I know I groused about this on the beta forum, but I'm doing it again.

The overall grades in 3.0 are a joke. Taking a look at the Top 100 in the newly generated Naismith pool, the No. 1 SF in the nation, a top 10 recruit, gets an overall grade of B. There are several C's in the bottom half of the Top 100.

Again, these are the Top 100 recruits. That very distinction should render them incapable of a C ("average") gradient.

As a D2 program who wishes to spend no scouting money on the Top 100 because I know I have scant/no chance of landing them, I shouldn't have to click through a bunch of C-rated players to make sure they're not also Top 100 before advancing to scout them up. The grade of C should not apply to players who start in the high 500s AND in the mid/low 400s. That's a ridiculous spread that theoretically encompasses players both too high and too low for the overall division.

I can handle a concept where I have to spend imaginary money on vague information to get more specific information. But that vague information needs to accurately mean SOMETHING in its vagueness. A grade of C should not simultaneously mean both "this player might be one of the 100 best in the country" AND "this player might only be suitable for D3 ball"

Blah blah blah

lol

Isn't the whole purpose of 4 levels of scouting to encourage you to spend scouting money to get more accurate reports?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Isn't the whole purpose of 4 levels of scouting to encourage you to spend scouting money to get more accurate reports?

Right -- but shouldn't you also actually receive something in exchange for the scouting money you've already spent?

At Level 1 or Level 2 you get a flat grade -- I'll keep picking on C. So how do you determine which C's you'd like to spend money on to receive more accurate reports as a D3 program? As a D2 program? As a D1 program? Since the C grade runs the gamut of "Top 100" all the way down to "High end D3 player," you need some mechanism to target, otherwise you're wasting a ton of limited scouting resources. I don't think its asking too much from a strategy game to actually provide some depth of strategy beyond "click and pray."

Never mind that the concept of an "overall" grade infers that a person should know where, overall, that particular player fits on the spectrum.

I get what you're saying but, trying to relate it to real-life, maybe it equates to this:

L1 - read the kid's press clippings from the local rag
L2 - see some tape from a couple of games
L3 - catch a game in person, talk to his coach
L4 - watch several games in person, speak to coach, teammates and opponents

We have this sort of thing in HBD "I don't care if I had 0 HS scouting, everyone had heard of Bryce Harper!!!"

Forcing you to spend resources is WifS' way of giving you more accurate scouting results.

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Isn't the whole purpose of 4 levels of scouting to encourage you to spend scouting money to get more accurate reports?

Right -- but shouldn't you also actually receive something in exchange for the scouting money you've already spent?

At Level 1 or Level 2 you get a flat grade -- I'll keep picking on C. So how do you determine which C's you'd like to spend money on to receive more accurate reports as a D3 program? As a D2 program? As a D1 program? Since the C grade runs the gamut of "Top 100" all the way down to "High end D3 player," you need some mechanism to target, otherwise you're wasting a ton of limited scouting resources. I don't think its asking too much from a strategy game to actually provide some depth of strategy beyond "click and pray."

Never mind that the concept of an "overall" grade infers that a person should know where, overall, that particular player fits on the spectrum.

But it is overall as a college player, not a high school player. And the overalls don't take into account potential, so they are currently as worthless as they were in 2.0. If a guy has 99 in DUR then his overall score means nothing. Add in no potential, and its worthless if it is accurate.

Throw in that a freshman is usually lower than everyone else and that grade is worthless.

It CAN be worth a BIT more .. If you use player roles and if you get to Scouting Level 4 .. because it will show you the actual rating you have input for the guy's position. But it still will not take into potential, so it would only compare the PF to your other PFs in right now grades.

Which is again why you need something that can extrapolate the potential grades, add them to the current grades and show you a max attribute picture of the recruit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):
I get what you're saying but, trying to relate it to real-life, maybe it equates to this:

L1 - read the kid's press clippings from the local rag
L2 - see some tape from a couple of games
L3 - catch a game in person, talk to his coach
L4 - watch several games in person, speak to coach, teammates and opponents

We have this sort of thing in HBD "I don't care if I had 0 HS scouting, everyone had heard of Bryce Harper!!!"

Forcing you to spend resources is WifS' way of giving you more accurate scouting results.

