Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2016 8:03:00 AM (view original):
"Most don't waste the time and resources trying to catch up..."

To the extent that this is true - and I suspect you are vastly overstating the case here - it's a product of the "most" still learning how to play the new version. I agree with you and zhawks, there is no need to disregard players you like based on preferences, especially if they are local and you are willing and able to go all-in with recruiting effort. Likewise, there is no need for a team to disregard a player 4 or 5 or 10 cycles in because someone else has him "locked up". If that other team has a big enough prestige/distance/preference advantage, obviously you have to exercise some discernment. But there is no reason to be so timid as to not even try to get a player you like.

The previous version of this game incentivized timidness and risk aversion, because if you figured or guessed wrong and came up on the 49 side of a 51-49 battle, you had 0 chance of getting the player. Now you don't have to "beat" your rival in effort to have a chance. The final effort tally isn't the end of the game. So to say outright that "the previous system was actually better at promoting battles" is simply ludicrous.

"Locked up" is a subjective discussion. It varies world to
world and region to region, etc. I'd think that most of us inderstand the recruiting in the area and can make educated decisions based on whether a guy will be more highly sought after. If that's the case and I have bad preferences then yes I'd pass early and keep my eye on him.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2016 8:27:00 AM (view original):
OK, let's not pretend each player is unique. If one believe a point or two in ATH or DEF turns a player from legit recruit to crap, I think one needs to re-evaluate their parameters. This has been a HBD argument since it's inception.

So, assuming no one is saying "I like that guy a little but he'd be a tremendously different player if his ATH was 51 instead of 48", the reason I disregard players with more red preferences than green is simple. They're similar and, if I have to battle for one, I'd rather fight for the one whose preferences are aligned with my team.

It's not like, if I lose my guy, I can't go back to players.

That said, maybe this is why I don't find scouting all that time-consuming. I'm not scouting 103 players to L3 or L4. Of course, I still have plenty of scouting money so maybe I will when all is said and done. But I don't think it's necessary in session one.

When I'm saying different I'm not talking in initial ratings, I am talking in potential. Sure initial ratings do matter but 95% of my recruiting decisions in regards to building my priority list is based on the players potential.

So you go level 3 on anyone who might interest you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2016 8:41:00 AM (view original):
So you go level 3 on anyone who might interest you?

Yes and for a vast majority level 4. I'd say I only weed out 10-15% of those I start scouting based on level 3.0% based on level 2.

You're not talking about D3, right? I don't think I have the scouting budget to go that deep on that many.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):
You're not talking about D3, right? I don't think I have the scouting budget to go that deep on that many.

No I mentioned that before, some of what I say may need to be with some grain of salt as I haven't coached at d3 in eons. Maybe I need to pickup a team when a world rolls.

That said I am fairly picky with Work Ethic and rarely even begin scouting anyone with an F which saves some money (30 is my min for WE). Also I usually decide prior to recruiting if I even want to consider an ineligible or not.

OK, we're talking the same game but different levels/scouting dollars. Yeah, I'd love to go L3 on 100 players but I'd need 2-3x my budget. I think I'm L3 on 27 and L4 on 10, IIRC. I've saved enough cash to dig into the other 31 I've got at L2 or explore more options.

Mike, I have a DIII team now and while I don't get everyone, I get enough. You should shorten your range or number of players you're scouting to get to higher levels. Potential can be huge at the DIII levels. Currently I'm only scouting DI and DII players with my DIII team at 300 miles or less. Even that is more than my budget will allow me to unlock, but it's a fairly high populated area.

As we're in scouting right now(obviously) and I know several of my leaguemates read the forums, I can't tell everything I'm doing. But, once it's over, I'll provide more details.

Posted by poncho0091 on 12/30/2016 6:21:00 AM (view original):
Mike, I have a DIII team now and while I don't get everyone, I get enough. You should shorten your range or number of players you're scouting to get to higher levels. Potential can be huge at the DIII levels. Currently I'm only scouting DI and DII players with my DIII team at 300 miles or less. Even that is more than my budget will allow me to unlock, but it's a fairly high populated area.

This was kind of my thought as well... But having not done d3 I didn't want to speak too much to it.

I think this is all kind of pushing me to get another team in d3 and see how it goes.....

Posted by zhawks on 12/30/2016 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 12/30/2016 6:21:00 AM (view original):
Mike, I have a DIII team now and while I don't get everyone, I get enough. You should shorten your range or number of players you're scouting to get to higher levels. Potential can be huge at the DIII levels. Currently I'm only scouting DI and DII players with my DIII team at 300 miles or less. Even that is more than my budget will allow me to unlock, but it's a fairly high populated area.

