Posted by crabman26 on 4/19/2017 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/18/2017 6:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 4/18/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):
So in Wooden I lost out on a top 100 recruit to a lower prestiged Sim school with 60/40 odds, why or how I lost to them is not why I am posting this (although I am really irked by it, a paying customer losing to a lower prestiged Sim school is ridiculous).

My issue is, EVERY single recruit that I have tried putting APs to after that has signed immediately on the next cycle. I have tried four recruits, and every single one of the recruits I have put APs to, signed the very next cycle.

I mean, Im talking recruits that didnt sign for 4 cycles, didnt have any one listed as high or very high, then I put APs on them and BOOM, they sign immediately the next cycle.

Am I just unlucky? Am I the only one having this happen to?

Honestly you should have no problem knocking a D1 sim out of signing range with a B prestige (that's the correct team right)? Just gotta knock them down and out quickly.

For your main issue - pay attention to signing tendency. Here's an example:

You're at D1 and it's start of 2nd session and you're looking for a backup guy to go after now. You see a player that only has a D2 player on him. He's offered a scholly but is moderate. You're confident you can beat him. However, the players signing pref is Early (or end of period 1). This means the player MUST sign in that first cycle of 2nd session. It's a guarantee. So if you sent APs after this guy, they are wasted.

So if you're in early 2nd session (1st or 2nd cycle) and going after guys that are late signers and they sign immediately, then yeah, that's bad luck. Otherwise, you're probably over looking the Early/EoP1 preferences.

Yes, thats the correct team. So part of my problem was I had no budget left to keep doing HV's on the guy because I was trying to have back up plans...Im sure I would have buried the sim had I just not gone the back up route and put everything on him...but then if I would have lost I'd still be in the same boat I was. I had 6 HVs and 1 CV on him and I had Tennessee down to a Moderate at one point on the recruit (https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3632330) but somehow they climbed up to High and won. Its probably because I reduced some APs trying to get some back up options, lesson learned. Even still, I had 60/40 odds and lost, which I can accept against a similar prestiged school or even against Human coached teams. There should be no way a Sim with that prestige should beat me, especially on a top 10 PG where my preferences were evenly matched with Tenn.

And yeah, seems I just had some bad luck on the Session 2 guys unfortunately.

This is exactly the difficulty that I am talking about. spud & pkoop will say you "must" develop backup options or there "ought" to be consequences, but the lesson learned is really the opposite: If you attempt to develop backup options, then you increase the risk of losing primary target(s). As Andrew Carnegie said: “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is all wrong. I tell you “put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket.”

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Now you're just obfuscating, resorting to twisting words and mis-characterizing my argument.

The game is the same for everyone at D1. We all have to navigate the same odds and obstacles. So the idea that we *must* maximize AP on primary targets, or we "compromise" our chances with them is just silly. Moving 50-60 AP over the course of 15-20 cycles barely moves the needle at all on your primary target, for whom you plan to pursue with your big guns. But it has massive effect on a lightly recruited player you could develop as a backup option. Even just a point or two in the first cycle is enough to move a lot of D3s on for good. You have to decide how you prioritize, and how you execute. Your choices have to have consequences. What you're arguing for here is a game where the strategy you'd like to pursue doesn't have negative consequences. You're not thinking beyond your own nose here. Recruiting in 3.0 is like a multi-player game of chess. I understand if you'd rather be playing go fish, but you're not going to convince me it's a better game.

Also, D3 AP is discounted substantially when reaching up. It takes lots more APs to unlock at D3. High prestige D1 APs are very valuable, you should have noticed that at NC State.

Very petty. I am glad that you realize you are losing. Please send me the rules for the "multi-player game of chess", I do not think that game exists and doubt it would be engaging.

Otherwise, again, this is "Spud-like" reasoning. If I say there is not enough reasonable talent to cover in the market after a job-change or loss in a battle, then you say that I want to be assured of getting a 4 star player at every open slot. No. I am saying that the recruits that ought to still be there to pick over after the defeat are not just worse, they've already signed with D2 & D3 schools. Why? That's because the AP are not appropriately scaled to division & prestige or the Top 200 recruit is choosing to enroll at D2 or D3 rather than wait to be recruited by a D1 or be assigned to a Sim D1 team. Is it really a benefit to the game to send a Top 200 recruit to D3, when a sim-coached Big 6 team is being assigned far worse players?

Again, not thinking beyond your own nose. I'm surprised at your apparent lack of imagination. Those players are available as backups for coaches who have decided to prioritize securing backups. If they're not available to you, it's because you have not prioritized securing backups. That's your choice. Your choice has consequences. And so we're back to you not wanting negative consequences for the strategies you have chosen to pursue and employ. Is that "spud-like"? Fine. Just because he's unpopular doesn't make him wrong, not on that anyway.

