Posted by kcsundevil on 11/14/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/14/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 12:09:00 PM (view original):
I don't necessarily disagree. D1 probably shouldn't fall to D3. But if D1 and D2 ignore him, what's he going to do? Get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter and give up hoops forever?

Anyway, it's a problem in internet Dynasty games. I think it would be stupid to go all in on low level D1 players as a D3 but I'm sure someone will. And, if he fails, he gets another job elsewhere and someone else can clean up the mess. I honestly think the answer is those who fall to a lower level are prime to move up after one season.

If D1 and D2 ignored him in the past, something logical would happen. (Juco.) It is regrettable WIS will never admit changing that logic was a mistake.

It's plenty logical for that kid to pick a lower level, human coached team over juco. In real life, and for gameplay in HD. I could go along with those kids transferring up, or more of them going juco, if that's what HD wants to do for the sake of realism. Not sure it makes D2/3 a better game though, not in the same way EEs make D1 a better game.

The old system had been simple, easily understood, and non-controversial for 11 years.

And with a steadily declining user base, to boot.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/14/2016 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/14/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/14/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 12:09:00 PM (view original):
I don't necessarily disagree. D1 probably shouldn't fall to D3. But if D1 and D2 ignore him, what's he going to do? Get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter and give up hoops forever?

Anyway, it's a problem in internet Dynasty games. I think it would be stupid to go all in on low level D1 players as a D3 but I'm sure someone will. And, if he fails, he gets another job elsewhere and someone else can clean up the mess. I honestly think the answer is those who fall to a lower level are prime to move up after one season.

If D1 and D2 ignored him in the past, something logical would happen. (Juco.) It is regrettable WIS will never admit changing that logic was a mistake.

It's plenty logical for that kid to pick a lower level, human coached team over juco. In real life, and for gameplay in HD. I could go along with those kids transferring up, or more of them going juco, if that's what HD wants to do for the sake of realism. Not sure it makes D2/3 a better game though, not in the same way EEs make D1 a better game.

The old system had been simple, easily understood, and non-controversial for 11 years.

And with a steadily declining user base, to boot.

Fair point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 6:06:00 AM (view original):
So it's your contention that a low level D1 being recruited only by a D3 should sign on the last cycle with a D1(or D2 using that logic) if they drop a scholarship offer on them at the last minute? How on earth does that seem "right"?

Hey mike...It's my contention that a DI recruit sees himself as a DI player. This last cycle stuff doesn't quite hold water for me. A two division difference (DIII recruiting DI) holds back the DIII school to moderate only until the last 24 hours..then the recruit will sign with anybody. If the recruit has not signed with the DIII school before the last cycle, maybe he's waiting for a better offer or to go JUCO to give himself another opportunity to play DI as a JUCO3.

DIII is already taking a massive risk by waiting until the last 24 hrs to land a DI recruit anyway. If they want to play that kind of high stakes poker, they should expect to get burned sometimes by a DI school that suffered from EEs or lost other battles late and need to quickly pivot to a same division, last-minute backup.

I'm sure he does. But if no D1 team has bothered to recruit him until the 11th hour, is he really a D1 player?

I wouldn't have a problem if D1 COULDN'T drop to D3. That would make sense. But I'd still think it's very unfair to D2 owners if they're working a D1 and he's snatched in the same manner you suggest on the last cycle. And, obviously, D2 player to D1 under the same system. It's just a huge gamble to pour resources into an unrecruited player at another level only to have him taken by a simple scholarship offer.

I don't know if the game needs players, but, judging from the 2 previous, it does. One way to get users to quit is to create a system that treats new users like outsiders so the old users, who already have the advantage of knowledge, can remain on top.


So I'd like to take advantage of said knowledge if someone doesn't mind. I have 3 seniors and a garbage freshman I'll cut. I hope to fill 3 spots in the first recruiting session and aim for a low level, unrecruited D1/D2 in the 2nd session. The way I see it, if I gamble and lose, I get one walk-on. My rotation is mostly 10 anyway so that's no big deal. Is that a sound strategy?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure he does. But if no D1 team has bothered to recruit him until the 11th hour, is he really a D1 player?

I wouldn't have a problem if D1 COULDN'T drop to D3. That would make sense. But I'd still think it's very unfair to D2 owners if they're working a D1 and he's snatched in the same manner you suggest on the last cycle. And, obviously, D2 player to D1 under the same system. It's just a huge gamble to pour resources into an unrecruited player at another level only to have him taken by a simple scholarship offer.

I don't know if the game needs players, but, judging from the 2 previous, it does. One way to get users to quit is to create a system that treats new users like outsiders so the old users, who already have the advantage of knowledge, can remain on top.


So I'd like to take advantage of said knowledge if someone doesn't mind. I have 3 seniors and a garbage freshman I'll cut. I hope to fill 3 spots in the first recruiting session and aim for a low level, unrecruited D1/D2 in the 2nd session. The way I see it, if I gamble and lose, I get one walk-on. My rotation is mostly 10 anyway so that's no big deal. Is that a sound strategy?