Okay, but here's the problem -- some of those kids with C grades are TOP 100. Those are nationally prominent players. That's why the coach at D3 Kadiddlefuck State College already heard about them when recruiting starts and doesn't have to initially scout them.

THAT player is a C grade??!?

Again, I can handle the notion of spending to get more information IF (big if) the limited vague information I get actually has some sort of meaning. With regard to the overall grade, things are horribly askew. (and, please, recognize that I am aware this is but one of several pieces of information)

Following your lead of trying to relate it to real life...looking at the entirety of all real-life basketball recruits coming out of high school and junior college this year...

Roughly 1/3 of the Top 100 (pick the magazine of your choice), would grade out as "average" (C) if viewed on game tape or the kid's highlight reel video?
Only about 20 of the Top 100 would be considered 'A' players by scouts and publications who do this stuff for a living?
The No. 70 player in the nation, a solid D2 player and a random top end D3 recruit are going to be evaluated on film as having the same approximate skill set?

See the disconnect? The distribution curve is way out of whack. There are too few recruits falling into the initial A/B range, which creates a muddle of uselessness for sorting the C and D end of the equation.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Isn't the whole purpose of 4 levels of scouting to encourage you to spend scouting money to get more accurate reports?

Right -- but shouldn't you also actually receive something in exchange for the scouting money you've already spent?

At Level 1 or Level 2 you get a flat grade -- I'll keep picking on C. So how do you determine which C's you'd like to spend money on to receive more accurate reports as a D3 program? As a D2 program? As a D1 program? Since the C grade runs the gamut of "Top 100" all the way down to "High end D3 player," you need some mechanism to target, otherwise you're wasting a ton of limited scouting resources. I don't think its asking too much from a strategy game to actually provide some depth of strategy beyond "click and pray."

Never mind that the concept of an "overall" grade infers that a person should know where, overall, that particular player fits on the spectrum.

But it is overall as a college player, not a high school player. And the overalls don't take into account potential, so they are currently as worthless as they were in 2.0. If a guy has 99 in DUR then his overall score means nothing. Add in no potential, and its worthless if it is accurate.

Throw in that a freshman is usually lower than everyone else and that grade is worthless.

It CAN be worth a BIT more .. If you use player roles and if you get to Scouting Level 4 .. because it will show you the actual rating you have input for the guy's position. But it still will not take into potential, so it would only compare the PF to your other PFs in right now grades.

Which is again why you need something that can extrapolate the potential grades, add them to the current grades and show you a max attribute picture of the recruit.

It doesn't matter if it is high school or college -- that's a total red herring that actually makes it even more ridiculous. One-third of the Top 100 players are only "average" college players on par with the bulk of D2 and overlapping with some D3 players??!?

And this overlooks the entire point -- what are you supposed to do to GET to Level 4 besides click and pray? Based on information at Level 2, how do you know which players to take up to Level 3 if you're a D1 program? A D2 program? A D3 program? Once you're at Level 4 (and to a lesser degree, Level 3) things are easy. But how do I target my recruiting dollars at the Level 2 pool efficiently based on data available at THAT level?

I get it. Some things don't translate well to sims. I'm of the belief that WifS doesn't want to give us an advantage for doing the absolute minimum. I am experiencing some of what you're saying. Yes, it sucks to see a "C" only to find out he's the #12 SG is high school. But WifS want me to spend another $144(or whatever it was) to scout another level.

I guess the better correlation in HBD was international free agents. One guys puts 20m into scouting. Another puts 2m into it. As IFA appearances are just random, they both could see the same guy. 20m gets a pretty accurate reflection of who he will be. 2m gets wild projections. However, before the the update, the bonus demands could range from 40k to 8m. And 8m was always a stud. That wasn't right and several of us lobbied for change. Many years later, it came about.

So, again, WifS is just making you spend money on scouting to get an accurate number.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I guess the better correlation in HBD was international free agents. One guys puts 20m into scouting. Another puts 2m into it. As IFA appearances are just random, they both could see the same guy. 20m gets a pretty accurate reflection of who he will be. 2m gets wild projections. However, before the the update, the bonus demands could range from 40k to 8m. And 8m was always a stud. That wasn't right and several of us lobbied for change. Many years later, it came about.

So, again, WifS is just making you spend money on scouting to get an accurate number.

Clearly its been too long since I played HBD...I don't even remember IFA's!