Let go of the ranking or OVR fetish. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how highly human controlled teams value a players ability and potential ability. If a recruit, of any ranking or OVR, is ignored by higher division teams, then the best team that values him the most is probably going to end up setting the price for him. Higher division teams certainly have the means to beat that price, if they choose. But they can't secure him cheaply at that point. If you let a lower prestige team set the price, it is what it is. It doesn't mean AP isn't scaled properly, or that there aren't enough commodities in the market; it just means you are playing in a shared universe, and there are a lot of moving parts.

Cheaply? You are forgetting that, excepting the fact that AP isn't available to unlock recruiting actions, the D1 team (especially one where the coach just changed jobs) might be sitting on a pile of cash that it would like to spend on HV or CV, but cannot.

The rankings are arbitrary, sure, but that's the system that currently exists. You either go by rankings or initial "division" assignments for the recruits or OVR ratings. It is completely beside the point that those are not a perfect measure of how effective the player will actually be. The issue is whether players are being forced to make unfortunate changes in how they would play the game to compensate for the problems covering after losses. They are! D3 users know they need to be competing in the D1 market to field competitive teams. D1 users, by and large, are realizing that they need to risk taking walk-ons and, so, are avoiding playing systems that required more depth. Those are results of market distortions.

The argument about "negative" consequences is just an evasion. Certainly, there ought to be a consequence to losing a battle and not having a backup plan. If NC State loses a battle with Duke & Wake Forest, then it might have difficulty picking up another battle with a D1 or D2 school. Your position is that NC State should be willing to accept that it loses a recruit to NC Wesleyan that was targeted as a backup option as a consequence. Really? Clemson (if Sim-AI coached) should be given default assigned players worse than D3 teams have. Is that good for the game? Does that make any sense?

Yes, cheaply. This isn't a topic about job changes, and even if it was, changing jobs is a coaching choice. You accept the price, or you stay put. People who played high D1 in the previous version are used to having those mid-level 2-3 star guys available as backups to cherry-pick. Happened to me 4 years in a row at Rutgers, where I would lose a guy to a team who already had 4 or 5 other prospects he had secured *cheaply*, because no one wanted to fight him for any of them. So he'd have ~80-100k to dump at or right before singing cycle. So players were used to that system, and it's a tough adjustment, I'm sure, to realize that teams aren't just letting them snowball anymore. 2-3 star players are often more valuable in the long term than the elite guys, because they fully develop IQs. Those are not the sort of "backup" options we're talking about anymore, and the game is much better for it.

No one is "forced" to play a certain way. You make choices. If you choose to put 2-3 APs from the beginning on that 550 OVR pg with potential you are eyeing as a backup, NC Wesleyan moves on 9 times out of 10. Don't blame the game, blame your gameplay. Is getting stuck with a choice between 2-3 walkons and 2-3 garbage players a rational consequence of following Andrew Carnegie's advice? You bet it is. The only reason people have a hard time adjusting is because the previous version wasn't nearly as rational, and people were used to cherry-picking a higher quality of backup.

Sure, sim-AI could recruit smarter, but I'm not sure we really want that. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when sim controlled big 6 teams start routinely cracking the elite 8. As it stands, rebuilds really aren't as hard as people make out in 3.0. Weak sims is not a compelling reason to radically change the nature of the shared universe.

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 4/19/2017 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/18/2017 6:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 4/18/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):
So in Wooden I lost out on a top 100 recruit to a lower prestiged Sim school with 60/40 odds, why or how I lost to them is not why I am posting this (although I am really irked by it, a paying customer losing to a lower prestiged Sim school is ridiculous).

My issue is, EVERY single recruit that I have tried putting APs to after that has signed immediately on the next cycle. I have tried four recruits, and every single one of the recruits I have put APs to, signed the very next cycle.

I mean, Im talking recruits that didnt sign for 4 cycles, didnt have any one listed as high or very high, then I put APs on them and BOOM, they sign immediately the next cycle.

Am I just unlucky? Am I the only one having this happen to?

Honestly you should have no problem knocking a D1 sim out of signing range with a B prestige (that's the correct team right)? Just gotta knock them down and out quickly.

For your main issue - pay attention to signing tendency. Here's an example:

You're at D1 and it's start of 2nd session and you're looking for a backup guy to go after now. You see a player that only has a D2 player on him. He's offered a scholly but is moderate. You're confident you can beat him. However, the players signing pref is Early (or end of period 1). This means the player MUST sign in that first cycle of 2nd session. It's a guarantee. So if you sent APs after this guy, they are wasted.

So if you're in early 2nd session (1st or 2nd cycle) and going after guys that are late signers and they sign immediately, then yeah, that's bad luck. Otherwise, you're probably over looking the Early/EoP1 preferences.

Yes, thats the correct team. So part of my problem was I had no budget left to keep doing HV's on the guy because I was trying to have back up plans...Im sure I would have buried the sim had I just not gone the back up route and put everything on him...but then if I would have lost I'd still be in the same boat I was. I had 6 HVs and 1 CV on him and I had Tennessee down to a Moderate at one point on the recruit (https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3632330) but somehow they climbed up to High and won. Its probably because I reduced some APs trying to get some back up options, lesson learned. Even still, I had 60/40 odds and lost, which I can accept against a similar prestiged school or even against Human coached teams. There should be no way a Sim with that prestige should beat me, especially on a top 10 PG where my preferences were evenly matched with Tenn.

