Posted by pallas on 3/6/2019 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 6:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/6/2019 6:26:00 AM (view original):
Go for it. YOLO.

you ever use YOLO on here again, I'm going to find you and kick your ***, Benis.

I paid to watch Mayweather - McGregor. And I'll pay to watch this.

It'd be a better fight.

I fight dirty. Come at you like a tornado made of arms and teeth and fingernails.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/5/2019 11:57:00 PM (view original):
Success/rebuild is the most impactful preference; distance is the only one in its league, from what I’ve seen (playing time is a different animal altogether). The neutral in long time coach won’t hurt him nearly as much as the good vs very bad advantage he’ll have in rebuild. He likely won’t be able to win without battle, because high prestige teams can compete for anyone, given enough resources. There will certainly be a battle, and it’s likely he’ll end up behind. But he won’t get shut out, unless he’s timid with the AP and effort. When you are C- and have a chance to get in on a shake with this kind of guy, gotta take it.

Not sure I agree with this. It's a very high risk for one piece of the puzzle. From the tests I've done, longevity is extremely important.

Have to agree with wizard here. Success preference isn't going to overcome other meatier factors.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/6/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/5/2019 11:57:00 PM (view original):
Success/rebuild is the most impactful preference; distance is the only one in its league, from what I’ve seen (playing time is a different animal altogether). The neutral in long time coach won’t hurt him nearly as much as the good vs very bad advantage he’ll have in rebuild. He likely won’t be able to win without battle, because high prestige teams can compete for anyone, given enough resources. There will certainly be a battle, and it’s likely he’ll end up behind. But he won’t get shut out, unless he’s timid with the AP and effort. When you are C- and have a chance to get in on a shake with this kind of guy, gotta take it.

Not sure I agree with this. It's a very high risk for one piece of the puzzle. From the tests I've done, longevity is extremely important.

Have to agree with wizard here. Success preference isn't going to overcome other meatier factors.

Depends on what you mean by overcome. If you mean keep an elite team with equivalent effort at moderate, well of course not. If you mean have a better than even shot against an elite team with equivalent effort, most likely not (unless other preferences also tip the scales).

If you mean you will have a chance at signing the player, absolutely. Even if it’s just a 1 in 3 chance, it’s a decent shot, one very much worth taking if you’re sitting at C-, IMO.

Prioritization also factors in, which is why if he’s going to go for it, he should go all the way. With 6 scholarships, he’ll be in a good position to still line up at least 2-3 players to keep the team afloat should he swing and miss here. And those 2-3 players, call them moderately better than replacement level, will hurt his team a lot less than they’ll hurt the A+ teams thinking about championships next year; same for promises to this player. There are a lot of circumstances that could swing this in his favor, perhaps even detract others from going after the guy after a few cycles.

HD 3.0 D1 tends to reward the bold; it’s not a game for the meek. As long as you’re smart about it and take calculated risks rather than foolishness with no shot at payoff, I will usually encourage boldness.

I don't agree that a C- team could get to high with equivalent effort based on the preferences he listed, but let's say for arguments sake you "could" be right.

1. Getting to high against an A+ team is a risk in itself and that's not even getting to the signing odds. And that's assuming there is only one other team battling for that player.

2. Let's say by miracle he does get him. The #1 player overall is more than likely going to be a 2 year player anyway. I would rather invest in a high potential, four year player that would possibly get close to most of those ratings by his senior year and he'll end up with a higher IQ compared to the player that was going to stay for only 2 years anyway.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that a C- team could get to high with equivalent effort based on the preferences he listed, but let's say for arguments sake you "could" be right.

1. Getting to high against an A+ team is a risk in itself and that's not even getting to the signing odds. And that's assuming there is only one other team battling for that player.

2. Let's say by miracle he does get him. The #1 player overall is more than likely going to be a 2 year player anyway. I would rather invest in a high potential, four year player that would possibly get close to most of those ratings by his senior year and he'll end up with a higher IQ compared to the player that was going to stay for only 2 years anyway.

Grain of salt with all of this, for full disclosure - wiz left A+ baseline Kansas, with a championship caliber team *because he was irritated at all the battles he was losing*. So he knows as well as anyone that winning a recruit from “behind” is far from a “miracle”. In fact, it is pretty easy to infer here that his advice is stemming in large part from the way he would like folks to play the game, not based on how the game actually works.

