Yes, what pkoop said. Sorry this is all confusing.

What we know about how recruiting credit translates to signing credit:

A 65/35 split in recruiting credit yields a 100/0 split in signing odds (i.e. one team is "very high" and the other is "moderate")

A 51/49 split in recruiting credit yields a 55/45 split in signing odds.

So the odds ain't bad when you see these considering credits. It makes H more digestable.

Posted by zorzii on 10/10/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Rog : you basically are saying scouting is designed so that teams become weaker. I spent all my remaining budget in d1 phelan to find talent and my assistant, on 60 recruits came back with two bad b overall, rest c and d players. My first list... Either recruited or a sure loss if i decide to battle. There is either something not working out with scouting, a lack of talent or it's a way to weaken teams at d1.

No, he is saying that you have to scout players now .. it is what it is. You don't just know everyone anymore. You have to develop a strategy to find people. There are many methods.

1. Use FSS to find everyone in State(s) (say w/in 400 miles) ... then use assistant w/in 400 miles too, in order to move those guy up higher.

2. Don't use FSS,. do a Public Camp .. then use your Assistant w/in a certain distance.

3. Only look at top 100 recruits. Use the assistant coach only to advance the guys in the top 100 individually.

4. Some other method that combines those or thinks of others.

JUST GET OVER IT .. you have to FIND guys via scouting. If you accept that, then look for the most efficient ways to scout players, you can find several hundred (I usually have at least 500 possible recruits for 4 openings at Division-2 scouted when I start recruiting). I am going to pick guys to recruit from that pool.

Forget overall, I don't think it includes potential (just like in HD2). Just like before, you need to figure in potential yourself. Once you calculate the better players, based on potential and not overall score, go after them.

It is not hard to find several hundred recruits. With 2 openings at a Div-2 school, I found 110 level 2, 146 level 3, and 43 level 4 to choose from, That is enough info to develop potential for 300 recruits to choose 2. For 4 openings, I normally have 500 level 2, 3, 4. in both cases, I have more than 1000 guys at level 1. I can likely be more efficient and get that to 400 for two openings and 600 for 4 openings if I back off the FSS outside 500 miles and use more Assistant Coach 500 miles or less.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
It's not 40% of the effort leader, it's 40% of the effort credit (roughly...we suspect...). So if there is, for example, 1000 points of effort credit accumulated by 2 teams in a battle for a player, team B has 400, team A has 600. Team B is likely right on the cusp of having enough to get in the hunt at high consideration. But while they have 40% of the effort credit, their signing odds are not at 40%. At the low end of high, probably under 20, maybe closer to 10%. Because it's weighted to favor the leader already.

I understand how you are expressing that now, but I have difficulty swallowing it. How does it work in a 3 team race? I assume it will be the same logic for any number of teams. That 40% figure would not function the same way. What would it be then?

I will look again through the Beta forums, but I recall seble's examples, and anecdotal experience, gave me to understand that any team at "high" in a 2 team RNG was never as low as even 20%.

Posted by rogelio on 10/10/2016 6:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
It's not 40% of the effort leader, it's 40% of the effort credit (roughly...we suspect...). So if there is, for example, 1000 points of effort credit accumulated by 2 teams in a battle for a player, team B has 400, team A has 600. Team B is likely right on the cusp of having enough to get in the hunt at high consideration. But while they have 40% of the effort credit, their signing odds are not at 40%. At the low end of high, probably under 20, maybe closer to 10%. Because it's weighted to favor the leader already.

I understand how you are expressing that now, but I have difficulty swallowing it. How does it work in a 3 team race? I assume it will be the same logic for any number of teams. That 40% figure would not function the same way. What would it be then?

I will look again through the Beta forums, but I recall seble's examples, and anecdotal experience, gave me to understand that any team at "high" in a 2 team RNG was never as low as even 20%.

