Is a VG at DI equal to a VG at DII?

Could we see a case (if they are equal) where a B prestige DII would actually have an advantage over a B prestige DI. If the DII had something like 4 VG to 0 for the the DI?

Maybe this his has been discussed before but in that same question is succes seen equal in the DI vs DII too?

Posted by all2matt on 3/22/2017 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Is a VG at DI equal to a VG at DII?

Could we see a case (if they are equal) where a B prestige DII would actually have an advantage over a B prestige DI. If the DII had something like 4 VG to 0 for the the DI?

Maybe this his has been discussed before but in that same question is succes seen equal in the DI vs DII too?

I hope not.

I'm surprised no one else has an opinion on this

"Is a VG at DI equal to a VG at DII?"

It is impacted by many factors, some of which are consistent and some of which vary from recruit to recruit or team to team. Prestige is one of the consistent factors. All D1 teams, even the worst, have a higher prestige than even the best D2 team. So the short answer to your question is "no."

In practice, I haven't a clue.

In philosophy and for the sake of discussion...I think the answer should depend on the specific preference. For example, I could easily see the case for the distance preference being identical regardless of division -- is there really a compelling case for why 50 miles ought be different for a D1 compared to a D3? Similarly for offensive/defensive sets, should it matter if a kid wants to play M2M if that's for a D1 or a D3 program? Playing style might also fit under this umbrella (ideally, this would be weighted so it gives advantage to those who are "more" of the desired style...I don't know if that's how it really is though)

On the other hand, for preferences like wanting success and wanting playing time, I would hope are skewed with favoritism toward D1...a successful D2 program and a successful D1 program shouldn't be on the same footing. Playing time for a D1 school should be valued over PT at a D2 or D3 school. I would also put conference strength in this category...arguably for D1 recruits this preference should only be possible for D1 schools.

The short answer is yes, they are the same multiplier.

There is a division multiplier that will make the final total effort more for the D1 vs D2 (assuming same prefs) but the actual preference multiplier is the same across all divisions.

So yes, a D2 could have more effort from a single action than a D1 if the preferences are weighted heavily in their favor - enough to overcome the division multiplier. It's similar to a C prestige overcoming an A prestige - there is is a break point but we don't know what that is exactly.

We talked it during beta and afterwards on here that this is how it SHOULDN'T be. If a recruit wants success, then a D1 success multiplier should be WAY more than a D3 success multiplier. But that's not the way Seble wanted to set it up, for whatever reason.

What percentage are we assuming that a multiplier for preference is giving? Would +/- 5% (on very good to very bad) be a good guess? If a C can over take an A then I would think it could close to this.

my numbers say yes - a D3 A+ school with a great match in preferences can have each AP worth more than a D1 D- school with poor preferences

Posted by Benis on 3/23/2017 6:55:00 AM (view original):
The short answer is yes, they are the same multiplier.

There is a division multiplier that will make the final total effort more for the D1 vs D2 (assuming same prefs) but the actual preference multiplier is the same across all divisions.

So yes, a D2 could have more effort from a single action than a D1 if the preferences are weighted heavily in their favor - enough to overcome the division multiplier. It's similar to a C prestige overcoming an A prestige - there is is a break point but we don't know what that is exactly.

We talked it during beta and afterwards on here that this is how it SHOULDN'T be. If a recruit wants success, then a D1 success multiplier should be WAY more than a D3 success multiplier. But that's not the way Seble wanted to set it up, for whatever reason.

Since there is a division multiplier that affects all effort, how is your answer yes?

C prestige doesn't "overcome" A effort. If the amount of effort is really the same, A effort is always higher. A really good preference profile can get a C team *within signing range* on a recruit with an A team as the effort leader. But C can't "overcome" the A effort (assuming again same unadjusted effort), meaning the C is always going to be a long shot, if they get in signing range at all. If you mean the C team can possibly win the recruit, well ok. But that's a separate set of issues from OP, which is talking about effort credit.

I feel like we've had this discussion before. The last paragraph is why the success-related preferences are calculated differently between levels. Big 6 teams are pretty much never lower than good for wants success, and can't get to good (I haven't seen better than bad) for wants rebuild.

