Posted by StillWaters on 6/17/2022 7:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to remember that you are competing with other teams in your division, whether they are human-coached or sim-coached. That's who you are competing with. Isn't that a simple concept?

Every recruit available to you is available to your opponents. More of them, fewer of them, better, not better -- whatever is available to you is also available to your opponents.. Adding players solves nothing. If it makes your team better it also makes your opponents better in the same way -- you are treading water, not getting ahead. And won't THAT be frustrating when you realize that you are not doing any better even though you have better players.

I don't think this is true in regard to the solutions that are being offered. Adding more *lower* level developmental players fundamentally would change the game as long as you also don't increase the number of 5 stars. It means there is more supply of dev players relative to 5 stars, so they will be relatively easier to get. You will do better relative to the teams that invest in 4/5 stars.

Posted by StillWaters on 6/17/2022 7:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to remember that you are competing with other teams in your division, whether they are human-coached or sim-coached. That's who you are competing with. Isn't that a simple concept?

Every recruit available to you is available to your opponents. More of them, fewer of them, better, not better -- whatever is available to you is also available to your opponents.. Adding players solves nothing. If it makes your team better it also makes your opponents better in the same way -- you are treading water, not getting ahead. And won't THAT be frustrating when you realize that you are not doing any better even though you have better players.

everyone knows we are competing with other coaches, what are you even talking about? the sky is blue, water is wet, we get it.

if you have a point to make, i'd be interested in hearing you make it, because at this point you are right on the border of troll territory.

its like you've never played any game, ever. rules don't have to change the competitive balance between two players to impact overall game play for those two players. besides, rules 'that affect everyone' almost never affect everyone equally. you are using a faulty premise to make a bad point, or no point. i can't really tell??

Posted by StillWaters on 6/17/2022 7:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to remember that you are competing with other teams in your division, whether they are human-coached or sim-coached. That's who you are competing with. Isn't that a simple concept?

Every recruit available to you is available to your opponents. More of them, fewer of them, better, not better -- whatever is available to you is also available to your opponents.. Adding players solves nothing. If it makes your team better it also makes your opponents better in the same way -- you are treading water, not getting ahead. And won't THAT be frustrating when you realize that you are not doing any better even though you have better players.

I understand your point. But I don't think you understand the view of your opposite thinkers. To give a lame excuse......

If you have 100 players in an area. 10 are 5*, 40 are signable, and the other 50 are players that no D1 coach will sign....... so only 50 of those players are going to go to human coaches.

What we're asking for is per 100 players in the area, 10 are 5*, 70 are signable, and only 20 end up being players that no one will sign.

What that does is instead of UConn, Boston college, Syracuse, UNC, Duke, UK, Maryland all ending recruiting with 9 players, they'll be able to end recruiting with 11 players. Because it's WORTH targeting a player that is above walk on level. BUT we need that many more players to exist, as a group, to be able to think that way.

Right now, the amount of "average D1 talented players" doesn't seem to be enough to fit the amount of teams that run with 9 players. If there were more "pretty good" players out there, strategies would change. And people (like myself) would start out targeting some of this mediocre talent pool, for example. Rather than seeing players as "studs or turds" and that's it.

Look, I get it. With less human competition, many users got accustomed to that small level of competition for the candy in the candy store. Now there is more human competition for the same amount of candy. It is only natural to want more candy on the shelves to restore the old experience, even if it has no effect on competitive balance.

Suppose that they were to add candy, and people found after a few seasons that competition for the candy is just as intense as ever, which would certainly be the case with the same human population. The dissatisfaction would be greater than it is now. "Rats, we have more recruits, and they are better at some level, my team is more like I want it to be ... but competition for recruits (and wins, btw) is still just as intense as ever. Nothing improved like we thought it would. The game must be broken."

If you still disagree, please don't just resort to an ad hominem attack (eg. "troll") if you cannot gain ground in an open debate.

