Posted by Benis on 9/22/2016 11:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/22/2016 11:19:00 AM (view original):
hughesjr, pkoopman and chapelhillne, I just want to say thank you for continually bringing maturity and sense to the forums. The incessant hate posts from the haters (everyone knows who they are) gets old after a while, probably even for most forum readers. It cannot be good for the retention of coaches and it cannot make a favorable impression on new players just joining the game. I hope that new users learn quickly to dismiss the haters as background noise, as I do [*crickets*], and focus on the posts that address the game. It is a good game, and the recent changes make it even better than it was. Thanks again.

Spud talking about bringing maturity to the forums...

I love how Spud also calls people whiners when someone complains about something they don't like. But when Spud complains its for some greater purpose and its totally okay.

He's obviously trolling at this point. If he weren't intentionally trolling why would he inject himself into a thread which not only had nothing to do with him but in which he has nothing to add. He's just trying to get things stirred up. Don't play into it. If he actually says something, then jump down his throat. If he's completely transparently trying to generate buzz, don't help him out.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/22/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):
So only the C+ teams get top recruits unchallenged?

Yes, it seems like it... In Wooden I got the #3 overall recruit (Howard Guadalupe) virtually unchallenged with my mediocre C+ prestige Cal, Santa Barbara team!

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/22/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

could've gotten rid of earned conference recruiting money, could've put caps on scholarship money, could've changed mileage costs for recruiting, could've made prestige more fluid, could've put more weight on early recruiting efforts - all of these could potentially level the field without the complete 180 in recruiting and resulting coach losses in my opinion.

I think de-incentivizing risk aversion was the goal, not leveling the playing field, per se. They wanted more battles (and so do I). The tweaks you mention just change the equation a little, they are still open to gaming, and we end up in the same place.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/22/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/22/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

could've gotten rid of earned conference recruiting money, could've put caps on scholarship money, could've changed mileage costs for recruiting, could've made prestige more fluid, could've put more weight on early recruiting efforts - all of these could potentially level the field without the complete 180 in recruiting and resulting coach losses in my opinion.

I think de-incentivizing risk aversion was the goal, not leveling the playing field, per se. They wanted more battles (and so do I). The tweaks you mention just change the equation a little, they are still open to gaming, and we end up in the same place.

all the things I mentioned would've at the least prevented the top schools from signing the quantity of 5 star recruits that they do, resulting in a lot more of 1) trickle down of recruits to next level schools 2) battles for recruits knowing the recruiting resources are finite and more equitable

obviously any system is open to "gaming" whether it be by design or through creativity/loopholes, as we are already seeing claims of "poaching" as well as nonsensical things like only a C+ school showing interest in a top recruit

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/22/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/22/2016 11:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/22/2016 11:19:00 AM (view original):
hughesjr, pkoopman and chapelhillne, I just want to say thank you for continually bringing maturity and sense to the forums. The incessant hate posts from the haters (everyone knows who they are) gets old after a while, probably even for most forum readers. It cannot be good for the retention of coaches and it cannot make a favorable impression on new players just joining the game. I hope that new users learn quickly to dismiss the haters as background noise, as I do [*crickets*], and focus on the posts that address the game. It is a good game, and the recent changes make it even better than it was. Thanks again.

Spud talking about bringing maturity to the forums...

I love how Spud also calls people whiners when someone complains about something they don't like. But when Spud complains its for some greater purpose and its totally okay.

He's obviously trolling at this point. If he weren't intentionally trolling why would he inject himself into a thread which not only had nothing to do with him but in which he has nothing to add. He's just trying to get things stirred up. Don't play into it. If he actually says something, then jump down his throat. If he's completely transparently trying to generate buzz, don't help him out.

The life of a Spudhole. It's what it does.

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/22/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/22/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

could've gotten rid of earned conference recruiting money, could've put caps on scholarship money, could've changed mileage costs for recruiting, could've made prestige more fluid, could've put more weight on early recruiting efforts - all of these could potentially level the field without the complete 180 in recruiting and resulting coach losses in my opinion.

