Mike - I agree. Having more information is better than not. It's an advantage. I don't think it's a huge advantage to see that a team had 1 EE tho.

But mostly I disagree with the idea that this would give the team with EE SUCH an advantage that other teams would be scared off of recruits and would reduce battling. This is ridiculous and wouldn't happen. This is especially true for the top recruits and what Seble wanted to fix in 3.0

Teams with EEs are going to be battling for top recruits primarily. So let's say you're battling UNC and Duke for the #1 player who is a late signer. Openings are all even between you and those 2 teams. So you battle back and forth throughout the first session. You can clearly see both of those teams have EEs on the big board so you know it's a possibility they could get some extra funds in the 2nd session. You go all in and you end the 1st session tied VH with UNC and Duke.

Now, before the start of the 2nd session, you see that UNC got 1 EE and Duke got 2 EEs. Are you going to just concede this recruit to them and give up? Obviously not. If you do, then you're obviously a pretty terrible coach and you have no clue what you're doing. You've already invested so much in the battle. And even if you're knocked down to high, you still have a chance to win. These are great "pot odds".

And even if you did just give up, at this point, UNC and Duke would still have had to put in max effort to get the player. They didn't just get gifted the player like many have complained about that would happen in 2.0. There is no snowballing. None.

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Mike - I agree. Having more information is better than not. It's an advantage. I don't think it's a huge advantage to see that a team had 1 EE tho.

But mostly I disagree with the idea that this would give the team with EE SUCH an advantage that other teams would be scared off of recruits and would reduce battling. This is ridiculous and wouldn't happen. This is especially true for the top recruits and what Seble wanted to fix in 3.0

Teams with EEs are going to be battling for top recruits primarily. So let's say you're battling UNC and Duke for the #1 player who is a late signer. Openings are all even between you and those 2 teams. So you battle back and forth throughout the first session. You can clearly see both of those teams have EEs on the big board so you know it's a possibility they could get some extra funds in the 2nd session. You go all in and you end the 1st session tied VH with UNC and Duke.

Now, before the start of the 2nd session, you see that UNC got 1 EE and Duke got 2 EEs. Are you going to just concede this recruit to them and give up? Obviously not. If you do, then you're obviously a pretty terrible coach and you have no clue what you're doing. You've already invested so much in the battle. And even if you're knocked down to high, you still have a chance to win. These are great "pot odds".

And even if you did just give up, at this point, UNC and Duke would still have had to put in max effort to get the player. They didn't just get gifted the player like many have complained about that would happen in 2.0. There is no snowballing. None.

Nice story, but this isn't how battles for late prospects typically go. Some, sure, but it depends entirely on the circumstances of the teams involved, and what strategy they are using. Lots of coaches who chase late prospects hold off on home visits until the start of the late session. And yeah, many of them would decline to fight when they see that UCLA has an extra scholarship now. For one thing, by the late period, you're looking at teams who have often already maxed on a couple players. So unless they have an influx of resources, or have been able to address other needs without battling, they can't necessarily go all in anymore. Or even half in. Maybe they have resources for 6 or 7 local visits. The game wants them to prioritize and then fight for the recruits they want, it doesn't want them to look at that battle and leave the guy alone because UCLA can definitely go all in, and they can't.

If you don't think this is an issue because people want to find ways to avoid battles, you're nuts. This isn't an issue because coaches are curious and anal retentive. The people posting here want to avoid battles.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 6:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Mike - I agree. Having more information is better than not. It's an advantage. I don't think it's a huge advantage to see that a team had 1 EE tho.

But mostly I disagree with the idea that this would give the team with EE SUCH an advantage that other teams would be scared off of recruits and would reduce battling. This is ridiculous and wouldn't happen. This is especially true for the top recruits and what Seble wanted to fix in 3.0

Teams with EEs are going to be battling for top recruits primarily. So let's say you're battling UNC and Duke for the #1 player who is a late signer. Openings are all even between you and those 2 teams. So you battle back and forth throughout the first session. You can clearly see both of those teams have EEs on the big board so you know it's a possibility they could get some extra funds in the 2nd session. You go all in and you end the 1st session tied VH with UNC and Duke.

