Posted by wedgeva on 9/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Geesh Dacj - you helped me get started in this game! IKR - facts are stubborn things! I'll assume it was an oversight that you ignored the first two players on the list (and never mind that many experts, to this day, consider Bill Bradly to be the greatest collegiate basketball player of all time!), and give you another list to find fault with!

Non-Big Six NBA All-Stars

Scottie Pippen - University of Central Arkansas
Karl "The Mailman" Malone - Louisiana Tech
Stephen Curry - Davidson
Larry Bird - Indiana State
Paul George - Fresno State
Kawhi Leonard - San Diego State
Julius "The Doctor" Erving - University of Massachusetts

Kinda off topic but what experts consider Bill Bradley to be the greatest collegiate basketball player of all time?
Also, how many of the players you listed were actually top 25 or even top 50 recruits? Pippen was not offered any college scholies coming out of high school. The Mailman was actually academically ineligible to play his freshman year. Curry wasnt recruited by any Big 6 school. Bird actually did get a scholy from Indiana, but dropped out after a month. Dr. J was also not recruited by any major schools.
Paul George and Kawhi Leonard would be a good example of a smaller school spending all their ap and money on one player to lure him away from big 6 schools. George was a 3 star recruit and Kawhi was the 48 ranked player. Kawhi also was very close to SDSU, being from San Diego. These cases are in the realm of possibility, where a small school can nab a semi-high prospect.

I don't mind lower prestige schools getting some prospects. Someone did the research in Wooden though, and in the first cycle, there were 18 instances where the recruits decision came down to a Very High school (or more than 1) vs a High interst school, and in 9 of those 18 instances, the high team pulled the upset.

Once in a while is ok, but half of the time, the team with less effort winning, is a bit much

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/23/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):
some folks are just not going to get over losing the ability to sign a huge uncontested haul of 5-star recruits every season.

some folks just have no idea what the **** they are talking about too

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/23/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't mind lower prestige schools getting some prospects. Someone did the research in Wooden though, and in the first cycle, there were 18 instances where the recruits decision came down to a Very High school (or more than 1) vs a High interst school, and in 9 of those 18 instances, the high team pulled the upset.

Once in a while is ok, but half of the time, the team with less effort winning, is a bit much

There were only 18 instances? Surprisingly low number.

Posted by dacj501 on 9/23/2016 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/23/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):
some folks are just not going to get over losing the ability to sign a huge uncontested haul of 5-star recruits every season.

some folks just have no idea what the **** they are talking about too

I agree, Dac I am starting think people on the forums don't know what they are talking about.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/23/2016 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/23/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't mind lower prestige schools getting some prospects. Someone did the research in Wooden though, and in the first cycle, there were 18 instances where the recruits decision came down to a Very High school (or more than 1) vs a High interst school, and in 9 of those 18 instances, the high team pulled the upset.

Once in a while is ok, but half of the time, the team with less effort winning, is a bit much

There were only 18 instances? Surprisingly low number.

I think he was only looking at D1 schools, and it was actually mid cycle, not at the end of the cycle, so not sure what the exact parameters were, it was pdnao, not sure if he comes on the forums or not

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/23/2016 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/23/2016 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/23/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't mind lower prestige schools getting some prospects. Someone did the research in Wooden though, and in the first cycle, there were 18 instances where the recruits decision came down to a Very High school (or more than 1) vs a High interst school, and in 9 of those 18 instances, the high team pulled the upset.

Once in a while is ok, but half of the time, the team with less effort winning, is a bit much

There were only 18 instances? Surprisingly low number.

I think he was only looking at D1 schools, and it was actually mid cycle, not at the end of the cycle, so not sure what the exact parameters were, it was pdnao, not sure if he comes on the forums or not

It raises a good question for dev chat regardless. I hope WIS has some reliable way of tracking stats like that.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/23/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):
some folks are just not going to get over losing the ability to sign a huge uncontested haul of 5-star recruits every season.

You're right hippo - just look at this thread...Congrats to you! And go get them!

Posted by metsmax on 9/21/2016 11:24:00 PM (view original):
yup, fair and equitable - just lost a guy who had three A prestige schools and very high and he signed at a C+ school that was high - I dont know what the others had done, but I had promised start and minutes and 20 HV and CV.....

sure, random stuff like that can happen - is that good for the game?

the time demands for scouting are WAY bigger

the huge random element in signings is frustrating

The game is becoming a great model of the parts of work that are least pleasant. I get paid nicely for work. Dont need more demands and random frustration in a game

Seble, I get it that you wanted to decrease several inequities within 2.0 recruiting, but please tell me why it is fair to allow total randomness to occur in the recruiting process. That creates a situation that there is no leaning curve for us to undertake, and therefore no reason for us to invest in the game.

You cannot say that a situation in which I become the only team VERY HIGH on a recruit and a prestige at a higher grade level then all other D1 comers and yet lose a recruit anything else then a coin flip, or a dice roll.....that is total random. I may have schools at the Big Six level, but I am no means a top Coach. But at one time I was a Coach in all ten Worlds, spending alot of money to play your game (call me an investor Coach-that is one that spends money to play, not get free seasons). The early beta was actually better in many ways then the current product, because you have given in to a misplaced opinion we want randomness.