I think de-incentivizing risk aversion was the goal, not leveling the playing field, per se. They wanted more battles (and so do I). The tweaks you mention just change the equation a little, they are still open to gaming, and we end up in the same place.

all the things I mentioned would've at the least prevented the top schools from signing the quantity of 5 star recruits that they do, resulting in a lot more of 1) trickle down of recruits to next level schools 2) battles for recruits knowing the recruiting resources are finite and more equitable

obviously any system is open to "gaming" whether it be by design or through creativity/loopholes, as we are already seeing claims of "poaching" as well as nonsensical things like only a C+ school showing interest in a top recruit

I wouldn't have been against any of your proposals, but I don't think they do anything for risk aversion. As C level Virginia, none of those ideas would make me want to challenge you at A level Boston College, for any given player. In fact, losing conference cash hurts me more than it hurts you. What makes me willing to take a risk and challenge you is knowing the player's decision is going to be based on something other than how often coach is willing and able to taste mom's Boston cream pie.

And of course "poaching" is always going to be part of the game. It simply means going into what someone else considers part of their territory. The bigger problem has always been "sniping" which is going to be very difficult to pull off now, because you can't sneak up on someone without them knowing you're after them.

and I'm not worried about C+ prestige team picking up top players. Especially if they're not really top quality players. I mean, in this case everyone could see who he was and who was on him. If the top teams are passing, that's not the fault of the coach that ends up with the player. And as I've always said, mid-major programs are going to have an early advantage in 3.0 because they're the ones who are used to having to gamble. I'm sure a lot of guys are still stuck in 2.0 mindset, where they're afraid to battle. I don't expect that to last long.

you know what's going to keep people from wanting to gamble and/or even play the game - losing out on a recruit for no discernible reason, whether it be the dice roll got you, preferences factor in unknowable ways, losing a recruit to an equal prestige school who you have a clear advantage over based upon distance or whatever it may be. plus all the old things people hated about recruiting that didn't change.

all the gambling that may happen is also going to result in teams carrying a lot of walk-ons or filling their rosters with clearly inferior players, if everyone thinks they can sign the 5 stars why bother going for anything less.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/22/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/22/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/22/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

could've gotten rid of earned conference recruiting money, could've put caps on scholarship money, could've changed mileage costs for recruiting, could've made prestige more fluid, could've put more weight on early recruiting efforts - all of these could potentially level the field without the complete 180 in recruiting and resulting coach losses in my opinion.

I think de-incentivizing risk aversion was the goal, not leveling the playing field, per se. They wanted more battles (and so do I). The tweaks you mention just change the equation a little, they are still open to gaming, and we end up in the same place.

all the things I mentioned would've at the least prevented the top schools from signing the quantity of 5 star recruits that they do, resulting in a lot more of 1) trickle down of recruits to next level schools 2) battles for recruits knowing the recruiting resources are finite and more equitable

obviously any system is open to "gaming" whether it be by design or through creativity/loopholes, as we are already seeing claims of "poaching" as well as nonsensical things like only a C+ school showing interest in a top recruit

I wouldn't have been against any of your proposals, but I don't think they do anything for risk aversion. As C level Virginia, none of those ideas would make me want to challenge you at A level Boston College, for any given player. In fact, losing conference cash hurts me more than it hurts you. What makes me willing to take a risk and challenge you is knowing the player's decision is going to be based on something other than how often coach is willing and able to taste mom's Boston cream pie.

Here is what you don't get.

At "C" Virginia, you don't have any right to challenge "A" Boston College for ANY recruits he wants. You haven't earned that right. It shouldn't be just gifted to you through fake preferences.

You have a right to challenge "B" schools for recruits they go after. If you are successful you will be able to raise your prestige to "B" or "B+". AT that point you are in better position to challenge the top schools. But too many of the 3.0 posters just want this given to them and have no patience to climb up the ladder grade by grade. They think just because they are DI they should be able to grab any recruit they want.

