Posted by DeBeque on 4/21/2021 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dunkonyou on 4/20/2021 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jimmagnum on 4/19/2021 10:25:00 AM (view original):
I would like more recruits. It doesn't seem right that most every Big6 school has to take at least 2 walkons. It would be nice to see more recruits in the 550-600 range. It seems like when you get to a certain level, it's all in for almost every recruit you try for. 20k for 5 openings allows you to go all in on 4 guys if you're lucky. Whiff on one and now you have 2 walkons. There seems to be no room for error and I think it would add parity to the game.

Along this line from what you mentioned jimmagnum, and to help teams with EE's, and to help coaches switching teams: At the start of the 2nd recruiting session add five 3* recruits, five 2* recruits, five1* recruits, and 35 other no rated star D1 players to the player pool in each world as it rolls into the 2nd session. With the number of D1 coaches increasing in most worlds--the number of new recruits might have to be increased. This would also increase the strategy of recruiting--how much scouting and recruiting money do you hold back for the second session?

Are the top top teams, the elites facing the possibility of EE's, really the coaches that most need recruiting welfare? Or would it be the middle and little teams that need some help, creating more competition and parity? Or are competition and parity the bogeymen to be avoided by the top top teams? Just wondering.

I understand your point, but the real crux of the issue, to me, is walkons. I'm looking at my conference in Knight. I'm ASU and 4 of the top 5 teams by ratings have 3 walkons. More recruits allows you to get the players that fit your team, how you want to build it. As it is now, I can only go after recruits that fit my preferences because it's "all in" almost always unless you are an A+ and no one wants to battle you. More recruits helps everyone in my opinion not just the top teams.

We have enough recruits. Several players don't get scholarships. More high powered recruits just result in the strong teams getting stronger. Speaking from experience playing on both sides of the power structure in the past.

Also more high powered recruits lessens the diversity of teams and styles people play thus increasing the likelyhood the top teams stay on top.

Posted by jimmagnum on 4/22/2021 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DeBeque on 4/21/2021 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dunkonyou on 4/20/2021 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jimmagnum on 4/19/2021 10:25:00 AM (view original):
I would like more recruits. It doesn't seem right that most every Big6 school has to take at least 2 walkons. It would be nice to see more recruits in the 550-600 range. It seems like when you get to a certain level, it's all in for almost every recruit you try for. 20k for 5 openings allows you to go all in on 4 guys if you're lucky. Whiff on one and now you have 2 walkons. There seems to be no room for error and I think it would add parity to the game.

Along this line from what you mentioned jimmagnum, and to help teams with EE's, and to help coaches switching teams: At the start of the 2nd recruiting session add five 3* recruits, five 2* recruits, five1* recruits, and 35 other no rated star D1 players to the player pool in each world as it rolls into the 2nd session. With the number of D1 coaches increasing in most worlds--the number of new recruits might have to be increased. This would also increase the strategy of recruiting--how much scouting and recruiting money do you hold back for the second session?

Are the top top teams, the elites facing the possibility of EE's, really the coaches that most need recruiting welfare? Or would it be the middle and little teams that need some help, creating more competition and parity? Or are competition and parity the bogeymen to be avoided by the top top teams? Just wondering.

I understand your point, but the real crux of the issue, to me, is walkons. I'm looking at my conference in Knight. I'm ASU and 4 of the top 5 teams by ratings have 3 walkons. More recruits allows you to get the players that fit your team, how you want to build it. As it is now, I can only go after recruits that fit my preferences because it's "all in" almost always unless you are an A+ and no one wants to battle you. More recruits helps everyone in my opinion not just the top teams.

More recruits won’t make people take less Walkons. People take walkons because it’s a massive advantage to have tons of cash and user populations are getting really high in a lot of D1 worlds.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 4/24/2021 12:08:00 PM (view original):
We have enough recruits. Several players don't get scholarships. More high powered recruits just result in the strong teams getting stronger. Speaking from experience playing on both sides of the power structure in the past.

Also more high powered recruits lessens the diversity of teams and styles people play thus increasing the likelyhood the top teams stay on top.