Now, before the start of the 2nd session, you see that UNC got 1 EE and Duke got 2 EEs. Are you going to just concede this recruit to them and give up? Obviously not. If you do, then you're obviously a pretty terrible coach and you have no clue what you're doing. You've already invested so much in the battle. And even if you're knocked down to high, you still have a chance to win. These are great "pot odds".

And even if you did just give up, at this point, UNC and Duke would still have had to put in max effort to get the player. They didn't just get gifted the player like many have complained about that would happen in 2.0. There is no snowballing. None.

Nice story, but this isn't how battles for late prospects typically go. Some, sure, but it depends entirely on the circumstances of the teams involved, and what strategy they are using. Lots of coaches who chase late prospects hold off on home visits until the start of the late session. And yeah, many of them would decline to fight when they see that UCLA has an extra scholarship now. For one thing, by the late period, you're looking at teams who have often already maxed on a couple players. So unless they have an influx of resources, or have been able to address other needs without battling, they can't necessarily go all in anymore. Or even half in. Maybe they have resources for 6 or 7 local visits. The game wants them to prioritize and then fight for the recruits they want, it doesn't want them to look at that battle and leave the guy alone because UCLA can definitely go all in, and they can't.

If you don't think this is an issue because people want to find ways to avoid battles, you're nuts. This isn't an issue because coaches are curious and anal retentive. The people posting here want to avoid battles.

What players are around in the late period that haven't had teams go after them heavily? You're telling me those are top players that teams with EEs are going to be crawling over each other to get?

"Lots of coaches who chase late prospects hold off on home visits until the start of the late session. And yeah, many of them would decline to fight when they see that UCLA has an extra scholarship now. For one thing, by the late period, you're looking at teams who have often already maxed on a couple players."

So which is? Are we talking about coaches who have held off using HVs until start of late session or coaches who already maxed out on other players in the 1st session and are out of resources?

If I have 3 openings and wait until the 2nd session to go in on a guy and then I see UCLA's openings went from 3 to 4, I'm not batting an eye. Seriously? Is everyone really that afraid of battling? Are you kidding? Do people actually try winning at this game?

I think what Shoe is saying Benis is this:

Clemson and UCLA are on a 4 star which you haven't gone all in on (I'm VH, you are lurking at VL). Shoe's Lipscomb is presently in the lead over you for a 2 star recruit which you've targeted as a backup option in case you lose the 4 star to me.

So shoe wants it so that you are dumbfounded, unable to figure out I lost 2 EEs and now can now max out on the 4 star and instead of giving up on him and going to battle Lipscomb on the back up with your funds, he wants you to stick it out and lose all your money to me because you couldn't easily figure out I got 2 more EEs to raise some more resources.

That about right shoe?

benis, I won't argue how coaches go about recruiting highly rated players. I don't have experience in it.

But, from my viewpoint, I check everything when I see a player I want when someone else is also on him. How many openings? What positions? Better coach? Success/rebuild? Distance? Everything. Having more info will help determine what I do. I'm sure everyone with a basic understanding does the same.

Now, applying it to D1 and a top 10 recruit, if I have one opening and you have one opening, I know I can match your effort. I'd see how preferences line up and, if I have them on my side, I keep pouring resources into said recruit. 2nd period is about to start. I see you have two EE. I now know you can double my AP. What's my best course of action? Find a back-up plan. I won't bail because I've dumped everything into that guy but I know my chances have been lowered. Maybe you don't put 80 AP into him each cycle. Or maybe you do. But I now know I better be better prepared to lose.

That helps me, no EE guy, not you, EE guy. Because, the fewer guys I'm recruiting, the better it is for you.

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 6:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Mike - I agree. Having more information is better than not. It's an advantage. I don't think it's a huge advantage to see that a team had 1 EE tho.

