am fine with some overlap like we had before.

"If you put in 62% recruiting effort and you are listed as "very high" and lose, how is that having an influence on what school he decides to play for?"

Oops. If you got to Very High on a recruit you were not given that designation randomly, were you? You got it by virtue of your recruiting efforts. You could have continued to make recruiting efforts and raised your probabilities, but chose not to. You could have stopped short of that level, too, but chose to do enough recruiting to get to Very High but not enough to drive other schools back down to moderate. ALL THAT is you influencing the probabilities that were eventually applied.

BTW, what is the reason to keep arguing for D1 to be made easier? Aren't D1 coaches the most skilled and accomplished, the masters of HD competition?? C'mon, are D1 coaches stimulated by competition or scared by it?

Also BTW, you cannot raise a "potential solution" for something which is not a problem.