^^ well said

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/4/2021 6:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snewell12 on 1/4/2021 5:31:00 PM (view original):
I haven’t read this thread so someone may have mentioned this but I would absolutely LOVE one very simple change. Please, please, please add a drop down for home visits on the recruit page. I think we all have better things to do than sit and click the home visit button over and over and over again!

I have thoughts on actual game changes as well but this would be helpful as well....

yes! especially on days when it takes a good 10 seconds to reload the page after each hv.

and finally! a change that we can all agree to. dogg, me, shoe, benis - we can all support this change in peace and harmony, because you literally have to be a monster not to support a dropdown box for HV.

let's make this official. HD 4.0 - now with a dropdown box for home visits. coming some time 2022.

Adam beat you by like 10 months on this one gil

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/19/2021 5:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by drichar138 on 4/18/2021 7:52:00 AM (view original):
12 pages of discussion on what should be updated/changed in HD, and not a single person mentioned promised minutes for ineligible players needing to be addressed. There are about a dozen other good ideas in here that have not been implemented though.

The ineligible promises issue was something I have been pushing for in one on one conversations with Adam. Because i use the hell out of it.

Also I've pushed for something different to be done with Sr redshirt stuff. Because i abuse the hell out of that too! Possibly that either the senior mentions he will leave, or just not allowing the extra resources that come along with doing so. Maybe we'll see that fixed as well. I'd prefer the latter. But I don't run the show

SR RS isn’t broken that much. if you really think about it, it’s just choosing to take a walkon and saving a year of a player for next year.

I voted for realign conferences/ change baseline prestige even though I think realign conferences isn't something that is very important. I just think adjusting the prestige formula is that important. I think the baseline prestige importance should get an adjustment so it is less important and current prestige should take into account the last 50+ years and not just the last 4 years which is what I was told it does.

I would propose that baseline prestige should be around 20% (spit balling numbers here) of the formula to calculate current prestige and each of the last 50 years should make up the other 80% of the current prestige formula with each year back being less and less of a factor in the formula.

Posted by Robertooo on 4/27/2021 11:00:00 AM (view original):
I voted for realign conferences/ change baseline prestige even though I think realign conferences isn't something that is very important. I just think adjusting the prestige formula is that important. I think the baseline prestige importance should get an adjustment so it is less important and current prestige should take into account the last 50+ years and not just the last 4 years which is what I was told it does.

I would propose that baseline prestige should be around 20% (spit balling numbers here) of the formula to calculate current prestige and each of the last 50 years should make up the other 80% of the current prestige formula with each year back being less and less of a factor in the formula.

I think that makes a lot of sense, but I'd do something like the past 10 seasons instead of 50. And they would need to be weighted so more recent seasons have more value.

Maybe something like:
Baseline 30%
Last season 20%
2 seasons ago 10%
3 seasons ago 10%
4 seasons ago 8%
5 seasons ago 7%
6 seasons ago 5%
7 seasons ago 5%
8 seasons ago 3%
9 seasons ago 1%
10 seasons ago 1%

The biggest drawback to a system like this would be how long it takes to rebuild a program. Those terrible sim seasons would be part of the formula for much longer than the current system.

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/24/2021 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/19/2021 5:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by drichar138 on 4/18/2021 7:52:00 AM (view original):
12 pages of discussion on what should be updated/changed in HD, and not a single person mentioned promised minutes for ineligible players needing to be addressed. There are about a dozen other good ideas in here that have not been implemented though.

The ineligible promises issue was something I have been pushing for in one on one conversations with Adam. Because i use the hell out of it.

Also I've pushed for something different to be done with Sr redshirt stuff. Because i abuse the hell out of that too! Possibly that either the senior mentions he will leave, or just not allowing the extra resources that come along with doing so. Maybe we'll see that fixed as well. I'd prefer the latter. But I don't run the show

SR RS isn’t broken that much. if you really think about it, it’s just choosing to take a walkon and saving a year of a player for next year.

