Lots of talk on this thread about having to go into D2 as a B or A prestige. Maybe I’m in the least populated worlds but I just don’t think this is a required strategy. I’m not having difficultly keeping 10-11 man rosters, I just don’t only chase stars. Instead I prioritize solid players. Below B prestige, I don’t see a point in chasing EE type guys and in the A and B range, I try to keep it to one elite recruit per recruiting class. That means I might have to commit resources to a quality (but not stud) player. That’s different at A+, but everything below I think it’s a choice to go all in on three rolls for EE type players, not a requirement. I think smart coaches are making adjustments to their strategy. One option is stars and scrubs (and rolls) another is chasing players that fit together even if they won’t sniff the draft. I am also in the camp that adding recruits doesn’t change the results because (as shoe said), it’s all relative. More elite/quality players increases roster quality across the board, but the number of NT teams remains fixed.

and of course this conversation is all academic because management in 6 months delinquent on their firing changes with no indication it’s coming soon so I won’t get my hopes up about sweeping changes

and of course this conversation is all academic because management in 6 months delinquent on their firing changes with no indication it’s coming soon so I won’t get my hopes up about sweeping changes

Yeah, they took the Firing Update off of the roadmap because they wanted to focus on finishing the core code update. I have no idea if the core update will be finished by the end of this year, but I wouldn't count out sweeping changes afterwards. It just doesn't make much sense to make big changes to the old code when they'd just have to write it again. Also, modernizing the code base should make future updates much easier to implement.

** Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer.

what's the core update you are talking about? is that HD-related? i'd read that change log thing from a few weeks back, and i was thinking core update meant like, whatifsports core, website stuff, that kind of thing. not really HD code that would conflict with the jobs thing.

my guess is that HD was adam's favorite and benefitted some from that. but its the 3rd biggest community they said, i think. probably, pushing a firing update that most folks weren't that excited about, where they got solid pushback (albeit much less with the later versions of the plan), is just not a super high priority.

Posted by texashick on 6/12/2022 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Lots of talk on this thread about having to go into D2 as a B or A prestige. Maybe I’m in the least populated worlds but I just don’t think this is a required strategy. I’m not having difficultly keeping 10-11 man rosters, I just don’t only chase stars. Instead I prioritize solid players. Below B prestige, I don’t see a point in chasing EE type guys and in the A and B range, I try to keep it to one elite recruit per recruiting class. That means I might have to commit resources to a quality (but not stud) player. That’s different at A+, but everything below I think it’s a choice to go all in on three rolls for EE type players, not a requirement. I think smart coaches are making adjustments to their strategy. One option is stars and scrubs (and rolls) another is chasing players that fit together even if they won’t sniff the draft. I am also in the camp that adding recruits doesn’t change the results because (as shoe said), it’s all relative. More elite/quality players increases roster quality across the board, but the number of NT teams remains fixed.

and of course this conversation is all academic because management in 6 months delinquent on their firing changes with no indication it’s coming soon so I won’t get my hopes up about sweeping changes

i *think* the folks earlier were not talking about A or B prestige d1 schools. i think they were talking about mostly, major rebuilds, and perhaps also somewhat rebuild D and C prestige schools, perhaps?

i think its pretty safe to say that recruiting d2 is not relevant to A prestige d1 schools. i can't imagine its very relevant at B prestige either.

ok i take that back... cub is definitely talking about scouting d2 from his A d1, more recently in the thread.

maybe there's something to see there, its interesting a guy like cub would scout d2 from his A prestige d1 team. he must be seeing some usable players to continue. certainly though, there's no necessity or anything approaching necessity there, right?

Posted by gillispie on 6/13/2022 1:22:00 PM (view original):
what's the core update you are talking about? is that HD-related? i'd read that change log thing from a few weeks back, and i was thinking core update meant like, whatifsports core, website stuff, that kind of thing. not really HD code that would conflict with the jobs thing.

my guess is that HD was adam's favorite and benefitted some from that. but its the 3rd biggest community they said, i think. probably, pushing a firing update that most folks weren't that excited about, where they got solid pushback (albeit much less with the later versions of the plan), is just not a super high priority.