The battle examples I remember were from two-team battles, but I would (with you) presume that the logic is going to be the same in terms of percentage of the leader. 35/65 = .538, so I would assume that you need at least 54% of the leader's credit in order to get into high range--possibly as much as 70% of the leader's credit.

1. To Rogelio's point, I strongly disagree with your assessment here. Most of what I've seen on the dislike here is how much time it takes. In the very early stages, there was some concern about camps and missing out on players, but I don't think I've seen anyone complain about this since late in the Beta. I also believe scouting is boring, and when you make something boring take longer, it just makes it worse.

My suggestion would be get rid of scouting levels. Some people don't have time for all the extra stuff. For me, this one would significantly improve the experience at this point with HD 3.0, and I believe many others would agree. I'll take it a step further. Get rid of FSS and make everything camp/assistant related, but all scouting must be done. This solves 3 issues. (1) It removes the boring, tedious scouting of multiple levels, and reduces time spent scouting that many are complaining about. (2)This keeps the strategy of finding random players, and makes camps and assistant searches relevant, but we have to be allowed to designate a range we are willing to search. Someone who likes national scouting can scout national, and someone who likes local can stay local. (3) It removes/reduces the incentive of those who want to scout for their other team and allows someone who wants to have multiple teams in a world do so. That problem is nearly eliminated here, because the guys you can recruit are random. There is no scouting for your other team, and since their are not multiple scouting levels, it won't matter. If I can't recruit a player until I find him, and he's already scouted when I do find him, then there is only one possible issue remaining and that is guys trying to scout an area of a good player he knows about, which is still randomly found.

2. Fixed by point 1. I know immediately after I've discovered players if I need to keep scouting further or if I can save my budget for period 2.

3. To those who said, this is the same as before because you had to wait, I disagree. Yes, we had to wait for a dropdown, but chances are, we would know if it was worth wasting our money early, or if a DI guy was going to go after them. Currently, this is annoying as hell in HD 3.0, because no one is even on the guys list, but I can't sign him no matter if he wants to sign early, and I drop my entire budget to get him. Then period 2 comes and DI teams show up, and my entire budget is gone. Before, DI teams at the very least had to show their presence on a recruit so he would not sign right away once signing starts. Now they can do whatever they want and its expected they will show up out of nowhere. This wouldn't be an issue, if these types of players weren't needed to be competitive. Personally, I wish they would cap the divisions and go back to dropdowns like before, then allow the player to sign when his preference dictates it, or don't even let the player be recruitable by a lower division until the 2nd period.

4. This was already an issue and rather than address it, they gave us HD 3.0

5. I agree with Zorzii. If you want any element of randomness, it has to be at VH vs VH. There should be a threshold within VH that a player is willing to sign, so that you must be VH to sign him. Maybe let the threshold lower as recruiting progresses and the player is not getting attention. Allowing a High to beat a VH is stupid.

6. Don't care. I'll work around the randomness here. Maybe reduce the impact some.

Posted by rogelio on 10/10/2016 6:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
It's not 40% of the effort leader, it's 40% of the effort credit (roughly...we suspect...). So if there is, for example, 1000 points of effort credit accumulated by 2 teams in a battle for a player, team B has 400, team A has 600. Team B is likely right on the cusp of having enough to get in the hunt at high consideration. But while they have 40% of the effort credit, their signing odds are not at 40%. At the low end of high, probably under 20, maybe closer to 10%. Because it's weighted to favor the leader already.

I understand how you are expressing that now, but I have difficulty swallowing it. How does it work in a 3 team race? I assume it will be the same logic for any number of teams. That 40% figure would not function the same way. What would it be then?

I will look again through the Beta forums, but I recall seble's examples, and anecdotal experience, gave me to understand that any team at "high" in a 2 team RNG was never as low as even 20%.

If the effort leader has 1000 points, then you need at least 667 points to be VH (100/.60)-1000. You need at least 35% of the leaders points .. or 539 points to be High (1000/.65)-1000. Anyone below that will not in the running.