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 2:48:00 PM (view original):
you know what's going to keep people from wanting to gamble and/or even play the game - losing out on a recruit for no discernible reason, whether it be the dice roll got you, preferences factor in unknowable ways, losing a recruit to an equal prestige school who you have a clear advantage over based upon distance or whatever it may be. plus all the old things people hated about recruiting that didn't change.

all the gambling that may happen is also going to result in teams carrying a lot of walk-ons or filling their rosters with clearly inferior players, if everyone thinks they can sign the 5 stars why bother going for anything less.

There will be lots of new strategies emerging for sure. In this post, you're describing two of them, on the extreme ends. On one hand, the extreme risk averse. If they keep playing, may consistently continue to undershoot, in order to avoid battles because they can't tolerate not winning. Fine, can't make people give up risk aversion if that's just who they are - but it doesn't have to be rewarded.

On the other end of the spectrum, you've got the all in gamblers. The mindset maybe "I've got a chance", and they go after nothing but four and five star players. I doubt that will be a viable strategy for long, because as you say, they'll wind up with many more walk-ons and scrubs, and even if they hit big they'll be susceptible to early entries.

So so you're ignoring the vast expanse of strategic landscape existing in-between those extremes. The best teams are going to be the ones mixing in a few stars with a solid core of very good 4-year players. Of course there will be some feast or famine teams that get lucky and land a bunch of top recruits that stay long enough to put it all together. And some mid-majors are going to rise up, a la Butler and Gonzaga, by owning top local talent and occasionally hitting big on a 5-star.

And to my point about incentivizing risk aversion, as long as people feel they have a chance, there will be battles. So it will be rare to see a top guy go for cheap, which is at the heart of D1's problems.

Posted by mullycj on 9/22/2016 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/22/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/22/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/22/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

could've gotten rid of earned conference recruiting money, could've put caps on scholarship money, could've changed mileage costs for recruiting, could've made prestige more fluid, could've put more weight on early recruiting efforts - all of these could potentially level the field without the complete 180 in recruiting and resulting coach losses in my opinion.

I think de-incentivizing risk aversion was the goal, not leveling the playing field, per se. They wanted more battles (and so do I). The tweaks you mention just change the equation a little, they are still open to gaming, and we end up in the same place.

all the things I mentioned would've at the least prevented the top schools from signing the quantity of 5 star recruits that they do, resulting in a lot more of 1) trickle down of recruits to next level schools 2) battles for recruits knowing the recruiting resources are finite and more equitable

obviously any system is open to "gaming" whether it be by design or through creativity/loopholes, as we are already seeing claims of "poaching" as well as nonsensical things like only a C+ school showing interest in a top recruit

I wouldn't have been against any of your proposals, but I don't think they do anything for risk aversion. As C level Virginia, none of those ideas would make me want to challenge you at A level Boston College, for any given player. In fact, losing conference cash hurts me more than it hurts you. What makes me willing to take a risk and challenge you is knowing the player's decision is going to be based on something other than how often coach is willing and able to taste mom's Boston cream pie.

Here is what you don't get.

At "C" Virginia, you don't have any right to challenge "A" Boston College for ANY recruits he wants. You haven't earned that right. It shouldn't be just gifted to you through fake preferences.

You have a right to challenge "B" schools for recruits they go after. If you are successful you will be able to raise your prestige to "B" or "B+". AT that point you are in better position to challenge the top schools. But too many of the 3.0 posters just want this given to them and have no patience to climb up the ladder grade by grade. They think just because they are DI they should be able to grab any recruit they want.

Sure I do. It's silly to think I don't. I don't have to have an advantage, I don't have to win them often. But I should be able to gamble to the extent that I can tolerate the risk. Recruits make decisions on who they play for, college teams don't draft players.

ETA - and anyway, it's not about pecking order, or who *should* expect to be able to do what. I was using Virginia (B- now, thank you very much) and BC as an example, because that's where Dave and I compete in Naismith. Substitute any B or even A- school you want. The reality is that those elite players often don't have serious challenges, and that's both unrealistic, and a gameplay problem.