This was kind of my thought as well... But having not done d3 I didn't want to speak too much to it.

I think this is all kind of pushing me to get another team in d3 and see how it goes.....

I got a d3 team in rupp you should give it a try with the new "allocating budget" format. I screwed up my first recruiting session with scouting money. but I developed backup options since I am in New Jersey I don't have to go to far which is nice.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2016 8:03:00 AM (view original):
"Most don't waste the time and resources trying to catch up..."

To the extent that this is true - and I suspect you are vastly overstating the case here - it's a product of the "most" still learning how to play the new version. I agree with you and zhawks, there is no need to disregard players you like based on preferences, especially if they are local and you are willing and able to go all-in with recruiting effort. Likewise, there is no need for a team to disregard a player 4 or 5 or 10 cycles in because someone else has him "locked up". If that other team has a big enough prestige/distance/preference advantage, obviously you have to exercise some discernment. But there is no reason to be so timid as to not even try to get a player you like.

The previous version of this game incentivized timidness and risk aversion, because if you figured or guessed wrong and came up on the 49 side of a 51-49 battle, you had 0 chance of getting the player. Now you don't have to "beat" your rival in effort to have a chance. The final effort tally isn't the end of the game. So to say outright that "the previous system was actually better at promoting battles" is simply ludicrous.

I disagree with your assessment here and think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say in regards to catching up. Understand, I'm not saying disregard a guy who is 1 or 2 cycles in, and I'm not saying a team should disregard a player for 4 or 5 or 10 cycles, because the player is locked up. I'm stating that the other team is already invested 4 or 5 or 10 cycles, which typically means the player is likely locked up. Knowing you still have to unlock actions, this may take 2-5 cycles. If it's a better recruit, it may take more APs which now means I have to put less priority on other recruits just to catch up to unlock recruiting actions. So now we are not just talking about 5 cycles that you are catching up. You are now talking about the original 5 cycles, plus the amount of cycles of APs you'll need just to unlock recruiting actions, plus still overcoming the APs and recruiting actions that the other team has invested while you were trying to catch up. You're doing all this while hoping the recruit doesn't sign before you ever get a chance to use recruiting actions. This is in itself a deterrent to coming into a battle. Unless the recruit has a late preference, or a scholarship hasn't been offered, I look for better options to recruit. This is all the reason to not go after a player you like.

In 2.0, I would wait for the WOTS which would give me an idea of how hard he's recruiting the player. I would be encouraged to challenge that person simply because I know I can catch up based on the resources I have and that time would not be a limiting factor. The only risk aversion in 2.0 was at high DI which we all agree had issues.

Revisiting this as I'm much deeper in.

First, I'm better at HD than when this thread started just as I said I would be. So take that, haters.

Second, I still use the same scouting process. The time commitment hasn't changed despite better results with my original team.

Finally, with a D2 team, I can see how time can pile up. You have a lot more scouting money. You can be a little "free" with your budget. I managed to lock down my main targets in the same time frame as D3. Had a lot left over. Spent a solid hour last night digging deeper. Found two guys I liked better than the handful I'd found using my "normal" procedure. Alas, it was all for nothing. D1 teams showed at 11 and offered to early signers.

I imagine, with D1 money, you could have a bigger time commitment. But, with the smaller pool of "acceptable" players, maybe not. I spent a lot of time last night finding guys I couldn't acquire. I guess, at D1, I know right away I don't WANT to acquire guys.

1) To be fair, you are still pretty mediocre.

2) Are you using camps, state scouting, or assistant visits? There is a lot of value to be found in using the money correctly to gather as many recruits under your umbrella as possible and then scout selected ones up.

There's also a huge penalty in 3.0 for rescinding a scholly that wasn't there in 2.0-- makes it tough to fall back to a guy in certain circumstances. Have to be way more careful where you throw schollies, and the vision of whether an offer is out or not changes that competitively, too. (I think this is an improvement, but it can make more work).

Posted by zhawks on 12/29/2016 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):
You're not talking about D3, right? I don't think I have the scouting budget to go that deep on that many.

No I mentioned that before, some of what I say may need to be with some grain of salt as I haven't coached at d3 in eons. Maybe I need to pickup a team when a world rolls.

That said I am fairly picky with Work Ethic and rarely even begin scouting anyone with an F which saves some money (30 is my min for WE). Also I usually decide prior to recruiting if I even want to consider an ineligible or not.

Yeah. I am like Z, F WE, it's a no go unless the guy is B+ overall and up. And I tend to keep more money with the same trick, level 3. It tells me what to expect at level 4... and if I need to pay. It works well, D2 and D3. I never fo private camps nor do I attend one.