But mostly I disagree with the idea that this would give the team with EE SUCH an advantage that other teams would be scared off of recruits and would reduce battling. This is ridiculous and wouldn't happen. This is especially true for the top recruits and what Seble wanted to fix in 3.0

Teams with EEs are going to be battling for top recruits primarily. So let's say you're battling UNC and Duke for the #1 player who is a late signer. Openings are all even between you and those 2 teams. So you battle back and forth throughout the first session. You can clearly see both of those teams have EEs on the big board so you know it's a possibility they could get some extra funds in the 2nd session. You go all in and you end the 1st session tied VH with UNC and Duke.

Now, before the start of the 2nd session, you see that UNC got 1 EE and Duke got 2 EEs. Are you going to just concede this recruit to them and give up? Obviously not. If you do, then you're obviously a pretty terrible coach and you have no clue what you're doing. You've already invested so much in the battle. And even if you're knocked down to high, you still have a chance to win. These are great "pot odds".

And even if you did just give up, at this point, UNC and Duke would still have had to put in max effort to get the player. They didn't just get gifted the player like many have complained about that would happen in 2.0. There is no snowballing. None.

Nice story, but this isn't how battles for late prospects typically go. Some, sure, but it depends entirely on the circumstances of the teams involved, and what strategy they are using. Lots of coaches who chase late prospects hold off on home visits until the start of the late session. And yeah, many of them would decline to fight when they see that UCLA has an extra scholarship now. For one thing, by the late period, you're looking at teams who have often already maxed on a couple players. So unless they have an influx of resources, or have been able to address other needs without battling, they can't necessarily go all in anymore. Or even half in. Maybe they have resources for 6 or 7 local visits. The game wants them to prioritize and then fight for the recruits they want, it doesn't want them to look at that battle and leave the guy alone because UCLA can definitely go all in, and they can't.

If you don't think this is an issue because people want to find ways to avoid battles, you're nuts. This isn't an issue because coaches are curious and anal retentive. The people posting here want to avoid battles.

What players are around in the late period that haven't had teams go after them heavily? You're telling me those are top players that teams with EEs are going to be crawling over each other to get?

It's not uncommon at all for late players to go into the 2nd session with no home visits extended yet. When 2 teams are at VH with scholarships, that alone can be enough to keep others off, and then there's little reason to extend early effort. The pitfalls of joining 3 and 4 team battles is well established. So resources get spent on other earlier priorities. Happened on my other handle at Virginia in a battle with Duke for the #21 PF in the country, a 3star with potential who will almost certainly stay 4 years and finish ~900OVR. I used most of my resources to fight other battles.

Depends on the circumstances and strategies of the teams involved. Many strategies are viable. My "agenda" is to keep it that way.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/22/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):
benis, I won't argue how coaches go about recruiting highly rated players. I don't have experience in it.

But, from my viewpoint, I check everything when I see a player I want when someone else is also on him. How many openings? What positions? Better coach? Success/rebuild? Distance? Everything. Having more info will help determine what I do. I'm sure everyone with a basic understanding does the same.

Now, applying it to D1 and a top 10 recruit, if I have one opening and you have one opening, I know I can match your effort. I'd see how preferences line up and, if I have them on my side, I keep pouring resources into said recruit. 2nd period is about to start. I see you have two EE. I now know you can double my AP. What's my best course of action? Find a back-up plan. I won't bail because I've dumped everything into that guy but I know my chances have been lowered. Maybe you don't put 80 AP into him each cycle. Or maybe you do. But I now know I better be better prepared to lose.

That helps me, no EE guy, not you, EE guy. Because, the fewer guys I'm recruiting, the better it is for you.

Well if you're going for a top 10 guy with only 1 opening then yeah, you're probably going to have a bad time anyway.

But again, if you're going for a top guy, other teams are coming around for him too. You'll probably realize you can't win pretty quickly and move on. You won't wait until the 2nd session.