"Right now, the amount of "average D1 talented players" doesn't seem to be enough to fit the amount of teams that run with 9 players." No, the DEFINITION of "average D1 talented players" (or what might be called "D1 worthy quality") is the problem, not the quantity. Some coaches' definition is left over from the old days of lower human population, and hasn't changed according to the changing (population) conditions. The 100th best recruit, the 200th best recruit, are still about as before. But it is harder to get them. I understand that that would surely cause the top coaches' shoes to get tight, but the solution is understanding the change in the definition of "D1 worthy quality" that must accompany the increased human population. It's a new definition for everybody. Clinging to the old definition just won't work.

If you feel you can't get the same quality of players as easily as you used to get them with less human competition, then your mindset of what is "D1 worthy quality" hasn't kept up. That mindset needs to change with the times.

I’m not really interested in this part of the discussion so I’m going to shift gears back to the promises discussion from a while ago.

Tark recruiting is winding down (all done for me, anyway). Fresno had 2 scholarships. I run FB/P there, so I wanted to cover both, and really should avoid actively recruiting ineligibles (I’ll toss an AP or 3 early so I remember to watch them in case they become eligible, if I like them, but otherwise it’s generally a waste). I knew I wanted to cut one player, so was kind of hoping to recruit an extra late signee if possible.

This year there was a distance recruit - 2175 miles away! - that only had one other (local) team on them. He also had 4 other VG preference matches, including one specific to me. So I made a decision pretty early to go in on this guy. Knowing it would take all my resources to stay in on him if the local decided to fight me, I declined other battles, and focused on this one. But instead of *completely* dropping all my AP on him, I used between 35 and 50 (of 60) most cycles. The rest spread around a handful of backup options. Because like I said, running FB/P, I definitely don’t want walkons.

As it happened, a few of those backups panned out, and I decided they worked better for my team than other guys at the bottom of my roster. So two guys were cut to make room for everyone coming in. One of them before I knew the 5-star was on board, since annoyingly he was the last to sign (of course). And it’s always possible one or more of those guys may be cut in the future if I happen to like a future class even better. That’s the nature of the game as I’m playing it.

Anyway back to promises. Alongside the 5-star Mann, who is obviously getting a start and 20 minutes (which will be pushing it early in the season, but he’ll grow into it, with a green 58 stamina, and mega-loaded conditioning), Young and Carwile will get starts and 15 minutes, and Torrey will get 10 minutes from the bench. Those promises helped secure their positions, as none of them got any visits from me; in fact, none of those recruits got more than 67 total AP from me (Young only got 19). Of course, starting 3 first year players will bring some pain next season - but 2 of them will have very limited minutes, so it’s more about covering their low stamina, and making the pieces fit well behind them than anything else.

I don’t bring this up so you feel sorry for me if they ever make promised starts into 4-year commitments. I’ll adjust fine to whatever. This is more of an idea of how you can creatively do this kind of thing now, and an argument that it’s more than possible. Mann is a legit 5 star, with a chance of staying 4 years. The freshmen bigs are not stars, but project to solid role players (both athletic, one rebounder, one defender) as upperclassmen; the Juco guard has high potential in the right spots, and good work ethic and will be a deadly bench scorer in his senior season. These are not D2 pool throwaways, both will be quite valuable to a high level FB/P team. Many of my perfectly competitive teams have been built on these types of classes - minus the 5-star, because you can’t count on always winning that battle.

This is the stuff that makes the game fun, to me. It isn’t all about everyone doing everything the same way.

Posted by StillWaters on 6/19/2022 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Look, I get it. With less human competition, many users got accustomed to that small level of competition for the candy in the candy store. Now there is more human competition for the same amount of candy. It is only natural to want more candy on the shelves to restore the old experience, even if it has no effect on competitive balance.

Suppose that they were to add candy, and people found after a few seasons that competition for the candy is just as intense as ever, which would certainly be the case with the same human population. The dissatisfaction would be greater than it is now. "Rats, we have more recruits, and they are better at some level, my team is more like I want it to be ... but competition for recruits (and wins, btw) is still just as intense as ever. Nothing improved like we thought it would. The game must be broken."

If you still disagree, please don't just resort to an ad hominem attack (eg. "troll") if you cannot gain ground in an open debate.

