Posted by usc4life on 8/2/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Here's a thought: A lot of the lower level D1 coaches who complain about recruit generation but claim to still love HD find the only solution is two drop teams and slowly dissapear from the game. That's great

But isn't there another solution? Why don't you just drop back down to D2? Nobody will think less of you, and you must have been successful at D2 in order to move up. Why not come back?

Oldresorter (and a few others) left a mid-major D1 school for a D2 team, and now he's dominating at that level. I know most coaches are just getting tired of the game itself, but for those who claim to love it why not do this? Just a suggestion

Why should a coach have to resort to dropping down to D2 though? I see what you are saying and I have dropped down in a world, but honestly, I would rather be working toward my dream job in D1 instead of at a D2 school that I have no interest in (let alone tell you their nickname), other than on here. 

My two best friends also play HD and we've even been fortunate enough to play in D1 together.  I've made a few friends on here as well and that interaction is cool, but when the game is ...(call it what you want) then those little things don't seem to matter.  I just dropped a team in D2 and will drop one of my D1 teams after this season. That will leave me with 2 on this ID and 2 on another. I'll drop to one on each after their respective seasons and see where the game is then.

With the changes, I've actually been HBD a lot and I really appreciate that game a lot more.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/2/2010 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 8/2/2010 8:10:00 AM (view original):
chew it is too bad, I don't think there are that many coaches left who even understand what it is your are talking about, the game is not terrible in my opinion this way, it is just the way recruiting was at one point was just alot more fun - had the system been modified slightly rather than overcorrected, the game could have even been better, but that really isn't happening, instead we are just seeing a slow exodous away from the game from the vets, and the new coaches don't have near the passion for the game  that used to exist, why would they, the game is not as much fun?  They do seem good at flaming legitimate attempts at communicating issues however, which is something I guess.  Whatever

Nail on the head.  Count me in among those who are slowly making my exodus from the game.  As I said in another thread, I peaked at 13 teams, but within a matter of a couple of seasons, I'll be down to 5 (and that 5th one is still up in the air).  I tend to agree with Colonels, the game has become almost too job-like and the fun is quickly being drained from the game.  Or maybe I'm just getting burned out, who knows?

I do know this though.  I used to stay up until 2 to see the results of my games.  Not anymore.  I used to try to hit every cycle (or at least every other cycle) during recruiting.  Not anymore.  I used to gameplan, even for my bad teams.  Not anymore.

Potential, when initially implemented, was a nightmare of disastrous proportions.  We worked through it, and although I still don't like it, I've learned to live with it.  These new recruits though........wow!  That may be what finally pushes me over the edge.  Waaaaaaay too many weird recruits.  Typical WIS over-correction.  Add to the fact that we've ALL been basically beta testers for the new engine for how many months now, and it's becoming apparent that WIS really needs to get it's act together or risk this game dying a faster death than it already is.  

Just my two cents..... 

I too am getting bored/burned out with the game (I only have one team which is ironic lol), and I don't necessarily mind all the changes, but I wonder if subconsciously, I'm bored of the game because the recruits are subpar and other negative changes...who knows.

I have my days. Some days I'm bored with it and could careless what happens. Other days I spend a lot of times looking my team over, next season recruits, player improvements. I have no game planned in for ever and that never changes, but each day tends to be different with how I feel about the game.

Gameplanning works, folks.  I gameplan more exhaustively than anyone I know.

Personally, I like the new recruit generation. It's why I came back to HD. Playing D1 with a bunch of 90/90/90/90 guys was not that much fun anymore, but this promises to be much more challenging.

I look at Naismith recruiting right now and I see one helluva lot more battles for the top guys than I have ever seen in one season before. I see two D1 teams battling for a #200 junior guard. To me, this is what makes recruiting fun. Sure, it's fraught with additional risk, but IMO that was what was missing previously.

I'm looking forward to all of it. Until we get four full years with the new recruits, it will be difficult to really judge how it's all played out. Anyone making dire projections at this point is just throwing crap against the wall.

Sacramento State with four of the top 126 recruits in Naismith. Arkansas State with #93 and #94. Their FSS indicates a mixed bag of potential. They're both sim teams, But when was the last time you saw a sim team pick up four legitimate recruits? The recruit generation changes are partially responsible for these obvious initial side effects. How many other side effects might we see? Who knows?

