Yeah, I get that the question is essentially how much a start is worth, although I don't think in terms of HVs, I think relative to prestige. And everything I know about this case is exactly how I'd design it. B vs A+ battle in-conference for a local kid a little closer to the B. Everything else is pretty even, and the B pulls ahead with the promise of a start. Then the A+ pulls back ahead matching the start. This feels right to me. I get that others disagree with me with regards to how the game plays (nothing new), but at the very least, I think it's observably true that this is not unrealistic.

If the High team is near the top of the High range and the Very High team is near the bottom of the VH range, the H and VH will be very close despite the different labels. So if the H team puts in some more effort and they flip, it isn't surprising. Then if the other team puts in some more effort on the next cycle and they flip again, it isn't surprising. It also isn't broken in any way. We all have to get rid of the old 2.0 mindset that being on the top assures staying there. HD3.0 is a lot more dynamic and interesting in this regard. HD3.0 promotes battles in a way that the top D1 coaches seem unfamiliar with.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/13/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):
If the High team is near the top of the High range and the Very High team is near the bottom of the VH range, the H and VH will be very close despite the different labels. So if the H team puts in some more effort and they flip, it isn't surprising. Then if the other team puts in some more effort on the next cycle and they flip again, it isn't surprising. It also isn't broken in any way. We all have to get rid of the old 2.0 mindset that being on the top assures staying there. HD3.0 is a lot more dynamic and interesting in this regard. HD3.0 promotes battles in a way that the top D1 coaches seem unfamiliar with.

Since the effort is relative to the leader, a "low" VH/ "high" H combination can not occur unless there is a 3rd team "leader" VH also involved.

In a two team battle, a VH vs. H indicates that VH has a significant effort % over the second team (likely 60/40). Now the overall effort might be low (ex. 2 HVs vs 1 HV) so it still can be overcome fairly easily.

Posted by buddhagamer on 10/13/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/13/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):
If the High team is near the top of the High range and the Very High team is near the bottom of the VH range, the H and VH will be very close despite the different labels. So if the H team puts in some more effort and they flip, it isn't surprising. Then if the other team puts in some more effort on the next cycle and they flip again, it isn't surprising. It also isn't broken in any way. We all have to get rid of the old 2.0 mindset that being on the top assures staying there. HD3.0 is a lot more dynamic and interesting in this regard. HD3.0 promotes battles in a way that the top D1 coaches seem unfamiliar with.

Since the effort is relative to the leader, a "low" VH/ "high" H combination can not occur unless there is a 3rd team "leader" VH also involved.

In a two team battle, a VH vs. H indicates that VH has a significant effort % over the second team (likely 60/40). Now the overall effort might be low (ex. 2 HVs vs 1 HV) so it still can be overcome fairly easily.

Maybe I'm not quite understanding you. Are you saying that there is no flexibility within the high category? I've been playing under the assumption that there is a minimum threshold of effort that team B needs to put in, relative to the overall effort credit earned by team A, to get into that high category. And 40% seems like a reasonable guess. ( 40% of overall credit, not 40% of the leader credit). But I'm also assuming that you can move up relative to that effort credit, and still stay in the high category.

My understanding of how 3.0 works in terms of effort/credit is:

1. All recruiting actions are immediately converted to recruiting credit when they are processed. Something along the lines of ActionValue x Prestige Multiplier x Preference Multiplier = Recruiting Credit.

2. There is a minimum recruiting credit threshold for each recruit before it will list anyone above Low.

3. Once above the minimum, the leader will be listed at Very High *unless* the recruit is from a higher division (Spud's red light). This is why you never see a leading school as just "High" without someone else listed as "Very High".

The "High" category is probably a % effort range of the leader's accumulated recruiting credit (ex. 60% to 80%).

Thus if the leading school (school A) has accumulated 1000 points of recruiting credit, and school B has 750 points, then school A would be listed as "VH" while school B is listed as "H".

In the above scenario, school A isn't barely "VH" and school B isn't on the edge of being VH (that just likely can't occur in a two school battle). If the two schools are fairly close in recruiting credit (ex. 1000 vs 975), then its highly likely both would be listed as "VH".

So yes, there is likely a range for the High, but Spud was inferring that the two schools could be close in credit as "VH" vs. "H" and I believe that can't be (as the "H" is relative to the leader's overall recruiting credit).

I agree with you budd

Posted by mullycj on 10/13/2016 10:13:00 AM (view original):
OK - this is a tag along thread to the Prestige thread on my recruit battle where I (A+ High) am losing to a (B Very High) school at maxed out effort.

Since I am still in experimental mode, I threw a start and mins at this recruit. (I really don't want to but I am curious as to the impact.) The recruit has NO preference on playing time.

Result : I went from behind H vs VH to ahead VH vs H.
IMO that's a BS result. Especially since playing time is not a preference. IMO start/playing time is getting way too much impact in this battle.

Any similar findings out there?

I am a big Illinois basketball fan. Look up Jeremiah Tilmon. Do you think Illinois has a higher prestige than MSU, IU, and UNC? My guess is that the Illinois head coach (John Groce-I think he will transform Illinois into a perinnial Top 10 for the record in about 5 years) said to Tilmon: You will be the guy here; You will be the star. This is a kid who was telling the coaches that he would stay at school for two years. Do you think scoring 6.7 PPG in a sixth man role would help the kid's draft stock? Look what happened to Carlton Bragg, and ex-Illinois recruit who bench sits at Kansas. Sorry Mully, I agree with Shoe here.

