HD 3.0 involves less strategy. Topic

Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 4:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by CoachSpud on 2/20/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):
debater, I agree with you and shoe. If D1 is already in such good shape, what would you say to the guys who want more and more advantages for D1?
The biggest problem for many coaches in regards to caps is when D1 competes against D1, both teams typically max out on HV and CV, usually give a start and some minutes, and wait out a luck-filled snoozefest. That is why many D1 coaches want to up the caps or remove the caps. There is a debate, and its not cut and dry, but this is the main reasoning.

Spud, who cares if D1 has natural advantages over DII (just like in Real Life) ??? DII doesn't directly compete against D1 for titles. DII competes against DII at the end of the day. Why this obsession? DII teams are not trying to win the D1 title.

Any advantage/disadvantages that DII has is the same across all of DII, EVERY DII COACH WILL HAVE THE SAME EQUAL DISADVANTAGE (vs. D1) OR ADVANTAGE (vs. DIII)

As a DII coach, you should only be concerned about being on an equal playing field with the rest of DII.

I feel like this is a simple fact that has been repeated ad nauseum. I know that your talking points will not change, but I feel like just repeating it one more time.





Your first paragraph is basically how I feel.

We've talked about the game being a math problem previously where you could calculate out how much money everyone had and the distance away from the recruit etc etc. Now it's an even easier math problem when you just go all in and then the other guy goes all in. I don't see the need to really calculate my actions much since I just now wait for the ping pong ball drawing. There really isn't much for me to do after I spend my 20 HVs. I don't sit there 5 minutes before the cycle and anxiously decide whether I should risk spending more of my budget or attempt to guess whether my opponent is going to dump more of their budget. These tense moments make recruiting really exciting to me and it's really not there in D1. Just my 2 cents.
2/20/2017 5:01 PM
Posted by chapelhillne on 2/18/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
I do think one addition would make it more strategic. Right now there is no considering credit, so there is no incentive to starting early and spending anything before signings. At that point, you can go all in. I think something that would be interesting would be to keep the 20 HV and 1 CV limit, but to also install a 2 to 5 HV limit per cycle, and to add considering credit like it was in 2.0.

What would be even cooler, but probably would be impractical would be actually "scheduling" HVs and a CV with prospects. When you click on a prospect, a calendar would come up listing each cycle throughout the entire recruiting periods - early and late. There would be 4 openings per cycle for teams to schedule a HV or a CV with that prospect. One team could only schedule two per cycle. Once those 4 openings were filled up, there would be no more visits for that player in that cycle, so you'd have to schedule one for later. Once you schedule one, if you back out it hurts you with that prospect. The player could also see all of the HVs that were coming up, so if D- Lamar was leading on a recruit, but A+ Texas had a visit scheduled two cycles from that time, the prospect might wait until the Texas visit before he decided to commit to Lamar.

It's a whole new approach, but would be really interesting in my opinion.
I like that!
2/20/2017 5:03 PM
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tompkinsaj on 2/20/2017 4:55:00 PM (view original):
I fully understand the long term Div I guys might have a problem with the new recruiting. But as a Div III coach I love the 3.0 recruiting. The reason why: I can actually recruit Div I players. Is that realistic? No! But neither is having unlimited HV or even 20. We have to remember it is a game. Not real life. To confirm that all you have to do is look at the Div I top 25. Teams are in the top 25 that would have slim chance to do so in RL. Of course, part of the reason for that is the coaching vacancies in the major conferences. Bottom line is, it is an imperfect game. Things that some coaches like, others don't.
That's fine and all. I love DII recruiting in 3.0. I don't do DIII, but I assume it would be a blast.

I just think the game is still flawed when DII and DIII recruiting is more enjoyable than DI recruiting. While you might be an exception (and that's fine), my belief is that many players (especially new ones learning the game) would prefer to coach D1 schools.
I like a lot of things about the 3.0 recruiting and feel like at D3 there can be a lot of different strategies to employ.