I just think coaches should take personal responsibility for their success, rather than blame the sim for the lack thereof.

President Kennedy once said:  

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win...

Yes, that was nearly 50 years ago. I think that many of us still choose things not only because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Posted by chewchad on 8/1/2010 11:44:00 PM (view original):
ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS!  For small Di schools, we have no shot of getting good enough players to compete to move up the coach ing ladder.  Im definitely dropping a team, maybe 2.  The only ones Im going to keep are the ones that already have a high prestige. 

In my opinion, the quest to make HD as close to real life as possible has sacrificed alot of fun.  I remember being able to get a recruit and "mold" him into the type of player I wanted.  It wasnt as realistic, but it was a helluva lot more fun to see what he would look like by his senior year.  Now I have a D1 guy with a 90+ WE that is a sophomore and only improving in like 4 or 5 categories (which actually isnt realistic at all)

Now that we are 30-45 days into the new engine, does anyone see what I see or am I in the minority?

I guess I keep hanging on because I used to absolutely LOVE HD.  I couldnt wait to read my play by play/boxscore.  I keep hoping it will be as fun as it once was, but it just simply isnt anymore. 

absolutely agree, i dropped a low level d1 program because of this (first time i havent had a team in all 10 worlds in years), it was also my primary concern when i filled out the survey

Posted by seabreeze on 8/2/2010 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Sacramento State with four of the top 126 recruits in Naismith. Arkansas State with #93 and #94. Their FSS indicates a mixed bag of potential. They're both sim teams, But when was the last time you saw a sim team pick up four legitimate recruits? The recruit generation changes are partially responsible for these obvious initial side effects. How many other side effects might we see? Who knows?

I just think coaches should take personal responsibility for their success, rather than blame the sim for the lack thereof.

There is another issue seabreeze.  WE are the paying customers, not the Sims.  And I lost a battle to a sim team when I was 200 miles out and they were 750 and I had a better prestige. That is ridiculous.  

 

Posted by reinsel on 8/2/2010 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by chewchad on 8/1/2010 11:44:00 PM (view original):
ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS!  For small Di schools, we have no shot of getting good enough players to compete to move up the coach ing ladder.  Im definitely dropping a team, maybe 2.  The only ones Im going to keep are the ones that already have a high prestige. 

In my opinion, the quest to make HD as close to real life as possible has sacrificed alot of fun.  I remember being able to get a recruit and "mold" him into the type of player I wanted.  It wasnt as realistic, but it was a helluva lot more fun to see what he would look like by his senior year.  Now I have a D1 guy with a 90+ WE that is a sophomore and only improving in like 4 or 5 categories (which actually isnt realistic at all)

Now that we are 30-45 days into the new engine, does anyone see what I see or am I in the minority?

I guess I keep hanging on because I used to absolutely LOVE HD.  I couldnt wait to read my play by play/boxscore.  I keep hoping it will be as fun as it once was, but it just simply isnt anymore. 

Right, because having a prospect that works hard that just isn't very talented never happens right? 

I mean, I worked hard, played HS basketball, if you would have recruited me to a D1 team, I'm afraid I would have been pretty much maxed out, just not going to get much faster/stronger/better shooter etc.  Shaq never got better at shooting 3s or Fts. 

Recruit players with 90 WE and they reach their ceilings pretty fast.

Reinsel, you are probably a 5'8, 190 pound white guy with no core skills.  i would guess a 22 in speed and 9 in ath.  Of course, you can work your butt off and never improve. 

And you bring the 'ol overused Shaq analogy.  What about Charles Oakley, Barkley, Sam Perkins, Karl Malone?  I have 5 guys that worked over and over on their game for every 1 you throw out.  Those guys developed great jumpers by practicing every day.

Here is my point.  Certain things will not improve much (ATH, SPD, BLK, FT).  But are you telling me a guy with a 90 WE wont improve his low post moves over 3 seasons of work?  What about BH?  Defense?  PE?  Those are all skills that DO get better with practice.  So for a guy with a 90+ WE with HIGH potential in those categories to stop improving after 1 season is just plain STUPID. 

I loved the idea of potential, but they arent using common sense with it. 

