I thought about various answers, but I can't decide based on this info...I'd have to be pretty damn certain the new engine was worth it to scrap all the years it took to finally get to an A+ baseline and get it back to almost A+.

I'd either want credit based on time served minimally or quit altogether...
Assuming the worst, and that the new engine would initially at least be a clusterfuck, and that I'm sure not interested in burning those compensatory seasons just to beta test for Fox, I'd probably quit...

i put quit altogether but now im not sure... i basically figure so many users would leave, that there would be no reason to continue, the worlds would be so empty. but actually i guess if they wiped everyone out, there would be new worlds and they could consolidate to get the existing worlds full. i'd probably jump in that, despite having no interest in going through d2/d3 again. it really depends on what we were supposed to be walking into, i suppose...

need to know whether Fox would finally MARKET this product

if no, then I would walk

remains so baffling to me that they dont cross market this.  Given the reach that Fox has, even a little bit of effort to create interest in this product on fox websites, etc could make this productive at several times existing use......

i've not been here long enough to feel major effects to really make an impact compared to those playing for years:

• but what if your resume carried over in a way?

Ex. So if you were coaching Wisconsin at a A+ prestige you were immedietely eligible for a "big 6" job.

Still a lot of people are going to be bumped down if not the same amount of worlds were "updated"/"created" So there would be competition between say the 10 Wisconsin coaches for maybe only 5 "new" wisconsin jobs.

There could be delayed openings or at first make the worlds invite only.  So whatif could first invite the coaches who've been here the longest, give them a day or 2 to pick there team.  Then whatif invites coaches who haven't been here as long but are NC winners/contenders.  Then invite new coaches who've been here a short time.  Before finally opening the worlds completely.  Giving preference to players who have been around.  This could be done through e-mail sort of like the wait-list.

• Minor but instead of naming worlds after famous real life coaches have the worlds named after HD legends.

Open 1 high-paced beta world free, but invite only to select coaches who know what they're doing to get things tested so people could see if it was worth it?

I am kind of ready for something new.  I have been at the same school longer than JoePa.  Pretty soon it is going to be completely unrealistic.  

Wouldn't be able to make a decision until a beta world was opened up for a few seasons of testing. 

I happen to enjoy the current engine.

Sorry if I'm out of the loop, but is this an actual proposal? And, in your opinions, what needs overhauled?

Posted by uwrjl93 on 1/28/2015 1:28:00 PM (view original):
I am kind of ready for something new.  I have been at the same school longer than JoePa.  Pretty soon it is going to be completely unrealistic.  

Having anyone 6'9 or taller in D3 is hilarious as well.

Of the top 10 teams they're 2 players over 7' one at 7'3 who doesn't seem to have appeared in a game yet as a Soph and the other is a 7' 330 lb senior who has played 8 games and 2 mpg.

Majority of D3 teams don't have players over 6'7/6'8 yet in HD easily every team has every big man 6'7 over taller.

Besides Grinnel what known teams run a "fast-break" compared to teams running an "uptemo" offense like VMI, maybe Iowa State?

Barely any NBA teams even run a triangle because its so complicated yet 2 seasons ago I had 6 players at A+ triangle IQ

Granted it is the most realistic game out

Posted by the0nlyis on 1/28/2015 10:44:00 AM (view original):
i've not been here long enough to feel major effects to really make an impact compared to those playing for years:

• but what if your resume carried over in a way?

Ex. So if you were coaching Wisconsin at a A+ prestige you were immedietely eligible for a "big 6" job.

Still a lot of people are going to be bumped down if not the same amount of worlds were "updated"/"created" So there would be competition between say the 10 Wisconsin coaches for maybe only 5 "new" wisconsin jobs.

There could be delayed openings or at first make the worlds invite only.  So whatif could first invite the coaches who've been here the longest, give them a day or 2 to pick there team.  Then whatif invites coaches who haven't been here as long but are NC winners/contenders.  Then invite new coaches who've been here a short time.  Before finally opening the worlds completely.  Giving preference to players who have been around.  This could be done through e-mail sort of like the wait-list.

