Small note to add: In D1, if you see a top recruit with no top tier programs on him and you want to move in, double check signing preference. If it’s Late, think twice because the standard play by most of the big dogs is to come in, well, late. And then you’ll end up wasting resources.

Posted by cal_bears on 6/9/2021 11:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems almost like cw that the lower % team wins at a very disproportionate rate.

Sure, if you believe what people say on CC and the forums. The problem with that is most folks remember the bad beats a whole lot better and longer than the ho-hum 65-35 battles they win, well, ~65% of the time. I don’t think we’re all intentionally lying, but most of us are pretty unreliable sources when it comes to isolated and small sample size reporting.

I will say the one thing that is a little frustrating about recruiting is that everyone loves to say "it all evens out in the end" which is true, but a lot of people underestimate how long that could actually take for a coach to find a "fair" equilibrium. I think over my HD career I've been fairly close to even (suckouts vs lucky), but a given coach may take more than thousands of rolls to find the correct average, so kind of lame to just say "it all evens out in the end". I won't stomp the ground for change because I like the variance that can occur, but let's not act like going on a cold streak for 40 rolls isn't something to justifiably be baffled about. Just my two cents.

Posted by Ceej_Money on 6/10/2021 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I will say the one thing that is a little frustrating about recruiting is that everyone loves to say "it all evens out in the end" which is true, but a lot of people underestimate how long that could actually take for a coach to find a "fair" equilibrium. I think over my HD career I've been fairly close to even (suckouts vs lucky), but a given coach may take more than thousands of rolls to find the correct average, so kind of lame to just say "it all evens out in the end". I won't stomp the ground for change because I like the variance that can occur, but let's not act like going on a cold streak for 40 rolls isn't something to justifiably be baffled about. Just my two cents.

Losing 40 rolls in a row IS possible. But that's way more rare than "it all evens out in the end". I'd say almost ALL coaches have experienced an even stretch while likely 0 have faced losing 40 in a row. Now I'm sure you were exaggerating the number 40. But HD is the marathon, not the race. If a coach only plays 10 seasons and quits because of bad roll luck, he hardly gave the game a chance. If he stays for 50 seasons, he'll even out.

Posted by moreron on 6/9/2021 12:38:00 PM (view original):
I don't particularly object to my opponent winning the "roll" but I do object that the roll occurred on round 1 of the signing period. The player's preference is "early" as are several other of my recruits who did not sign until later rounds and one who still hasn't signed. The one I lost is the only one with both a "high" and "very high" on him. Seems to me this would be the last one to sign since competition is still going on. Of course if I had won the roll, I wouldn't be complaining at all !

Despite what some coaches say, the effort/competition has 0 to do with the decided signing cycle. It's all predetermined no matter what kinda effort is being put in, or how many coaches are recruiting the player

I have kept track. I have lost 20 of 24 battles. I was the leading % team in about 20 of those 24 battles.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/10/2021 1:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/9/2021 11:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems almost like cw that the lower % team wins at a very disproportionate rate.

Sure, if you believe what people say on CC and the forums. The problem with that is most folks remember the bad beats a whole lot better and longer than the ho-hum 65-35 battles they win, well, ~65% of the time. I don’t think we’re all intentionally lying, but most of us are pretty unreliable sources when it comes to isolated and small sample size reporting.

I meant to quote you for the above comment. It would seem it doesn't really pay to try to win a battle, meaning just be in the game, don't try to knock them off, is a viable strategy. It's not my preferred one, but I imagine some people are successful that way.

Posted by cal_bears on 6/11/2021 1:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/10/2021 1:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/9/2021 11:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems almost like cw that the lower % team wins at a very disproportionate rate.

Sure, if you believe what people say on CC and the forums. The problem with that is most folks remember the bad beats a whole lot better and longer than the ho-hum 65-35 battles they win, well, ~65% of the time. I don’t think we’re all intentionally lying, but most of us are pretty unreliable sources when it comes to isolated and small sample size reporting.

I meant to quote you for the above comment. It would seem it doesn't really pay to try to win a battle, meaning just be in the game, don't try to knock them off, is a viable strategy. It's not my preferred one, but I imagine some people are successful that way.