"Right now, the amount of "average D1 talented players" doesn't seem to be enough to fit the amount of teams that run with 9 players." No, the DEFINITION of "average D1 talented players" (or what might be called "D1 worthy quality") is the problem, not the quantity. Some coaches' definition is left over from the old days of lower human population, and hasn't changed according to the changing (population) conditions. The 100th best recruit, the 200th best recruit, are still about as before. But it is harder to get them. I understand that that would surely cause the top coaches' shoes to get tight, but the solution is understanding the change in the definition of "D1 worthy quality" that must accompany the increased human population. It's a new definition for everybody. Clinging to the old definition just won't work.

If you feel you can't get the same quality of players as easily as you used to get them with less human competition, then your mindset of what is "D1 worthy quality" hasn't kept up. That mindset needs to change with the times.

oh, brother. careful with this one, guys. the worst ones always like their big words...

Why not attribute thresholds? You never see a guy with a stamina in the single digits. There should be other thresholds. I’m sorry, but a guy with red def in the 20s or below is unsignable for D3. But those guys exist in all three player pools. Keep the distribution shape just tighten the range on the lower end and shift the mean a bit “higher”.

i.e. This guy is a position ranked D1 recruit.

Posted by wesmike on 6/19/2022 6:02:00 PM (view original):
i.e. This guy is a position ranked D1 recruit.

This was something I discussed with an IRL friend about HD recently so I guess I'll just chime in. It's just lame, not from a 'competitive' viewpoint but a 'realistic' viewpoint, to see a big man with sub-50 reb or PG with sub-50 BH/pass as top 100 recruits. I can't even tell what this recruit is? I'm guessing big man or SF? It's not exciting in a "he's a puzzle piece and it's up to YOU to decide how he best fits" way but rather lame in a "okay, wasted scouting money, cool" way.

I'm a bit torn on the discussion as a whole - I've played video games competitively and my mindset after game altering updates or changes has always been "play within the rules/limits provided, don't try and play outside the scope the game makers set or whine you'd prefer X rule/change" which would lean me towards "we don't need more recruits of any caliber, recruit smarter and find the best strategy to win".. but some of these recruits are head scratchingly terrible in their makeup. The scale on any rating is 0-100. Why are guards generating with sub 50 BH/pass? Doesn't that tell new HD players D2 guards should be like BH/pass of 30? and D3 guards like 10? I don't know, it just doesn't present right I guess.

I'd actually heavily agree, maybe not more mid-tier recruits, but attribute thresholds in place based on position and division-pool. I know this is something the last Dev discussed on discord but I don't recall any specifics.

I think having this discussion is great overall. I just think it's being viewed as a massive problem. When really it's just a minor "problem" if we wanna call it that. No one is quitting HD because of lack of mid tier D1 talent, and providing more mid tier talent in the pool isn't bringing more people to the game either.

Agreed Top. No one is quitting HD yet... we will see how the population goes in the future.

I'm obviously hoping I am wrong since we worked so hard as a community for this population boost but I'm just not totally optimistic.

The reality is there are still a set number of D1 NT spots and that might be the even bigger issue.

How does the system select the top-rated and starred recruits? Maybe simply revamping that to not include the guys with good starting ratings that are all yellow & red… would that solve anything?

Posted by StillWaters on 6/19/2022 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Look, I get it. With less human competition, many users got accustomed to that small level of competition for the candy in the candy store. Now there is more human competition for the same amount of candy. It is only natural to want more candy on the shelves to restore the old experience, even if it has no effect on competitive balance.

Suppose that they were to add candy, and people found after a few seasons that competition for the candy is just as intense as ever, which would certainly be the case with the same human population. The dissatisfaction would be greater than it is now. "Rats, we have more recruits, and they are better at some level, my team is more like I want it to be ... but competition for recruits (and wins, btw) is still just as intense as ever. Nothing improved like we thought it would. The game must be broken."

If you still disagree, please don't just resort to an ad hominem attack (eg. "troll") if you cannot gain ground in an open debate.

