Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 8:50:00 PM (view original):
"But they now need to worry about me and my D prestige NMSU team because I can now beat them. They can't just coast along. I think we all agree on this right?"

No, for a player that they've prioritized, you can't roll with UCLA or Stanford, not for a guy they really want. Not as a D. They will knock you the * out, if they want him enough, and have prioritized him high enough.

Now if no one above you has your plan A as their plan A, congrats, you will probably get him, or at least get in range. That's the game. And as long as effort is part of the game - and believe me, I would love it if they removed effort and cash - the effort has to mean something.

A C+ can match an A+'s almost full max effort, so Benis is not that far off in his example at all.

Success in D1 should be hard. Sustained success in D1 should be even harder.

People severely undervalue those AP points. There is a reason they scaled back from a max of 140 AP to a max of 80.

Posted by jpmills3 on 1/5/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 8:50:00 PM (view original):
"But they now need to worry about me and my D prestige NMSU team because I can now beat them. They can't just coast along. I think we all agree on this right?"

No, for a player that they've prioritized, you can't roll with UCLA or Stanford, not for a guy they really want. Not as a D. They will knock you the * out, if they want him enough, and have prioritized him high enough.

Now if no one above you has your plan A as their plan A, congrats, you will probably get him, or at least get in range. That's the game. And as long as effort is part of the game - and believe me, I would love it if they removed effort and cash - the effort has to mean something.

A C+ can match an A+'s almost full max effort, so Benis is not that far off in his example at all.

2 full letter grades - within the same division - is the cusp of signing range, assuming same effort, promises. and neutral preference match. A C+ can't "match" the A+, though they can occasionally get in signing range (very low end of high), depending on preferences and AP utilization. But I've also been knocked out of signing range (down to moderate) with full effort and promises and a neutral preference profile, as a D+ by a B+. Not all teams with the same prestige are equal, which explains why some can stay in signing range, and some can't.

Posted by kashmir75 on 1/5/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):
People severely undervalue those AP points. There is a reason they scaled back from a max of 140 AP to a max of 80.

People are just as likely to overvalue them. They're weighted by things like prestige, and how well your preferences match, and people forget that. We know they're weighted, because it takes higher prestige and better preference matching teams many fewer APs to unlock scholarships and actions. 40 APs from an A+ D1 with a good preference profile is going to be worth far more than 40 points from average teams. Of course there is a reason they capped APs, but it's not really because they're all so super-powerful. If that was the case, the simplest answer would have just been to make them less powerful.

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/5/2017 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I don't assume anything about Benis' team because I don't pay any attention to him or his team.

I have always thought "Benis" was a typo.

Since it seems so important to Benis to be a big man on the forums, I'll stop correcting him and leave him be wrong. He tries so hard and seems to think his name-calling is so clever. His ego seems fragile.

Happy New Year.

Ha. About what I expected.

Happy New Year to you too potato.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/5/2017 5:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kashmir75 on 1/5/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):
People severely undervalue those AP points. There is a reason they scaled back from a max of 140 AP to a max of 80.

People are just as likely to overvalue them. They're weighted by things like prestige, and how well your preferences match, and people forget that. We know they're weighted, because it takes higher prestige and better preference matching teams many fewer APs to unlock scholarships and actions. 40 APs from an A+ D1 with a good preference profile is going to be worth far more than 40 points from average teams. Of course there is a reason they capped APs, but it's not really because they're all so super-powerful. If that was the case, the simplest answer would have just been to make them less powerful.

IMO, they should make APs far less powerful -- worth a fraction of what they are now. I recall hearing from seble that one of the reasons for changing to 3.0 was that in 2.0, a team with 6 schollys could just overpower a team with 1 open scholly. The current valuation of APs has the same effect (albeit not as pronounced). Reducing the AP value (but keeping the "unlocking" mechanism) would also go a long way to solving the EE issues that many DI coaches have been complaining about, as a 500 AP headstart wouldn't be nearly as difficult to overcome.

Success at D1 should be hard. Sustained success at D1 should be even harder.

Posted by johnsensing on 1/5/2017 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/5/2017 5:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kashmir75 on 1/5/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):
People severely undervalue those AP points. There is a reason they scaled back from a max of 140 AP to a max of 80.

People are just as likely to overvalue them. They're weighted by things like prestige, and how well your preferences match, and people forget that. We know they're weighted, because it takes higher prestige and better preference matching teams many fewer APs to unlock scholarships and actions. 40 APs from an A+ D1 with a good preference profile is going to be worth far more than 40 points from average teams. Of course there is a reason they capped APs, but it's not really because they're all so super-powerful. If that was the case, the simplest answer would have just been to make them less powerful.

