Posted by Animal7 on 2/14/2019 2:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by npb7768 on 2/13/2019 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 2/13/2019 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Great points npb! Certainly nothing asinine about recruiting now.
The level of asinine-ness in 2.0 was off the charts.
Recruiting issues in 3.0 are correctable... (1) expand the Considering List beyond only 10 schools... (2) maybe increase the percentage of signability to say 35% or 40%.... (3) EE's i have no problem with. Either adjust Session One targeting strategies, or limit the amount of probable EE's you sign. Anytime i sign a Top 20 recruit, i expect him to leave after 3 years.
Those are things you can adjust for, generally.
2.0 had impossible hurdles... every Illinois and Georgia Tech team in each World had basically $450,000 to work with, compared to $32k for a typical D1 team... Ga Tech just selected their players.
Actually, it's more crazy in 3.0. I'm at Arizona St. in a world and have lost to Div. 2 teams for recruits and constantly lose dice rolls (latest being a 69-31 my advantage) to teams in weaker conferences with many times also lower prestige. At least in 2.0, I could get players in the top 15 in their position. With 3.0, you're just hoping you could land someone in top 25 in their position. Phoenix area in my world has maybe only had 1 guy eligible to play right away in top recruits and even then the guy's preferences gave me no chance at winning the guy. They give you way too much scouting money in 3.0, which makes you wish you could transfer to actual recruiting money since you constantly run out of it. Actually, the rollover money actually didn't help much as I still had to watch out for the higher prestige players and they sometimes would put me on even ground with those that got less than me. In 2.0, I could field a team the way I wanted. In 3.0, that's impossible. One moment, I have no PG's and loaded at PF's. 2 seasons later, I'm loaded at PG and have no PF's. Silliest part is the easiest position in real life to get a player is the hardest to get one in WIS: small forward. In 2.0, upsets rarely happen. In 3.0, you can count on one to completely wreck your season and you might actually nearly die of shock if you're the one that does pull off the upset. Also, ridiculous in 3.0 is the fact you wouldn't want to go up to a more prestigious conference in Div. 1 as you do lose most of the dice rolls. Just saying 2.0 was way better and I have hoped for way too long that they'd come out with a 4.0 that combines the good parts of 2.0 with the few good parts of 3.0 while making changes to both that would make the game fun for people. A college who has high interest from a recruit should never beat a college in which the recruit shows very high interest. That is the topper of ridiculousness and a very good reason why I'm seriously considering stopping play this game.
1) With equal effort, preferences, and promises, a team about 2 full letter grades below you can generally just barely sneak into signing range. So if you’re at C- or better in D1, and you lose to lower division schools, it’s because of prioritization. You aren’t investing much. He’s a top priority for the D2, and an afterthought for you. You can’t have everything you want, you have to make choices, you have to prioritize. The people who have the real problem with this part of 3.0 simply don’t understand what that means.
2) Just about everything about this rant tells us you’re still trying to play 2.0. Hoarding resources is not the game anymore. Concepts like rollover and transferring money don’t exist, and aren’t coming back. It’s a commodity game, as with 2.0, but now the market is rational, and harder to manipulate. Scarcity is a real thing you have to deal with. You may not like it, depending on how you feel about competitiveness, but that’s the game that exists.
3) You can field the team you want, if your expectations are reasonable. It’s not reasonable to expect 20 teams in a world to divide up all the top 100 players every year. Real life doesn’t work like that, and a good competitive game should *never* Work like that. Every team (even UK) has to to deal with players who choose to go somewhere else. Every team has to prioritize. If battling for recruits bothers you, aim lower. You don’t need 12 early entry candidate players on your team to compete. You don’t need any, really. If you’re only going after “the best of the best”, you’re going to lose a lot of them, and have to play with lots of walkons sometimes. Valid strategy, and you can make it work, but you have to make choices, you can’t have it both ways. And most importantly,
every coach is dealing with the same set of challenges. The coaches beating you aren’t just lucky.
4) Dice rolls don’t exist (a recruit’s decision is based on probabilistic random number generator), but I know what you mean. The idea that probability outcomes are negatively affected by higher level conferences is just absurd. A 69-31 battle has the same odds, regardless of the conferences teams are in - in any 69-31 battle, the team on the lower end will win roughly 31% of the time.
5) You have interest backward. It’s a common mistake, one spread by folks with a toxic negativity about this game. And WIS could certainly present the concept better (and stop showing the signing odds at the end, which only promotes the misunderstanding). But it’s important to understand the game that exists, if you want to enjoy it. Say the final odds had you ahead in signing odds 75-25, but you lost the recruit. In that misinterpretation, the recruit “likes” you and your school more, way more, like 3 times as much! Right? No. Signing odds don’t tell you anything other than the probability framework in which the recruit made his decision. There is no more “word on the street” that tells you what the recruit is thinking. The signing odds are basically some 3rd party publication speculating on what they thought would happen, based on how much interest *the schools* were showing the recruit - in other words, it’s about amassing effort credit. Interest is a rough barometer for how much effort credit you have stored, relative to other teams. Do you have enough effort credit for him to consider a scholarship? For him to accept promises? Do visits? It isn’t the recruit’s interest in you, it’s how much effort credit you’re getting, how much you’re investing, how high a priority he is for you, relative to other schools.
What WIS did with 3.0 was essentially keep the commodity game aspect of recruiting (which is too bad, IMO, but a different topic), but make it based on a wider range of probability. They widened the window on who can challenge for a recruit, so there is more incentive for teams to take risks and challenge, and less incentive to duck out of battles. So it’s more probabilistic, and less deterministic, which means it’s more competitive, and more fun for people who like competitive multi-player games. But it’s less fun for people who don’t like uncertainty and ambiguity, folks who want a one-path game, when the process can be known and hacked.
2/14/2019 8:58 AM (edited)