In this scenario, if there were just those 3, it would be 2206 total for the 3 .. and the straight percentages would be: 45.3% Leader , 30.2% #2 , and 24.4% for #3. That is based on total effort. They have adjusted it DOWN for the high and they have also added a Leader bonus since the straight. So the final results would likely be something like: 55% leader, 27% #2, 18% #3. That would be for 3 teams, one at the low end of VH and one at the low end of H.

Again using 1000 as the max effort of the leader .. lets add another team just below max Effort (999) and two teams at middle low (603).

That would be 1000, 999, 603, 603. For a total of 3205. In a straight effort it would be: 31.20%, 31.17% , 18.81%, 18.81%. Once they factor in the leader credit .. it would be something like 41%, 28%, 15.5%, 15.5%.

You can do the math with any number of VH or H.

1000, 750, 700 (VH) and 610, 590, 540 (H) = 4190 total effort

Straight calc:
23.9%, 18.9%, 16.7%, 14.6%, 14.1%, 12.9%

Modified for the leader:
34%, 17%, 14%, 13%, 12%, 10%

But as you can see. A relatively low (VH) and a relatively High (High) can be very close. Also, the leader has 2x the chance to sign as his closest competitor.

Hughes, I think this is pretty well thought out and makes a lot of sense. But I think your modified calculation might be off a bit.

For this scenario

"That would be 1000, 999, 603, 603. For a total of 3205. In a straight effort it would be: 31.20%, 31.17% , 18.81%, 18.81%. Once they factor in the leader credit .. it would be something like 41%, 28%, 15.5%, 15.5%."

That bonus seems like quite a bit more than what Seble indicated based upon an example he gave. There was a battle where Team A had 51% of the effort to team B's 49%. The signing odds were adjusted to 55% for Team A and 45% for Team B. So the bonus was only a 4% increase or a net 8% increase in chances vs 2nd place team.

Now this example only includes two teams so maybe with more teams, that messes it up a bit but I don't think you'd gain a net ~13% increase in signing chances over a team you have less than 1% more effort on as this above example indicates.

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2016 9:43:00 AM (view original):
Hughes, I think this is pretty well thought out and makes a lot of sense. But I think your modified calculation might be off a bit.

For this scenario

"That would be 1000, 999, 603, 603. For a total of 3205. In a straight effort it would be: 31.20%, 31.17% , 18.81%, 18.81%. Once they factor in the leader credit .. it would be something like 41%, 28%, 15.5%, 15.5%."

That bonus seems like quite a bit more than what Seble indicated based upon an example he gave. There was a battle where Team A had 51% of the effort to team B's 49%. The signing odds were adjusted to 55% for Team A and 45% for Team B. So the bonus was only a 4% increase or a net 8% increase in chances vs 2nd place team.

Now this example only includes two teams so maybe with more teams, that messes it up a bit but I don't think you'd gain a net ~13% increase in signing chances over a team you have less than 1% more effort on as this above example indicates.

I was assuming a 10% increase, which is what I saw in an example. If it is + or - 4% (instead of 10) then that is what it is. And adjust the example accordingly.

The point I was trying to make though, is that there is not much difference in VH and H from a probability stand point. But as the leader, if you can put in points (Attention or CV or HV) then you drive up the Max Effort and that in turn can knock out high teams and force VH to H, etc.

I agree with Poncho about the scouting. It's tedious at best and a lot of wasted time at worst in relation to its importance to the recruiting cycle.

Posted by Bbeebe17 on 10/11/2016 10:28:00 AM (view original):
I agree with Poncho about the scouting. It's tedious at best and a lot of wasted time at worst in relation to its importance to the recruiting cycle.

Then scale back what you're doing and make it more efficient. That's the beauty of 3.0 scouting, you figure out what works for you. There's no one way, no right way. Lots of ways to find the recruits you're interested in, you can go as deep as you want, if you're into it; you can finish it in 5 or 6 steps, 30 minutes total if you want.

