"You dont make it a better game by further divorcing it from reality. The idea that real life teams have some sort of cap on how good of a D1-neglected recruit they can land is absurd."

D3 teams cannot offer athletic scholarships. They also cannot sign recruits to binding LOI. You are simply mistaken about which choice is further from reality.

Do you really think kids that see their names ranked in magazines, whose friends and uncles are all taking NBA, are taking calls from coaches that are telling them they will need to apply for financial aid and work-study? It doesn't happen.

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 6:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 4/18/2017 11:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/18/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):
I will add that if it can be shown that D3 dynasties are perpetuating more easily in this system, to the extent that it's a competitive balance problem, I would support one specific structural tweak, which is to establish that D1 projected players increasingly choose to go juco instead of dropping down divisions. It's a tweak based in realism, and doesn't mess with the shared universe vision of the game.

As a new coach, four complete seasons so far, I try to find players that others may have missed and may fall through the cracks. I try to pursue them judiciously and selectively. What's wrong with that? Why make the guys I recruit disappear into JUCO-land instead of signing? How does that help new coaches?

Agreed. Allowing D3 users to spend budget and time on players that are unlikely to sign when they are unchallenged is a mistake. That will just irritate users.

The realistic solution is that any recruit that is being talked up as "ranked" is not listening to D3 coaches. The D3 coach has no scholarship to offer IRL. So, that would be the reason a recruit would choose JuCo over D3. They might choose JuCo over D2 for eligibility issues, if they are certain to get a D1 scholarship otherwise.

If folks really have their anus puckered over this, then it could simply be an OVR ranked restriction against D3 effort. Unranked "D1" recruits could remain unchanged. At a bare minimum, the "visible" Top 100 should never accept D3 effort, I'd argue not even D2.

I'm not sure what value or reality there is in a "shared universe". Especially when that is pared with questioning why D3 exists separately at all!

I've suggested something similar. IIRC, it was this:

Top 200 are only available to D1. D2/D3 cannot scout/recruit
Top 125 at each position cannot be scouted/recruited by D3

The numbers could certainly be adjusted but, if a player isn't going to sign with a lower level, don't let them waste resources on them.

Yup. The exact ranking cutoffs could be loosened from that, but that change would help level the competition by keeping D1 players available to be assigned to Sim coached D1 teams. Also, that would improve the pool available for coaches changing jobs at D1. Presently, you change jobs and you face losing recruits down a division before you have any chance to unlock actions.

On top of being unrealistic, it's really poor gameplay and leads to competitive imbalance at both ends.

Its basically what we had in 2.0 and no one had a problem with it. If a D3 team sent a top 100 player a HV they would reply "**** off. Don't waste my time."

Removing this aspect of the game was a bad idea.

My concern is allowing lower levels to waste resources on players that can't/shouldn't sign. I've seen a few D3 schools(I know, it's amazing how you can look at other team's recruits and figure stuff out even if you haven't played D1 in 3.0) sign top 100 at position but it's not common. Taking those 625 out of the equation is more like taking 25-30 players off the market for D3. Top 200 pretty much guarantees each human will get 1-2 of them. And a top 200 in the nation, in the real world, isn't going to D2. If nothing else, he goes JUCO.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2017 8:22:00 AM (view original):
My concern is allowing lower levels to waste resources on players that can't/shouldn't sign. I've seen a few D3 schools(I know, it's amazing how you can look at other team's recruits and figure stuff out even if you haven't played D1 in 3.0) sign top 100 at position but it's not common. Taking those 625 out of the equation is more like taking 25-30 players off the market for D3. Top 200 pretty much guarantees each human will get 1-2 of them. And a top 200 in the nation, in the real world, isn't going to D2. If nothing else, he goes JUCO.

I agree mike. A lot of griping I've seen and heard about lately is that D3 teams are reaching really high and then losing them to D1 teams in the 2nd session. This would eliminate or reduce that issue.

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 6:44:00 AM (view original):
"You dont make it a better game by further divorcing it from reality. The idea that real life teams have some sort of cap on how good of a D1-neglected recruit they can land is absurd."

D3 teams cannot offer athletic scholarships. They also cannot sign recruits to binding LOI. You are simply mistaken about which choice is further from reality.

Do you really think kids that see their names ranked in magazines, whose friends and uncles are all taking NBA, are taking calls from coaches that are telling them they will need to apply for financial aid and work-study? It doesn't happen.

D3 teams do offer scholarships in this game. You're not presenting an idea to change that. For all intents and purposes, this game treats D3 as an extension of D2, not a different game with different rules. Many of the teams are in the wrong division anyway (I'm a grad of UM-Morris, it has never been D2, and never offered athletic scholarships). I'm not talking about realism of where every team sits in the pecking order. I'm talking about realism of game play, does it feel like a rational game-simulation of college basketball. Artificially capping or inflating is another degree of separation from reality *of actual gameplay*.

