Clearly after the first round of recruiting in Allen "whenever" does not mean "whenever." It clearly means "late." 99% of the signings in the first round were "early" or "end of round 1." So this is a stupid tag that means the same as late. Dumb. Whatever.

+1

I'm curious about the number of signings that happened in Cycle 1 involving 'Whenever' players. Neither of my 'Whenever' options signed during Cycle 1, which was incredibly confusing.

Yeah, me too cal_bears. I was recruiting 3 guys that have the "whenever" tag and none of them signed with anyone at the end of the early period. So does whenever mean 95% chance of late?

I started to go through all the top 100 guys that signed and didn't see any that were whenever. So OP is probably pretty accurate. Should probably fix this to be more accurate.

LOL. Not long ago the complaint circulating in the forums was that too many top guys signed too early, that the top 100 should never even sign in the first period so the teams with EE's could get them all. Do you wonder why WIS pays so little attention? Y'all change direction more often than the wind.

Whenever is supposedly 50/50. My only whenever guy that I'm on waited until the second period, but I'd like to see more data on the subject.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/10/2016 11:02:00 AM (view original):
LOL. Not long ago the complaint circulating in the forums was that too many top guys signed too early, that the top 100 should never even sign in the first period so the teams with EE's could get them all. Do you wonder why WIS pays so little attention? Y'all change direction more often than the wind.

Did you actually read the thread before commenting?

The thread is about the 'Whenever' signing preferences and apparently, 'Whenever' seems to mean Cycle 2.

Posted by chemguy1979 on 10/10/2016 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/10/2016 11:02:00 AM (view original):
LOL. Not long ago the complaint circulating in the forums was that too many top guys signed too early, that the top 100 should never even sign in the first period so the teams with EE's could get them all. Do you wonder why WIS pays so little attention? Y'all change direction more often than the wind.

Did you actually read the thread before commenting?

The thread is about the 'Whenever' signing preferences and apparently, 'Whenever' seems to mean Cycle 2.

Obviously Spud only cares about what he wants to care about. If he can't defend WIS and insult other coaches he wants no part of it.

How ling before Spudhole troll ****** EVERYONE off??

I went through the bottom 50 of the top 100 in Rupp .. found 3 signed and 'Whenever'

In my recruiting Pool, there are 4 recruits that signed and are 'Whenever' .. 1 of those guys is top 100 overall .. so that means at least 6 guys signed with Whenever.

So, not 100% of whenever's wait.

Rupp - Uncovered 100 Players with a preference to sign "whenever." 6 of those 100 signed, and only 1 of the 6 was a battle. 20 are undecided (no one is high or very high), so by definition would not be eligible to sign, and 74 are considering at least one team and have not signed. Of the 74 that have have a high or very high team on them and are not signed, only 24 are battles. So for players being recruited where only 1 team is high or very high, only 5 out of 55 signed.

Phelan - Uncovered 82 Players with a preference to sign Whenever. 3 of those 82 signed, and 2 of the 3 were battles. 24 of the 82 are undecided, and 55 of the unsigned "whenever" players are considering at least one team and have not signed. Of the 55 that have a high or very high team on them and are not signed, only 9 are battles. So, for players being recruited where only 1 team is high or very high (ie. no battle), only 1 out of 47 signed in the first recruiting period.

This does not take into account any recruits considering a team at High or Very High who did not actually offer a scholarship. But I figure that number is going to be pretty low, if any.

So the data is, if you are NOT in a battle for a "Whenever" player, the very limited data shows that the player will sign in the first period less than 6% of the time (6 out of 102). If there is a battle for the player, the player has signed in the first recruiting Period 8% of the time (3 out of 36).

Contrast this with this Dev Chat quote: "It's also important to note we discovered and fixed a bug yesterday involving recruits with the 'Whenever' signing preference that will result in them signing sooner. " This Dev Chat was on 9/27. I assumed that "fixed a bug" meant that the bug was .... well, fixed. Apparently it means that it WILL be fixed, at some point in the future. OR, maybe when they said "signing SOONER", they meant at the beginning of the 2nd signing period? I actually wish they would not put out disinformation. It is worse than having no information. I made strategic recruiting decisions based upon this statement from the Dev Chat. If I had been ignorant of this alleged "bug" and Wis "fixing" the bug, I would have recruited differently.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/10/2016 6:20:00 PM (view original):
"Did you actually read the thread before commenting?"
Yes. Did you actually read my post before commenting? (BTW, don't be embarrassed if you didn't. None of the ____s trolling me read them, either.)

Without knowing how "whenever" is programmed*, the OP is unhappy that too few signed early. For weeks the common complaint was that too few guys signed late. Late and early are opposites. I can see why WIS pays so little attention to all the complaints in the forums. There's no way they could keep up with the changes in the wind.

* I see no evidence that any of the posters in this thread do, either.

Wow. You still don't understand what the OP is saying. Yikes. Reading is hard.

And what does _____s mean?

I'll post the data I have from Phelan and Allen. Here are the players signed.

Allen

	Signed	Whenever
D1	117	3
D2	28	2
Total	145	5

Phelan

	Signed	Whenever
D1	73	1
D2	24	0
	97	1

Combined

	Signed	Whenever
D1	190	4
D2	52	2
	242	6

So about 2.5% of all players signed in the 1st session had a preference of 'whenever'. This supports calbear's opinion that Whenever is basically functioning like 'late'. And even though it was meant as a hyperbole (I think), he was pretty damn close to the actual number with the 99% remark.

And for the Spuds of the world that are a little slow. People aren't complaining that too many players are signing late. We're calling attention to either a) something is not working as intended (as hawkfan states) or b) that whenever needs to be changed so that there is even a decent chance they will sign other than 2nd period. Otherwise, just list them as late. Which I'd have no problem with btw.

" So about 2.5% of all players signed in the 1st session had a preference of 'whenever'. "

... which tells you nothing about how "whenever" is working. (a) It is too small a sample from which to draw any conclusion. (b) When you have data from full seasons in a number of worlds, you can see when the "whenever" guys actually signed. Then you can compare this to how WIS said it was intended to work. Then intelligent analysis of sufficient data will be possible.