1) FSS your region.
2) Run a public camp.
*at this point, top 100 recruits who are in your FSS region and attended your public camp are fully scouted.
3) Attend regional camps if you want (I don't)
4) Send out the assistant if you want
5) when your pool is as big as you want, use the filters to find guys that interest you at each level, starting with level 1. Flag them using whatever color-coding you want. Scout them up one level at a time. Repeat at each level until you end up with as many guys as you're comfortable with at level 4.
6) Determine your priorities and re-flag your level 4 pool as necessary.
*save some scouting $ for second session. I shoot for at least 10k at D1, 8k at D2, 5k at D3.

This process takes me about 30 minutes total at every division. (Bulk of time spent on step 5, probably 15-20 minutes). And with the leftover scouting, I have some ammo to go deeper and/or wider for the 2nd session, if needed.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/11/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Bbeebe17 on 10/11/2016 10:28:00 AM (view original):
I agree with Poncho about the scouting. It's tedious at best and a lot of wasted time at worst in relation to its importance to the recruiting cycle.

Then scale back what you're doing and make it more efficient. That's the beauty of 3.0 scouting, you figure out what works for you. There's no one way, no right way. Lots of ways to find the recruits you're interested in, you can go as deep as you want, if you're into it; you can finish it in 5 or 6 steps, 30 minutes total if you want.

1) FSS your region.
2) Run a public camp.
*at this point, top 100 recruits who are in your FSS region and attended your public camp are fully scouted.
3) Attend regional camps if you want (I don't)
4) Send out the assistant if you want
5) when your pool is as big as you want, use the filters to find guys that interest you at each level, starting with level 1. Flag them using whatever color-coding you want. Scout them up one level at a time. Repeat at each level until you end up with as many guys as you're comfortable with at level 4.
6) Determine your priorities and re-flag your level 4 pool as necessary.
*save some scouting $ for second session. I shoot for at least 10k at D1, 8k at D2, 5k at D3.

This process takes me about 30 minutes total at every division. (Bulk of time spent on step 5, probably 15-20 minutes). And with the leftover scouting, I have some ammo to go deeper and/or wider for the 2nd session, if needed.

I think the learning curve for scouting is very, very steep. But once you get a system down, it can be done quickly and efficiently like Shoe says, IMHO. You could just do steps 1-4 and get your targets that way and it'd take only 10 minutes or so.

Here's where I think the new scouting/recruiting is a big improvement. Iba recruiting starts on Sunday. I'm going out of town for a wedding this weekend. In the old system I'd need to do all my scouting on Friday/Saturday (including setting my targets and what not) then on Sunday when I'm traveling, I'd need to do my first actions in a 2 hour window. Then I'd have to do phone calls to coaches to get my pull down list set up. Most of this I'm all doing mobile, which is a pain for emails and figuring out who I can pull down.

The new system makes it much, much easier for me in this situation. I already have all scouting down. Have my targets set. on Sunday I have all day to send out first actions and I'm not restricted to a 2 hour window. Then on Monday when I'm driving back, it's a 6 hour cycle time I'm missing, not 3 hours. When I stop to get gas or food, I can reallocate APs if needed.

Obviously this is extenuating but these situations do come up and the old system is difficult.

My initial thoughts after session 1 in Allen (no BETA participation):

I had a 43K budget for scouting (had 2 openings) and really did not know how to spend it. I did 3 Public camps, 1 Hosted camp, I FSS's 11 states, did 3 Asst searches and 18 Individual Scouts and left a balance of over $15K on the table. I probably will FSS more state next time.

I play at Div 1, and I feel that "discovering" D2 players at camps are ridiculous.

I feel that those that participated in the BETA had a bit of an advantage in recruiting as they went after 4-5 star recruits knowing that they could get the "coin flip" if they were close. I did not know that and went after my normal Low-D1 players (I'm at UL-Monroe).