However, I do miss some aspects of 2.0, especially getting emails from recruits. Reading an email from a recruit really got me interested in this game. I enjoyed getting a message that was hilarious and trying to determine what it meant (was I ahead, was I behind, by how much, etc). I realize this system is pretty ambiguous most of the time but it seemed like a real life interaction with a computer generated player. It was fun.

But the part I really liked about 2.0 was the pull down aspect where you were taking a huge chance by going for a pull down since it typically would take away so much of your budget at D3. There was a real risk there and it was fun. Now I can just spend APs that replenish on a bunch of D1 guys and hope that no one goes for them. I feel like it's more of the 'playing the waiting game' in this aspect. I don't know about the rest of you but in D3 I feel like I'm battling WAY less against other D3 teams in 3.0 than I did in 2.0. I have yet to have a VH v H dice roll battle at D3 against another D3.

To me, that doesn't really make much sense.
2/20/2017 5:10 PM
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tompkinsaj on 2/20/2017 4:55:00 PM (view original):
I fully understand the long term Div I guys might have a problem with the new recruiting. But as a Div III coach I love the 3.0 recruiting. The reason why: I can actually recruit Div I players. Is that realistic? No! But neither is having unlimited HV or even 20. We have to remember it is a game. Not real life. To confirm that all you have to do is look at the Div I top 25. Teams are in the top 25 that would have slim chance to do so in RL. Of course, part of the reason for that is the coaching vacancies in the major conferences. Bottom line is, it is an imperfect game. Things that some coaches like, others don't.
That's fine and all. I love DII recruiting in 3.0. I don't do DIII, but I assume it would be a blast.

I just think the game is still flawed when DII and DIII recruiting is more enjoyable than DI recruiting. While you might be an exception (and that's fine), my belief is that many players (especially new ones learning the game) would prefer to coach D1 schools.
bbunch, you are entirely correct. Realistically, RL coaches would prefer to coach Div I (more money!). I would like to move up and coach Florida State but I have enjoyed Div III. I depend on most great coaches moving up so I can continue to win. lol
2/20/2017 5:16 PM
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?
Your example is different. That's not a luck filled snoozefest at all. I accept that probability is a part of 3.0 and I like that aspect for the most part.

I don't like that D1 coaches are too limited in options to allocate effort.. They max out what they can do, then have to sit around and wait .That is the snoozefest.

When 65% loses, I accept it....but I want more control and less limitations as a D1 coach over recruiting effort.




OK, bear with me. It's been 10 years since I was at D1 and that was probably under 1.0.

Let's say there is no HV cap. You have three openings, I have one. I know, at that point, that you have more resources. Even under the current system, I know you can double my AP every cycle. But, under the "no HV cap" system you're pushing, I also know you'll be able to offer more HV. I calculate that I can offer 22. I estimate that you can offer 48(maybe it's 46, maybe it's 53). I look at your team with 4 JR, 4 SO, 1 FR. I check your boxes and notice you really only utilize 10(one redshirt, one player gets 3.4 MPG). So I assume you could take two walk-ons and be just fine. Is there any reason I would fight you for this recruit? Uncapped HV would turn this into "more resources wins" and discourage battles. Which is the game WifS CHOSE to do away with.

And, with uncapped HV, what would stop you from offering all HV you could in the first cycle possible then still have to sit around for the "luck-filled snoozefest"?
2/20/2017 5:28 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?
Your example is different. That's not a luck filled snoozefest at all. I accept that probability is a part of 3.0 and I like that aspect for the most part.

I don't like that D1 coaches are too limited in options to allocate effort.. They max out what they can do, then have to sit around and wait .That is the snoozefest.

When 65% loses, I accept it....but I want more control and less limitations as a D1 coach over recruiting effort.




OK, bear with me. It's been 10 years since I was at D1 and that was probably under 1.0.

