Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this is about Jimmy Baker. I had shown him a fair amount of attention, had offered a scholarship, but didn't have the resources to do home visits until I lost an early entry. So I was moderate, with a scholarship offered prior to the interim period, then moved to very high earlier today. I had mentioned in another thread that it may feel like poaching to you, if I was able to pull it off. But I was very clearly coming after him.

This ties back in to the early entry debate. As I've been saying for a long time, it is very possible to deal with a reasonable number of early entries in 3.0 (i.e., 1 or 2 early entries, when you have other scholarship resources to expend).

As to whether there should be a delineation between high and very high in how we were listed, I'm agnostic. We were both within the signing parameters. I'd guess I was on the high end of high, but obviously I have no way to know that. Anyway, you can make a case for just having one name for the teams that are within signing parameters, so you don't know when you've been beaten from behind. But then you don't have that info when you're playing the game either, and then you're dealing with less info and more ambiguity. Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around.

I don't care about poaching. I've poached people before, it's a realistic part of the game.

"Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around."

This quote is why I'll be leaving. Don't worry, I'm not delusional enough to think any of you will care. The game just isn't realistic. There is no reason in real life that a recruit would pick a school that they had less interest in. If you guys can enjoy this crap, then have fun.

To be clear, I said it might feel like poaching. What I did wasn't really anything like poaching, or the more precise term sniping. I got within the signability parameters, and the recruit chose my team. If you and others are sure the game experience would improve if we had both just been listed as very high, fine. I'm skeptical that people would actually prefer that situation though, because there would be more, not less ambiguity.

As far as realism, 3.0 recruiting is more realistic than the previous version. The ambiguity is precisely what makes it more realistic. In the real world, publications who publish listings of recruits, and who they're considering, often get it wrong. There's often no such thing as an objective leader. The previous version was completely unrealistic in that there was a clearly defined leader who got the recruit 100% of the time, regardless of how close the battle was.

The recruit preferred my team more than yours, but due to the programming of the game, he chose the school he was less interested in. That's what happened. Whether some people like it or not is what is up for debate. I personally think it's dumb, other's do not. I personally think most people agree with me, but we wont know the real verdict until a couple more seasons have been completed throughout the worlds.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this is about Jimmy Baker. I had shown him a fair amount of attention, had offered a scholarship, but didn't have the resources to do home visits until I lost an early entry. So I was moderate, with a scholarship offered prior to the interim period, then moved to very high earlier today. I had mentioned in another thread that it may feel like poaching to you, if I was able to pull it off. But I was very clearly coming after him.

This ties back in to the early entry debate. As I've been saying for a long time, it is very possible to deal with a reasonable number of early entries in 3.0 (i.e., 1 or 2 early entries, when you have other scholarship resources to expend).

As to whether there should be a delineation between high and very high in how we were listed, I'm agnostic. We were both within the signing parameters. I'd guess I was on the high end of high, but obviously I have no way to know that. Anyway, you can make a case for just having one name for the teams that are within signing parameters, so you don't know when you've been beaten from behind. But then you don't have that info when you're playing the game either, and then you're dealing with less info and more ambiguity. Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around.

I don't care about poaching. I've poached people before, it's a realistic part of the game.

"Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around."

This quote is why I'll be leaving. Don't worry, I'm not delusional enough to think any of you will care. The game just isn't realistic. There is no reason in real life that a recruit would pick a school that they had less interest in. If you guys can enjoy this crap, then have fun.

To be clear, I said it might feel like poaching. What I did wasn't really anything like poaching, or the more precise term sniping. I got within the signability parameters, and the recruit chose my team. If you and others are sure the game experience would improve if we had both just been listed as very high, fine. I'm skeptical that people would actually prefer that situation though, because there would be more, not less ambiguity.

As far as realism, 3.0 recruiting is more realistic than the previous version. The ambiguity is precisely what makes it more realistic. In the real world, publications who publish listings of recruits, and who they're considering, often get it wrong. There's often no such thing as an objective leader. The previous version was completely unrealistic in that there was a clearly defined leader who got the recruit 100% of the time, regardless of how close the battle was.

The recruit preferred my team more than yours, but due to the programming of the game, he chose the school he was less interested in. That's what happened. Whether some people like it or not is what is up for debate. I personally think it's dumb, other's do not. I personally think most people agree with me, but we wont know the real verdict until a couple more seasons have been completed throughout the worlds.

