i agree that preferences aren't that strong. i don't really know how i feel about making them stronger.

one comment though, i think a lot of folks look at their own prefs and see good ones, and get more excited about that than they should - even given the weaker strengths about preferences. when i look at a preference slate, its not just about me but about the anonymous opponents i might face, and in that light, some good-looking pref slates (bunch of very goods and goods) are much less good-looking.

for example, if i'm an A prestige d1 school looking at a 5* with a wants success preference - sure, i have a good pref there. but so do virtually all of my prospective opponents, so i look at that as basically a wash. it does help a tad against like, C prestige and down teams who have more or less, no business on the recruit. similarly, if i'm 300 miles away on a close to home pref, i'm not necessarily even looking at that as a positive. sure, i have a 'good' pref, but most folks who are 400+ miles away, they won't even consider this recruit due to cost and pref. my most likely opponent is going to have me beat.

this would come up all the time when chap and i were co-coaching, he is much more about preferences than me, and we would spend a lot of time going through this same thought process. he'd be like, we have good prefs on player X - and sure enough, we'd have like 3 greens and a blue. but i'd often be like hey, to me, this looks like 0 advantage over a reasonable prospective opponent, which is certainly better than all the cases where we are disadvantaged, but i'm not expecting any advantage when this becomes a battle, either.

anyway, i think across the board, when i talk to folks, they get excited about good pref slates without considering the opponent enough, and therefore, expect advantages when their actual advantage is none or minimal. when you actually have a serious preference advantage over an opponent, they do matter a good bit.

1. Change preferences so all recruits have preferences for everything
2. Change the actual preferences to something that can be influenced (like GPA, NBA potential, etc) lots of different ideas here
3. Modify the preferences to actually show a difference. It's basically impossible to get a VG for wants rebuild at D1 while it's very easy to get VG for wants success. You could be a C prestige and get a Good for wants success. Why? Something is screwed up.

Making preferences stronger should be fine for the East Coast where you're almost definitely going to find a good recruit with good preferences, but it could be scary for some other parts of the country. For example, at Utah, I usually only see a few upper-echelon recruits within 300 miles. If I get RNG'd and none of them have good preferences, then I'm pretty boned for that recruiting season. Basically I'd need to hope that there are some decent recruits nearby AND at least 1 of those recruits has good preferences. At that point, my success starts to be more based on RNG than actual recruiting skills. Just some food for thought.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/16/2022 10:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/15/2022 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bpielcmc on 6/15/2022 3:49:00 AM (view original):

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

Agreed for the most part, although shoe does sometimes live in his own "press + deep roster + normal/uptempo world" and seems to forget how little D1 teams are naturally penalized for only having 9/10 players.

I'd like to see him try to run through a truly loaded 9-guy team playing mo/man/slowdown with one of his low talent, high STA/depth uptempo FB/press teams. I wish that his team would be more competitive than it is, but that's just not how the sim engine works.

He also did completely miss my point which was literally just that taking high schooler costs 3 times as much in resources but only gives you 2 times the seasons. I was just using this to explain the theory behind why so many elite D1 coaches are signing all the D2 JUCOs they can get their hands on.

For my part, I don’t think I have forgotten how small the penalty is - you probably recall the thread I started about tempo balance, and the core of that is the slowdown crutch incentivizing 9 man rosters. But I also remember, vividly, CS answer to me in how loudly the community complains about strong uptempo press teams being “overpowered”. You can watch Fresno in Tark or MSU in Phelan, I play lots of loaded 9-10 man teams every year with those squads. Sometimes we win, sometimes we don’t, which isn’t a problem for me (as long as it isn’t a weak team obviously getting the slowdown bump). Sure, the more talent I have, the farther my team can go, generally. Isn’t that true for everyone?

Your point isn’t missed here cub. Like I said, I was pointing out that this is the place of divergence, IMO. You and I have a lot of agreement on this issue. I’ve always said the max rolls, only-elites, multiple walkons is a perfectly viable approach, you can build a great team that way, and as long as you can manage expectations on those battles/rolls, I’m sure you can have fun with it too. It’s not for me, but there should be multiple viable ways to approach a big multiplayer strategy game. I was specifically saying that when you put the players “cost” in terms of opportunity cost, ie how much it will cost you to *carry them on your roster* (as opposed to how much they cost to recruit), it can really skew player valuation, especially with regards to scholarship resources, because you’re essentially counting the resources twice - on the front end (we always have to consider how much a player actually cost to recruit, right?) and then every season they’re on the team and not graduating; but not necessarily considering player growth, or what the player is contributing to the team each year. And like I said, which you acknowledge, those resources always have to be converted into a player to have *any* value, so if you’re continually taking multiple walkons, you are also, by definition, not converting that into value for your team in a given season, you’re constantly deferring it.

When I talk to folks who reach out to me by sitemail about this stuff, I always encourage them to try other stuff out and see what works for them. Because I acknowledge everyone is different, and certainly not everyone is like me. But for me personally, my big issue here is not that cub’s approach is incorrect or can’t be successful (of course it can!) but rather that it is setting the coach up for near constant dissatisfaction, even despite success in many cases.