Dion waiters never started a single game in his career and was drafted 4th.

But regardless I don't like the real life comparisons here. Too many factors in real life to consider that the game doesn't and simply can't include.

Posted by buddhagamer on 10/13/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):
My understanding of how 3.0 works in terms of effort/credit is:

1. All recruiting actions are immediately converted to recruiting credit when they are processed. Something along the lines of ActionValue x Prestige Multiplier x Preference Multiplier = Recruiting Credit.

2. There is a minimum recruiting credit threshold for each recruit before it will list anyone above Low.

3. Once above the minimum, the leader will be listed at Very High *unless* the recruit is from a higher division (Spud's red light). This is why you never see a leading school as just "High" without someone else listed as "Very High".

The "High" category is probably a % effort range of the leader's accumulated recruiting credit (ex. 60% to 80%).

Thus if the leading school (school A) has accumulated 1000 points of recruiting credit, and school B has 750 points, then school A would be listed as "VH" while school B is listed as "H".

In the above scenario, school A isn't barely "VH" and school B isn't on the edge of being VH (that just likely can't occur in a two school battle). If the two schools are fairly close in recruiting credit (ex. 1000 vs 975), then its highly likely both would be listed as "VH".

So yes, there is likely a range for the High, but Spud was inferring that the two schools could be close in credit as "VH" vs. "H" and I believe that can't be (as the "H" is relative to the leader's overall recruiting credit).

Ok, I get you, and I mostly agree. The key here is where the line is between high and very high, and then what one considers "close". In any case, I think most can agree that when an A+ and a B are both actually max effort, the A+ should be discernibly higher, i.e. Very high vs high. And that's where we ended up. The period where they were even, or perhaps the B was ahead somewhat, was when B had offered a start, and A+ had not. So the moral of the story is, if you haven't offered a start, you're not at max effort yet.

Signs with "H" Minnesota.

IMO this whole situation is what's ****** up about the system and why so many have already walked out the door. Those who like it.....enjoy....your time here.

Posted by cubcub113 on 10/13/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/13/2016 10:13:00 AM (view original):
OK - this is a tag along thread to the Prestige thread on my recruit battle where I (A+ High) am losing to a (B Very High) school at maxed out effort.

Since I am still in experimental mode, I threw a start and mins at this recruit. (I really don't want to but I am curious as to the impact.) The recruit has NO preference on playing time.

Result : I went from behind H vs VH to ahead VH vs H.
IMO that's a BS result. Especially since playing time is not a preference. IMO start/playing time is getting way too much impact in this battle.

Any similar findings out there?

I am a big Illinois basketball fan. Look up Jeremiah Tilmon. Do you think Illinois has a higher prestige than MSU, IU, and UNC? My guess is that the Illinois head coach (John Groce-I think he will transform Illinois into a perinnial Top 10 for the record in about 5 years) said to Tilmon: You will be the guy here; You will be the star. This is a kid who was telling the coaches that he would stay at school for two years. Do you think scoring 6.7 PPG in a sixth man role would help the kid's draft stock? Look what happened to Carlton Bragg, and ex-Illinois recruit who bench sits at Kansas. Sorry Mully, I agree with Shoe here.

Real life comparisons don't equal HD. So what if I told him he would start for 3 years and win a National Championship? You don't think that would sway him? Would he get more exposure playing in the PIT or the Final Four? For your arguments I can throw out a counter argument that makes as much sense if you REALLY want to talk real life.

I think that PT and a start should have a very big impact for a recruit, especially if wants to play is a preference, but even if it does not. Seems like if I was looking at schools and I could start at one, but would be riding the bench for a while at another, I'd want to go where I could play.

On Buddha's point about thresholds, you can do 1 AP and get to moderate if no one else is on that recruit. Even at D3 for a D1 recruit. I have never been high on a recruit with no competition, so I think you go to very high next, if there is no competition, but that may require a scholarship offer. I am not sure about that. But I do like that Starts and PT mean a lot. I thought they were way undervalued in 2.0.

I am not sure however what is "too much"

One technique I have used is promising starts, and then using minutes instead of fatigue, so my experienced and better players still get most minutes - they just don't start.

I would like to see WIS just remove the "High" from having the chance to sign the recruit (even if they widen the VH a bit). If the credit breakdown was 65/35 for VH/H and 55/45 for both VH, they should just make it so you had to have at least 90% of the leader's credit in order to get a shot at the RNG.

People would be less likely to get upset losing when it lists both at VH in my opinion if the band was that tight.

I think Seble increased the overall credit for the Start Promise and as long as the ramifications of not meeting that promise is the recruit will bolt 100% of the time, I'm ok with the increase in recruiting effort.

I agree with eliminating High. It makes it very obvious when a "behind" team wins. If I lose and we are both very high, it does not bother me, but if I am high and the other team is very high, it kind of sucks. Not the end of the world because I win some of those too, but it is pretty disappointing because you are expecting to win.

I would rather players just manage their expectations so that they don't expect to win when they're in the lead. But I could go along with combining the high and very high categories, as long as it keeps the same basic signability thresholds intact. As long as people understand they will have less knowledge about the status of the battle in that case.

Definitely not in favor of narrowing the signability threshold to 90% of leader credit. Way too narrow, and would discourage battling. The threshold is currently somewhere over 67%, and that's about where it should stay, IMO.