Here is what I mean. I'm going to just make up numbers for sake of explanation. Let's say each team puts in 5 AP. Both teams have are a distance of 100 miles and player wants to play near home. Team A is D1 and team B is D2. Both are B prestige.

Effort - 5 AP
Preference multiplier - 1.5
division multiplier - 4
prestige multiplier for D1- 3
prestige multiplier for D2 - 1.5

Team A is D1
5 * 1.5 * 4 * 3 = 90 total credit

Team B is D2
5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 11.25 total credit

So yes the D1 team has more total credit assuming same effort put in. But the multiplier effect of the single preference is the same. In this case its 1.5 for both.

"C prestige doesn't "overcome" A effort. If the amount of effort is really the same, A effort is always higher. A really good preference profile can get a C team *within signing range* on a recruit with an A team as the effort leader"

How do you know this? If C prestige has much better preferences than A prestige, why can't their credit be higher? Have you done some experiments to show this? Basically using another example it'd be like this. C prestige vs A prestige. C prestige has 4 VGs while A prestige has 4 VB.

Effort - 5 AP
Preference multiplier for VG - 2
Preference multiplier for VB - .5
prestige multiplier for A - 4
Prestige multiplier for C - 1.25


Team A prestige
5 * .5 * 4= 10 total credit

Team C prestige
5 * 2 * 1.25 = 12.5 total credit

Experience says to me that Very Good preference for a D1 and a D2 are equal.

And the effect of prestige has been greatly diminished.

It's very interesting to me see how this really plays. I took over a run down CAL team in wooden with my "waykbordr" ID and have a few guys on my list that have bad preferences with any good to offset them. I'm wondering if I will have to go toe to toe with D prestige DI or More likely A prestige DII teams vs my B prestige.

I got caught in the returning to world not allowed to recruit 2nd session situation so I have no idea how recruiting is gonna play out. I'm thinking i may be able to show some real game play versions of this situation quickly, but I would assume that this has already happened quite a bit but the battle hasn't been posted with actual results.

Benis, I've tried a battle with a team 2 levels up, with about equal preferences and effort, and they put me away. Have you seen battles between teams 2 grades apart where unadjusted effort was relatively equal, and signing odds indicated something other than big long shot? I haven't.

Your math is interesting. Suffice it to say, we have some different assumptions about the relative value of actions, and their modifiers. I imagine it's rare to see a battle where an A prestige D1 team is after a player with 4 very bad preference matches. It would have to be a player who wanted to be close to home, wants a rebuild, wants a style opposite of what Team A does, and wants coach longevity - and the A team is recruiting a player who wants a rebuild, at distance, against style preference, and the team is coached by a guy who just recently switched jobs. Not a typical target for the coaches of A teams, right?

Be that as it may; I think the modifiers you are using are too extreme.

Posted by Benis on 3/23/2017 1:31:00 PM (view original):
Here is what I mean. I'm going to just make up numbers for sake of explanation. Let's say each team puts in 5 AP. Both teams have are a distance of 100 miles and player wants to play near home. Team A is D1 and team B is D2. Both are B prestige.

Effort - 5 AP
Preference multiplier - 1.5
division multiplier - 4
prestige multiplier for D1- 3
prestige multiplier for D2 - 1.5

Team A is D1
5 * 1.5 * 4 * 3 = 90 total credit

Team B is D2
5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 11.25 total credit

So yes the D1 team has more total credit assuming same effort put in. But the multiplier effect of the single preference is the same. In this case its 1.5 for both.

The question is not if both divisions use the same multiplier. The question is, is a D1 VG = to a D2 VG. The answer is no. A D1 team does not get the same credit for a VG preference as a D2 (assuming here that the true preference value is actually equal, i.e. 100 miles away from both schools for distance). Even if the multiplier is the same, the lowest D1 gets a better division multiplier (that affects all effort) than the highest D2. So the D1 is getting more credit.

Of course, we should all know by now that not all VGs are equal, and not all preferences are equal. If the A+ D2 National Champion has very good for wants success, the effort credit modifier they get could conceivably be worth more than a D1s VG for playing the right offensive set.