i was trying to find that post about being wired differently, about wanting to learn d2/d3 before rushing to d1, but i am just going to respond to it conceptually.

i would DEFINITELY recommend this guy's approach, to literally everyone who joins this game. its just that most folks would ignore that advice anyway and rush to d1, so, it is what it is...

but anyway, the reason i really like that approach is simple. in d2/d3, you can learn to coach. recruiting competition is much less, you can at least find quality players without too much craziness. unfortunately, this is less true in d2/d3 today, than when i started, but d1 is even crazier competition, so its still generally speaking, something that holds.

d2/d3 is supposed to be, in my view, where you learn how the sim engine side of this game works. you learn about the ratings and settings and how to use them. the d2/d3 pool (conceptually - not the actual listed pools) are supposed to be fairly vast, and coaches should be able to basically get more or less, exactly the kinds of players they want, and then see how it works. no players are perfect, its all about the tradeoffs, and about learning which ratings and group of ratings lead to success in various areas... and how the settings work and all that. once you master that, its all about vision building - what would the perfect team look like - and then you go test that theory, because in theory, you can. i'm not saying perfect players, but a perfect team of imperfect players... what is that. d2/d3 is where you are supposed to go learn all that ****.

d1 has more perfect players, but team building is MUCH more challenging. dice rolls add to this greatly - before dice rolls, it was battling for recruits creating uncertainty in who you'd get, and limiting your ability to get who you want, which was the norm for lower end schools and middle ones. top tier schools might get their pick of the litter, but then EEs kick in to create uncertainty and holes. dice rolls just amp this up, which is why the overall strategy from coaches has shifted to teams requiring less depth, or to fb/fcp where there's a much different and generally more flexible scheme around roster construction.

d1 is really fun because its a wild ride through recruiting and then you have to try to cobble together a functioning team from whatever pieces you ended up with. to me, its the ultimate version of this game, and i don't know that i could ever go back and enjoy d2/d3, with where i am in my progression as a coach. but like, d2/d3 is where you go to learn how to play this game. i did not learn how to play this game in d1. i learned in d2/d3. i learned how to recruit for d1 in d1, but i learned how to play HD in d2/d3. when i went to d1, i basically made it my ***** from day 1, because i was already as good at the team building and coaching side as anyone. all of that i learned in d2/d3. now granted, i did head to d1 pretty quickly, and its fine to do that, but you should still be learning how to play this game with your d2/d3 teams first and foremost. i was a quick study so i was able to go to d1 quickly but still after i'd learned the game in d2/d3. most folks should expect to partially learn to coach in d2/d3, then head to d1 to start on d1 recruiting, while continuing to learn how to coach in d2/d3, which is really a career long experience. there's still a ton about coaching i don't know, but i got lazy about learning coaching after i got really good at it.

D1 recruiting be like:

https://imgur.com/a/MnHDiUO

This is at the end of RS1 too.

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

I see the angles of both arguments. However, a 4 year guy who is green/blue/black can make those cost more than worth it. My initial Scout and the first few cycles determine which approach I will chose to "believe in" for that recruiting season.

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.

Not sure what you're arguing here. You're just stating facts.

"The value of an open scholarship is always speculative until transferred into an actual player."
Agreed.

"They don’t buy you a player"
Agreed. They buy you a chance to get a player. To be competitive in recruiting real talent at B- and above prestige you need money. The more money you have, the more rolls you can invest in.

"Those resources don’t ever pull any bench rebounds, or rest any starters for you."
Generally, a slowdown/man team can get about 180-200 minutes from their top 8 guys with no fatigue issues depending on a variety of factors (Sta, opposing tempo, opposing defense). The game is designed so that slowdown/man is just a good bit overpowered for my liking. To be fair, it is pretty realistic. But if you have at least 5 guards/wings and 3 bigs you are completely fine, and it's really not that hard to get a 9th guy let's be real. There is no inherent in-game penalty for all the ******* teams that keep taking 3 walk-ons (such as mine) as long as the 9 players you have are good enough and fit together well position-wise.

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.

Posted by Basketts on 6/15/2022 4:10:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting be like:

https://imgur.com/a/MnHDiUO

This is at the end of RS1 too.

That kid is really torn about where he's gonna go play basketball for 1 year

I hope the C- wins. And than I’m watching the whole season is that drama.

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2022 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 6/15/2022 4:10:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting be like:

https://imgur.com/a/MnHDiUO

This is at the end of RS1 too.

That kid is really torn about where he's gonna go play basketball for 1 year

Do people see this as a problem?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/16/2022 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2022 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 6/15/2022 4:10:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting be like:

https://imgur.com/a/MnHDiUO

This is at the end of RS1 too.

That kid is really torn about where he's gonna go play basketball for 1 year

Do people see this as a problem?

I don't, I love it. Its treated me well at times and devastated my plans at times. But I also never been in a position to just hand pick my recruits like some people got used too

Recruiting is like poker IMO.

