Posted by mullycj on 4/26/2019 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/26/2019 9:37:00 AM (view original):
For those of us who like the new recruiting, there are many ways in which it is better than the old. One way it is *not* better is that it is still essentially a bidding system. This being the case, “sniping” (not poaching, which isn’t a thing in this game, as mully says) is still something you have to deal with. The way to deal with it is to simply bid what a guy is worth to you, assuming others may do the same.

50.1 used to get the recruit 100% of the time. Now it gets the recruit ~51% of the time. If you were up 55-45 in considering odds, it means you were “ahead” in terms of effort credit somewhere in the vicinity of 52.5-47.5. Odds are “stretched” to favor the leader. The biggest recruiting upsets show up with odds around 80-20, which represents a real effort credit difference of ~63-37. In other words, if two teams with identical prestige and preference matches are battling for a recruit, one team has 630 AP+scholarship, while the other has 370+scholarship, the recruit will choose the team “in the lead” about 80% of the time. The best way to think of this process, IMO, is that the “dice roll” (to use the probabilistic Dungeons & Dragons lingo) simulates a choice coaches don’t make. You choose how high to prioritize the recruit, but the recruit ultimately makes the choice. This means prioritization is a major factor in recruiting, and grasping this concept *tends* to separate the folks who have figured out how to field competitive teams every year from the guys who throw their hands up in the air and shout “random!” (And yes, some folks do both, the ones who simply don’t like probabilistic, competitive, multi-player games. Their loss.)

If you care to chat more about it, I’m happy to discuss over sitemail.

One thing that has changed dramatically is D&D. My oldest plays it now and it barely resembles 2nd edition from 30 years ago,

You are welcome to play with us every other Tuesday night Mully. I will teach you the new rules lickity split.

This is my first school in D I and I have quickly learned to focus on recruits that prefer to sign during the first period. I coach a low prestige school and found it better to sign a player before the higher prestige schools lose a target and have an opportunity to jump on my recruits.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/27/2019 11:25:00 AM (view original):
One thing to keep in mind, there is no more considering credit. If the player wants to play, you can make early promises, and that preference modifier acts as a sort of considering credit; but you get that even if you’re not in the lead. Early effort, late effort, as long as it’s in before the decision is made, the timing doesn’t matter.

Can you break this down for me a bit more? So there is no bonus to being on a recruit early besides the fact that you get the extra bonuses for preferences and promises? Still trying to understand new recruiting.

Posted by ryancole17 on 4/28/2019 8:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/27/2019 11:25:00 AM (view original):
One thing to keep in mind, there is no more considering credit. If the player wants to play, you can make early promises, and that preference modifier acts as a sort of considering credit; but you get that even if you’re not in the lead. Early effort, late effort, as long as it’s in before the decision is made, the timing doesn’t matter.

Can you break this down for me a bit more? So there is no bonus to being on a recruit early besides the fact that you get the extra bonuses for preferences and promises? Still trying to understand new recruiting.

Right. The only early effort you can’t make up for later is the preference modifier linked to promised minutes for players who want playing time. So for players who want playing time, it makes sense to unlock early, and get those promises in ASAP, so the playing time preference kicks in as early as possible. In every other situation, it doesn’t matter if the effort you spend on a player comes early or late, as long as you get it in before the player’s decision cycle.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/27/2019 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 4/26/2019 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/26/2019 9:37:00 AM (view original):
For those of us who like the new recruiting, there are many ways in which it is better than the old. One way it is *not* better is that it is still essentially a bidding system. This being the case, “sniping” (not poaching, which isn’t a thing in this game, as mully says) is still something you have to deal with. The way to deal with it is to simply bid what a guy is worth to you, assuming others may do the same.

50.1 used to get the recruit 100% of the time. Now it gets the recruit ~51% of the time. If you were up 55-45 in considering odds, it means you were “ahead” in terms of effort credit somewhere in the vicinity of 52.5-47.5. Odds are “stretched” to favor the leader. The biggest recruiting upsets show up with odds around 80-20, which represents a real effort credit difference of ~63-37. In other words, if two teams with identical prestige and preference matches are battling for a recruit, one team has 630 AP+scholarship, while the other has 370+scholarship, the recruit will choose the team “in the lead” about 80% of the time. The best way to think of this process, IMO, is that the “dice roll” (to use the probabilistic Dungeons & Dragons lingo) simulates a choice coaches don’t make. You choose how high to prioritize the recruit, but the recruit ultimately makes the choice. This means prioritization is a major factor in recruiting, and grasping this concept *tends* to separate the folks who have figured out how to field competitive teams every year from the guys who throw their hands up in the air and shout “random!” (And yes, some folks do both, the ones who simply don’t like probabilistic, competitive, multi-player games. Their loss.)

