"The primary culprits being your boys ward, spud, and Mike discussing their 15 min with virtually no results."

LOL, what is that? Three times in three days that you have asserted I said something that I didn't say and don't even agree with? Oh-for-three. I appreciate hard work, and you are working hard to jump on some perceived bash-Spud bandwagon, only to fall off into the dust each time. Now get up, brush yourself off and think next time before you try again to jump on the perceived bandwagon, eh?

Posted by poncho0091 on 12/23/2016 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/23/2016 6:39:00 PM (view original):
"I love the guys who come on here talking about how they spend 10-15 min in sessions here and there, neglecting the fact that their poor game results show what that has gotten them"

What guys are those? The people I've seen sharing their efficient processes are doing just fine.

The primary culprits being your boys ward, spud, and Mike discussing their 15 min with virtually no results. At least Mike as an excuse for still learning. I didn't say all, as I'm sure many will do fine, but I'd be willing to bet most of those still with high success are not breaking it down in 10 min intervals. For those who are having success doing that, they aren't talking about it on here.

I'm not making an excuse. I'll be better. Bele dat. And I'll be doing it then as I am now.

Will I win NT? Only if it's fun. When HD becomes a "job", I'll have reached my time commitment.

All internet games are not for everyone. There is a time commitment for all of them. If the one you're playing requires more time than you have, or are willing to give, find another one.

World of Warcraft seems like nightmare to me. I have zero minutes logged in.

If I spend more than 15 minutes, it's just me over-obsessing. Agreed with Mike - if the time commitment starts to feel like a job, it's time to cut back.

Posted by cwisniewski on 12/21/2016 9:58:00 AM (view original):
We understand that scouting takes more time than it did in HD 2.0 and that is because there really wasn't any scouting besides FSS, which only required you to select a few states. Scouting in HD 3.0 is much more intensive and is now a much larger part of the game and that is why we give you plenty of time to scout before any recruiting actually starts.

So you are correct that scouting takes longer than the previous but the biggest issue may be that you are trying to do all of your scouting at one time. There is a reason the scouting period is so long and that is because our idea was that each user could spend 10-15 minutes scouting each day (obviously you can spend however much time you want, but this is what we had in mind). If you do this, you will realize that scouting is not really time consuming and that you have plenty of time to scout any number of recruits to any level that you want by only spending a few minutes here and there per day (like MikeT said).

Ugh. This is the exact problem. If I was single and didnt have a lot of other responsibilities, I'm sure I'd love it. But, I'm not. Not so coincidentally, I prefer 2.0 > 3.0.

I like HD. But I want zero part of 10-15 minutes a day.

I cant imagine doing scouting 10 minutes a day over many days

a big part of deciding how deep to go scouting any particular recruit is evaluating comparisons between possible recruits. Since I rely on mental comparisons of plausible recruits, no way I could keep them in mind over many days. One could create a note taking scheme of an XLS to compare, but any such scheme - for me - would be burdensome or very rough

I can do an hour of first cut work, then and hour of second cut and some further bits and pieces of scouting, but for me 10 sessions of 10 minutes each would be awful

now thats just me - but I confess, I'm surprised that folks are able to retain comparison info effectively over a large number of sessions.

to each his own

I guess I'm failing to understand your issue. I'm using the color coded dots to retain comparisons. Admittedly, it takes me a few seconds to remember why this guy is blue and that guy is green but it's not mind-numbing deep thought to figure it out.

The dots are fine.

I try to compare guys beyond sorting into five buckets.

I'm probably missing something. First, let's be clear that I'm not being an ***. I'm hoping I can learn something. Maybe you can tell me what I'm missing.

Here's what I did(am doing):
Pick a level and a state using the scouting service.
I now have a group that only has 6 letter grades.

At this point, maybe I only want to look at PG with a WE of B or better so I sort PG/WE from the recruit pool.
I check which ones I want more info on and scout to level 2.

Now I know their preferences, have 14 letter grades and their O/D.
I give a dot to the ones that match up to my team.

Then, if I have time, I decide which ones I want to go to level 3.
If I don't have time, I come back and sort by dots from recruit pool.
Then I change the dot color if needed.

Lets talk just about guards, for example

The core of what I am saying is that it isnt a question only of putting guard recruits into four buckets. For example -

guys who are ready soon (but with lower ceilings) vs guys who wont be useful until they take advantage of their potential

early v late signers

guys who will be great perimeter shooters but limited in other ways

guys who dont shoot well at all, but otherwise are excellent guards

guys who lack some important guard skills but could be excellent players at the 3 - or a step away from that guys who wont ever be excellent but who could be nice backups at the 3 and the 2.

Thats what comes to mind quickly. I have a hard time putting players in four or five buckets based on that.

Then, add the fact that if pickings are slim on some need - say I need a guard or I need a guard who can shoot - then I'll need to adjust what I think of as acceptable

I try to think about this stuff as I scout - but I cant do it effectively in 10 minute bits. Some folks probably can.

Thats the sort of stuff that leads me think that I need to scouting without breaking up the effort into too many segments.

I think it's just a different way of doing things. Perhaps, because I didn't play 2.0, it was easier for me to adapt to the scouting process in 3.0.

I just pulled up my dotted PG(8). I can make all those comparisons you listed at a glance.

By that, I mean that popping in for 5 minutes to scout doesn't seem awkward or cumbersome.

Easy answer - more dots. My top priorities will be Cyan dots.

Having additional colors for the "dots" would be helpful. However, I still believe (as I have mentioned numerous times in this forum as well as during Beta) that the Recruiting Home pages should be SORTABLE!

Posted by bfflcommish on 12/26/2016 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Having additional colors for the "dots" would be helpful. However, I still believe (as I have mentioned numerous times in this forum as well as during Beta) that the Recruiting Home pages should be SORTABLE!

+1.

and allow us to add recruits to the compare option tool from the home page. Not from the recruit pool page.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/26/2016 10:06:00 AM (view original):
I think it's just a different way of doing things. Perhaps, because I didn't play 2.0, it was easier for me to adapt to the scouting process in 3.0.

I just pulled up my dotted PG(8). I can make all those comparisons you listed at a glance.

You are smarter than me.