IMO, they should make APs far less powerful -- worth a fraction of what they are now. I recall hearing from seble that one of the reasons for changing to 3.0 was that in 2.0, a team with 6 schollys could just overpower a team with 1 open scholly. The current valuation of APs has the same effect (albeit not as pronounced). Reducing the AP value (but keeping the "unlocking" mechanism) would also go a long way to solving the EE issues that many DI coaches have been complaining about, as a 500 AP headstart wouldn't be nearly as difficult to overcome.

They capped HVs. Why not cap APs? As in total APs.

Not that I'm saying they SHOULD do that. I support removing the caps.

Yeah, I think that's an accurate statement too. My point was more geared towards the gist of this post though, 520 AP points isn't really all that hard to overcome. It makes for a more committed investment to do so now, but before they scaled the max back to 80 I was easily able to overcome numerous D1 sims on 4 seperate recruits, as well as a few D2 humans who weren't overly invested, in the rollout season. I'm not sure a D3 school should ever be able to do that. Recruit preferrences and other factors most certainly played along well for those recruits I targeted too. The general gist I get in most of these forum posts is that Division and prestige are still thought to be superior above all else and I just don't think that's as accurate as it once was. I don't for a second think I could overcome a committed human D1 powerhouse, but I do think D1 Simmy isn't all that tough.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/5/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Success at D1 should be hard. Sustained success at D1 should be even harder.

You should get this tattooed on your chest.

Right next to 'thug life'.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/5/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Success at D1 should be hard. Sustained success at D1 should be even harder.

This is a meaningless comment, which you've now made multiple times. By that token, if you win an NT at DI, your entire roster should go pro, since "sustained success at DI should be even harder." You and I have gone back and forth on this in a few threads, but presumably WIS' goal should be to use artificial means to make the game as realistic as possible without completely sacrificing playability (I'd argue that 3.0 fails completely at this goal -- and indeed, I have my suspicions that at DI, that may not have been the goal at all -- but in any event, that particular ship has sailed). I argued that the way APs are set up does not further that goal, in that it: (a) advantages (in all divisions) teams with more open scholarships at the expense of those with fewer; and (b) exacerbates (in DI) the EE problem. If you disagree with that, great, but you're smart enough to come with an actual argument rather than that garbage.

Posted by kashmir75 on 1/5/2017 6:15:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I think that's an accurate statement too. My point was more geared towards the gist of this post though, 520 AP points isn't really all that hard to overcome. It makes for a more committed investment to do so now, but before they scaled the max back to 80 I was easily able to overcome numerous D1 sims on 4 seperate recruits, as well as a few D2 humans who weren't overly invested, in the rollout season. I'm not sure a D3 school should ever be able to do that. Recruit preferrences and other factors most certainly played along well for those recruits I targeted too. The general gist I get in most of these forum posts is that Division and prestige are still thought to be superior above all else and I just don't think that's as accurate as it once was. I don't for a second think I could overcome a committed human D1 powerhouse, but I do think D1 Simmy isn't all that tough.

Totally agree. Well said.

Posted by johnsensing on 1/5/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/5/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Success at D1 should be hard. Sustained success at D1 should be even harder.

This is a meaningless comment, which you've now made multiple times. By that token, if you win an NT at DI, your entire roster should go pro, since "sustained success at DI should be even harder." You and I have gone back and forth on this in a few threads, but presumably WIS' goal should be to use artificial means to make the game as realistic as possible without completely sacrificing playability (I'd argue that 3.0 fails completely at this goal -- and indeed, I have my suspicions that at DI, that may not have been the goal at all -- but in any event, that particular ship has sailed). I argued that the way APs are set up does not further that goal, in that it: (a) advantages (in all divisions) teams with more open scholarships at the expense of those with fewer; and (b) exacerbates (in DI) the EE problem. If you disagree with that, great, but you're smart enough to come with an actual argument rather than that garbage.

You overestimate my intelligence.

But, truth is, the forums have come full circle over the last couple of months. It's boring. I started reading this forum late OCT/early NOV. It was all ******** about D1 EE being too difficult to overcome. I kept my yap shut because I really didn't know anything. But, after reading long enough, D1 was more than willing to transfer their problem to D2. I spoke up, argued for awhile, explained that it's not Duke vs some unknown D2 but User A vs User B. Many suggestions have been posted since, some good, some stupid, some by me which I have no doubt were more stupid than good. But, over the last week or so, it's been "D1 is too hard", "I lost more battles", "This would never happen in real life", whine, whine, whine. I did my absolute best to avoid these threads. But that's all there is again. I'm bored with it so I figured nonsensical repetition was in order.

My guess it's the same people, under the new world cycle, rehashing the same crap. But that doesn't make it more tolerable.

Posted by Benis on 1/5/2017 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/5/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Success at D1 should be hard. Sustained success at D1 should be even harder.

You should get this tattooed on your chest.

Right next to 'thug life'.

Who says I don't already have it?