• Minor but instead of naming worlds after famous real life coaches have the worlds named after HD legends.

Open 1 high-paced beta world free, but invite only to select coaches who know what they're doing to get things tested so people could see if it was worth it?

here's something I tossed out a couple years ago...

I think they need to merge worlds. Take the two smallest worlds, experience it... Learn from your mistakes then redo. I think people are quitting because there are way too many sims.

Posted by zorzii on 1/28/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
I think they need to merge worlds. Take the two smallest worlds, experience it... Learn from your mistakes then redo. I think people are quitting because there are way too many sims.

This is a ridiculously bad idea. If there are too many sims (and I'm not convinced there are - in full worlds coaches will complain about a lack of drop downs/pull downs) but you'll lose way more coaches who get knocked out of a destination school than you might ever retain who were worried about too many sims. There are already people agitating for new worlds because there are only 10 opportunities to coach Duke or UNC, dropping that to 6 drives them out, as well as the coaches who spent 30 seasons to get there and then got bumped.

Advertising is the way to eliminate sims, not closing worlds.

Posted by baseballer77 on 1/28/2015 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/28/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
I think they need to merge worlds. Take the two smallest worlds, experience it... Learn from your mistakes then redo. I think people are quitting because there are way too many sims.

This is a ridiculously bad idea. If there are too many sims (and I'm not convinced there are - in full worlds coaches will complain about a lack of drop downs/pull downs) but you'll lose way more coaches who get knocked out of a destination school than you might ever retain who were worried about too many sims. There are already people agitating for new worlds because there are only 10 opportunities to coach Duke or UNC, dropping that to 6 drives them out, as well as the coaches who spent 30 seasons to get there and then got bumped.

Advertising is the way to eliminate sims, not closing worlds.

not only is it a ridiculously bad idea it would be the hardest way to "close" worlds if you go from 10->6  how do you divy teams?  How do you decide which to keep open.  Which team history do you take, which players, who gets the team between the coaches at the same schools amoung each world.  If the amount of worlds are going to be downsized you either need to pick which to close or close all and open a lower amount of new worlds giving preferance to teams based on longitivity and resumes.

Fox/Whatif seem to refuse to advertise this site.  Not only that but the game is very unforgiving to new coaches.  It's built to not attract a lot of players, but target a smaller group who are willing to pay more and longer and quickly force a coach to decide to keep playing or not since they get the 1 cheap season where they get no FSS before having to commit to a 5/10 season pack without actually experiencing the game.  They should really offer like a 1 time option for new coaches to buy a 3 season pack for like $20 so they can FSS and actually experience the game.  The pricing works well for HD once they get players to stay but it is very offputing for new coaches.

Yeah I would really like to coach Ohio State one day but I'd rather coach other teams if it makes the game more fun by having more active conferences if they're were better players who got the job over me, it should be like real life where the best get to coach where they want.  You'll lose players who really do want to coach their favorite schools, but aren't good enough to deserve it, I don't know the # of coaches in each world, but I'd assume the player base is either stagnant, barely rising or falling.  So losing a handful of coaches who are resliant to not be able to coach their school because they aren't good enough is worth it too me.  If players really want to coach at a certain school maybe they should make an effort to get better, they're a lot of coaches I see making little/no visible effort to become better and a lot of teams with horrible histories of no post-season or nothing but 1st round exits.

It could be a problem in D1, I am with you guys on this. But in DII, DIII, it would not be a problem. I think the game being tough is what is fun. If it was easy, I would not play it. It dépends on how you see it.

I am all for advertising and helping players settle into the experience. But the game will remain tough. So what's the solution? I think having more owners makes it more exciting and changes team preparation, build up, recruting.

im not saying the game is too tough, but rather its too tough for new players because they have no idea what they are doing making it tougher than the game actually is to see relatively minor success.

and it would still be impossible to merge worlds, a lot of the d2, d3 teams are the same ones because of location/conferences.  the cali conference in d2 are pretty stacked in each world.  in d3 you see the usa south as one of the toughest conferences throughout all worlds.