Let's say there is no HV cap. You have three openings, I have one. I know, at that point, that you have more resources. Even under the current system, I know you can double my AP every cycle. But, under the "no HV cap" system you're pushing, I also know you'll be able to offer more HV. I calculate that I can offer 22. I estimate that you can offer 48(maybe it's 46, maybe it's 53). I look at your team with 4 JR, 4 SO, 1 FR. I check your boxes and notice you really only utilize 10(one redshirt, one player gets 3.4 MPG). So I assume you could take two walk-ons and be just fine. Is there any reason I would fight you for this recruit? Uncapped HV would turn this into "more resources wins" and discourage battles. Which is the game WifS CHOSE to do away with.

And, with uncapped HV, what would stop you from offering all HV you could in the first cycle possible then still have to sit around for the "luck-filled snoozefest"?
Your situation sounds like using sound strategy to inform your decisions to me, Mike. And personally, I would say, with more HV or at least higher caps, I personally wouldn't be running a roster with 2 walk-ons every season.

But lets assume I would. Sure, you joining that particular battle would not be wise. However, that also sounds like a pretty specific and detailed hypothetical to support your argument. I would doubt that a huge percentage of potential battles would apply to your hypothetical situation at all. Your situation requires a lot of things to happen. Most coaches with multiple openings would not opt for this strategy always IMO.

Again, I'm not about discouraging battles.....I'm about the battles being meaningful and strategic. It's not a battle when both coaches just put in 100% of resources and then wait endlessly for the weighted dice roll. This is common in D1. It's not a DII or DIII issue.







2/20/2017 5:52 PM
We're obviously going to disagree, which is fine, so I won't continue on as you seem to be a reasonable fellow(screw the angry jerks. I'd argue with them all night).

My example was kind of specific but it's already applied me(just not extensive HV as we don't have that kind of dough in D3) in my two completed recruiting seasons in 3.0. I bailed in one instance(almost exactly as I posted) and stuck in another(his real need was not G). I didn't want to battle in the first and didn't have to battle in the 2nd. But, with more money, I expect similar situations will apply because I will be able to offer 20 HV and so will they.
2/20/2017 5:59 PM
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?
Your example is different. That's not a luck filled snoozefest at all. I accept that probability is a part of 3.0 and I like that aspect for the most part.

I don't like that D1 coaches are too limited in options to allocate effort.. They max out what they can do, then have to sit around and wait .That is the snoozefest.

When 65% loses, I accept it....but I want more control and less limitations as a D1 coach over recruiting effort.




OK, bear with me. It's been 10 years since I was at D1 and that was probably under 1.0.

Let's say there is no HV cap. You have three openings, I have one. I know, at that point, that you have more resources. Even under the current system, I know you can double my AP every cycle. But, under the "no HV cap" system you're pushing, I also know you'll be able to offer more HV. I calculate that I can offer 22. I estimate that you can offer 48(maybe it's 46, maybe it's 53). I look at your team with 4 JR, 4 SO, 1 FR. I check your boxes and notice you really only utilize 10(one redshirt, one player gets 3.4 MPG). So I assume you could take two walk-ons and be just fine. Is there any reason I would fight you for this recruit? Uncapped HV would turn this into "more resources wins" and discourage battles. Which is the game WifS CHOSE to do away with.

And, with uncapped HV, what would stop you from offering all HV you could in the first cycle possible then still have to sit around for the "luck-filled snoozefest"?
Your situation sounds like using sound strategy to inform your decisions to me, Mike. And personally, I would say, with more HV or at least higher caps, I personally wouldn't be running a roster with 2 walk-ons every season.

But lets assume I would. Sure, you joining that particular battle would not be wise. However, that also sounds like a pretty specific and detailed hypothetical to support your argument. I would doubt that a huge percentage of potential battles would apply to your hypothetical situation at all. Your situation requires a lot of things to happen. Most coaches with multiple openings would not opt for this strategy always IMO.