And yeah, seems I just had some bad luck on the Session 2 guys unfortunately.

This is exactly the difficulty that I am talking about. spud & pkoop will say you "must" develop backup options or there "ought" to be consequences, but the lesson learned is really the opposite: If you attempt to develop backup options, then you increase the risk of losing primary target(s). As Andrew Carnegie said: “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is all wrong. I tell you “put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket.”

I agree, in the future I am just going to go all in, albeit smartly in a situation I think I can win.

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools. Let's not pretend D1s are losing out big on those guys. I've asked, several times, for someone to identify the D1 players on my WCSU team that they'd take for their D1. No one has answered. I assume because it doesn't fit their argument.

1. Not all D1 players that go to D3 would be wanted but there are plenty that would be. Here's a couple that I'd take.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3489866

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3533190

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3496563

2. Then there is the whole point of depleting the Juco pool and making Sims even worse than they already are. Which makes moving up and taking over a new team even worse. Especially when combined with the fact you can't even cut players until right before your 2nd season.

Three? OK, not exactly refuting my point.

"Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools"

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Now you're just obfuscating, resorting to twisting words and mis-characterizing my argument.

The game is the same for everyone at D1. We all have to navigate the same odds and obstacles. So the idea that we *must* maximize AP on primary targets, or we "compromise" our chances with them is just silly. Moving 50-60 AP over the course of 15-20 cycles barely moves the needle at all on your primary target, for whom you plan to pursue with your big guns. But it has massive effect on a lightly recruited player you could develop as a backup option. Even just a point or two in the first cycle is enough to move a lot of D3s on for good. You have to decide how you prioritize, and how you execute. Your choices have to have consequences. What you're arguing for here is a game where the strategy you'd like to pursue doesn't have negative consequences. You're not thinking beyond your own nose here. Recruiting in 3.0 is like a multi-player game of chess. I understand if you'd rather be playing go fish, but you're not going to convince me it's a better game.

Also, D3 AP is discounted substantially when reaching up. It takes lots more APs to unlock at D3. High prestige D1 APs are very valuable, you should have noticed that at NC State.

Very petty. I am glad that you realize you are losing. Please send me the rules for the "multi-player game of chess", I do not think that game exists and doubt it would be engaging.

Otherwise, again, this is "Spud-like" reasoning. If I say there is not enough reasonable talent to cover in the market after a job-change or loss in a battle, then you say that I want to be assured of getting a 4 star player at every open slot. No. I am saying that the recruits that ought to still be there to pick over after the defeat are not just worse, they've already signed with D2 & D3 schools. Why? That's because the AP are not appropriately scaled to division & prestige or the Top 200 recruit is choosing to enroll at D2 or D3 rather than wait to be recruited by a D1 or be assigned to a Sim D1 team. Is it really a benefit to the game to send a Top 200 recruit to D3, when a sim-coached Big 6 team is being assigned far worse players?

Again, not thinking beyond your own nose. I'm surprised at your apparent lack of imagination. Those players are available as backups for coaches who have decided to prioritize securing backups. If they're not available to you, it's because you have not prioritized securing backups. That's your choice. Your choice has consequences. And so we're back to you not wanting negative consequences for the strategies you have chosen to pursue and employ. Is that "spud-like"? Fine. Just because he's unpopular doesn't make him wrong, not on that anyway.

Let go of the ranking or OVR fetish. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how highly human controlled teams value a players ability and potential ability. If a recruit, of any ranking or OVR, is ignored by higher division teams, then the best team that values him the most is probably going to end up setting the price for him. Higher division teams certainly have the means to beat that price, if they choose. But they can't secure him cheaply at that point. If you let a lower prestige team set the price, it is what it is. It doesn't mean AP isn't scaled properly, or that there aren't enough commodities in the market; it just means you are playing in a shared universe, and there are a lot of moving parts.

Cheaply? You are forgetting that, excepting the fact that AP isn't available to unlock recruiting actions, the D1 team (especially one where the coach just changed jobs) might be sitting on a pile of cash that it would like to spend on HV or CV, but cannot.

The rankings are arbitrary, sure, but that's the system that currently exists. You either go by rankings or initial "division" assignments for the recruits or OVR ratings. It is completely beside the point that those are not a perfect measure of how effective the player will actually be. The issue is whether players are being forced to make unfortunate changes in how they would play the game to compensate for the problems covering after losses. They are! D3 users know they need to be competing in the D1 market to field competitive teams. D1 users, by and large, are realizing that they need to risk taking walk-ons and, so, are avoiding playing systems that required more depth. Those are results of market distortions.