"Right now, the amount of "average D1 talented players" doesn't seem to be enough to fit the amount of teams that run with 9 players." No, the DEFINITION of "average D1 talented players" (or what might be called "D1 worthy quality") is the problem, not the quantity. Some coaches' definition is left over from the old days of lower human population, and hasn't changed according to the changing (population) conditions. The 100th best recruit, the 200th best recruit, are still about as before. But it is harder to get them. I understand that that would surely cause the top coaches' shoes to get tight, but the solution is understanding the change in the definition of "D1 worthy quality" that must accompany the increased human population. It's a new definition for everybody. Clinging to the old definition just won't work.

If you feel you can't get the same quality of players as easily as you used to get them with less human competition, then your mindset of what is "D1 worthy quality" hasn't kept up. That mindset needs to change with the times.

the DEFINITION of "average D1 talented players" (or what might be called "D1 worthy quality") is the problem, not the quantity. Some coaches' definition is left over from the old days of lower human population, and hasn't changed according to the changing (population) conditions. The 100th best recruit, the 200th best recruit, are still about as before. But it is harder to get them. I understand that that would surely cause the top coaches' shoes to get tight, but the solution is understanding the change in the definition of "D1 worthy quality" that must accompany the increased human population. It's a new definition for everybody. Clinging to the old definition just won't work.

If you feel you can't get the same quality of players as easily as you used to get them with less human competition, then your mindset of what is "D1 worthy quality" hasn't kept up. That mindset needs to change with the times.

This is the important part of his statement. I personally don't think more players are needed, but I actually agree with the concept that people need to reconsider what D1 quality is now with more competition. When there were 90 D1 coaches, you could get roster depth of high-quality players with less competition. With 150 or more coaches, the guy who used to be your bench guy might be starter quality now. The guy you used to refuse to look at or was the backup to the backup option, is now a key bench player.

sorry I suck at quoting on here.

i agree with that generally poncho, adjusting to the times is certainly important. now that recruits are spread more equitably that they used to be, it should also in theory be easier to cram more coaches into a d1 world i suppose? plus folks have had some time to adjust to the already-lower ceiling on high end teams, that came with 3.0 in general?

there aren't zero limits to adjusting, though. the really high end recruits are just as incredible as they've ever been, and there are going to be teams who manage to cobble together a starting lineup of great and elite recruits. all aspects of evaluating recruits are at least moderately tied to the recruit's relation to the top players out there. you can only overcome so much of a gap, even if top teams have dropped from 10 very high end recruits to 6 or 7, other coaches are still going to be (rightfully) comparing their starters, to the starters on the best teams. its hard to feel like you can compete if that gap gets too big.

i look around and i see plenty of B prestige teams, coached by good but not necessarily 20 title folks, who have some REALLY good players. i think there are definitely enough of those to go around. i really enjoy the high level of competition that we have right now, the way those B prestige teams exist, the way that some folks run 9 deep slowdown and others run 12 deep fb/fcp, its all really good in my book. i would hate to see that balance get upset very much. this is the best balance we've had in d1 at least in a very long time (1.0 d1 was pretty great IMO, but i didn't get to play it long enough to get ****** off about the things i didn't like).

a couple people made a point earlier about it taking several rounds of adjustments to get it right, if they tried to adjust recruit gen. i 100% agree with that. i don't think things are broken enough to go that far. but it does feel like the general level of intensity in recruiting in d1, is pretty darn high. i like it, but i don't think i make a good representative sample... i definitely worry the intensity is high for the general hd population. that's why i am kind of settling into a position of, i really don't think it makes sense for them to go in and mess with recruit gen, not with a new staff who really doesn't know this game well. i do think a new world would be cool though, just let a bit of the pressure out. also, the lack of new worlds is a shame, its been such a source of excitementment when it happened, and most of you guys have never gotten to experience it. now that we've pivoted to a situation where everyone accepts d2/d3 as empty wastelands, where its really a d1-centric game, and where d1 populations are high instead of low - it feels to me like the right time to strike with a single new world.

I agree with a lot you said there. Toying with recruit gen seems like it could backfire and definitely have to be careful about the gap between the haves and have-nots (I've always been a proponent of removing baseline prestige and moving to a dynamic prestige). It's a shame the lower levels have been somewhat sacrificed to make the game DI centric. I've always felt DII was the most fun in the game and wish DI was closer to what DII was pre 3.0.