If you care to chat more about it, I’m happy to discuss over sitemail.

One thing that has changed dramatically is D&D. My oldest plays it now and it barely resembles 2nd edition from 30 years ago,

You are welcome to play with us every other Tuesday night Mully. I will teach you the new rules lickity split.

How do you feel about dice throwing after failed saving throws?

Posted by mullycj on 4/29/2019 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/27/2019 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 4/26/2019 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/26/2019 9:37:00 AM (view original):
For those of us who like the new recruiting, there are many ways in which it is better than the old. One way it is *not* better is that it is still essentially a bidding system. This being the case, “sniping” (not poaching, which isn’t a thing in this game, as mully says) is still something you have to deal with. The way to deal with it is to simply bid what a guy is worth to you, assuming others may do the same.

50.1 used to get the recruit 100% of the time. Now it gets the recruit ~51% of the time. If you were up 55-45 in considering odds, it means you were “ahead” in terms of effort credit somewhere in the vicinity of 52.5-47.5. Odds are “stretched” to favor the leader. The biggest recruiting upsets show up with odds around 80-20, which represents a real effort credit difference of ~63-37. In other words, if two teams with identical prestige and preference matches are battling for a recruit, one team has 630 AP+scholarship, while the other has 370+scholarship, the recruit will choose the team “in the lead” about 80% of the time. The best way to think of this process, IMO, is that the “dice roll” (to use the probabilistic Dungeons & Dragons lingo) simulates a choice coaches don’t make. You choose how high to prioritize the recruit, but the recruit ultimately makes the choice. This means prioritization is a major factor in recruiting, and grasping this concept *tends* to separate the folks who have figured out how to field competitive teams every year from the guys who throw their hands up in the air and shout “random!” (And yes, some folks do both, the ones who simply don’t like probabilistic, competitive, multi-player games. Their loss.)

If you care to chat more about it, I’m happy to discuss over sitemail.

One thing that has changed dramatically is D&D. My oldest plays it now and it barely resembles 2nd edition from 30 years ago,

You are welcome to play with us every other Tuesday night Mully. I will teach you the new rules lickity split.

How do you feel about dice throwing after failed saving throws?

You guys are cracking me up.

on an unrelated question (been away for several years) when did D3 schools start signing D1 projected recruits?

Posted by oldwarrior on 4/26/2019 9:33:00 PM (view original):
In Allen: LSU, I've been listed between 50-75% on 45 recruits. I've won a total of 10 of those. Lost 35 of 45.

Feed me the line again how 60% wins 60 out of 100 times.
My experience is once you roughly get over 30%, it is more or less a coin/flip

Agreed. I don't keep data on my battles like this. But i do make the argument often, that "in MY opinion only", once it gets to a the dice roll, i just consider it 50/50. Either i win the recruit or the other guy wins the recruit. Even if the odds say 80/20 or something.

Sure, over the course of time, those numbers MIGHT play out to be correct. But in a two team, one battle situation, i consider it 50/50.

in order for me to get to 80/20 at the correct percentage, it could take only 5 battles (with me winning 4 of those 5). Or it could take 500 battles (with me losing the first 100 and then winning 400 straight - not likely scenario at all, of course). But because of this, i consider every two team battle to be 50/50. I don't think anyone goes into a battle where they likely have an 80-20 advantage (which is unknown. But it's possible to have an idea, based on openings, AP, and amount of effort that you know that you have applied) and feels comfortable they will sign the recruit.

i feel more comfortable the odds will work out in my favor in any other life situation where i have 80/20 odds. Compared to in HD, having an 80/20 advantage means nothing to me. Most of you guys wont agree. And i don't expect you to. I was just sharing my 2 cents. My opinion isn't necessarily about "odds". Just to be clear. It's more about "outcomes".

Posted by glen87 on 5/4/2019 11:44:00 PM (view original):
on an unrelated question (been away for several years) when did D3 schools start signing D1 projected recruits?

When Seble asked whiny boneheads like Spud for input

HA
redlight
redlight