The argument about "negative" consequences is just an evasion. Certainly, there ought to be a consequence to losing a battle and not having a backup plan. If NC State loses a battle with Duke & Wake Forest, then it might have difficulty picking up another battle with a D1 or D2 school. Your position is that NC State should be willing to accept that it loses a recruit to NC Wesleyan that was targeted as a backup option as a consequence. Really? Clemson (if Sim-AI coached) should be given default assigned players worse than D3 teams have. Is that good for the game? Does that make any sense?

Yes, cheaply. This isn't a topic about job changes, and even if it was, changing jobs is a coaching choice. You accept the price, or you stay put. People who played high D1 in the previous version are used to having those mid-level 2-3 star guys available as backups to cherry-pick. Happened to me 4 years in a row at Rutgers, where I would lose a guy to a team who already had 4 or 5 other prospects he had secured *cheaply*, because no one wanted to fight him for any of them. So he'd have ~80-100k to dump at or right before singing cycle. So players were used to that system, and it's a tough adjustment, I'm sure, to realize that teams aren't just letting them snowball anymore. 2-3 star players are often more valuable in the long term than the elite guys, because they fully develop IQs. Those are not the sort of "backup" options we're talking about anymore, and the game is much better for it.

No one is "forced" to play a certain way. You make choices. If you choose to put 2-3 APs from the beginning on that 550 OVR pg with potential you are eyeing as a backup, NC Wesleyan moves on 9 times out of 10. Don't blame the game, blame your gameplay. Is getting stuck with a choice between 2-3 walkons and 2-3 garbage players a rational consequence of following Andrew Carnegie's advice? You bet it is. The only reason people have a hard time adjusting is because the previous version wasn't nearly as rational, and people were used to cherry-picking a higher quality of backup.

Sure, sim-AI could recruit smarter, but I'm not sure we really want that. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when sim controlled big 6 teams start routinely cracking the elite 8. As it stands, rebuilds really aren't as hard as people make out in 3.0. Weak sims is not a compelling reason to radically change the nature of the shared universe.

I don't disagree with the bulk of your first paragraph, but it doesn't prove anything about this topic. That's just you embellishing your straw-man argument. However..."accept the price"...why is it good for the game that a job change gets a user penalized? That makes no sense. I am not sure "rational" means what you think it means.

Your last paragraph is just refusing to notice what is happening at D1. Take a look at Wake Forest in Wooden: 4 players under scholarship! Indiana & Illinois in Smith: 7 & 5 walkons! Still think the market is function perfectly to set prices? Horseshit!

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools. Let's not pretend D1s are losing out big on those guys. I've asked, several times, for someone to identify the D1 players on my WCSU team that they'd take for their D1. No one has answered. I assume because it doesn't fit their argument.

1. Not all D1 players that go to D3 would be wanted but there are plenty that would be. Here's a couple that I'd take.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3489866

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3533190

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3496563

2. Then there is the whole point of depleting the Juco pool and making Sims even worse than they already are. Which makes moving up and taking over a new team even worse. Especially when combined with the fact you can't even cut players until right before your 2nd season.

Three? OK, not exactly refuting my point.

"Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools"

Even the case of Blackmon, the only player appearing in those links, it's pretty easy to see why D1 collectively took a pass on him. Rebounding could have topped out at 70, LP could have topped out under 50. I've taken a flyer on this kind of player in years where I felt I could hide a guy on the bench for a few years, but then again, I'm not the kind of coach who thinks he's a genius because he can read numbers, nor do I measure success based on the quality of player I turn up my nose at.

So so as I've said a number of times since beta, you might be able to make a case to convince me to go along with having more of this type of player choose juco rather than drop down levels. But at this point, it's a solution in search of a problem. The existence of D3 players some D1 coaches might *eventually* want is not a compelling reason to mess with the current structure.

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Now you're just obfuscating, resorting to twisting words and mis-characterizing my argument.

The game is the same for everyone at D1. We all have to navigate the same odds and obstacles. So the idea that we *must* maximize AP on primary targets, or we "compromise" our chances with them is just silly. Moving 50-60 AP over the course of 15-20 cycles barely moves the needle at all on your primary target, for whom you plan to pursue with your big guns. But it has massive effect on a lightly recruited player you could develop as a backup option. Even just a point or two in the first cycle is enough to move a lot of D3s on for good. You have to decide how you prioritize, and how you execute. Your choices have to have consequences. What you're arguing for here is a game where the strategy you'd like to pursue doesn't have negative consequences. You're not thinking beyond your own nose here. Recruiting in 3.0 is like a multi-player game of chess. I understand if you'd rather be playing go fish, but you're not going to convince me it's a better game.

Also, D3 AP is discounted substantially when reaching up. It takes lots more APs to unlock at D3. High prestige D1 APs are very valuable, you should have noticed that at NC State.

Very petty. I am glad that you realize you are losing. Please send me the rules for the "multi-player game of chess", I do not think that game exists and doubt it would be engaging.