The Overall grade is nothing more than the sum of the individual attribute grades, probably somewhat weighted. You can learn a lot about the recruit from the letter grades. "...how do I target my recruiting dollars at the Level 2 pool efficiently based on data available at THAT level?" Trial and error, or more properly trial and observation. Again it's a matter of probabilities, (and I am believing more and more that probabilities completely escape some guys here). Not only that, but there seems to be plenty of scouting money to go around. It might be a little thin at D3, but at D1/D2 you can do a good job of scouting with what you have.

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Isn't the whole purpose of 4 levels of scouting to encourage you to spend scouting money to get more accurate reports?

Right -- but shouldn't you also actually receive something in exchange for the scouting money you've already spent?

At Level 1 or Level 2 you get a flat grade -- I'll keep picking on C. So how do you determine which C's you'd like to spend money on to receive more accurate reports as a D3 program? As a D2 program? As a D1 program? Since the C grade runs the gamut of "Top 100" all the way down to "High end D3 player," you need some mechanism to target, otherwise you're wasting a ton of limited scouting resources. I don't think its asking too much from a strategy game to actually provide some depth of strategy beyond "click and pray."

Never mind that the concept of an "overall" grade infers that a person should know where, overall, that particular player fits on the spectrum.

But it is overall as a college player, not a high school player. And the overalls don't take into account potential, so they are currently as worthless as they were in 2.0. If a guy has 99 in DUR then his overall score means nothing. Add in no potential, and its worthless if it is accurate.

Throw in that a freshman is usually lower than everyone else and that grade is worthless.

It CAN be worth a BIT more .. If you use player roles and if you get to Scouting Level 4 .. because it will show you the actual rating you have input for the guy's position. But it still will not take into potential, so it would only compare the PF to your other PFs in right now grades.

Which is again why you need something that can extrapolate the potential grades, add them to the current grades and show you a max attribute picture of the recruit.

It doesn't matter if it is high school or college -- that's a total red herring that actually makes it even more ridiculous. One-third of the Top 100 players are only "average" college players on par with the bulk of D2 and overlapping with some D3 players??!?

And this overlooks the entire point -- what are you supposed to do to GET to Level 4 besides click and pray? Based on information at Level 2, how do you know which players to take up to Level 3 if you're a D1 program? A D2 program? A D3 program? Once you're at Level 4 (and to a lesser degree, Level 3) things are easy. But how do I target my recruiting dollars at the Level 2 pool efficiently based on data available at THAT level?

At level 2, you can start using advanced search by individual attributes - for example, give me 60+ ATH, 60+ DEF, 60+ BH, and 30+ WE. And you can add in player preferences, too. To me, the system for discerning who you want to scout from level 2 up is pretty straightforward, and plays well. It's getting from level 1 to level 2 that can be tricky. That's where the grades (including OVR) are basically meaningless. Those are the kids you only know about from the scouting service (or perhaps they're from a non-FSSed state, and showed up at a public camp you attended, or your asst caught them once, if you forgot to de-select the "find new players" option for him). The whole reason I use the asst is to scout up a group of players more cost efficiently than doing it myself manually. Getting them from level 1 to level 2 is the most valuable, to me.

Honestly, after I'm done with FSS, camps, and the asst, and when I'm looking at my level 1 pool, I generally just scout up all the *really* local ones who don't have Ds in both physical AND defense. The rest can wait until later, if I find myself needing to pick back through.

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I guess the better correlation in HBD was international free agents. One guys puts 20m into scouting. Another puts 2m into it. As IFA appearances are just random, they both could see the same guy. 20m gets a pretty accurate reflection of who he will be. 2m gets wild projections. However, before the the update, the bonus demands could range from 40k to 8m. And 8m was always a stud. That wasn't right and several of us lobbied for change. Many years later, it came about.

So, again, WifS is just making you spend money on scouting to get an accurate number.

Clearly its been too long since I played HBD...I don't even remember IFA's!

Not to hijack the thread but IFA had a bug. Once you saw one, you could see all of them but adding one to the player card. i.e. if you saw HBDIFA012596, you could punch in HBDIFA012597 to see the next one and so on. This inform was shared in the forum at some point, probably way too late, but, if you didn't read the forums, you didn't know. WifS fixed it after that but a select few benefited from it for awhile.

Which is why I mildly objected to "cracking the code" on the value of AP vs HV, CV, etc.

If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.