I can't say I agree with most here.  At D1 I would try to gameplan, and I'd look at my opponent and say "wow, am i going to exploit the 93 speed guy with 99 defense, or the 99 spd guy with 95 defense?". That was a lot of fun too.  Then, when I finally build up my D1 mid major, and have players at least in the ballpark of the big boys, I'm told "well with cruddy 45 pass / 33 bh from your backup center, you were bound to lose." And sure enough, I'd look at the guy's bench I just lost to and see that even his backups are 99 spd/ath, maxed out cores, D, and 60+ passers. I knew then I could never get enough of those guys to apparently compete.

Or when I first started playing this game, where some superclass team would blow me out when I felt like I had a good squad. I felt like the Cubs..."there's always next year" because I figured EVERY team couldn't have 9 SR on it every season. No, but just enough where I would never win. If it wasn't AAU, it was UofA.Or then when I finally started to figure it out, went into the tourney at D3 #1 overall seed, with 4 100 rebounders, but 30/30 spd/ath guys and watched track stars with six guys on his team with 4 D ratings beat me.

You guys keep looking back and saying "that was so much better"...but the fact is, for some of us it wasn't. It  was just different. And different doesn't mean bad.

Posted by grantduck on 8/2/2010 7:15:00 PM (view original):
I think the D-I generation is so-so, while the D-II and D-III generation has become downright poor.  Again, with lack of SPD in big men being the primary concern.

in real life DIII there isn't a lot of speed in big men.

Posted by chewchad on 8/3/2010 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seabreeze on 8/2/2010 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Sacramento State with four of the top 126 recruits in Naismith. Arkansas State with #93 and #94. Their FSS indicates a mixed bag of potential. They're both sim teams, But when was the last time you saw a sim team pick up four legitimate recruits? The recruit generation changes are partially responsible for these obvious initial side effects. How many other side effects might we see? Who knows?

I just think coaches should take personal responsibility for their success, rather than blame the sim for the lack thereof.

There is another issue seabreeze.  WE are the paying customers, not the Sims.  And I lost a battle to a sim team when I was 200 miles out and they were 750 and I had a better prestige. That is ridiculous.  

 

Heh. I think you have pointed out the major issue. It is that HD users have a sense of entitlement. I paid my money, so I should win -- no matter how incompetently I have managed my team. 

You should win a battle with a sim teams only because you are able to recruit smarter than a sim team. You know how much money they have, and have a fairly good idea of how they'll spend it. Once you surpass them, they don't put up much of a fight.

Again, take personal responsibility for your own success, and stop blaming the engine. If you lost a recruiting battle to a sim team, you didn't plan your recruiting well enough. Don't ask for something to be handed to you on a silver platter just because you plunked down your $12.

Posted by seabreeze on 8/3/2010 6:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by chewchad on 8/3/2010 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seabreeze on 8/2/2010 8:50:00 PM (view original):
Sacramento State with four of the top 126 recruits in Naismith. Arkansas State with #93 and #94. Their FSS indicates a mixed bag of potential. They're both sim teams, But when was the last time you saw a sim team pick up four legitimate recruits? The recruit generation changes are partially responsible for these obvious initial side effects. How many other side effects might we see? Who knows?

I just think coaches should take personal responsibility for their success, rather than blame the sim for the lack thereof.

There is another issue seabreeze.  WE are the paying customers, not the Sims.  And I lost a battle to a sim team when I was 200 miles out and they were 750 and I had a better prestige. That is ridiculous.  

 

Heh. I think you have pointed out the major issue. It is that HD users have a sense of entitlement. I paid my money, so I should win -- no matter how incompetently I have managed my team. 

You should win a battle with a sim teams only because you are able to recruit smarter than a sim team. You know how much money they have, and have a fairly good idea of how they'll spend it. Once you surpass them, they don't put up much of a fight.

Again, take personal responsibility for your own success, and stop blaming the engine. If you lost a recruiting battle to a sim team, you didn't plan your recruiting well enough. Don't ask for something to be handed to you on a silver platter just because you plunked down your $12.

+1

Yes some players(WHo ended up in the NBA) DID improve over their whole careeer in most aspects. . . that doesn't mean ALL Players do.  And not all improvement is in ratings, there is also IQ improvement which effects stats.