Posted by casperthegm on 11/18/2016 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Opinions in this forum obviously vary widely but in my opinion Mike's perspective, particularly for a "new owner" is spot on.

+1000000000

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/18/2016 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Was it skill for a A+ D1 school to plant a flag on a recruit's lawn and scare everyone else off?

It was the "other" coach that decided that it wasn't a winnable battle and decided to go elsewhere (i've battled plenty of lower prestige schools for elite recruits and have won some, lost some and some went uncontested). I can understand why WIS wanted to move away from the 51/49 auction model but like everything else about 3.0, I think they went too far the other way (based on everything else they did to improve parity like removing playoff $$$$, rollover, distance, recruiting caps).

You already had the prestige and the most resources. Why would a B- school in his backyard even try to get the guy?

Prestige is the result of success (otherwise we'd be playing SLB Basketball where we start even every season). Resources are gone. In HD 2.0, the B- school was recruiting that 4 season 2-3 star recruit and would be pitting his IQ heavy lineup versus my volatile lineup which may/may not get decimated season of 4-5 star recruits. They usually had the IQ advantage versus my attribute one.

Ok, as a "new" owner, how do I get that prestige if entrenched veteran owners are getting all the top recruits, thru system design, and beating my brains in?

My question to you all is what purpose does EE serve in HD 3.0 now?

In 2.0, they were there to even the playing field between the elite A+ baseline teams with the non-elites (mid-majors/mid-tier P5).

If there here for realism (aka they exist in RL), then replacing them should just be as real (did LSU not hit the recruiting trail when Ben Simmons was on their roster)?

If there here for gameplay (even the field even more), then if everyone here agrees that these elite recruits are going to be spread out more, why have them unless its to punish the team that somehow does pull off the recruit 4 x 5 stars in 3.0. Having them seems to be punitive for something we have no control over other than make it more difficult to compete for a title versus a coach who gets lucky and not get hit with EEs.

I already detailed my plight in S1-20. I don't mind putting in the time/effort to get as close to the top as I can get. But, as I discovered, getting crushed by Duke/UNC/Clemson was my pinnacle. I couldn't get the players they could.

While that may be how it works in the real world, it's really tough to sell a guy starting at W Conn St that is his future life if he wants to play in a top 5 conference.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I already detailed my plight in S1-20. I don't mind putting in the time/effort to get as close to the top as I can get. But, as I discovered, getting crushed by Duke/UNC/Clemson was my pinnacle. I couldn't get the players they could.

While that may be how it works in the real world, it's really tough to sell a guy starting at W Conn St that is his future life if he wants to play in a top 5 conference.

If they did nothing else but remove postseason cash and rollover, I think you'd find it a MUCH easier time to recruit against Duke, UNC and Clemson for recruits.

Perhaps. But I'm not trying to invent a better mousetrap. I'm trying to figure out why veteran owners hate the current one. Objectively. I had an idea but I don't want to be judgemental.

Some really good points here, but the point to remember is we are at MOST only in the second season of 3.0. Yes it has some flaws with the handling of EE's, but somebody in this thread brought up a very good point. That is Five Star recruits are almost always EE's, and buddy you need to prepare for him to leave one and done because that is what you need to think when you go "elite recruits". You are not keeping a five star all four years, sorry, now put on your big boy pants and move on. That is as simple as it gets guys....be prepared.

This is a new system, and requires learning. I hate to see many of my friends leave, but I will state here that a "learning process can be fun, only if you think it is fun". And that simply means if you don't want to start and learn a new system, then you won't...leave, or cut back teams (as I have done). I no longer feel it is a "dice roll" game, because I am starting to see some logic behind "why" I am losing some guys I was very high on. I still think that the game needs tweeks, but the more recruiting cycles I go through I am finding out there totally is a method, and a reason to how to recruit. I have several personal victories,and just as many losses of guys in the last cycle.....and they ALL boil down to "attention", and how well you and the recruit match, and less about the recruiting dollars.

Posted by Benis on 11/18/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I already detailed my plight in S1-20. I don't mind putting in the time/effort to get as close to the top as I can get. But, as I discovered, getting crushed by Duke/UNC/Clemson was my pinnacle. I couldn't get the players they could.

While that may be how it works in the real world, it's really tough to sell a guy starting at W Conn St that is his future life if he wants to play in a top 5 conference.

If they did nothing else but remove postseason cash and rollover, I think you'd find it a MUCH easier time to recruit against Duke, UNC and Clemson for recruits.

It's a common refrain, but not very accurate, IMO. Number of scholarships was king in the old system, and prestige was queen. They're still part of the equation, but not as dominant. Taken together, teams recruiting only elite talent had a perpetual advantage in recruiting. The early entries helped on a couple fronts - they increase prestige in and of themselves; and of course as elite commodities, they helped their teams win with talent, even if they were only available for 2 or 3 years. And vacating those scholarships in time to give their former teams full resources for those scholarships is a huge boon to recruiting.

In theory, the dichotomy between IQ and talent should be a wash - and it is/was at D2/3. But at D1, it was generally no contest, unless the IQ team was lucky enough to have elite talent that stayed 4 years. In 2.0, at high D1, everyone knew what the winning recruiting strategy was; you just had to wait your turn until you had enough geographic breathing room to start capitalizing on it.