I don’t doubt your personal numbers, I’ve had two stretches when put together amount to what you report (a little worse actually), starting 1 for 11 at Oregon, and then 2 for 12 at UConn a while back. Especially frustrating at an A+ baseline school, right? But 3 for 23 is a drop in the bucket in a sea of thousands of battles in a season. It’s certainly valid to adapt strategies, though; I recommend it to players who continue to spend AP and effort only on a few very high-level, high-priority recruits, but find themselves frustrated and constantly disappointed in their class. When I go 0-7 in battles like I did at Wisconsin last season, the 3 guys I did sign (without battles if I recall, because I took them from D2/3 teams) won’t get me to the promised land by themselves obviously, but when they’re upperclassmen, can be good role players on a bridge squad that can be quite good if a decent class can be scored this year.

Beyond being willing to take some lower level players, other coaches also find it beneficial to do what you suggest, and instead of maxing on say 3.5 guys, they’ll try to get just in to range on 6-8 guys. It’s another way to play the percentages, and it works out for some (sometimes). It probably takes a little more planning and adaptability, since you have less control over who signs and when, but if what you’re really after is just generic overall talent with those resources, and can fill in holes in other ways, you can make that work.

Posted by fd343ny on 6/9/2021 5:47:00 AM (view original):
one note - the percentage appears only after the players signs - and is visible only to those who were H or VH - you only see the cards if you were in the game

Is this true? I had VH for Richard Macek while Michigan had H and I never ever was shown the percentages. Does this mean despite VH, I was never 'in the game"?

Posted by cal_bears on 6/11/2021 1:40:00 AM (view original):
I have kept track. I have lost 20 of 24 battles. I was the leading % team in about 20 of those 24 battles.

I'm right there with you. Been keeping track since moving to DePaul and over the past 8 seasons, I'm 1 for 14 on 50% or higher rolls. I am 1 for 1 on rolls in which I have a 35% chance of winning. I am starting to think I need to get to 35% and call it a day on all recruits. Either that or I've got another 40 seasons to play for it to 'even out'.....

i wish they'd narrow the band for a competitive battle a bit, the amount of recruits that go to a coin flip seems like it is too many. especially now with more population.

Posted by Stormfury on 6/11/2021 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/9/2021 5:47:00 AM (view original):
one note - the percentage appears only after the players signs - and is visible only to those who were H or VH - you only see the cards if you were in the game

Is this true? I had VH for Richard Macek while Michigan had H and I never ever was shown the percentages. Does this mean despite VH, I was never 'in the game"?

I dont know - never seen that happen

Posted by gillispie on 6/11/2021 12:39:00 PM (view original):
i wish they'd narrow the band for a competitive battle a bit, the amount of recruits that go to a coin flip seems like it is too many. especially now with more population.

I like that thought as well. It's very challenging lately, which is realistic to some degree at least. Some of the new D1 coaches are reaching too high though and paying a price in general, but every once in a while one will work out. But it does make if tougher for the coaches of the top programs that were used to skating by with very few challenges. So, it is more realistic from that standpoint. Very few of the top players go somewhere without at least some challenge.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/11/2021 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 6/11/2021 12:39:00 PM (view original):
i wish they'd narrow the band for a competitive battle a bit, the amount of recruits that go to a coin flip seems like it is too many. especially now with more population.

I like that thought as well. It's very challenging lately, which is realistic to some degree at least. Some of the new D1 coaches are reaching too high though and paying a price in general, but every once in a while one will work out. But it does make if tougher for the coaches of the top programs that were used to skating by with very few challenges. So, it is more realistic from that standpoint. Very few of the top players go somewhere without at least some challenge.

I mean you kind of answered the question, right? Isn’t the thought of elite players going to any team unchallenged kind of ludicrous right off the bat? So any game that wants to simulate a college basketball recruiting experience has to start from that place - no elite players can go unchallenged. And when we start talking about closing that gap within which teams can reasonably compete for recruits, that’s eventually where we end up again, because once teams with limited resources have to worry about how losing too many battles will decimate their entire class, especially those they might not even be able to get into, they will begin to leave those prize recruits for the big fish again, and we’re back at square one.

And this is why I fought so hard for removing resources from the game entirely. It shouldn’t be a resource allocation simulation. Elite players should have 20-30 teams on them with no thought about “but what if he chooses another school, and I’m out all that cash!” That’s just not how recruiting works.