We have guys like cub who play for the big score regularly and push all their chips in when they like their hand. All about exerting your dominance over your opponents and pushing them down. When it works for a few seasons they win Championships and are at the top of the game. When it fails for a few seasons their teams are devastated because they never developed a bench to keep them midlevel talent wise. Loss of a few EEs can be devastating if you choose this approach because it is like losing a third of the boat and trying to stay afloat. I watch a lot of great coaches go exclusively to this approach after they get a few D1 National Championships under their belt. They forget the moving around and adapting they had to do on their way up the Mountain.

We have guys that strategize it more and try to add less superstars and balance them with development players and role players. They move around the board mixing exerting dominance with running away to an easier to get recruit. When it works they also can win Championships with teams not quite as dominant as the other approach. When it fails they still got a decent team to play with and hope for a Cinderella run to the Elite Eight or Sweet 16. Loss of a few EEs can be better withstood.

ALL baselines B+ and above should use the first approach. All baselines under that should use the second to start IMO.

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.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/16/2022 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2022 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 6/15/2022 4:10:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting be like:

https://imgur.com/a/MnHDiUO

This is at the end of RS1 too.

That kid is really torn about where he's gonna go play basketball for 1 year

Do people see this as a problem?

Not really. But 10% for a player feels more like picking 0 or 00 in roulette than betting on red or black. No one is forcing you to play of course.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 6/16/2022 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Recruiting is like poker IMO.

We have guys like cub who play for the big score regularly and push all their chips in when they like their hand. All about exerting your dominance over your opponents and pushing them down. When it works for a few seasons they win Championships and are at the top of the game. When it fails for a few seasons their teams are devastated because they never developed a bench to keep them midlevel talent wise. Loss of a few EEs can be devastating if you choose this approach because it is like losing a third of the boat and trying to stay afloat. I watch a lot of great coaches go exclusively to this approach after they get a few D1 National Championships under their belt. They forget the moving around and adapting they had to do on their way up the Mountain.

We have guys that strategize it more and try to add less superstars and balance them with development players and role players. They move around the board mixing exerting dominance with running away to an easier to get recruit. When it works they also can win Championships with teams not quite as dominant as the other approach. When it fails they still got a decent team to play with and hope for a Cinderella run to the Elite Eight or Sweet 16. Loss of a few EEs can be better withstood.

ALL baselines B+ and above should use the first approach. All baselines under that should use the second to start IMO.

I don't think the problem is in isolation to one team. There are enough disadvantages to this strategy that we can point to one individual team and show people the lows just as much as we can show them the highs. For me, it's more about the conglomerate of teams using this approach in D1 currently. When you look at it as a hole, statistically, one or two of those teams each season are going to have hit on their rolls for top talent. Those teams, of which there are usually a couple each season, become the top metric and are hard to knock off with a more balanced team of less skilled development players. So when you see these teams, at least in context of wanting to make a final four or championship game, then you tend to have the attitude of joining them or risk losing to them as far as recruiting goes, contributing to the problem.

I don't know if this is a problem that needs addressing. I think we are still pretty early in a packed D1. Some teams will naturally move back to a balanced approach the more times they get burned. However, if we wanted to dissuade it further, then I don't know if the answer is to just create more mid-level development players. I tend to think the solution is probably somewhere with slowdown and/or some type of walk-on penalty below 10.

Posted by Basketts on 6/16/2022 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/16/2022 7:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2022 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 6/15/2022 4:10:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting be like:

https://imgur.com/a/MnHDiUO

This is at the end of RS1 too.

That kid is really torn about where he's gonna go play basketball for 1 year

Do people see this as a problem?

Not really. But 10% for a player feels more like picking 0 or 00 in roulette than betting on red or black. No one is forcing you to play of course.

Yeah I can see both sides of the argument if this is a problem or not.. But I'll call out a few issues that I see.

Since we're limited with how much effort we can put in, the strategies boil down to looking for good pref matches and getting a high prestige so you can increase your odds of winning.

But something isn't working here. Preferences were meant to be this huge concept that would heavily dictate recruiting battles -instead of pure auction style. Fine, I can get on board with that idea. But what's really happening here? You target recruits that match up with preferences and do everything the "right" (or at least intended way) and you increase your chance of signing a player from 20% to 22%.

What's the point? Where is the strategy? Just throw your HV bomb and promises at a player and cross your fingers.

I'm not saying preferences don't work at all, just something doesn't seem right.

I feel like preferences needs some sort of overhaul where they actually influence the recruits decision in these massive battles. So many of these preferences are just negated in these battles

Wants to play - OK everyone is offering promises.

Long term coach - OK most of these coaches at A prestige have been there a long time

Wants success - OK all these A prestige teams are successful.

Strong conference - OK most of these teams are in good conferences.

So you're left with random stuff like offense/defense and play style. Distance makes sense but most schools will recruit close to home and esp on east coast, it's pretty packed.

I realize there are gradients within the preferences so not all Very Goods are equal but the difference isn't significant enough to show any real impact in the 5-7 team battles. They've become mostly worthless.

not to mention, the recruit might not even HAVE any preferences (or very few).