ETA - and at the base of it, the deterministic nature of recruiting, where 51 beat 49 100% of the time, heavily rewarded risk aversion, which is essentially what caused the non-competitive environment to develop. That had to be fixed, and eliminating conference cash and rollover (and job logic) wasn't going to touch that aspect.

My guess is that EEs still exist because they provide a deterrent to those who want to build teams solely by focusing on recruiting elite level talent and the developers were trying make that a less desirable alternative.

If the disincentive isn't steep enough then everyone will just keep trying to build teams that are 10 to 12 deep with four and five star players.

At least this way the choice is still in the user's hands. You can still try to build teams that way but it's a pretty steep downside and difficult to perpetuate. Elite players are still really valuable the just don't come anywhere near as cheaply as they did before.

Posted by Benis on 11/18/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I already detailed my plight in S1-20. I don't mind putting in the time/effort to get as close to the top as I can get. But, as I discovered, getting crushed by Duke/UNC/Clemson was my pinnacle. I couldn't get the players they could.

While that may be how it works in the real world, it's really tough to sell a guy starting at W Conn St that is his future life if he wants to play in a top 5 conference.

If they did nothing else but remove postseason cash and rollover, I think you'd find it a MUCH easier time to recruit against Duke, UNC and Clemson for recruits.

And one last thing - at Virginia, the conference cash and rollover was the only reason I *could* compete for some elite recruits, taking over a C team in an A conference. 2.0 without conference cash and rollover, and the doormat is DOA for any local talent.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/18/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 12:24:00 PM (view original):
All sims have "dice roll" components. The better team doesn't always win(much like real-life). I think the problem here is that the recruiting of the better players to give yourself a better shot at the game result dice roll isn't being accepted the same as the game dice roll. Recruiting is now "random" while the game result isn't. I'm not sure I understand the difference.

Respectfully, you've done a lot of great work at HBD, but you've been here for like five minutes and think you have a nuanced perspective on the changeover.

You're a good guy and I hope you enjoy HD 3.0, but again respectfully, you don't seem to remember much about 2.0.

No, I don't think that at all.

I've read the forum, a lot of this forum, and the gripe, excluding EE as I think that problem will solve itself, has been that no one knows with 100% certainty if a recruit will sign with them if another school has shown interest. This is the hated "dice roll". If I'm mistaken, please explain. If not, then I stand by my comment.

You're not wrong at all. You and shoe3 completely disassembled kc's objection.

BTW, in a dice roll you have no influence, you just roll 'em and whatever happens, happens. Same for a coin flip, you have no influence, you flip it and whatever happens, happens. The key to understanding the difference in HD is understanding that you are influencing your outcomes all along the way. That there is a decision at the end of some of the processes that is probability based in no way changes the fact that you influenced that decision.

You have influence its called effort.

I'll cap this off as I won't be around tomorrow.

Two long-terms owners decided to engage. One said "Stay at DII if competition is what you wanted" and "Play EA Sports games if that is what you seek." The other said "I choose not to continue this debate" when I pointed out that recruiting is not random.

So, if 2.0 wasn't broken, I don't understand the word "broken".

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 8:21:00 PM (view original):
I'll cap this off as I won't be around tomorrow.

Two long-terms owners decided to engage. One said "Stay at DII if competition is what you wanted" and "Play EA Sports games if that is what you seek." The other said "I choose not to continue this debate" when I pointed out that recruiting is not random.

So, if 2.0 wasn't broken, I don't understand the word "broken".

To clarify, I chose that because you are a Spud-esque waste of time.

Maybe somebody has the time to look this up and figure it out. I just don't have the time.

Between the start of 2014 and now in D1 in all 10 worlds, there have been around 235 to 240 D1 championship teams.

If MikeT23 is correct then there would have been only a handful of coaches who started in 2010 or after who won
a D1 national championship. I have been looking myself for the last year or so and I have seen exactly zero. Now I certainly haven't
seen all or a majority of them in that time frame but I would bet I have seen at least 50 and all of the NT D1 winning coaches have started in between 2002 and 2009.

I would be interested to know if anybody knows a coach who has won a D1 NT who started in 2010 or later.

Posted by bofreedom on 11/18/2016 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Maybe somebody has the time to look this up and figure it out. I just don't have the time.

Between the start of 2014 and now in D1 in all 10 worlds, there have been around 235 to 240 D1 championship teams.

If MikeT23 is correct then there would have been only a handful of coaches who started in 2010 or after who won
a D1 national championship. I have been looking myself for the last year or so and I have seen exactly zero. Now I certainly haven't
seen all or a majority of them in that time frame but I would bet I have seen at least 50 and all of the NT D1 winning coaches have started in between 2002 and 2009.

I would be interested to know if anybody knows a coach who has won a D1 NT who started in 2010 or later.

I checked Div-1 in Crum. We're in Season 86 right now.

From what i could see:

Every Div-1 Crum national championship team has had a coach who was in the Big Six since Season 40 at least (there might be one exception from an owner who was Big Six since Season 50). All have been in HD since at least Season 30 or earlier.

If we say 7.5 HD seasons per earth year, and we go back to Season 40, that's 45 years, divided by 7.5 is 6 years, so 2010.
So every Crum Div-1 championship coach (except one) has been in the Big Six since 2010.
And each has played HD since 2008 at least, most much earlier.