Otherwise, again, this is "Spud-like" reasoning. If I say there is not enough reasonable talent to cover in the market after a job-change or loss in a battle, then you say that I want to be assured of getting a 4 star player at every open slot. No. I am saying that the recruits that ought to still be there to pick over after the defeat are not just worse, they've already signed with D2 & D3 schools. Why? That's because the AP are not appropriately scaled to division & prestige or the Top 200 recruit is choosing to enroll at D2 or D3 rather than wait to be recruited by a D1 or be assigned to a Sim D1 team. Is it really a benefit to the game to send a Top 200 recruit to D3, when a sim-coached Big 6 team is being assigned far worse players?

Again, not thinking beyond your own nose. I'm surprised at your apparent lack of imagination. Those players are available as backups for coaches who have decided to prioritize securing backups. If they're not available to you, it's because you have not prioritized securing backups. That's your choice. Your choice has consequences. And so we're back to you not wanting negative consequences for the strategies you have chosen to pursue and employ. Is that "spud-like"? Fine. Just because he's unpopular doesn't make him wrong, not on that anyway.

Let go of the ranking or OVR fetish. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how highly human controlled teams value a players ability and potential ability. If a recruit, of any ranking or OVR, is ignored by higher division teams, then the best team that values him the most is probably going to end up setting the price for him. Higher division teams certainly have the means to beat that price, if they choose. But they can't secure him cheaply at that point. If you let a lower prestige team set the price, it is what it is. It doesn't mean AP isn't scaled properly, or that there aren't enough commodities in the market; it just means you are playing in a shared universe, and there are a lot of moving parts.

Cheaply? You are forgetting that, excepting the fact that AP isn't available to unlock recruiting actions, the D1 team (especially one where the coach just changed jobs) might be sitting on a pile of cash that it would like to spend on HV or CV, but cannot.

The rankings are arbitrary, sure, but that's the system that currently exists. You either go by rankings or initial "division" assignments for the recruits or OVR ratings. It is completely beside the point that those are not a perfect measure of how effective the player will actually be. The issue is whether players are being forced to make unfortunate changes in how they would play the game to compensate for the problems covering after losses. They are! D3 users know they need to be competing in the D1 market to field competitive teams. D1 users, by and large, are realizing that they need to risk taking walk-ons and, so, are avoiding playing systems that required more depth. Those are results of market distortions.

The argument about "negative" consequences is just an evasion. Certainly, there ought to be a consequence to losing a battle and not having a backup plan. If NC State loses a battle with Duke & Wake Forest, then it might have difficulty picking up another battle with a D1 or D2 school. Your position is that NC State should be willing to accept that it loses a recruit to NC Wesleyan that was targeted as a backup option as a consequence. Really? Clemson (if Sim-AI coached) should be given default assigned players worse than D3 teams have. Is that good for the game? Does that make any sense?

Yes, cheaply. This isn't a topic about job changes, and even if it was, changing jobs is a coaching choice. You accept the price, or you stay put. People who played high D1 in the previous version are used to having those mid-level 2-3 star guys available as backups to cherry-pick. Happened to me 4 years in a row at Rutgers, where I would lose a guy to a team who already had 4 or 5 other prospects he had secured *cheaply*, because no one wanted to fight him for any of them. So he'd have ~80-100k to dump at or right before singing cycle. So players were used to that system, and it's a tough adjustment, I'm sure, to realize that teams aren't just letting them snowball anymore. 2-3 star players are often more valuable in the long term than the elite guys, because they fully develop IQs. Those are not the sort of "backup" options we're talking about anymore, and the game is much better for it.

No one is "forced" to play a certain way. You make choices. If you choose to put 2-3 APs from the beginning on that 550 OVR pg with potential you are eyeing as a backup, NC Wesleyan moves on 9 times out of 10. Don't blame the game, blame your gameplay. Is getting stuck with a choice between 2-3 walkons and 2-3 garbage players a rational consequence of following Andrew Carnegie's advice? You bet it is. The only reason people have a hard time adjusting is because the previous version wasn't nearly as rational, and people were used to cherry-picking a higher quality of backup.

Sure, sim-AI could recruit smarter, but I'm not sure we really want that. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when sim controlled big 6 teams start routinely cracking the elite 8. As it stands, rebuilds really aren't as hard as people make out in 3.0. Weak sims is not a compelling reason to radically change the nature of the shared universe.

I don't disagree with the bulk of your first paragraph, but it doesn't prove anything about this topic. That's just you embellishing your straw-man argument. However..."accept the price"...why is it good for the game that a job change gets a user penalized? That makes no sense. I am not sure "rational" means what you think it means.

Your last paragraph is just refusing to notice what is happening at D1. Take a look at Wake Forest in Wooden: 4 players under scholarship! Indiana & Illinois in Smith: 7 & 5 walkons! Still think the market is function perfectly to set prices? Horseshit!

