I am in D1, never had one Ee, except in BeTA. Don't like it. I am not elite but I am solid. I do not like recruiting in D1 nor scouting. Therefore I am keeping Clemson one more season and if I get stuck with no results (i have 5 schollies), I am going to play D2. Dropping PSU and Purdue. No need to struggle forever to be competitive, too many problems right now.

Sounds like the reason I gave up HD in 2006. At VaTech, I couldn't compete with Duke, UNC, Clemson, etc. So, in 2006, there were too many problems. I wouldn't doubt that there were users every year from 2006-2016 who thought there were too many problems. Perhaps we're all just quitters when the going gets tough.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):
Weren't we just talking about how so many B6 D1 jobs were now open because coaches are leaving? Is it because of EEs or something else? Hard to say. But to say that the 'majority of coaches are coping with it' is based upon personal opinion without any evidence. We have no idea what the majority of coaches who have experienced EEs feel about it or how they've handled it because the majority of coaches don't post on here. So unless someone has sitemailed all these coaches, they're just pulling this info out their bum.

If we're losing coaches who don't like to compete for elite commodities, can't accept the risks associated with them, and would prefer to go back to a system where they happily cherry-picked the ones they wanted year after year, then it's a net positive for the game. I want to play in a multi-player universe where opponents like competition. I don't want to play in a universe that can be gamed and dominated, by me or anyone else.

I think that's a pretty unfair assumption and assessment of what other coaches think based upon your own biased opinions. And I think you know that.

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):
Weren't we just talking about how so many B6 D1 jobs were now open because coaches are leaving? Is it because of EEs or something else? Hard to say. But to say that the 'majority of coaches are coping with it' is based upon personal opinion without any evidence. We have no idea what the majority of coaches who have experienced EEs feel about it or how they've handled it because the majority of coaches don't post on here. So unless someone has sitemailed all these coaches, they're just pulling this info out their bum.

If we're losing coaches who don't like to compete for elite commodities, can't accept the risks associated with them, and would prefer to go back to a system where they happily cherry-picked the ones they wanted year after year, then it's a net positive for the game. I want to play in a multi-player universe where opponents like competition. I don't want to play in a universe that can be gamed and dominated, by me or anyone else.

I think that's a pretty unfair assumption and assessment of what other coaches think based upon your own biased opinions. And I think you know that.

It's not an assumption - notice the "if" qualifier at the beginning. You're right that we don't know how many coaches have left because they didn't like how early entries are handled in 3.0. But of those that *did* leave because of those reasons, the game doesn't miss their presence.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):
Weren't we just talking about how so many B6 D1 jobs were now open because coaches are leaving? Is it because of EEs or something else? Hard to say. But to say that the 'majority of coaches are coping with it' is based upon personal opinion without any evidence. We have no idea what the majority of coaches who have experienced EEs feel about it or how they've handled it because the majority of coaches don't post on here. So unless someone has sitemailed all these coaches, they're just pulling this info out their bum.

If we're losing coaches who don't like to compete for elite commodities, can't accept the risks associated with them, and would prefer to go back to a system where they happily cherry-picked the ones they wanted year after year, then it's a net positive for the game. I want to play in a multi-player universe where opponents like competition. I don't want to play in a universe that can be gamed and dominated, by me or anyone else.

I think that's a pretty unfair assumption and assessment of what other coaches think based upon your own biased opinions. And I think you know that.

It's not an assumption - notice the "if" qualifier at the beginning. You're right that we don't know how many coaches have left because they didn't like how early entries are handled in 3.0. But of those that *did* leave because of those reasons, the game doesn't miss their presence.

This is where you are so so wrong. Legendary coaches have left the game--coaches that represented the utmost in competition, the highest challenge. Winning a recruiting battle against Gillespie, Oldresorter, or jbasnight was better than making the final four. I relished competing against that level of success, striving to match their dominance. With 3.0, that level of competition is gone. Now everybody gets a participation trophy, everyone gets a 5* recruit. Past success is largely irrelevant. They have taken the "Dynasty" out of Hoops Dynasty. Now if you put together two good of a team the devs have ensured your success will be punished and unrepeatable through this ridiculous EE system. This isn't even dice-roll dynasty, this is dice-roll everyone is equal and all relevance to how college basketball actually works has been stripped in favor of making sure inexperienced coaches can land recruits beyond their reach to keep them interested enough to keep re-upping their subscription.

Poor, poor gamerz-justis-warrierz. Thx 4 the LOLZ.

Seriously though. Exit trolling is lame. Man up and go away.

"So your situation is unique or does it apply to everyone? Because, if it applies to everyone, there's no real problem. It's called a level playing field."

It's called competition. As snafu points out, some of the "legendary" coaches have left. Coincidence?