This was the response when I asked about the Firings Update disappearing from the roadmap.

Hello,

With the amount of time and effort the devs have needed to put into getting the core update completed we decided to push back any update that we felt wasn't ready to push live to the site. The core update will help with future implementation and upgrade user interaction. We want to try to get the job firing process and expectations done well so there aren't issues when it goes live. We understand the disappointment by this news but are prioritizing what will be best for the site and entire community and are working on getting the new site rolled out asap.

The roadmap has Core Update and SimEngine update listed separately, but both are estimated to be finished around August.

Core Update: Now~August

This site coding update is progressing well. The devs are working on the backend piece and have started working on the front end/ UI development.

SimEngine: July~August

We are still looking to work this in once the core update is completed.

Someone more familiar with this stuff can probably give a better idea of what exactly these updates mean.

Just got caught up on this thread.

Personally, I don't see high-D1 as fun given a lot of the issues mentioned by other players. In my initial HD run about 12 years ago, I got to Oklahoma State in one world, Texas Tech in another, and recruiting just broke me. It stopped being entertaining when the reaction to landing a legitimately great player was, "phew," rather than, "yes!"

I experienced that in my return to HD as well. I got to Providence in Phelan, and recruiting just wasn't enjoyable. I dropped back down to the low-D1 level after two seasons, and when I land a player that's a difference-maker, it's an accomplishment. I'll never win a national title, but I'll win a lot of games and have fun doing it. That's enough for me.

I do think there needs to be, at a minimum, more recruits generated each go-round. There have been a few instances in Phelan where the guards are just awful across the board, and it hurts everyone that doesn't get one of the top 15-20 players at each position (even the one and two-star guys just aren't that good). I don't think the solution is generating more tippy-top-end players, but more mid-range guys that are solid, "sign and move on without crippling your program"-type players. Think the PG with low or mid-70's ratings and average potential in ball handling and passing. They won't be stars, but 99% of D1 programs will be able to play those guys without a problem.

I think recruiting should be challenging at that level. That's part of the fun. When "challenging" turns into "impossible," though, it becomes a lot more of a chore, and that's not a sound business model.

I'm about to lose 2 studly D2 Proj JUCOs in Smith to a B prestige D1. Fair play too, they are pretty nice. It's been happening a lot recently. They both could definitely get serious minutes behind more elite players on a 3 seed.

I always scout D2 JUCOs near me with Louisville. Great use of money compared to scouting outside of Top 100 guys 600 miles away I'll have to fight a B- team if they are half decent anyways. I got this guy a few years ago. He's my third big this year on a 1 seed. I've lost 5 rolls in a row now for bigs, so I'm really happy I signed him.

My lack of interest in taking a ****** project I can get for free at A prestige D1 is pretty real. Every 4-year guy you sign costs you $9k and 1320 AP, vs every 2 year guy you sign costs you $3k and 440 AP. It's just not even a question if you want to compete. Ideally I wouldn't have to do this, and I could have at least 4 bigs 6 guards and 2 walkons on my team this year that are good players, but since losing 5 rolls in a row is a possibility I think it is a pretty good backup plan.

Obviously, as more people catch onto this it becomes a less effective strategy. Definitely don't want to have to battle other D1s for Proj D2 guys, given they are *rarely* that good... I remember watching from the sidelines in Tark when A- Oklahoma and B+ Ok State got into a battle for a pretty nice but not ridiculous Proj D2 JUCO. I was kind of like... really? That's how you guys are going to use your money?

Posted by mlitney on 6/13/2022 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 6/13/2022 1:22:00 PM (view original):
what's the core update you are talking about? is that HD-related? i'd read that change log thing from a few weeks back, and i was thinking core update meant like, whatifsports core, website stuff, that kind of thing. not really HD code that would conflict with the jobs thing.

my guess is that HD was adam's favorite and benefitted some from that. but its the 3rd biggest community they said, i think. probably, pushing a firing update that most folks weren't that excited about, where they got solid pushback (albeit much less with the later versions of the plan), is just not a super high priority.

This was the response when I asked about the Firings Update disappearing from the roadmap.