However, I feel VERY good that a number of top 100 recruits were signed by non BCS teams. Not all elite players want to sit on the bench in the ACC. I had always advocated getting rid of postseason money, and now that it has happened, look at the difference. I know the best coaches in Allen will complain...but I also know that they are the best for a reason....they can figure out the math formulas (that I can't seem to) and therefore will remain the best coaches with the best teams.

Does scouting take more time?....yep. I really don't like that, but it is too early to make a definitive "I don't like this" statement.

I find scouting fun. I think my source of disagreement with those that find it tedious is that I find the multitude of possible strategies refreshing. I think one of the downfalls of 2.0 was that there was very little deviation from one central recruiting strategy. I feel like most of the veteran coaches who are not happy with 3.0 are upset that they are still stuck on trying to find that one single strategy that allows you to dominate the way you did in 2.0. I love the multiple levels of scouting. It adds nuance and flavor to a previously boring and dry process - in certain scenarios - I feel like I can get by on less information on a recruit than in others and that allows me to spend my money elsewhere... it's an interesting choice that was not there before. I personally would like to see the unification of the scouting and recruiting budgets. This makes those kinds of trade off choices even more important.To anyone who doesn't like scouting in 3.0, I would ask - "What did you find fun about scouting in 2.0?"

I have seen a few people frustrated with the tools given to them in order to organize recruits and sift through all the additional information. I have a hard time understanding this, because the categorization options and search functions are far more powerful now than they were before.

I think it is still way too early to determine that EEs and Coaching Changes are going to be a problem. I think it is evident that you are going to find talent more evenly distributed across the world and that teams will no longer be dealing with massive losses from EEs. Anyone changing coaching jobs comes in at a disadvantage - that is true - but it is also the way it should be.

Luck plays less of a role than most people think. How do some preferences not make sense? Further - I disagree with the idea that preferences should be worth less. If anything, they should be worth more - including prestige. I currently think that APs play to important a role in recruiting battles.

One thing I will add is that I would like to see the signing red light removed, but the multiplier for effort from higher divisions increased significantly. Essentially, any effort from a D1 school should keep a D2 school at bay until the very end.

Posted by smackawits on 10/11/2016 11:05:00 AM (view original):
My initial thoughts after session 1 in Allen (no BETA participation):

I had a 43K budget for scouting (had 2 openings) and really did not know how to spend it. I did 3 Public camps, 1 Hosted camp, I FSS's 11 states, did 3 Asst searches and 18 Individual Scouts and left a balance of over $15K on the table. I probably will FSS more state next time.

I play at Div 1, and I feel that "discovering" D2 players at camps are ridiculous.

I feel that those that participated in the BETA had a bit of an advantage in recruiting as they went after 4-5 star recruits knowing that they could get the "coin flip" if they were close. I did not know that and went after my normal Low-D1 players (I'm at UL-Monroe).

However, I feel VERY good that a number of top 100 recruits were signed by non BCS teams. Not all elite players want to sit on the bench in the ACC. I had always advocated getting rid of postseason money, and now that it has happened, look at the difference. I know the best coaches in Allen will complain...but I also know that they are the best for a reason....they can figure out the math formulas (that I can't seem to) and therefore will remain the best coaches with the best teams.

Does scouting take more time?....yep. I really don't like that, but it is too early to make a definitive "I don't like this" statement.

You don't have to attend the Regional Camps at all.

You can hold a Camp at your site and pick only Div-1 recruits.

Or you can just pick States close to you on FSS and scout Div-1, and then with the assistant coach search, pick Div-1, and check not to discover new recruits (so you will only advance guys you found in FSS. Pick a distance (that covers the states you FSS'ed) and pick 25 recruits for $1500 and scout to your heart's content.

I did exactly this with 4 openings at a Low Level Div-1 (Mississippi Valley State) and I ended up with 0 (zero) Level 2, 16 Level 3, and 679 Level 4 recruits. They were all Division-1 recruits.