No, he preferred Rutgers, that's why he chose Rutgers. Hughesjr has already explained this to you. You're reading into the status something it doesn't tell you. What you can say is that at the signing cycle, you were leading in credit (I had pulled into very high at the previous cycle). That doesn't mean he preferred Brown when he made the decision. It means Brown had more credit at the time he made his decision. The considering list doesn't tell you who the recruit prefers, it gives you a glimpse of how much effort credit you have with the recruit, relative to the effort credit leader. I understand that you think that effort credit leader should necessarily be the team the recruit prefers, but that's just not how it works anymore. You may not like the system, that's fine. But it's the system that exists.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this is about Jimmy Baker. I had shown him a fair amount of attention, had offered a scholarship, but didn't have the resources to do home visits until I lost an early entry. So I was moderate, with a scholarship offered prior to the interim period, then moved to very high earlier today. I had mentioned in another thread that it may feel like poaching to you, if I was able to pull it off. But I was very clearly coming after him.

This ties back in to the early entry debate. As I've been saying for a long time, it is very possible to deal with a reasonable number of early entries in 3.0 (i.e., 1 or 2 early entries, when you have other scholarship resources to expend).

As to whether there should be a delineation between high and very high in how we were listed, I'm agnostic. We were both within the signing parameters. I'd guess I was on the high end of high, but obviously I have no way to know that. Anyway, you can make a case for just having one name for the teams that are within signing parameters, so you don't know when you've been beaten from behind. But then you don't have that info when you're playing the game either, and then you're dealing with less info and more ambiguity. Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around.

I don't care about poaching. I've poached people before, it's a realistic part of the game.

"Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around."

This quote is why I'll be leaving. Don't worry, I'm not delusional enough to think any of you will care. The game just isn't realistic. There is no reason in real life that a recruit would pick a school that they had less interest in. If you guys can enjoy this crap, then have fun.

To be clear, I said it might feel like poaching. What I did wasn't really anything like poaching, or the more precise term sniping. I got within the signability parameters, and the recruit chose my team. If you and others are sure the game experience would improve if we had both just been listed as very high, fine. I'm skeptical that people would actually prefer that situation though, because there would be more, not less ambiguity.

As far as realism, 3.0 recruiting is more realistic than the previous version. The ambiguity is precisely what makes it more realistic. In the real world, publications who publish listings of recruits, and who they're considering, often get it wrong. There's often no such thing as an objective leader. The previous version was completely unrealistic in that there was a clearly defined leader who got the recruit 100% of the time, regardless of how close the battle was.

The recruit preferred my team more than yours, but due to the programming of the game, he chose the school he was less interested in. That's what happened. Whether some people like it or not is what is up for debate. I personally think it's dumb, other's do not. I personally think most people agree with me, but we wont know the real verdict until a couple more seasons have been completed throughout the worlds.

No, he preferred Rutgers, that's why he chose Rutgers. Hughesjr has already explained this to you. You're reading into the status something it doesn't tell you. What you can say is that at the signing cycle, you were leading in credit (I had pulled into very high at the previous cycle). That doesn't mean he preferred Brown when he made the decision. It means Brown had more credit at the time he made his decision. The considering list doesn't tell you who the recruit prefers, it gives you a glimpse of how much effort credit you have with the recruit, relative to the effort credit leader. I understand that you think that effort credit leader should necessarily be the team the recruit prefers, but that's just not how it works anymore. You may not like the system, that's fine. But it's the system that exists.

Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

And my point is, that is NOT the interest level the recruit has in the school .. it is the interest level the school has shown to the recruit based on the effort the school has put forth.

That is NOT the same thing as the interest the recruit has in the school.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

And my point is, that is NOT the interest level the recruit has in the school .. it is the interest level the school has shown to the recruit.

It's not though. That's the spin you want to put on it to justify it, but it isn't reality.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

The point is that your perception is mistaken. It's not indicating the interest level of the recruit in a school. It's indicating the "interest level" the school has in the recruit, just as the prestige is indicating the prestige of the team, not the recruit.

