I am not sure why anyone would be against a new fresh world...their arguments seem to be "I dont want to start over"...who said you were forced to join?

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/3/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by therewas47 on 11/3/2015 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I see you are completely ignoring the majority of the userbase that has been clamoring for years for a one game a week world.  

thats a real thing people want?  a world that takes 3/4 a year? thats slower than the regular ncaa season which plays more games

Youre obviously out of touch with what the userbase wants.  

Please no. I already feel like I'm playing the same 10 coaches everywhere. Another world would dilute things more than they already are. And that's not a good thing.

Posted by therewas47 on 11/3/2015 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/3/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by therewas47 on 11/3/2015 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I see you are completely ignoring the majority of the userbase that has been clamoring for years for a one game a week world.  

thats a real thing people want?  a world that takes 3/4 a year? thats slower than the regular ncaa season which plays more games

Youre obviously out of touch with what the userbase wants.  

I have zero interest in a 1 game a week world

Posted by trophaeum on 11/3/2015 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Please no. I already feel like I'm playing the same 10 coaches everywhere. Another world would dilute things more than they already are. And that's not a good thing.

stop being so good and you'll stop playing the same 10 elite coaches you're talking about.

lol jk

Posted by taniajane on 11/3/2015 4:15:00 PM (view original):
I am not sure why anyone would be against a new fresh world...their arguments seem to be "I dont want to start over"...who said you were forced to join?

Because SIMs are boring to play against.

The more worlds means new users will further be diluted. Pretty simple concept.

Posted by mullycj on 11/3/2015 8:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 11/3/2015 4:15:00 PM (view original):
I am not sure why anyone would be against a new fresh world...their arguments seem to be "I dont want to start over"...who said you were forced to join?

Because SIMs are boring to play against.

The more worlds means new users will further be diluted. Pretty simple concept.

BS: There are very few NEW users, I look at many of the players and they have 4-6 teams. Your already playing the same people and sims. If your worried about dilution then consolidate the worlds down to 2 or 3. But of course then people would people would cry "I dont want to give up my team".

I agree with you there.

Consolidate the worlds.

Posted by mullycj on 11/4/2015 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I agree with you there.

Consolidate the worlds.

I am absolutely against any consolidation of worlds, for several reasons.

1. How do you decide which world are consolidated, and with which other worlds?

2. What about coaches with teams in many worlds?

I've got a team in nearly every one a day world. It should be up to me when I decide to give up a team, not being forced to give one up because of a consolidation.

3. What purpose is their in consolidation?

If you want to play more games against human coaches, join a full conference. Asking for a consolidation to get more human coaches is like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.

Posted by therewas47 on 11/3/2015 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I see you are completely ignoring the majority of the userbase that has been clamoring for years for a one game a week world.  

I have literally never heard this mentioned before.  One game a week?  What are you my wife?

i agree with the guys who are against a new world due to further dilution of competition. closing some worlds would be a good idea in my opinion, if it was done respectfully and planning. with some forethought you could do it without TOO much resistance (i'd think), if you said something like, "in 20 seasons XXX world will be retired and in 10 seasons it will no longer accept new coaches." this way people have time to prepare, decide what they want to do with those teams, etc. if you do this with a few worlds, and then you could plausibly give the people asking for a new world what they want at the same time---a new world with a fresh start.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/4/2015 8:51:00 AM (view original):
i agree with the guys who are against a new world due to further dilution of competition. closing some worlds would be a good idea in my opinion, if it was done respectfully and planning. with some forethought you could do it without TOO much resistance (i'd think), if you said something like, "in 20 seasons XXX world will be retired and in 10 seasons it will no longer accept new coaches." this way people have time to prepare, decide what they want to do with those teams, etc. if you do this with a few worlds, and then you could plausibly give the people asking for a new world what they want at the same time---a new world with a fresh start.

I agree with this completely. Take one of the less populated worlds, announce that it will be closed at the end of season X (at least 5 to 10 seasons away). I would rather have 5 worlds that are fairly well populated than 10 ghost worlds. 

And if a new world is opened, I want a 3 games per day world. If baseball can play 3 games a day, why can't basketball? It will attract the die-hards and it will cycle through seasons quicker, generating more money.

So you close a world then all those coaches move to another world and wouldn't be able to get the team they want because someone already has it. I play one team in one world at the D3 level. I have had the same team for over thirty season. Being from Indiana I prefer a team from Indiana and now i would be forced to lose this team and wouldn't be able to get the same one in another world. Don't like the idea at all.

I think the "FIRE COACH" needs to be turned up at the Power 5 conferences. In reality none of those programs are going to put up with losing more than 5-7 seasons.

Give a coach 5 seasons to "rebuild" a program. Have 2 or 3 coaches in each league on the "HOT SEAT" at the beginning of each season. Then offer a "buyout" say 3 free seasons to go to another school or "buyin"say 3 seasons at a premium price to maintain the team. After those 3 seasons, if there is no improvement "FIRED"

Last to improve sims. Have them recruit similar patterns to the previous coach.

Well .. I think that there should be a limit on the number of seasons on can stay with one team at Division-1 in consecutive seasons.

Division-2 and DIvision-3 are pretty equal with respect to a given team and their ability to win.  Some teams are around more recruits (more populated locations closer), but there are also more schools there.  Prestige and other calculations there make the playing field fairly level.

But in Division-1, there are very elite teams.  If one has an elite team, right now they can keep it as long as they want.  If seasons are supposed to be years, one coach at the same team for 80 years is kind of unrealistic.  I would think that a 50 season (or 40) max at any individual school would be realistic, you have to take a job somewhere else.  And of course, real firing logic.