Hello,

With the amount of time and effort the devs have needed to put into getting the core update completed we decided to push back any update that we felt wasn't ready to push live to the site. The core update will help with future implementation and upgrade user interaction. We want to try to get the job firing process and expectations done well so there aren't issues when it goes live. We understand the disappointment by this news but are prioritizing what will be best for the site and entire community and are working on getting the new site rolled out asap.

The roadmap has Core Update and SimEngine update listed separately, but both are estimated to be finished around August.

Core Update: Now~August

This site coding update is progressing well. The devs are working on the backend piece and have started working on the front end/ UI development.

SimEngine: July~August

We are still looking to work this in once the core update is completed.

Someone more familiar with this stuff can probably give a better idea of what exactly these updates mean.

ok sounds good, that is what i was thinking. so basically just to clarify, they have a core update - which has nothing to do with HD itself. there's a lot to do there, so they are focusing on that. its about time and priorities, not that the firings changes would be riding on soon-to-be-obsolete HD code.

what we might consider 'HD core', like the sim engine, is completely unrelated to what they are calling a core update, at least i am pretty sure about that.

“Every 4-year guy you sign costs you $9k and 1320 AP, vs every 2 year guy you sign costs you $3k and 440 AP.”

The value of an open scholarship is always speculative until transferred into an actual player. Just want to point out this is probably the primary area of the divergence cub. You look at the opportunity cost of those resources as real-value cost. I would seriously question that approach. There really is no linear player-resource currency exchange rate. As I’ve brought up before, those dollars and AP just buy you pieces of chances to get in on a roll for a player. They don’t buy you a player (at least not if you are taking this approach). So I think your calculus is way off if you’re adding the whole dollar (+AP) amount into a cost valuation. Those resources don’t ever pull any bench rebounds, or rest any starters for you. They’re not making your team better this year, and while they might give you a better recruiting position for next season, as we know, nothing is guaranteed, and at some point, they have to be spent on a player who is doing something anyway to bring any real value at all.

Don't wanna toot my own horn.. BUT

In Phelan, Prairie View A&M just won the D1 Title (congrats kev!). Prairie View had 3 total losses on the season and two of them were to Jackson State - a team made up of 100% D2 projected players.

D2 projected players can be decently viable at d1. Experiment concluded.

I think Early Entries should be based not only on the current ratings, but on the potential, which would eliminate the desire to hold players back. Then make the rewards for a player going EE or getting drafted higher, and give at least part of the $3000 and scouting money to use during the first session.

Posted by Benis on 6/14/2022 8:06:00 PM (view original):
Don't wanna toot my own horn.. BUT

In Phelan, Prairie View A&M just won the D1 Title (congrats kev!). Prairie View had 3 total losses on the season and two of them were to Jackson State - a team made up of 100% D2 projected players.

D2 projected players can be decently viable at d1. Experiment concluded.

very interesting. you guys are making a pretty compelling case for those d2 players, for sure.

i get that prarie view a&m just won running uptempo fb/fcp the whole way, but i'm going to say it anyway, running uptempo fb/fcp into your equal depth straight press... its just asking for something crazy to happen. can't be too surprised when it does. why would you bring that volatility into the game as such a big favorite... its just not a good idea. doing that against peers, totally different.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/13/2022 5:40:00 PM (view original):
“Every 4-year guy you sign costs you $9k and 1320 AP, vs every 2 year guy you sign costs you $3k and 440 AP.”

The value of an open scholarship is always speculative until transferred into an actual player. Just want to point out this is probably the primary area of the divergence cub. You look at the opportunity cost of those resources as real-value cost. I would seriously question that approach. There really is no linear player-resource currency exchange rate. As I’ve brought up before, those dollars and AP just buy you pieces of chances to get in on a roll for a player. They don’t buy you a player (at least not if you are taking this approach). So I think your calculus is way off if you’re adding the whole dollar (+AP) amount into a cost valuation. Those resources don’t ever pull any bench rebounds, or rest any starters for you. They’re not making your team better this year, and while they might give you a better recruiting position for next season, as we know, nothing is guaranteed, and at some point, they have to be spent on a player who is doing something anyway to bring any real value at all.

This is spot on