As for #2, the same principle applies to A+ programs. It is even amplified, because the team’s success also factors in to the player’s decision - if Louisville is still a PIT team his Sophomore-Junior seasons, he’s less likely to leave. If he goes to an A+ team gunning for titles, it’s true, he’s most likely gone by Junior year, quite possibly before. This becomes another reason for the lower prestige team to be bold. Back to prioritization. Is an A+ caliber team going to want to throw all its AP and make promises to a player who is a 2-and-done?

James Allen is a pretty good positive example. Top 15 OVR, if I recall, and was the best “wants rebuild” in my region. UConn was C+ because of the high baseline, but we were also good for wants rebuild. National champion (multiple times) Vermont was on him early, and some other A level team I don’t recall (maybe Cuse). No one ended up seriously challenging me for him, and I didn’t have 6 scholarships, nor did I invest everything I had in him. He was in the low 80s on the big board most of his junior season, and unsurprisingly stuck around.

It is by no means a slam dunk that other higher level teams will dig in and challenge, if OP prioritizes his target high early. And even if they do, early promises, overall preference advantage, and *consistent AP* will keep him in range, regardless of what they do. That’s the whole purpose of having a “wants rebuild” in the game design, to give these types of teams a shot at some of these types of players.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2019 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that a C- team could get to high with equivalent effort based on the preferences he listed, but let's say for arguments sake you "could" be right.

1. Getting to high against an A+ team is a risk in itself and that's not even getting to the signing odds. And that's assuming there is only one other team battling for that player.

2. Let's say by miracle he does get him. The #1 player overall is more than likely going to be a 2 year player anyway. I would rather invest in a high potential, four year player that would possibly get close to most of those ratings by his senior year and he'll end up with a higher IQ compared to the player that was going to stay for only 2 years anyway.

Grain of salt with all of this, for full disclosure - wiz left A+ baseline Kansas, with a championship caliber team *because he was irritated at all the battles he was losing*. So he knows as well as anyone that winning a recruit from “behind” is far from a “miracle”. In fact, it is pretty easy to infer here that his advice is stemming in large part from the way he would like folks to play the game, not based on how the game actually works.

As for #2, the same principle applies to A+ programs. It is even amplified, because the team’s success also factors in to the player’s decision - if Louisville is still a PIT team his Sophomore-Junior seasons, he’s less likely to leave. If he goes to an A+ team gunning for titles, it’s true, he’s most likely gone by Junior year, quite possibly before. This becomes another reason for the lower prestige team to be bold. Back to prioritization. Is an A+ caliber team going to want to throw all its AP and make promises to a player who is a 2-and-done?

That might be an all time low for you shoe. My battles, which I was in the high 60s and low 70s for signing odds were against A- prestige teams.

You seem to be blinded by the fact that the value of prestige hasn't changed from 2.0 to 3.0.

Great, congrats on picking out one example out of 1,000 highly ranked players.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2019 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that a C- team could get to high with equivalent effort based on the preferences he listed, but let's say for arguments sake you "could" be right.

1. Getting to high against an A+ team is a risk in itself and that's not even getting to the signing odds. And that's assuming there is only one other team battling for that player.

2. Let's say by miracle he does get him. The #1 player overall is more than likely going to be a 2 year player anyway. I would rather invest in a high potential, four year player that would possibly get close to most of those ratings by his senior year and he'll end up with a higher IQ compared to the player that was going to stay for only 2 years anyway.

Grain of salt with all of this, for full disclosure - wiz left A+ baseline Kansas, with a championship caliber team *because he was irritated at all the battles he was losing*. So he knows as well as anyone that winning a recruit from “behind” is far from a “miracle”. In fact, it is pretty easy to infer here that his advice is stemming in large part from the way he would like folks to play the game, not based on how the game actually works.

As for #2, the same principle applies to A+ programs. It is even amplified, because the team’s success also factors in to the player’s decision - if Louisville is still a PIT team his Sophomore-Junior seasons, he’s less likely to leave. If he goes to an A+ team gunning for titles, it’s true, he’s most likely gone by Junior year, quite possibly before. This becomes another reason for the lower prestige team to be bold. Back to prioritization. Is an A+ caliber team going to want to throw all its AP and make promises to a player who is a 2-and-done?