What is wrong with Sr redshirt is that you get resources for an opening you don't have. You can have two Srs, redshirt one (which will allow you to bring an awesome player back 100% of the time - more on that later). And then have a much bigger budget to only sign 1 player.

"Broken"? Maybe that isn't the word. Everyone here is BIG on word usage. I'm not so much. I don't care what description we use. But it's just "abnormal". And regarding the returning Sr, I feel like if you have a 3 year starter who you decide to redshirt his Sr year, I don't think he would/should return 100% of the time. Some players would be ****** off getting redshirted in their big Sr season when it's their chance to lead the team (sure, they will be a senior next year and do so. But i still think it's odd they NEVER transfer).

The inel thing, the Sr redshirt thing, none of these are major issues of course. But the goal is to make a more well rounded game top to bottom. And until big changes come (or don't come), what's wrong with fixing a few kinks?

I also understand there are coaches that will compare it to choosing to take a walk on in the previous season for a bigger budget the next season, as you mentioned. I understand that. Taking a walk on just gives you a "chance" at getting more/better players. Sr redshirt solidifies a returning stud AND boosts your chances for a great signing. To me, it's just abnormal the way the package plays out, in comparison. And we're all just voicing opinions here.

Okay, as far as the firing aspect. When does a coach get notified that he is on the "hot seat"? After whatever amount of sub whatever stats? Then comes the real question. Is there some kind of notice that other coaches will get that may want to coach that school? Something like "coach so&so at university is on the hot seat. Rumor has it university is looking for a new coach"

Posted by indyrider123 on 4/30/2021 12:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, as far as the firing aspect. When does a coach get notified that he is on the "hot seat"? After whatever amount of sub whatever stats? Then comes the real question. Is there some kind of notice that other coaches will get that may want to coach that school? Something like "coach so&so at university is on the hot seat. Rumor has it university is looking for a new coach"

I think it should be completely preset based on baseline prestige and the baseline prestige list should be published.

I picture it something like:

If an A+ baseline team drops to B+ or A- 2 seasons in a row the coach is fired is a prerequisite for taking an A+ prestige job (something like that).

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/30/2021 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by indyrider123 on 4/30/2021 12:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, as far as the firing aspect. When does a coach get notified that he is on the "hot seat"? After whatever amount of sub whatever stats? Then comes the real question. Is there some kind of notice that other coaches will get that may want to coach that school? Something like "coach so&so at university is on the hot seat. Rumor has it university is looking for a new coach"

I think it should be completely preset based on baseline prestige and the baseline prestige list should be published.

I picture it something like:

If an A+ baseline team drops to B+ or A- 2 seasons in a row the coach is fired is a prerequisite for taking an A+ prestige job (something like that).

Only relative to the prestige when the coach took the job, I think, and after a decent grace period - at least 5 seasons - otherwise this feels like a poison pill. The game as it exists would be unplayable in many instances, if this kind of standard was instituted without those allowances.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/30/2021 1:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/30/2021 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by indyrider123 on 4/30/2021 12:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, as far as the firing aspect. When does a coach get notified that he is on the "hot seat"? After whatever amount of sub whatever stats? Then comes the real question. Is there some kind of notice that other coaches will get that may want to coach that school? Something like "coach so&so at university is on the hot seat. Rumor has it university is looking for a new coach"

I think it should be completely preset based on baseline prestige and the baseline prestige list should be published.

I picture it something like:

If an A+ baseline team drops to B+ or A- 2 seasons in a row the coach is fired is a prerequisite for taking an A+ prestige job (something like that).

Only relative to the prestige when the coach took the job, I think, and after a decent grace period - at least 5 seasons - otherwise this feels like a poison pill. The game as it exists would be unplayable in many instances, if this kind of standard was instituted without those allowances.

Agreed.

On the subject of Div-1 recruits... quantity, more in the 500 to 550 range or whatever...

A certain percentage of these extra 500 ranged players should be available for Div-1 schools only... they refuse to play ball unless it's top flight (the fictitious player would rather study than run around at practice every day at some low division school). This would reduce the number of walkons... cuz often i just take walkons cuz i'd rather not sign a crappy player.