Who is gonna vote for you?

1. +1
2. First sentence I am neutral. I strongly think that how the recruits sign now is good.
3. +1

1 - don't care.
2 - +1
3 - I'll propose an alternative to #3: allow teams to schedule exhibition games after their season has ended against other teams, either SIMAI or user owned teams. No ratings improvements for playing, you can play the same team multiple times, etc. The games don't count for anything, but you can still experiment with lineups, strategies, etc.

That would be fine too. As I recall, there were 12-14 days of dead time between my last game and the beginning of RS2. That's just too much of "nothing to do".

But you do lose the incentive for users to carry more than 1 team. That would be a good thing for WifS.

And there pretty much is absolutely nothing to do in those 12-14 days. The only thing I find myself doing is coming in to check the chat.

I recently got into two battles with the same nearby team over 2 local and probable EE players. For the most part, i led on one of the guys, and he led on the other. He won the first guy at 54% to 48%, both Very High. He continued to go hard after the 2nd guy and won that battle too. He did a great job outmaneuvering me, and i have no problem with my two losses. And he's a great guy too and a legendary owner.

Having said all that, the fact is that he went balls-out for 2 EE guys... and we all know that EE's can put owners at a disadvantage... so if he gets hosed on EE's in a couple of seasons, i will have little sympathy for him with his situation. I've come around to thinking that the EE set-up should stay as-is. Big Six high-prestige schools who deliberately stuff their fat faces at the pig feeding trough, while aware that they could get hosed with EE problems, should adjust, or accept their probable fate of getting hosed. Also want to note that this owner has never complained and is a nice, honest and straight-up guy.

voting rigged?

I went off about EE complaints quite some time ago. Equated it to 15 minutes with Kate Upton but, the truth is, the complaining just keeps on coming. WifS has to do something or simply state that they're doing nothing. IMO, making sure no team has more than one solves the problem easily. Because anything will not be enough. That might not be either but it's something users can bank on if it's done.

Not sure anything has to change. Owners can take on EE's and the risk that comes with them, or they can play it safe and avoid recruiting too many if they don't want to deal with the probable headaches that EE's will bring.

It doesn't. But, if it's not going to, WifS needs to remove the carrot they've been dangling for months. The ******** and moaning may not stop but, at the very least, one will be able to say "They're not changing it. STFU."

I agree w/ your ideas, mike.

idea #1: sure, that's one idea. that might be even a bit too kind to the D1 elite. a more minor tweak could even be if players can't go EE if they aren't on the draft board. even people like Spud who are anti changes to the current HD3 setup have said that coaches with EEs need to plan better, that it's part of the strategy, and i get that POV to some extent, but it's impossible to plan for an EE if they aren't on the board. no strategy in that happening. it's just annoying.

that said neither of those proposals would help recruiting after coaching changes.

idea #2: would be interesting and might actually help new coaches who think currently think they need to confine their search to D3---i certainly would assume that as a new coach. at the same time, D2/D3 coaches then shouldn't see the top 100...........

idea #3: I'm all for more exhibitions if they won't reduce the excessive downtime between seasons

1. It might be too kind but there's no fun in having your team wrecked. I'm in my 3rd season and it's just not fun to lose over and over again. Maybe, if I win last season, I'm more accepting in losing this season(pretending I lost an EE or three) but starting a season knowing you have little chance to compete sucks. If it's a max of one, and you have a stud FR/SO/JR, you can "plan" on losing him and possibly be pleasantly surprised if he comes back. No more claiming "I got a surprise EE. How can I plan for that?"

2. My thinking is it calms some of the "Why can D3 recruit D1 players?" complaints. I signed two D1 and two D2 last season. No self-respecting D1 or D2 team should even think about them. So why shouldn't I have gone after them? I have a feeling it's so SIMAI "knows" who to recruit but that could be fixed.

3. There has to be a reason to check in. In a 6-7 week season, you can't have 30% down time. Simming against yourself would incentivize users to carry more than one team. More humans in worlds.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/12/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Once elected King of HD, here are the three things I'm gonna do:

1. Limit EE to one per team. Nothing more, nothing less to solve the EE whining, errr, problem.
2. Remove projected levels. The market will sort it out. I would have the top 50% as "late" signees.
3. Allow anyone with 2 or more teams to sim games against oneself. There is too much downtime and this would help. It would also allow users to experiment with their teams AND encourage users to have more than one team.

1. Disagree -- I've been one of the EE "complainers," and I've been screwed by multiple EEs on more than 1 occasion in 3.0, but I just philosophically don't generally like the idea of artificial caps, especially when they're not designed to function how the real world functions. If you're limiting to 1, why not just limit to 0? I would prefer leaving it as-is, but including a "dead period" of 2 or 3 recruiting cycles at the start of session 2 to allow players to unlock actions before signings start, which I think would mitigate the effects of unexpected EEs, and would also lessen the amount of punishment a coach taking over a new team gets. Once again, I remain disappointed WIS hasn't implemented such an obvious fix with so little downside.

2. Marginally agree on the first sentence, but this seems like a DII/DIII issue. Strongly agree with the last sentence -- the number of "late" signees should be increased across all divisions.

3. I'm not sure I understand this proposal. Are you saying two teams in the same world, both controlled by the same user, sim against each other? Or my Knight team sims against my Allen team? Either way, seems like a significant programming burden for minimal gains -- based on the pace of "improvement," I'd rather WIS fix 3.0's obvious and repeatedly-pointed-out failures before taking on something new.

1) 1 EE per team limit solves EE problem for me (and I'm a big complainer about it)
2) not a big deal for me...seems like the whole recruit pool might get huge
3) meh