Again, I'm not about discouraging battles.....I'm about the battles being meaningful and strategic. It's not a battle when both coaches just put in 100% of resources and then wait endlessly for the weighted dice roll. This is common in D1. It's not a DII or DIII issue.







In that situation, the guy with 3 openings would then be beat by a guy with 6 openings. Or not. He'd have to spread out his resources more too. But yes, the guy with 1 opening is at a disadvantage in a straight head to head battle. All depends on how the guy with more openings decides to allocate.

It's still much better than in 2.0 when you had bonus cash and rollover.

But you could adjust the money given out for each opening and increase the base amount.
2/20/2017 6:18 PM
Benis : D3 cap to D2, fixed. It's location more than ever now, not skills.
2/20/2017 6:18 PM
Do away with projected levels. Look at my team. Is there a D1 player on it? Projected levels says there are 3. How odd.
2/20/2017 6:22 PM
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?
Your example is different. That's not a luck filled snoozefest at all. I accept that probability is a part of 3.0 and I like that aspect for the most part.

I don't like that D1 coaches are too limited in options to allocate effort.. They max out what they can do, then have to sit around and wait .That is the snoozefest.

When 65% loses, I accept it....but I want more control and less limitations as a D1 coach over recruiting effort.




OK, bear with me. It's been 10 years since I was at D1 and that was probably under 1.0.

Let's say there is no HV cap. You have three openings, I have one. I know, at that point, that you have more resources. Even under the current system, I know you can double my AP every cycle. But, under the "no HV cap" system you're pushing, I also know you'll be able to offer more HV. I calculate that I can offer 22. I estimate that you can offer 48(maybe it's 46, maybe it's 53). I look at your team with 4 JR, 4 SO, 1 FR. I check your boxes and notice you really only utilize 10(one redshirt, one player gets 3.4 MPG). So I assume you could take two walk-ons and be just fine. Is there any reason I would fight you for this recruit? Uncapped HV would turn this into "more resources wins" and discourage battles. Which is the game WifS CHOSE to do away with.

And, with uncapped HV, what would stop you from offering all HV you could in the first cycle possible then still have to sit around for the "luck-filled snoozefest"?
Your situation sounds like using sound strategy to inform your decisions to me, Mike. And personally, I would say, with more HV or at least higher caps, I personally wouldn't be running a roster with 2 walk-ons every season.

But lets assume I would. Sure, you joining that particular battle would not be wise. However, that also sounds like a pretty specific and detailed hypothetical to support your argument. I would doubt that a huge percentage of potential battles would apply to your hypothetical situation at all. Your situation requires a lot of things to happen. Most coaches with multiple openings would not opt for this strategy always IMO.

Again, I'm not about discouraging battles.....I'm about the battles being meaningful and strategic. It's not a battle when both coaches just put in 100% of resources and then wait endlessly for the weighted dice roll. This is common in D1. It's not a DII or DIII issue.







It will definitely discourage battles. This is exactly what made D1 so dysfunctional in the previous version. If I know you *can* vastly outspend me on HVs for any single recruit, battling you would be suicide. So we're back to superclasses.

I know some people think the dollar/recruit ratio is in favor of fewer scholarships, but that's a rationalization, and this game has never played out that way at the high levels. Gillespie and a few others found a way to sometimes make this work in 2.0 by keeping tabs on who the top teams were all going after, and watching for when they got challenged. Once you got challenged for one guy in 2.0, you were likely to get challenged for everyone of value. Of course, that's not available to mitigate the total resource advantage the 6-opening team would have in 3.0 recruiting, because now you can't easily see who other teams are recruiting (for good reason).

Uncapping HVs would be a huge step backward, for very little gained. It was capped for a reason (and no, it wasn't to stop sniping or "poaching", because it doesn't). Having teams with lots of open scholarships being able to bid more doesn't add real strategy, it just marks a turn back toward the previous version where one particular strategy worked better than all others.