And you can LOOK and see those other teams might have EEs so it's not like it's a big shock or anything. You should already be planning for it. Remember there are no surprise EEs :)

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 6:34:00 PM (view original):
I think what Shoe is saying Benis is this:

Clemson and UCLA are on a 4 star which you haven't gone all in on (I'm VH, you are lurking at VL). Shoe's Lipscomb is presently in the lead over you for a 2 star recruit which you've targeted as a backup option in case you lose the 4 star to me.

So shoe wants it so that you are dumbfounded, unable to figure out I lost 2 EEs and now can now max out on the 4 star and instead of giving up on him and going to battle Lipscomb on the back up with your funds, he wants you to stick it out and lose all your money to me because you couldn't easily figure out I got 2 more EEs to raise some more resources.

That about right shoe?

Sounds about right. This doesn't help me. Now I end up with zero players. Yahoo.

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 6:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/22/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):
benis, I won't argue how coaches go about recruiting highly rated players. I don't have experience in it.

But, from my viewpoint, I check everything when I see a player I want when someone else is also on him. How many openings? What positions? Better coach? Success/rebuild? Distance? Everything. Having more info will help determine what I do. I'm sure everyone with a basic understanding does the same.

Now, applying it to D1 and a top 10 recruit, if I have one opening and you have one opening, I know I can match your effort. I'd see how preferences line up and, if I have them on my side, I keep pouring resources into said recruit. 2nd period is about to start. I see you have two EE. I now know you can double my AP. What's my best course of action? Find a back-up plan. I won't bail because I've dumped everything into that guy but I know my chances have been lowered. Maybe you don't put 80 AP into him each cycle. Or maybe you do. But I now know I better be better prepared to lose.

That helps me, no EE guy, not you, EE guy. Because, the fewer guys I'm recruiting, the better it is for you.

Well if you're going for a top 10 guy with only 1 opening then yeah, you're probably going to have a bad time anyway.

But again, if you're going for a top guy, other teams are coming around for him too. You'll probably realize you can't win pretty quickly and move on. You won't wait until the 2nd session.

And you can LOOK and see those other teams might have EEs so it's not like it's a big shock or anything. You should already be planning for it. Remember there are no surprise EEs :)

Depends on who you ask. Some pretty successful owners swear they get SURPRISE!!!!! EE.

More information will equal less battles. It will.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/22/2017 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 6:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/22/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):
benis, I won't argue how coaches go about recruiting highly rated players. I don't have experience in it.

But, from my viewpoint, I check everything when I see a player I want when someone else is also on him. How many openings? What positions? Better coach? Success/rebuild? Distance? Everything. Having more info will help determine what I do. I'm sure everyone with a basic understanding does the same.

Now, applying it to D1 and a top 10 recruit, if I have one opening and you have one opening, I know I can match your effort. I'd see how preferences line up and, if I have them on my side, I keep pouring resources into said recruit. 2nd period is about to start. I see you have two EE. I now know you can double my AP. What's my best course of action? Find a back-up plan. I won't bail because I've dumped everything into that guy but I know my chances have been lowered. Maybe you don't put 80 AP into him each cycle. Or maybe you do. But I now know I better be better prepared to lose.

That helps me, no EE guy, not you, EE guy. Because, the fewer guys I'm recruiting, the better it is for you.

Well if you're going for a top 10 guy with only 1 opening then yeah, you're probably going to have a bad time anyway.

But again, if you're going for a top guy, other teams are coming around for him too. You'll probably realize you can't win pretty quickly and move on. You won't wait until the 2nd session.

And you can LOOK and see those other teams might have EEs so it's not like it's a big shock or anything. You should already be planning for it. Remember there are no surprise EEs :)

Depends on who you ask. Some pretty successful owners swear they get SURPRISE!!!!! EE.

More information will equal less battles. It will.

Or just more intelligent battling.

And it's not more information. It's just easier to find.

Advantages shouldn't be handed to you. Work for them. After all, everyone who's had success worked really hard. Just ask them.

We should no longer have a recruiting tab on everyone's team page so you can't see who people have signed. Instead you need to go tho the signings page and then see if they've signed someone.