Do we not expect that there will be difficulties in changing jobs? I mean, how is that not rational? You change jobs, you inherit the team *you chose*. You can scramble and try to find some usable guys, but this is another instance where our expectations were jacked by how the previous version played, which was neither rational, nor realistic.

Teams take walkons because of the choices they make. When sims are taking walkons, it's a function of them not having a coach, and routinely getting beat. Would you rather they take mediocre players that a new coach would be stuck with or have to cut? Most would rather take over a team set to have some resources to play with. Again, the quality of sims is not very important to me. I play in some conferences with those kind of teams. It is what it is, and it's a weak argument for fundamentally changing the game.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Now you're just obfuscating, resorting to twisting words and mis-characterizing my argument.

The game is the same for everyone at D1. We all have to navigate the same odds and obstacles. So the idea that we *must* maximize AP on primary targets, or we "compromise" our chances with them is just silly. Moving 50-60 AP over the course of 15-20 cycles barely moves the needle at all on your primary target, for whom you plan to pursue with your big guns. But it has massive effect on a lightly recruited player you could develop as a backup option. Even just a point or two in the first cycle is enough to move a lot of D3s on for good. You have to decide how you prioritize, and how you execute. Your choices have to have consequences. What you're arguing for here is a game where the strategy you'd like to pursue doesn't have negative consequences. You're not thinking beyond your own nose here. Recruiting in 3.0 is like a multi-player game of chess. I understand if you'd rather be playing go fish, but you're not going to convince me it's a better game.

Also, D3 AP is discounted substantially when reaching up. It takes lots more APs to unlock at D3. High prestige D1 APs are very valuable, you should have noticed that at NC State.

Very petty. I am glad that you realize you are losing. Please send me the rules for the "multi-player game of chess", I do not think that game exists and doubt it would be engaging.

Otherwise, again, this is "Spud-like" reasoning. If I say there is not enough reasonable talent to cover in the market after a job-change or loss in a battle, then you say that I want to be assured of getting a 4 star player at every open slot. No. I am saying that the recruits that ought to still be there to pick over after the defeat are not just worse, they've already signed with D2 & D3 schools. Why? That's because the AP are not appropriately scaled to division & prestige or the Top 200 recruit is choosing to enroll at D2 or D3 rather than wait to be recruited by a D1 or be assigned to a Sim D1 team. Is it really a benefit to the game to send a Top 200 recruit to D3, when a sim-coached Big 6 team is being assigned far worse players?

Again, not thinking beyond your own nose. I'm surprised at your apparent lack of imagination. Those players are available as backups for coaches who have decided to prioritize securing backups. If they're not available to you, it's because you have not prioritized securing backups. That's your choice. Your choice has consequences. And so we're back to you not wanting negative consequences for the strategies you have chosen to pursue and employ. Is that "spud-like"? Fine. Just because he's unpopular doesn't make him wrong, not on that anyway.

Let go of the ranking or OVR fetish. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how highly human controlled teams value a players ability and potential ability. If a recruit, of any ranking or OVR, is ignored by higher division teams, then the best team that values him the most is probably going to end up setting the price for him. Higher division teams certainly have the means to beat that price, if they choose. But they can't secure him cheaply at that point. If you let a lower prestige team set the price, it is what it is. It doesn't mean AP isn't scaled properly, or that there aren't enough commodities in the market; it just means you are playing in a shared universe, and there are a lot of moving parts.

Cheaply? You are forgetting that, excepting the fact that AP isn't available to unlock recruiting actions, the D1 team (especially one where the coach just changed jobs) might be sitting on a pile of cash that it would like to spend on HV or CV, but cannot.

The rankings are arbitrary, sure, but that's the system that currently exists. You either go by rankings or initial "division" assignments for the recruits or OVR ratings. It is completely beside the point that those are not a perfect measure of how effective the player will actually be. The issue is whether players are being forced to make unfortunate changes in how they would play the game to compensate for the problems covering after losses. They are! D3 users know they need to be competing in the D1 market to field competitive teams. D1 users, by and large, are realizing that they need to risk taking walk-ons and, so, are avoiding playing systems that required more depth. Those are results of market distortions.

The argument about "negative" consequences is just an evasion. Certainly, there ought to be a consequence to losing a battle and not having a backup plan. If NC State loses a battle with Duke & Wake Forest, then it might have difficulty picking up another battle with a D1 or D2 school. Your position is that NC State should be willing to accept that it loses a recruit to NC Wesleyan that was targeted as a backup option as a consequence. Really? Clemson (if Sim-AI coached) should be given default assigned players worse than D3 teams have. Is that good for the game? Does that make any sense?

Yes, cheaply. This isn't a topic about job changes, and even if it was, changing jobs is a coaching choice. You accept the price, or you stay put. People who played high D1 in the previous version are used to having those mid-level 2-3 star guys available as backups to cherry-pick. Happened to me 4 years in a row at Rutgers, where I would lose a guy to a team who already had 4 or 5 other prospects he had secured *cheaply*, because no one wanted to fight him for any of them. So he'd have ~80-100k to dump at or right before singing cycle. So players were used to that system, and it's a tough adjustment, I'm sure, to realize that teams aren't just letting them snowball anymore. 2-3 star players are often more valuable in the long term than the elite guys, because they fully develop IQs. Those are not the sort of "backup" options we're talking about anymore, and the game is much better for it.