That might be an all time low for you shoe. My battles, which I was in the high 60s and low 70s for signing odds were against A- prestige teams.

You seem to be blinded by the fact that the value of prestige hasn't changed from 2.0 to 3.0.

Great, congrats on picking out one example out of 1,000 highly ranked players.

Lol. The point is that you claim to have lost all these battles in a row where you were very high vs high. And now you’re turning around and telling this guy not to bother trying for a “miracle”. It doesn’t matter who you were battling; what matters are the final odds, and the point is that you should know how 3.0 works. You don’t have to be in the lead to win a recruit, and it doesn’t take a miracle win from behind. He just has to get in range. And there are all sorts of scenarios where he gets in range, yes even if an A+ team meets him with effort (and there are lots of reasons to believe that might not happen). The standard range for equal credit is about 2 full letter grades, that’s if preferences and effort is equal. No one is going to beat OP on overall preferences (I mean sure, you might have a team with a coach who has been mediocre for a long time... but they’re not going to have a prestige advantage, so it’s moot). And with 6 scholarship, he has the resources to run with anyone on effort. Prestige is powerful, but as I said, the “wants rebuild” preference is specifically designed to mitigate that power for this set of recruits, so if he *wasnt* able to get in range on equal effort, I think that would be considered a design flaw. From what I’ve seen, he will get in range. *If* an A+ meets him in effort, priority and promise, he might be behind in the 65-35 arena. That’s still a 1 in 3 shot, and at C-, that’s a shot worth taking.

I landed the #1 C in the country against 2 other A+ prestige schools when I was a C- program because preferences matched well with me. I certainly didn't have anything close to 80 APs/cycle on the guy. My goal was to get within signing range, I did (around 20%, if I recall correctly) and won the recruit. I'm of the opinion trying for guys like this (without decimating the rest of your class) is the way to go. Landing a program-changer at a smaller school is 5x more impactful than an A+ school landing this guy. And yeah, they might leave early but if they're a top 5 pick you get a prestige bump the following season.

“The meek shall inherit the earth, but not its (elite simulated college basketball players).”
J. Paul Getty (paraphrasing)

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/6/2019 10:58:00 PM (view original):
I landed the #1 C in the country against 2 other A+ prestige schools when I was a C- program because preferences matched well with me. I certainly didn't have anything close to 80 APs/cycle on the guy. My goal was to get within signing range, I did (around 20%, if I recall correctly) and won the recruit. I'm of the opinion trying for guys like this (without decimating the rest of your class) is the way to go. Landing a program-changer at a smaller school is 5x more impactful than an A+ school landing this guy. And yeah, they might leave early but if they're a top 5 pick you get a prestige bump the following season.

I'm not saying it's 100% impossible for a C prestige team to land a top recruit. It depends on the amount of effort the A prestige team is putting in, Preferences do matter and maybe that C- team "may" have a chance, but the problem is the preferences that the OP had isn't going to be enough to overcome an A+ team putting in 20 HVs/ 1 CV start and 25 minutes, assuming both teams put in the same amount of effort. An A+ team will knock down a B+ team to moderate, assuming both teams have the same recruiting effort and all the preferences are the same for both teams, therefore, there is no way, just because the C- team has the rebuild preference, they are going to get to "high" and overtake the A+ team for that recruit.

I'm actually curious darnoc what those preferences were compared to the opponent you were recruiting against and if you have that information, how much attention did they put into that recruit?

Some higher prestige teams don't like the idea of the possibility of getting a 5 star recruit for only 2 years, so at times there will be recruits that slip through the cracks and drop down to B and C prestige teams, especially in areas that aren't very heavily populated with schools, such as out west for D-1.

“An A+ team will knock down a B+ team to moderate, assuming both teams have the same recruiting effort and all the preferences are the same for both teams, therefore, there is no way, just because the C- team has the rebuild preference, they are going to get to "high" and overtake the A+ team for that recruit.”

This is not even close to my experience. The range is much closer to 2 grade levels than 1. What is your evidence for this claim?