The rest of the discussion here (how much more effort from d1 teams compared to d2 teams an action should have) is certainly worth discussing. As is just not allowing D1 players to be recruited by other than d1 teams, etc.

I have no issues with limiting all D1 rated players to D1 teams, D2 players to D2 teams, D3 players to D3 teams.

Everyone would be recruiting from the same pool, so while historically the new D3 and D2 teams might be not as talented as older teams (when they could recruit players from higher divisions), when compared to each other .. the best recruiters would still have the best teams.

Posted by hughesjr on 1/4/2017 5:58:00 AM (view original):
The rest of the discussion here (how much more effort from d1 teams compared to d2 teams an action should have) is certainly worth discussing. As is just not allowing D1 players to be recruited by other than d1 teams, etc.

I have no issues with limiting all D1 rated players to D1 teams, D2 players to D2 teams, D3 players to D3 teams.

Everyone would be recruiting from the same pool, so while historically the new D3 and D2 teams might be not as talented as older teams (when they could recruit players from higher divisions), when compared to each other .. the best recruiters would still have the best teams.

This. It doesn't matter if the average team rating goes down 10 points per division, because it goes down for everyone. The best recruiters will get the best recruits, and there will actually be parity at DII and DIII. It would eliminate DII and DIII coaches being upset about a higher division team coming in and bumping them off a recruit easily, and would eliminate the ridiculous and inexplicable outcomes we are seeing with DIII and DII beating high DI (a lack of realism that is beyond compare, making the game look silly). It would also enable new coaches to compete faster, as they would not be going up against DIII rosters made up of DI players. Good point hughesjr.

Posted by snafu4u on 1/4/2017 7:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/4/2017 5:58:00 AM (view original):
The rest of the discussion here (how much more effort from d1 teams compared to d2 teams an action should have) is certainly worth discussing. As is just not allowing D1 players to be recruited by other than d1 teams, etc.

I have no issues with limiting all D1 rated players to D1 teams, D2 players to D2 teams, D3 players to D3 teams.

Everyone would be recruiting from the same pool, so while historically the new D3 and D2 teams might be not as talented as older teams (when they could recruit players from higher divisions), when compared to each other .. the best recruiters would still have the best teams.

This. It doesn't matter if the average team rating goes down 10 points per division, because it goes down for everyone. The best recruiters will get the best recruits, and there will actually be parity at DII and DIII. It would eliminate DII and DIII coaches being upset about a higher division team coming in and bumping them off a recruit easily, and would eliminate the ridiculous and inexplicable outcomes we are seeing with DIII and DII beating high DI (a lack of realism that is beyond compare, making the game look silly). It would also enable new coaches to compete faster, as they would not be going up against DIII rosters made up of DI players. Good point hughesjr.

Totally agree. I've been saying we should cap the divisions since Beta after all these problems were first exposed.

Even a somewhat relatively arbitrary cap would be better. Something like, D2 can't recruit above a 2 star and D3 can't recruit about 550 starting rating. I know they aren't exact indications of how good a player is but it'd still be much better.

And then you could get rid of Spud's Red Light and it wouldn't be a problem. Why didn't Seble listen to us in the first place... sigh.

No need to cap, just be logic, no kid with playing time in D1 will go D2, especially if it's big six bball. Change values.

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 10:52:00 AM (view original):
No need to cap, just be logic, no kid with playing time in D1 will go D2, especially if it's big six bball. Change values.

I really think a cap would help new coaches. A brand new coach to HD at DIII doesn't know he is wasting his time recruiting DIII recruits. If he doesn't target DI and DII recruits he can never win. Capping recruits by division gives him a fighting chance at success because he will be fishing from the same recruit pool as everyone else. A new player shouldn't have to come onto the forums and pour through months of posts to learn how to play the game. Reading the rules and examples set forth by WIS should be sufficient.

Absolutely. Now you guys are cookin'! Do everything that can be done to protect D1 coaches as much as possible, just like you guys are saying. They need to be protected from D2 and D3 coaches. You protect newborns in the nursery, right? They are the most helpless and vulnerable. If you believe what you read in the forums, that must be true for HD coaches once they reach D1, too. I myself used to look up to D1 coaches as the most skilled and the most accomplished, but after reading thread after thread about how they need to be protected from lower division schools, I guess maybe I over-estimated them. It is unbelievable to me how much begging goes on in the forums to protect D1 coaches from those big, bad D2 and D3 coaches.

There goes spud again trying to maintain a welfare state for elite DII and DIII coaches. Arguing everything he can to make sure they can keep their huge talent gap over new coaches and schools with lower prestige. It's sad how much welfare Spud wants doled out to those already successful coaches.

D2 hanging in the balance against big six, ridiculous!

Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

A dead thread but Spud posts on it 3 times in the past 12 hours. Thanks for keeping this thread alive Spud! You're the man!

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

"The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly."

Of course it is. But what do you think are the odds that'll happen?

Just remember this is just a game (albeit a cool one) and things don't make perfect sense even in real life. The Ivy League puts out decent teams in basketball with no one getting basketball scholarships! Yet they still beat teams loaded with scholarships. Just imagine if we had to play every season with nothing but walk ons on the entire roster and everyone else got scholarship players.

I like the current system even with flaws. The 'flaws' add an extra twist that will keep the best teams challenged and developing teams hopeful.

The ivy league comparison is an okay one but still pretty flawed. Those kids are obviously highly focused in academics and Ivy League schools are obviously attracting kids from all over the country without much effort.

now, if HD had some sort of academics preference to influence a recruits decision...

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):
The ivy league comparison is an okay one but still pretty flawed. Those kids are obviously highly focused in academics and Ivy League schools are obviously attracting kids from all over the country without much effort.

now, if HD had some sort of academics preference to influence a recruits decision...

I agree with it being flawed. My first question would be how many are actually paying for their scholarships?? I would guess that at least 75% of their scholarships are academic so the notion that they are not getting a scholarship doesn't really work in this situation