I am all for that, but you MUST build that random element into the background, and not on the front lines. If I have a guy that is looking at a school to sign, HE MUST be showing as very high (this is a top priority). How in the world do we as recruiters know how we are doing, and that is the considering tab. You cannot, and I repeat YOU CANNOT have a player sign from any other group then Very High Considering. I don't care about when he reaches Very High, just he MUST be VERY HIGH (PERIOD). Some people call that ebay poaching if it is last cycle, but you must have a set of rules and standards that we can learn. If not you have sucked all the fun out of the game, and then why do we want to play, or why do we want to refer the game to new players.

If you group together all the schools that have reached the threshold to sign, and call them all "very high", you have less understanding of where you are than you do now. Is that really what you'd prefer?

Posted by wvufan76 on 9/23/2016 8:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 9/21/2016 11:24:00 PM (view original):
yup, fair and equitable - just lost a guy who had three A prestige schools and very high and he signed at a C+ school that was high - I dont know what the others had done, but I had promised start and minutes and 20 HV and CV.....

sure, random stuff like that can happen - is that good for the game?

the time demands for scouting are WAY bigger

the huge random element in signings is frustrating

The game is becoming a great model of the parts of work that are least pleasant. I get paid nicely for work. Dont need more demands and random frustration in a game

Seble, I get it that you wanted to decrease several inequities within 2.0 recruiting, but please tell me why it is fair to allow total randomness to occur in the recruiting process. That creates a situation that there is no leaning curve for us to undertake, and therefore no reason for us to invest in the game.

You cannot say that a situation in which I become the only team VERY HIGH on a recruit and a prestige at a higher grade level then all other D1 comers and yet lose a recruit anything else then a coin flip, or a dice roll.....that is total random. I may have schools at the Big Six level, but I am no means a top Coach. But at one time I was a Coach in all ten Worlds, spending alot of money to play your game (call me an investor Coach-that is one that spends money to play, not get free seasons). The early beta was actually better in many ways then the current product, because you have given in to a misplaced opinion we want randomness.

I am all for that, but you MUST build that random element into the background, and not on the front lines. If I have a guy that is looking at a school to sign, HE MUST be showing as very high (this is a top priority). How in the world do we as recruiters know how we are doing, and that is the considering tab. You cannot, and I repeat YOU CANNOT have a player sign from any other group then Very High Considering. I don't care about when he reaches Very High, just he MUST be VERY HIGH (PERIOD). Some people call that ebay poaching if it is last cycle, but you must have a set of rules and standards that we can learn. If not you have sucked all the fun out of the game, and then why do we want to play, or why do we want to refer the game to new players.

Boom! Most sensible post thus far (not saying others weren't as well), but this is right one the money .... literally and figuratively speaking!!!! We really need an explanation from the higher powers (if there is one).

I will say this. I understand the frustration. In beta, I was 1 for 11 in dice roll battles. Absurdly bad luck. And of course, every time stings a little, whether I was clearly in front, or not. But the 1 I did win was a case where I had been very high but knocked to high on the cycle he signed, by someone who just loaded up late (fwiw, that's sniping, not poaching, but whatever). The player chose my team anyway. And that was a great win.

It's best not to compartmentalize these players by where you are on the considering list. If there are 3 very highs, you don't know where you are in pecking order anyway, you just know it's a battle. Think in terms of 3rd person objective, not 3rd person omniscient. The considering list is an ambiguous and simplified estimation of your chances. It's useful for what it is, but the sooner you let go of 2.0 mindset of obsessing over who is in front, the faster you'll adjust to the game that exists now, and the more fun you'll have with it.

I know pkoopman means well and has been posting insightfully - but all those who are basically encouraging players who have played the game for a long time (or trying to entice new players for that matter), regardless of success, to basically enjoy the dice rolls because its more "fun" or "enjoyable", is a horrible strategy for wis to have based the future of HD upon.

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/23/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't mind lower prestige schools getting some prospects. Someone did the research in Wooden though, and in the first cycle, there were 18 instances where the recruits decision came down to a Very High school (or more than 1) vs a High interst school, and in 9 of those 18 instances, the high team pulled the upset.

Once in a while is ok, but half of the time, the team with less effort winning, is a bit much

Based on what seble said in one of the threads in beta on July 22nd, a team listed at "H" vs. a team at "VH" had an approximate chance of winning of between 25% and 40%. So a team at the lowest range of "H" had a 25% chance and a team that was at the highest range of "H" had a 40% chance.

Then on July 28th he posted the following to the Change Log:

Adjusted signing odds to give the leading team a little bit higher odds.

So the odds of a team on "H" are now less than what they were previously.

What's important to remember is something else seble mentioned:

the odds aren't based on the interest levels, but on the total recruiting credit. That's because the difference between the lowest Very High and the highest High could be only a few points of credit.

The example he gave after adjusting the odd was this one on August 6th:

An example is that a breakdown of 52% to 48% credit would generate odds around 62% to 38%. This skewing was increased based on the feedback from you guys a few weeks ago. Previous to that, the odds would be 58% to 42%.