This is a really good post Shoe. If anything, my argument here is I wish that "my" approach was less successful.

Posted by mlitney on 6/16/2022 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Making preferences stronger should be fine for the East Coast where you're almost definitely going to find a good recruit with good preferences, but it could be scary for some other parts of the country. For example, at Utah, I usually only see a few upper-echelon recruits within 300 miles. If I get RNG'd and none of them have good preferences, then I'm pretty boned for that recruiting season. Basically I'd need to hope that there are some decent recruits nearby AND at least 1 of those recruits has good preferences. At that point, my success starts to be more based on RNG than actual recruiting skills. Just some food for thought.

Yeah, good, take here. I really agree with Benis that something isn't working here and something needs to be reworked so D1 (unless you're Shoe) recruiting isn't just dropping promises and 20HV/CV and praying.

I would lean towards something like a preference rework and a cost structure rework. Isn't it a bit ridiculous that recruiting a guy 1200 miles away is so much more costly than 600 miles away... you have to take a flight to both places theoretically? I wish the cost function had diminishing returns instead of being limited.

East Coast and West Coast recruiting are so different it is insane.

Posted by mlitney on 6/16/2022 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Making preferences stronger should be fine for the East Coast where you're almost definitely going to find a good recruit with good preferences, but it could be scary for some other parts of the country. For example, at Utah, I usually only see a few upper-echelon recruits within 300 miles. If I get RNG'd and none of them have good preferences, then I'm pretty boned for that recruiting season. Basically I'd need to hope that there are some decent recruits nearby AND at least 1 of those recruits has good preferences. At that point, my success starts to be more based on RNG than actual recruiting skills. Just some food for thought.

Very fair point and something that would need to be considered. Ultimately, HD would need several changes to get it right.

Posted by bomberball on 6/13/2022 2:53:00 PM (view original):
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.

Personally, I agree with you somewhat. I get it

Posted by cbriese on 6/11/2022 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I think this version of D1 HD, with this current population, is the most challenging, frustrating, and fun version of this game over the course of 17 years. You're right - it's near impossible to recruit a team of all 3-stars and above. It should be. And yes, some folks are willing to take big swings and take three walk-ons. However, this is going to force coaches to eventually change their recruiting strategy to recruit role players, and *gasp* come up with team-building strategies and actual game plans. This is really what makes it fun, and leads to a leveling of the playing field.

I do, BTW, support the idea of reduced practice effectiveness for teams with less than 10 scholarship players. That career backup guy that only does one or two things well

Team building strategies..... that is an element of the game that I miss a lot in D1. In D2 I feel like that's what made me a top coach. In D1 I don't think about it nearly as much. I value preferences so much more, due to the competition. So let's say I had a fastbreak offense. And every player in my area (for the most part) has great PER/PAS but 20 BH, but I have all great preferences, I'm going for those players. Because we have to GET the player first. Then figure out what to do with them once they're on the roster. With that mindset, I notice I slack in team building because of it.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/17/2022 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 6/11/2022 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I think this version of D1 HD, with this current population, is the most challenging, frustrating, and fun version of this game over the course of 17 years. You're right - it's near impossible to recruit a team of all 3-stars and above. It should be. And yes, some folks are willing to take big swings and take three walk-ons. However, this is going to force coaches to eventually change their recruiting strategy to recruit role players, and *gasp* come up with team-building strategies and actual game plans. This is really what makes it fun, and leads to a leveling of the playing field.

I do, BTW, support the idea of reduced practice effectiveness for teams with less than 10 scholarship players. That career backup guy that only does one or two things well

Team building strategies..... that is an element of the game that I miss a lot in D1. In D2 I feel like that's what made me a top coach. In D1 I don't think about it nearly as much. I value preferences so much more, due to the competition. So let's say I had a fastbreak offense. And every player in my area (for the most part) has great PER/PAS but 20 BH, but I have all great preferences, I'm going for those players. Because we have to GET the player first. Then figure out what to do with them once they're on the roster. With that mindset, I notice I slack in team building because of it.

with you all the way, d2/d3 was all about team building. d1 was all about making the most of what you could get. it just used to be that you got more.

i actually think there's still a lot of team building to be done at d1, its just probability based, and in the end you cobble something together, and it forces you to be able to coach a wider variety of teams. my one long time d2 program, it felt like i had the same team over and over, with some crappier ones in between that i mostly ignored. my d1 teams feel much more varied, definitely brings more coaching challenges. the raw coaching of what you've got is definitely a huge differentiator in today's d1.

for what its worth, i much prefer 3.0 d1 recruiting over 2.0 recruiting. i think the equity is great. and i also am good with the crazy high competition on a personal basis - i definitely am enjoying the recruiting challenge of today more than i was enjoying the snooze fest that came before. even within 3.0, after 3 years of 100% retirement, i only made it 3 seasons at A+ uconn before quitting due to boringness / easiness. 15 seasons at D prestige florida a&m getting smacked around and i have no plan to leave any time soon. my concern centers around, is the crazy high competition sustainable for the wider community, even given that our community is a relatively narrow band of crazy folks. but personally, this might be my favorite version of HD ever, and the competition down at ~120 per world was still enough to keep me interested, i think. which is why i am pretty scared of all the solutions that involve them changing code, but am open to a new world, which would bring guaranteed excitement without the risks of the code change stuff.