The guys going to D3 teams are basically getting ignored by higher division teams. The families of those guys in real life are not talking NBA, that's absurd. You're paying too much attention to rankings, which are purely aesthetic in this game. The only thing that matters is how much human-controlled teams value his ability and potential ability. If there's a perennial D3 powerhouse knocking on his door, there is no compelling reason to tell him he can't consider them.

*If* it becomes an actual problem for WIS development that they feel is not working as intended - i.e., if D3 dynasties are actually getting tighter, self-perpetuating, less competitive, etc - then the answer is not to put artificial band-aids on it like caps or inflated commodity numbers, but increase the risk of reaching high. Make some % choose juco instead of dropping down x number of prestige levels, or send more higher division sims after them in RS2. Those are realistic gameplay tweaks. If you don't like the risk, don't gamble.

Tying back to the OP, ending up in a situation where it's too late for you to find backups you think are worthy is user error. Don't blame the game, adjust your gameplay.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 9:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 6:44:00 AM (view original):
"You dont make it a better game by further divorcing it from reality. The idea that real life teams have some sort of cap on how good of a D1-neglected recruit they can land is absurd."

D3 teams cannot offer athletic scholarships. They also cannot sign recruits to binding LOI. You are simply mistaken about which choice is further from reality.

Do you really think kids that see their names ranked in magazines, whose friends and uncles are all taking NBA, are taking calls from coaches that are telling them they will need to apply for financial aid and work-study? It doesn't happen.

D3 teams do offer scholarships in this game. You're not presenting an idea to change that. For all intents and purposes, this game treats D3 as an extension of D2, not a different game with different rules. Many of the teams are in the wrong division anyway (I'm a grad of UM-Morris, it has never been D2, and never offered athletic scholarships). I'm not talking about realism of where every team sits in the pecking order. I'm talking about realism of game play, does it feel like a rational game-simulation of college basketball. Artificially capping or inflating is another degree of separation from reality *of actual gameplay*.

The guys going to D3 teams are basically getting ignored by higher division teams. The families of those guys in real life are not talking NBA, that's absurd. You're paying too much attention to rankings, which are purely aesthetic in this game. The only thing that matters is how much human-controlled teams value his ability and potential ability. If there's a perennial D3 powerhouse knocking on his door, there is no compelling reason to tell him he can't consider them.

*If* it becomes an actual problem for WIS development that they feel is not working as intended - i.e., if D3 dynasties are actually getting tighter, self-perpetuating, less competitive, etc - then the answer is not to put artificial band-aids on it like caps or inflated commodity numbers, but increase the risk of reaching high. Make some % choose juco instead of dropping down x number of prestige levels, or send more higher division sims after them in RS2. Those are realistic gameplay tweaks. If you don't like the risk, don't gamble.

Tying back to the OP, ending up in a situation where it's too late for you to find backups you think are worthy is user error. Don't blame the game, adjust your gameplay.

Thank you for admitting that your argument has nothing to do with reality. That is a step in the right direction.

The argument that these recruits are "being ignored" is wrong. What is going on now in the D3 market is clearly that everyone currently in the game realizes that they cannot be competitive recruiting from the D3 list. Therefore, they are crowding into the D1 market to attempt to get recruits that D1 schools have not yet had an opportunity to recruit. You say "ignored", but, at D1, if you are not involved in battles for your primary and secondary targets, then you will not be competitive. If you lose those battles, then you have to jump in late on those backup options. Whether he is aware of it or not, that is what the OP is confronting. He even did peel off some AP to develop backup options in advance and it compromised both his primary and back up plans.

The idea that there is a relevant strategy that gives you an opportunity to win on recruits that make you competitive in D1 AND be able to develop meaningful backup options at the same time is an illusion. With 3.0 D1 coaches now realize that they have to play zone. Why? Because the odds, whether they want it or not, that they will have a couple walk-ons have astronomically increased. Why? Because they cannot cover in the market when they have to compete against D2 & D3 schools at a massive head-start having wildly over-valued AP (not appropriately scaled by division). Why? Because D1 schools have to compete at a significant AP disadvantage to D3 schools. Does that make sense?

I suppose, whatever "artificial" may mean in a computer game, there may be room for some agreement between us, if you would be willing to agree that D3 AP should be discounted substantially when applied to D1 recruits. My impression, since the Beta, is that admins have not properly calibrated AP with division & prestige. Maybe that would be a "natural" way to adjust the market.

It IS a serious issue right now. It is also a very easy fix.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?