No one is "forced" to play a certain way. You make choices. If you choose to put 2-3 APs from the beginning on that 550 OVR pg with potential you are eyeing as a backup, NC Wesleyan moves on 9 times out of 10. Don't blame the game, blame your gameplay. Is getting stuck with a choice between 2-3 walkons and 2-3 garbage players a rational consequence of following Andrew Carnegie's advice? You bet it is. The only reason people have a hard time adjusting is because the previous version wasn't nearly as rational, and people were used to cherry-picking a higher quality of backup.

Sure, sim-AI could recruit smarter, but I'm not sure we really want that. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when sim controlled big 6 teams start routinely cracking the elite 8. As it stands, rebuilds really aren't as hard as people make out in 3.0. Weak sims is not a compelling reason to radically change the nature of the shared universe.

I don't disagree with the bulk of your first paragraph, but it doesn't prove anything about this topic. That's just you embellishing your straw-man argument. However..."accept the price"...why is it good for the game that a job change gets a user penalized? That makes no sense. I am not sure "rational" means what you think it means.

Your last paragraph is just refusing to notice what is happening at D1. Take a look at Wake Forest in Wooden: 4 players under scholarship! Indiana & Illinois in Smith: 7 & 5 walkons! Still think the market is function perfectly to set prices? Horseshit!

Do we not expect that there will be difficulties in changing jobs? I mean, how is that not rational? You change jobs, you inherit the team *you chose*. You can scramble and try to find some usable guys, but this is another instance where our expectations were jacked by how the previous version played, which was neither rational, nor realistic.

Teams take walkons because of the choices they make. When sims are taking walkons, it's a function of them not having a coach, and routinely getting beat. Would you rather they take mediocre players that a new coach would be stuck with or have to cut? Most would rather take over a team set to have some resources to play with. Again, the quality of sims is not very important to me. I play in some conferences with those kind of teams. It is what it is, and it's a weak argument for fundamentally changing the game.

Fundamental? The fundamental change to recruiting was making everything a battle. Good idea. Maybe a little overcooked, but that isn't the issue.

The disagreement that we have is this notion of "shared universe". That is not fundamental. There is no particular benefit to sharing the recruiting pool. D3 teams do not play D2 or D1 during the regular or post-season. You say recruits are being "ignored", but the reality is that D1 emptied and "D1" recruits are not being held open for D1 teams (sim-coached; job change; battle losers) to recruit at the end (or be assigned).

That's not fundamental, that's an unintended consequence. You keep stating that "it is what it is", but with a minor tweak it could be better.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools. Let's not pretend D1s are losing out big on those guys. I've asked, several times, for someone to identify the D1 players on my WCSU team that they'd take for their D1. No one has answered. I assume because it doesn't fit their argument.

1. Not all D1 players that go to D3 would be wanted but there are plenty that would be. Here's a couple that I'd take.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3489866

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3533190

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3496563

2. Then there is the whole point of depleting the Juco pool and making Sims even worse than they already are. Which makes moving up and taking over a new team even worse. Especially when combined with the fact you can't even cut players until right before your 2nd season.

Three? OK, not exactly refuting my point.

"Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools"

Well I mean I could have spammed this thread with links of players I thought were really good. While looking just now, I saw this guy in Iba

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3506787

Holy smokes! That guy is insane. He did have a crazy amount of growth in Per which turned him into a stud but still.

Take a look at the top 25 rated players in D3 in any world and I'd say nearly all of them could make it on a lot of human coached D1 teams and help them win.

"The disagreement that we have is this notion of "shared universe". That is not fundamental. There is no particular benefit to sharing the recruiting pool. D3 teams do not play D2 or D1 during the regular or post-season. You say recruits are being "ignored", but the reality is that D1 emptied and "D1" recruits are not being held open for D1 teams (sim-coached; job change; battle losers) to recruit at the end (or be assigned). "

I think they're shared just to make it easier to run the game. I don't see any other benefit beyond that.

Because of the new scouting system, it's even easier for players to slip through the cracks than it was before. It's possible players aren't seen by that many coaches who WOULD want to take that guy.

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools. Let's not pretend D1s are losing out big on those guys. I've asked, several times, for someone to identify the D1 players on my WCSU team that they'd take for their D1. No one has answered. I assume because it doesn't fit their argument.

1. Not all D1 players that go to D3 would be wanted but there are plenty that would be. Here's a couple that I'd take.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3489866

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3533190

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3496563

2. Then there is the whole point of depleting the Juco pool and making Sims even worse than they already are. Which makes moving up and taking over a new team even worse. Especially when combined with the fact you can't even cut players until right before your 2nd season.