Posted by gillispie on 6/16/2022 12:15:00 PM (view original):
i agree that preferences aren't that strong. i don't really know how i feel about making them stronger.

one comment though, i think a lot of folks look at their own prefs and see good ones, and get more excited about that than they should - even given the weaker strengths about preferences. when i look at a preference slate, its not just about me but about the anonymous opponents i might face, and in that light, some good-looking pref slates (bunch of very goods and goods) are much less good-looking.

for example, if i'm an A prestige d1 school looking at a 5* with a wants success preference - sure, i have a good pref there. but so do virtually all of my prospective opponents, so i look at that as basically a wash. it does help a tad against like, C prestige and down teams who have more or less, no business on the recruit. similarly, if i'm 300 miles away on a close to home pref, i'm not necessarily even looking at that as a positive. sure, i have a 'good' pref, but most folks who are 400+ miles away, they won't even consider this recruit due to cost and pref. my most likely opponent is going to have me beat.

this would come up all the time when chap and i were co-coaching, he is much more about preferences than me, and we would spend a lot of time going through this same thought process. he'd be like, we have good prefs on player X - and sure enough, we'd have like 3 greens and a blue. but i'd often be like hey, to me, this looks like 0 advantage over a reasonable prospective opponent, which is certainly better than all the cases where we are disadvantaged, but i'm not expecting any advantage when this becomes a battle, either.

anyway, i think across the board, when i talk to folks, they get excited about good pref slates without considering the opponent enough, and therefore, expect advantages when their actual advantage is none or minimal. when you actually have a serious preference advantage over an opponent, they do matter a good bit.

I wish I could quote like three of your posts on here gil, your post on learning through D3 and D2 (especially back before the recent d1 hiring logic change) is exactly what I've believed those smaller human population divisions are for.

Regarding the preferences matter though, this does seem like a problem in recruiting for coaches if it's prevalent. I used to keep a record of the various offenses, defenses, conf. strength, etc. of all my nearby, similar or higher prestige schools to see who was likely to be a challenge, because it really is more about how you compare instead of how closely you match up with the recruit's preferences in a vacuum.

If anything, based on the above comments, it seems like maybe having players on the draft board should have some type of value in preferences for recruiting?

For example, if a preference was added for let's say "NBA Draft Success" that adds in recent drafted players and projected draft spots of current players, then coaches with draftable talent are less penalized for actually improving those players, and EEs can be less detrimental overall.

FWIW I haven't had any issue with the recruiting changes after the D1 surge took place, seems to me that it does just make D1 (and I assume the lower divisions) a more competitive battlefield for recruits. The comment above about putting together a "perfect team of imperfect players" has never been more true than with this new level of recruiting competition imo. Then again, I only have one team in one world, so I know a lot of the other coaches here have more experience with the impact of recent changes.

I'm not reading through 9 pages, but I agree with cubcub's original post and D1 recruiting needs attention to fix things.

I would suggest Solution 5 - add more quality players. More guys over 600 OVR right off the bat, that even if they have low potentials, it means your back up and back up back up back up plans are at least better than taking 3+ walk-ons or taking a guy at sub 500 OVR just to take a warm body.

Posted by salag on 6/17/2022 2:36:00 PM (view original):
I'm not reading through 9 pages, but I agree with cubcub's original post and D1 recruiting needs attention to fix things.

I would suggest Solution 5 - add more quality players. More guys over 600 OVR right off the bat, that even if they have low potentials, it means your back up and back up back up back up plans are at least better than taking 3+ walk-ons or taking a guy at sub 500 OVR just to take a warm body.

I don't think more 600+ OVR guys are necessarily needed, but certainly more in the 550-575 range couldn't hurt. These are the guys that could be valuable cogs (if not starters) for low-D1 programs and "meh, better than a walk-on" guys for the higher-level teams.

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.

This is what I keep thinking StillWaters. But I’m not at D1, so I wondered if there was something magical I was missing. I suppose the question is “How good is the worst recruit I can get compared to a walk on?” If it’s only marginally better, it’s not worth it. If it’s a lot better, it is worth it to recruit him. But a team can be just as good comparatively even if all their players are better.

Regarding the preferences discussion, I would much rather the random draw of preferences limit me than the random draw of a dice roll to determine my fate. If I drop all my resources into one or 2 recruits and I miss on both only due to a dice roll, I'm likely screwed for the cycle. If the preferences just aren't great around me, I know I still have the option to continue looking for the guy who I can pursue rather than waiting the first and second cycle on a dice roll. Maybe I'm settling a bit, but at least I got a player who can contribute.