You need to know all the pieces of data to draw a conclusion. That's it.

Why do you "need" to know? To "crack the code"?

Preferences:

Success

Wants Rebuild

Bad
Play Style

Perimeter Offense

Good
Offense

Flex

Neutral
Defense

Fullcourt Press

Neutral

The D3 team would have had a VERY GOOD for flex and a GOOD (but worse than my good) for PERIMETER OFFENSE. Neither of us run a press or are a rebuild.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Why do you "need" to know? To "crack the code"?

Man you're grumpy today.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
"Need" to know? Or just want to know? Will the complaining stop if the D3 had 1600 AP, 10 HV, a CV, 25m and a start?


Or will the "D3 should NEVER beat D1" still be the mantra?

Well, yeah, I would be OK with a D3 never being able to beat a D1.

But even if D3s are allowed to compete, the question remains how much power their actions have compared to a D1. I'm not sure this example really tells us anything without knowing what effort the D3 put in. Other examples suggest that the D3 teams have way more power than the current example suggests.

Posted by jcfreder on 3/1/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/1/2017 9:54:00 AM (view original):
It may be as simple a matter of timing -- TJ put his AP on the recruit with time for the AP to take effect and negate the time the D3 had been on the recruit. The Union-UConn-WVU may not have moved their attention to the recruit sufficiently soon enough to negates Union's long-standing effort before the recruit made his signing decision.

Sure if a D1 winks and flirts with a recruit that is only getting attention from a long-standing D3, we think the recruit should be overwhelmed by the (slight) attention. But it seems even D1's have to make the commitment to attention with enough time for the recruit to recognize the flirting.

Are you saying that recruits make their decision before considering the effort put in on a particular cycle?

That is a good question; I'll admit to not having enough experience to answer it. I'll speculate a bit, but open to experienced voice chiming in.

Presumably every recruit has a "time" they will decide to sign. While we have some measure of that "time" -- whenever, early, late, by end of Period 1 -- until that "time" hits, or anytime past that "time" the recruit will decide based on the effort up to that point. So if D3 begins putting AP on D1 recruit from the 8 am start, and continues that same effort through unlocking additional recruiting efforts, through the dead period and into the start of when D1's will begin "considering" to sign with D3; then this may build the D3 effort that negates a D1 starting the process at the beginning of the period right after the dead period.

However, this speculation may presume "considering" credit, which I think I read does not exist in 3.0.

Posted by jcfreder on 3/1/2017 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
"Need" to know? Or just want to know? Will the complaining stop if the D3 had 1600 AP, 10 HV, a CV, 25m and a start?


Or will the "D3 should NEVER beat D1" still be the mantra?

Well, yeah, I would be OK with a D3 never being able to beat a D1.

But even if D3s are allowed to compete, the question remains how much power their actions have compared to a D1. I'm not sure this example really tells us anything without knowing what effort the D3 put in. Other examples suggest that the D3 teams have way more power than the current example suggests.

If they can never beat a D1, they shouldn't be allowed to compete. I've been a proponent of some D1 projected recruits simply refusing AP. It would safeguard n00bs from reaching too high/wasting resources and prevent more experienced D3 users from getting a competitive advantage by knowing exactly how high to reach.

But, once you allow users to use resources, they should have a chance. As I said, I put 800ish AP in a D1 and lost him in two(technically 3) cycles. VH to H to player signs with D1. I felt that was fair. I hadn't offered a CV and only 1 HV(funds). Such is life. But, if I had dropped 80 AP every cycle, a CV, 25m, a start and as many HV as I could, I'd have had a different attitude about losing him that quickly. But wouldn't have griped.

" Other examples suggest that the D3 teams have way more power than the current example suggests." That's why I posted it. I think this is more in line with what normally happens as opposed to the Uconn/Union debacle.

I think eliminating considering credit was a mistake. It is a realistic way a lower-prestige team could gain an advantage over a higher-prestige one.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2017 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 3/1/2017 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/1/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
"Need" to know? Or just want to know? Will the complaining stop if the D3 had 1600 AP, 10 HV, a CV, 25m and a start?


Or will the "D3 should NEVER beat D1" still be the mantra?

Well, yeah, I would be OK with a D3 never being able to beat a D1.

But even if D3s are allowed to compete, the question remains how much power their actions have compared to a D1. I'm not sure this example really tells us anything without knowing what effort the D3 put in. Other examples suggest that the D3 teams have way more power than the current example suggests.

If they can never beat a D1, they shouldn't be allowed to compete. I've been a proponent of some D1 projected recruits simply refusing AP. It would safeguard n00bs from reaching too high/wasting resources and prevent more experienced D3 users from getting a competitive advantage by knowing exactly how high to reach.

But, once you allow users to use resources, they should have a chance. As I said, I put 800ish AP in a D1 and lost him in two(technically 3) cycles. VH to H to player signs with D1. I felt that was fair. I hadn't offered a CV and only 1 HV(funds). Such is life. But, if I had dropped 80 AP every cycle, a CV, 25m, a start and as many HV as I could, I'd have had a different attitude about losing him that quickly. But wouldn't have griped.

I agree that if you let D3 spend money on a guy, the D3 should be able to win. I would not have a problem with a D3's first round of effort toward a decent D1 guy getting an email response to go fly a kite. Which would be exceedingly realistic.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/1/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
My point is it took very little effort to knock off a D3 team that was heavily invested in a recruit. I don't know for sure how much he put it but he was on him from the very beginning and I started recruiting him 2 days before the second period ended.

If I had one more cycle I would have doubled my effort by promising minutes, sending a HV and crushed the D3 school.

This happened after I lost 2 all in battles.

This thread is a joke. 1st you say he was heavily invested, then you come right back and say you don't know. Well it's true...you don't know how much they invested. It could have been the minimum it takes to get to VH,

Posted by mullycj on 3/1/2017 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/1/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
My point is it took very little effort to knock off a D3 team that was heavily invested in a recruit. I don't know for sure how much he put it but he was on him from the very beginning and I started recruiting him 2 days before the second period ended.

If I had one more cycle I would have doubled my effort by promising minutes, sending a HV and crushed the D3 school.

This happened after I lost 2 all in battles.

This thread is a joke. 1st you say he was heavily invested, then you come right back and say you don't know. Well it's true...you don't know how much they invested. It could have been the minimum it takes to get to VH,

Well, I don't know EXACTLY how much he invested but I can figure out roughly how much he put in.

This is what I do know:

I invested 162 AP.

He was on the players for the entire second period (and likely before that).

The value of my 162 AP was slightly more than the D3 had (I was 56-44 so the effort was very close to 50-50).

His preference's were roughly the same, he may have had a very small advantage.

My prestige gives me, at a very conservative estimate, 50% advantage.

I believe it is reasonable to suggest he had the equivalent of at least 250 AP in.


So my assessment is that he had AT LEAST 250 AP worth of effort in.

Did you ask him?

yeah, no response