The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):
Weren't we just talking about how so many B6 D1 jobs were now open because coaches are leaving? Is it because of EEs or something else? Hard to say. But to say that the 'majority of coaches are coping with it' is based upon personal opinion without any evidence. We have no idea what the majority of coaches who have experienced EEs feel about it or how they've handled it because the majority of coaches don't post on here. So unless someone has sitemailed all these coaches, they're just pulling this info out their bum.

If we're losing coaches who don't like to compete for elite commodities, can't accept the risks associated with them, and would prefer to go back to a system where they happily cherry-picked the ones they wanted year after year, then it's a net positive for the game. I want to play in a multi-player universe where opponents like competition. I don't want to play in a universe that can be gamed and dominated, by me or anyone else.

I think that's a pretty unfair assumption and assessment of what other coaches think based upon your own biased opinions. And I think you know that.

It's not an assumption - notice the "if" qualifier at the beginning. You're right that we don't know how many coaches have left because they didn't like how early entries are handled in 3.0. But of those that *did* leave because of those reasons, the game doesn't miss their presence.

This is where you are so so wrong. Legendary coaches have left the game--coaches that represented the utmost in competition, the highest challenge. Winning a recruiting battle against Gillespie, Oldresorter, or jbasnight was better than making the final four. I relished competing against that level of success, striving to match their dominance. With 3.0, that level of competition is gone. Now everybody gets a participation trophy, everyone gets a 5* recruit. Past success is largely irrelevant. They have taken the "Dynasty" out of Hoops Dynasty. Now if you put together two good of a team the devs have ensured your success will be punished and unrepeatable through this ridiculous EE system. This isn't even dice-roll dynasty, this is dice-roll everyone is equal and all relevance to how college basketball actually works has been stripped in favor of making sure inexperienced coaches can land recruits beyond their reach to keep them interested enough to keep re-upping their subscription.

Yes, I noticed your 'if' and it still doesn't change the fact of what you're implying. You're insinuating that people who leave don't want competition or that they're just pouting and storming off saying "it's not fair!".

That's what you believe, it seems pretty clear. Otherwise why would you respond to my post with a hypothetical scenario that could or couldn't be true. One that we have no way of proving one way or the other.

I still think even implying this is unfair to some long time coaches.

I agree that I don't want the system gamed either. But you're acting like it's likely that those who don't like the changes dislike them because they don't want to have to compete anymore.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 10:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):
Weren't we just talking about how so many B6 D1 jobs were now open because coaches are leaving? Is it because of EEs or something else? Hard to say. But to say that the 'majority of coaches are coping with it' is based upon personal opinion without any evidence. We have no idea what the majority of coaches who have experienced EEs feel about it or how they've handled it because the majority of coaches don't post on here. So unless someone has sitemailed all these coaches, they're just pulling this info out their bum.

If we're losing coaches who don't like to compete for elite commodities, can't accept the risks associated with them, and would prefer to go back to a system where they happily cherry-picked the ones they wanted year after year, then it's a net positive for the game. I want to play in a multi-player universe where opponents like competition. I don't want to play in a universe that can be gamed and dominated, by me or anyone else.

I think that's a pretty unfair assumption and assessment of what other coaches think based upon your own biased opinions. And I think you know that.

It's not an assumption - notice the "if" qualifier at the beginning. You're right that we don't know how many coaches have left because they didn't like how early entries are handled in 3.0. But of those that *did* leave because of those reasons, the game doesn't miss their presence.

shoe, c'mon. I'm assuming you know enough of the long-time-successful coaches to know that your premise isn't true. At least not for the vast majority of them. So you're either being deliberately unfair, or you're basing it on the really narrow cross-section of coaches who post vocally (and frequently) on this forum.

Also worth mentioning: to get to a point where they could "game and dominate the system" (your words) at upper-crust programs in 2.0, those coaches had to fight through seasons of coaching at lower-crust programs, competing successfully against the previous "game and dominate" coaches.

Honestly, I'm pretty neutral on 3.0 - I like some parts, don't like other parts, and will stick around to see what it looks like in the future. But I'm not going to lump long-time coaches who see it differently into an anti-competition, simply-cherry-picked-their-way-to-success bucket.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?