I am running a 8 man lineup and have been since I got to Miles. Winning record for all three seasons I have had there and am about to go to the National Tourney for the first time in my career possible going to the 2nd round and exit I am hopeful for that.

What level are you? Are you a long time division 3 coach? Are you a long time division 2 coach? These are things any1 would like to have answered before answering your question.

10 man lineup with only 2 walk on is far beyond ordeal. I wouldn't even go 11/12 in this 3.0 system as its a pain in the rear end to recruit 5 to 6 now. You also have to be really on point with recruting in this system and really can't afford to go behind on a recruit.

D3. First season in 10 years.

Current situation is 3 SR, 1 JR, 1 SO, 7 FR. So, even with a walk-on this recruiting session, I only need 2 next year.

No Preference -

Near Home Very Good

No Preference -

Strong Defense Bad

No Preference -

Zone Neutral

No Preference -

Wants Long-time Coach Very Bad

Late

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure he does. But if no D1 team has bothered to recruit him until the 11th hour, is he really a D1 player?

I wouldn't have a problem if D1 COULDN'T drop to D3. That would make sense. But I'd still think it's very unfair to D2 owners if they're working a D1 and he's snatched in the same manner you suggest on the last cycle. And, obviously, D2 player to D1 under the same system. It's just a huge gamble to pour resources into an unrecruited player at another level only to have him taken by a simple scholarship offer.

I don't know if the game needs players, but, judging from the 2 previous, it does. One way to get users to quit is to create a system that treats new users like outsiders so the old users, who already have the advantage of knowledge, can remain on top.


So I'd like to take advantage of said knowledge if someone doesn't mind. I have 3 seniors and a garbage freshman I'll cut. I hope to fill 3 spots in the first recruiting session and aim for a low level, unrecruited D1/D2 in the 2nd session. The way I see it, if I gamble and lose, I get one walk-on. My rotation is mostly 10 anyway so that's no big deal. Is that a sound strategy?

DII and DIII do not have the same signing restrictions. Perhaps you meant DIII?

Because of the way the new recruiting system is written, a DI school might not have a choice but to pivot in the 11th hour...battling another DI school (and losing the battle) for a recruit that has a preference to sign late, for instance.

It's like transferring budget from your player to prospect payroll and then not jumping on the first round of IFAs where everybody overpays...hoping a good one (or two) comes later at a reduced cost because you are the only team left with a serious bank. You might win the bet or you might end the season ******* away millions because that first round of IFAs contained all the great ones for that year. You choose to take risk. It's not unfair, it's a decision you make freely.

DIII is choosing to employ a boom or bust strategy. If DIII wants to divert huge resources to grab a player out of their class, then it is too bad if the gamble doesn't work out. DIII is not entitled to that recruit just because they have been sitting on them all season.

Well, I compared it to FA in HBD earlier. You take the lead early and he doesn't sign. You wait. Last cycle somebody tops your offer. Difference is, you get your resources back and are free to use them elsewhere. If D1 can take a player without using resources beyond a last minute scholarship offer, the system is set up poorly.

As I said, I wouldn't have a problem if D1 player simply couldn't drop to D3. But it still wouldn't be fair to D2 owners chasing a D1 to lose in the manner you suggest. Or a D3 to lose a D2 player in the same way. It greatly benefits long-time users to the detriment of new owners trying to make their way to the top.

To put it another way, a 590 turns a crappy D3 around. A 590 never sees the court for a national contender.

What is better for keeping the users happy?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Well, I compared it to FA in HBD earlier. You take the lead early and he doesn't sign. You wait. Last cycle somebody tops your offer. Difference is, you get your resources back and are free to use them elsewhere. If D1 can take a player without using resources beyond a last minute scholarship offer, the system is set up poorly.

As I said, I wouldn't have a problem if D1 player simply couldn't drop to D3. But it still wouldn't be fair to D2 owners chasing a D1 to lose in the manner you suggest. Or a D3 to lose a D2 player in the same way. It greatly benefits long-time users to the detriment of new owners trying to make their way to the top.

We'll simply disagree then. It is fair for a lower division school to lose to a higher division school at the last minute.

As an aside, the strategy you laid out in an earlier post is sound.

I suppose we will.

Thanks for confirmation on my strategy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 6:39:00 PM (view original):
To put it another way, a 590 turns a crappy D3 around. A 590 never sees the court for a national contender.

What is better for keeping the users happy?

That 590 is better served at a DI or DII SIM than at a DIII human. Look at the rosters of SIMs in DI and DII, brother. There are scores of SIM recruited players that are way below 590, even as upperclassmen. WIS fails again by making the SIM recruiting logic so poor that your 590 goes untouched by the hundreds of computer-controlled DI and DII programs.

No one cares if the SIM is happy. They get free teams.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 6:52:00 PM (view original):
No one cares if the SIM is happy. They get free teams.

LOL, I'll give you a point for that one.