Three? OK, not exactly refuting my point.

"Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools"

Well I mean I could have spammed this thread with links of players I thought were really good. While looking just now, I saw this guy in Iba

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3506787

Holy smokes! That guy is insane. He did have a crazy amount of growth in Per which turned him into a stud but still.

Take a look at the top 25 rated players in D3 in any world and I'd say nearly all of them could make it on a lot of human coached D1 teams and help them win.

If that's the case, I'm forced to believe several very good HD players are lying. I've seen time and time again "I'd rather take walk-ons over what's left in the second recruiting session" when arguing that EE KILLS their teams. If I'm not mistaken, D3 can only sign D1 on the last day of RS2.

It can't be both. It simply cannot be.

Shared universe is fundamental to a game that wants to represent 3 divisions of realistic college basketball simulation. Hell, I wouldn't have designed a game with a division 3, I've said that many times. But that's the game that exists.

Let's be clear. Artificial caps and/or player inflation doesn't make the game "better". It makes the game easier for people who want to employ specific strategies. You dance and obfuscate all you want, but this is the bottom line. It's not that you're "forced" to put all your eggs in one basket and gamble on winning those battles, or scaring off challengers. You are choosing that strategy because that's the way you *want* to play, and capping the divisions reduces the risk of that strategy. Shared universe is a fundamental strategic aspect of the game. Removing it benefits players who don't want to worry about prioritizing and securing backups, thereby removing the strategic implications. You are arguing for a less intelligent, less strategic game.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools. Let's not pretend D1s are losing out big on those guys. I've asked, several times, for someone to identify the D1 players on my WCSU team that they'd take for their D1. No one has answered. I assume because it doesn't fit their argument.

1. Not all D1 players that go to D3 would be wanted but there are plenty that would be. Here's a couple that I'd take.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3489866

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3533190

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3496563

2. Then there is the whole point of depleting the Juco pool and making Sims even worse than they already are. Which makes moving up and taking over a new team even worse. Especially when combined with the fact you can't even cut players until right before your 2nd season.

Three? OK, not exactly refuting my point.

"Only a few players signed by D3 schools are "wanted" by D1 schools"

Well I mean I could have spammed this thread with links of players I thought were really good. While looking just now, I saw this guy in Iba

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3506787

Holy smokes! That guy is insane. He did have a crazy amount of growth in Per which turned him into a stud but still.

Take a look at the top 25 rated players in D3 in any world and I'd say nearly all of them could make it on a lot of human coached D1 teams and help them win.

If that's the case, I'm forced to believe several very good HD players are lying. I've seen time and time again "I'd rather take walk-ons over what's left in the second recruiting session" when arguing that EE KILLS their teams. If I'm not mistaken, D3 can only sign D1 on the last day of RS2.

It can't be both. It simply cannot be.

It's a fair point. I think it's a couple things.

1. You can't see every single player's potential. You have a lot of money at D1 but it's not enough to get everyone to level 3/4. So guys can slip by that way.
2. In regards to teams with EEs, those teams are typically ones who have legit title aspirations or at least FF aspirations. Players that slip to D3 aren't typically THAT good that they'll help a team win a title at D1 (maybe there are a couple here or there but pretty rare). Those are the top tier D1 teams. However, lower tier D1 teams who are trying to just reach the postseason or compete in their conference could definitely benefit from those D3 guys though IMO. Just take a look at some D1 teams in low major conferences and you'll see what I mean.

Well, I guess my only response is now we're trying to "protect" or "help" multiple level D1 schools. That's too much. Picking up low level D1 HELPS all D3 schools(assuming they can do it).

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Shared universe is fundamental to a game that wants to represent 3 divisions of realistic college basketball simulation. Hell, I wouldn't have designed a game with a division 3, I've said that many times. But that's the game that exists.

Let's be clear. Artificial caps and/or player inflation doesn't make the game "better". It makes the game easier for people who want to employ specific strategies. You dance and obfuscate all you want, but this is the bottom line. It's not that you're "forced" to put all your eggs in one basket and gamble on winning those battles, or scaring off challengers. You are choosing that strategy because that's the way you *want* to play, and capping the divisions reduces the risk of that strategy. Shared universe is a fundamental strategic aspect of the game. Removing it benefits players who don't want to worry about prioritizing and securing backups, thereby removing the strategic implications. You are arguing for a less intelligent, less strategic game.

I have no problem with D1 recruiting personally. I think the EE thing is dumb but haven't had to deal with it yet. I can understand the arguments though on the lack of caps and the impact it has (Jucos are limited and sims are worse).

I'm doing fine with D3 recruiting as well. I'm focused on D3 issues primarily when I say there should be caps or some limit. I think it makes for a more balanced game at the D3 level. That's my opinion based upon what I think is good for the game. Not from whining about not being able to do well or getting screwed over. So you can project all you want PK and act like everyone is just looking to be self-serving, but that's my opinion on what I think would make a better game.