ETA I get you think it's boring at the high levels of D1, we just disagree on that. It mimics real life very well, where UK and Duke put their chips on the table, make the best pitch they can make, then wait for the recruit to decide. There is strategy involved in jockeying for position, particularly with APs.
2/20/2017 9:00 PM (edited)
Posted by Benis on 2/20/2017 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tompkinsaj on 2/20/2017 4:55:00 PM (view original):
I fully understand the long term Div I guys might have a problem with the new recruiting. But as a Div III coach I love the 3.0 recruiting. The reason why: I can actually recruit Div I players. Is that realistic? No! But neither is having unlimited HV or even 20. We have to remember it is a game. Not real life. To confirm that all you have to do is look at the Div I top 25. Teams are in the top 25 that would have slim chance to do so in RL. Of course, part of the reason for that is the coaching vacancies in the major conferences. Bottom line is, it is an imperfect game. Things that some coaches like, others don't.
That's fine and all. I love DII recruiting in 3.0. I don't do DIII, but I assume it would be a blast.

I just think the game is still flawed when DII and DIII recruiting is more enjoyable than DI recruiting. While you might be an exception (and that's fine), my belief is that many players (especially new ones learning the game) would prefer to coach D1 schools.
I like a lot of things about the 3.0 recruiting and feel like at D3 there can be a lot of different strategies to employ.

However, I do miss some aspects of 2.0, especially getting emails from recruits. Reading an email from a recruit really got me interested in this game. I enjoyed getting a message that was hilarious and trying to determine what it meant (was I ahead, was I behind, by how much, etc). I realize this system is pretty ambiguous most of the time but it seemed like a real life interaction with a computer generated player. It was fun.

But the part I really liked about 2.0 was the pull down aspect where you were taking a huge chance by going for a pull down since it typically would take away so much of your budget at D3. There was a real risk there and it was fun. Now I can just spend APs that replenish on a bunch of D1 guys and hope that no one goes for them. I feel like it's more of the 'playing the waiting game' in this aspect. I don't know about the rest of you but in D3 I feel like I'm battling WAY less against other D3 teams in 3.0 than I did in 2.0. I have yet to have a VH v H dice roll battle at D3 against another D3.

To me, that doesn't really make much sense.
Yes, the risk reward of pull downs was a great aspect. Much more appealing in strategy to the dice roll dynasty.
2/20/2017 8:54 PM
HD 3.0 elite D1 recruiting.
2/20/2017 9:00 PM
"But the part I really liked about 2.0 was the pull down aspect where you were taking a huge chance by going for a pull down since it typically would take away so much of your budget at D3. There was a real risk there and it was fun. Now I can just spend APs that replenish on a bunch of D1 guys and hope that no one goes for them. I feel like it's more of the 'playing the waiting game' in this aspect. I don't know about the rest of you but in D3 I feel like I'm battling WAY less against other D3 teams in 3.0 than I did in 2.0. I have yet to have a VH v H dice roll battle at D3 against another D3.

To me, that doesn't really make much sense."


It makes perfect sense. The less good a recruit is, the less incentive there is to take on risk in fighting for him. That's how the game should be. D3 should be mostly about catching the good players that fall through the cracks. Whatever your division, you probably shouldn't battle for players that are easily replaceable.
2/20/2017 9:09 PM
Benis is alluded to it earlier, and I want to bring it back up.

I used to feel anxious right before a cycle would turn in 2.0. Did I play that right? Did I leave money on the table that I should have spent, and will it hurt me? Did I spend too much money on that kid, and will it leave me vulnerable?

Now, I frankly don't feel anything. I pretty much forget recruiting is going on. I set up my targets and APs, spend a little money. If I feel like spending money before signings, I can, but if I don't want to, I can wait till signing cycle. Regardless, I know that my efforts will likely give me a chance on a kid, and also not be enough to avoid a dice roll too. So you simply wait to see if you crap out or not. Snooze.
2/20/2017 9:19 PM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9 Next ▸
HD 3.0 involves less strategy. Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.