That is a rather specious argument. This game started out as a sophisticated college basketball simulation. The original design did its best to control for variables in such a way as to mimic (within the possible realm of what can be mimicked in a game) certain aspects of the coaching experience; working your way up from a nobody DIII school into your dream job at a Big 6, hopefully learning to win, dominating your competition, and establishing a dynasty (hence the name, Hoops Dynasty). Baseline prestige was meant to reflect the real life dominance of certain programs, and to allow for a higher tier of schools, just like in the real world. It was never supposed to be a level playing field. UNH is not supposed to be competing for national championships, it is supposed to be a stepping stone. Jackson State is not supposed to be competing for 5 star recruits. Nobody should be able to build a dynasty at Army, or Hofstra, or Boston University. It goes against the intent and design of a basketball simulation. The competition is supposed to be for the top spots at the top schools, just like in the real world. Kentucky and Duke and UConn should have a marked advantage in recruiting, so much so that they can basically cherry pick the recruits they want and get them unless there is a spectacular recruiting effort from a St. Johns, or Wake Forest, or similar almost elite program. They should never have to compete against Jackson State or UNH because those battles would never, EVER, happen in the real world. Encouraging them to happen here is a distinct step away from any semblance of a simulation and large jump towards a pay to play system that makes sure everybody can get a nice 5-star recruit. You pay your subscription fee, you get to bring 5 stars to BU. This level playing field marks the destruction of real competition in HD. There is nothing to aspire too, nothing that rewards skill, just go "All-in" on a recruit and hope your name get picked out of the hat. HD 3.0 is the absence of competition, it is a lottery. In competition there are distinct advantages and disadvantages among the participants--it is not a level playing field. In HD 3.0, everybody can throw their ticket in the hat and everyone gets a chance.

And shoe, I am not exit trolling, I am trying to express my distaste in a public forum in the hopes that there are other long time coaches who agree with me and that the devs will take notice. I am not even exiting, I have too many free seasons left from winning so god damned much.

Benis and bhan - you're reading an insinuation where there was none. Pay attention to the context here. The response I made was in context of benis discussing whether there are coaches who left specifically because of how EEs are treated in 3.0. Whoever those coaches might be, the game doesn't miss them. That doesn't presume that everyone who has left, left for that reason. That's your assumption, not mine. The ones mentioned recently, and I'd add vandydave to that list, certainly don't fit there. Cream rises to the top, and those guys would have likely stayed at the top in 3.0. That's the primary way you know snafu's "participation trophy" rant is entirely bullshit.

As ive said many times, there are valid reasons to not like 3.0. For most, I suspect it breaks down to either a preference for a deterministic rather than probabilistic model for recruiting, or/and a general reluctance to learn a new system. I can understand either of those. But to the extent that it's true - if it's true - that coaches left because they don't like having to compete for recruits with lower prestige teams, recruits they are used to getting with no challenge, the game doesn't and won't miss them. I'll stand by that. If you or your friends don't fit in that box, there's no reason to assume I put them there.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Poor, poor gamerz-justis-warrierz. Thx 4 the LOLZ.

Seriously though. Exit trolling is lame. Man up and go away.

You seem friendly.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 2:10:00 PM (view original):
Benis and bhan - you're reading an insinuation where there was none. Pay attention to the context here. The response I made was in context of benis discussing whether there are coaches who left specifically because of how EEs are treated in 3.0. Whoever those coaches might be, the game doesn't miss them. That doesn't presume that everyone who has left, left for that reason. That's your assumption, not mine. The ones mentioned recently, and I'd add vandydave to that list, certainly don't fit there. Cream rises to the top, and those guys would have likely stayed at the top in 3.0. That's the primary way you know snafu's "participation trophy" rant is entirely bullshit.

As ive said many times, there are valid reasons to not like 3.0. For most, I suspect it breaks down to either a preference for a deterministic rather than probabilistic model for recruiting, or/and a general reluctance to learn a new system. I can understand either of those. But to the extent that it's true - if it's true - that coaches left because they don't like having to compete for recruits with lower prestige teams, recruits they are used to getting with no challenge, the game doesn't and won't miss them. I'll stand by that. If you or your friends don't fit in that box, there's no reason to assume I put them there.

Language language young one--don't make me wash your mouth out with soap. Please address the core of my argument instead of responding with meaningless adages like "cream rises to the top." This is a simulation game. It should not be a level playing field. Some teams should have a distinct advantage based off of success (NOT a 1% better chance at winning the lottery, but rather a virtually unopposed position in recruiting unless another A++ team decides to compete). BU, Hoftstra, and UNH SHOULD NOT be landing 5 star recruits, just like real life. You SHOULD NOT be able to build a dynasty at Jackson State, just like in real life. The changes in 3.0 enable schools to compete for recruits they have no business even looking at. They are done in an effort to discourage competition and level the playing field to entice and retain new coaches by dangling immediate, unearned success in front of them. Everyone gets to put their name in the hat. Everyone gets a chance to play at the top. Everyone gets a trophy, just like in your youth soccer league. Discuss.

Also, if you have reached a point in your argument where you are focusing on semantics and specific context to defend your position instead of letting the argument speak for itself; you have a crap argument. I can smell something.....must have stepped in your BS.