It's also worth noting that it's cosmetic (seble's words). The only thing you really know based on that column is an approximation of how much effort credit a team has relative to the credit leader; and by extension, you know if you're within signing parameters, or if you have more to do. You don't know who "the leader" is. You can make an assumption, based on whether there's a clear effort leader or not, but there's no "word on the street" giving you definitive information on where the recruit is leaning. Signing odds and interest level are not the same thing, and are not independently linked to each other. They're both based on how much effort credit a team has relative to the effort credit leader (again, seble's words, paraphrased).

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

And my point is, that is NOT the interest level the recruit has in the school .. it is the interest level the school has shown to the recruit.

It's not though. That's the spin you want to put on it to justify it, but it isn't reality.

yes it is .. High is absolutely defined as > 35% probability a recruit will SIGN with your school and Very High is > 40%. That is what it is defined as .. we can go back and forth all day. It will not change the definition. Neither of us have to like it.

We also don't have to like what make ATH go up in practice or what things ATH contribute to. But NOT putting practice minutes into Conditioning will mean that your ATH and SPD will not go up. We can agree with that definition .. or we could wish ATH had it's own practice setting that was not tied to DUR. But wishing will not make it so, and some of the practice minutes we put into Conditioning get wasted on Durability. What we can't do is make our ATH go up, by definition of the programmers, unless we put practice time into Conditioning.

For what it's worth, the most important thing here regarding "interest level" is that it's cosmetic. You can look at it either way, as long as you understand that it is not indicating to you who the recruit prefers (otherwise there would be a list, a ranking, or a "word on the street", etc) or even where he's leaning. It's function is to give you an approximation of how much effort credit you have with him, relative to the effort credit leader, and therefore if you're within signing parameters or not. That's all. If you're using it to determine who the recruit prefers, you're using it for something that the developers have explicitly said it is not designed to tell you.

I just know if I am high and others are very high, I want to try to put more effort in to get to Very High. I know I still have a shot at winning at high, but I have a better shot at very high.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

The point is that your perception is mistaken. It's not indicating the interest level of the recruit in a school. It's indicating the "interest level" the school has in the recruit, just as the prestige is indicating the prestige of the team, not the recruit.

It's also worth noting that it's cosmetic (seble's words). The only thing you really know based on that column is an approximation of how much effort credit a team has relative to the credit leader; and by extension, you know if you're within signing parameters, or if you have more to do. You don't know who "the leader" is. You can make an assumption, based on whether there's a clear effort leader or not, but there's no "word on the street" giving you definitive information on where the recruit is leaning. Signing odds and interest level are not the same thing, and are not independently linked to each other. They're both based on how much effort credit a team has relative to the effort credit leader (again, seble's words, paraphrased).

If this is the case why don't we see DII and DIII schools at high and very high on D1 recruits after D1 schools put more effort in? - because it represents the recruits interest in the school.

The reason would be that their effort compared to the D1 team is not high enough for them to have a high interest any more.

If a D2 school continues to put in effort against a D1 school for a recruit and didn't give up under your theory they'd still be listed at high.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"Does the column in considering say "likelihood of signing," or does it say "interest level?"

It says int level. And the column right next to it says "Prestige". Does that mean prestige of the recruit, or prestige of the team?

Clearly the prestige of the team. What's your point?

My point is that the column represents the interest level that the recruit has in a school.

The point is that your perception is mistaken. It's not indicating the interest level of the recruit in a school. It's indicating the "interest level" the school has in the recruit, just as the prestige is indicating the prestige of the team, not the recruit.

It's also worth noting that it's cosmetic (seble's words). The only thing you really know based on that column is an approximation of how much effort credit a team has relative to the credit leader; and by extension, you know if you're within signing parameters, or if you have more to do. You don't know who "the leader" is. You can make an assumption, based on whether there's a clear effort leader or not, but there's no "word on the street" giving you definitive information on where the recruit is leaning. Signing odds and interest level are not the same thing, and are not independently linked to each other. They're both based on how much effort credit a team has relative to the effort credit leader (again, seble's words, paraphrased).

If this is the case why don't we see DII and DIII schools at high and very high on D1 recruits after D1 schools put more effort in? - because it represents the recruits interest in the school.

In beta, they did show up as high or very high until they implemented the "red light". And once the red light is lifted, they immediately go back to h/vh, indicating that effort credit continues to accumulate. If a D1 has jumped on in between, the effort credit is no longer worth as much. Remember, it's relative to the leader, not an absolute representation. It's a cosmetic piece that really only shows you whether you're within signing parameters or not.