Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'll disagree with the idea of making certain recruits totally unavailable to lower levels. If for some reason, the 125th ranked SG draws no interest from a D1 school, a D2 school should be able to snag him. Or even a D3 school.

I would imagine that D1 schools are weighted more heavily than D2 schools, and D2 are weighted more heavily than D3. Assuming that's true, maybe the weights should be adjusted to make it more difficult (though not impossible) to pull a recruit down to a lower level.

So for example, a D2 school would have to put in 3x the effort (AP and money spent on HV/CV) of a D1 school to get equal consideration for a particular recruit. The same for a D3 school and a D2 school. And the difference between D3 and D1 might be 8-10x. Difficult, but not impossible.

Disagree. That's why the game has JUCOs.

Kids would rather go JUCO for a season and latch onto a DI team than drop to D2/D#

Posted by stewdog on 3/2/2017 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 3/2/2017 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 10:13:00 AM (view original):
And there it is. "I earned my advantages!!!"

Again, real life can't be clamored for by users with 40+ at one school. That is not real life.

Yep-
Its so unlike real life when pretty models get more work, attention, and pay than ugly ones. Darn entitlement! Advantages!
Its so unlike real life when people who work for degrees, work their way up the corporate ladder, and make a lot of money drive nicer cars than those who don't graduate HS. Darn entitlement!
Its so unlike real life when smart and studies analysts who work hard write better computer programs and work their way up and get benefits from that, darn entitlement!
And why do the athletic kids do better in sports? That's not fair.
Its so unlike real life when D1 coaches get better players than D2! Those darn entitled coaches!

You do know there are divisions in college basketball?
You do know there are divisions in this sim of college basketball that earn you advantages?
You do know kids would rather play for Kansas, Duke, UConn, and KY than Wofford, Pririe View A&M, and SE Connecticut St?
You do understand you can work your way up to get better players and that's how this game is designed?
And lastly, you do understand this game is trying to "simulate" real life in as many ways as possible, eliminating advantages to areas that are impossible to simulate?

If you really don't like advantages and think we shouldn't have them... recruit unathletic, bad defending slow guys for this game. If you truly think advantages are wrong, don't recruit the areas that give you advantages in the other areas.
-OR- understand the reality of advantages and work towards them. 3.0 allows you to work for them. Do it. Please.
Wow. I'm really concerned that you don't understand this. Really? Advantages? Unrealistic? Really?

That was way too long. Didn't bother because you missed the important part.

Don't care about advantages. Just pointing out that you're screaming for "REAL LIFE" while coaching at a school for 40+ seasons. That is NOT real life.

The point was addressed.
"And lastly, you do understand this game is trying to "simulate" real life in as many ways as possible, eliminating advantages to areas that are impossible to simulate?"
There are no advantages to being there unrealistic amounts of time.

Shockingly, you majored on the minors, missing the point of the entire game,

I DID say it was way too long. Translation: I didn't read past the first line.

I don't care if you coach at GaTech until 2075. Just not a fan of long-time users thinking they should have MAJOR advantages over newer users in all aspects of the game. You seem to be a proponent of that. Your experience makes you better. Your "earned" advantages beyond that shouldn't be the reason you stay at the top.

That said, a lot of long-time users quitting did open up the prestigious jobs that were on lock down for years. As I said months ago, 3.0 might have just been a purge of users who felt HD was THEIR playground and no one, including WifS, should make any changes without their permission.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):
That said, a lot of long-time users quitting did open up the prestigious jobs that were on lock down for years. As I said months ago, 3.0 might have just been a purge of users who felt HD was THEIR playground and no one, including WifS, should make any changes without their permission.

Why are you so disgruntled? You sound like Spud more and more everyday.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/2/2017 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Yes, my whole point is that you shouldn't be able to go all in on all of your targets, where's the strategy in that? You should have to pick and choose where to invest.

This is how I view it too. If I have 2 openings and can go all in on 2 recruits, doesn't seem like much strategy there. If I can spend only a little one the 1st guy and send 90% of my budget on another guy, then that's a tactic I can employ. I risk losing on the guy only spending a little on but increase my chances for the other guy.

Posted by zorzii on 3/2/2017 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/2/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'll disagree with the idea of making certain recruits totally unavailable to lower levels. If for some reason, the 125th ranked SG draws no interest from a D1 school, a D2 school should be able to snag him. Or even a D3 school.

I would imagine that D1 schools are weighted more heavily than D2 schools, and D2 are weighted more heavily than D3. Assuming that's true, maybe the weights should be adjusted to make it more difficult (though not impossible) to pull a recruit down to a lower level.

So for example, a D2 school would have to put in 3x the effort (AP and money spent on HV/CV) of a D1 school to get equal consideration for a particular recruit. The same for a D3 school and a D2 school. And the difference between D3 and D1 might be 8-10x. Difficult, but not impossible.

A post in another thread had a theory the D1-D3 weight is approx 5X the effort

Maybe the theory is sound, but implementation needs to be tweaked (zorzii is going to rejoice in this statement, if he reads it). Maybe the CV and HV are not expensive enough relative to the available resources (or vice versa, too much resources for relatively cheap CV, HV). If a team has 3 openings, they should only be able to go "all-in" on 1 and have to pro rate resources to the remaining 2 openings.

Likewise, maybe the gap between D1-D3 should be 10X, and the gap between D1-D2 should be 5X.

My problem is I want location to d3 less important. I have no real problems about d2. Teams are a bit stronger overall but not that much. As for D3, I am only for mikes cap for competition purposes.

If you want location to be less important, you shouldn't be arguing for removing or raising the caps. The higher the cap, the less incentive there is to challenge at a distance, because a local can blow you away.

Not disgruntled. Just stating a fact(as I see it). I said it months ago. The loudest, and angriest, are the users at the high prestige jobs. Some of the advantages they've enjoyed for years have been removed. You don't have to be a MENSA member to know that would **** people off. The playing field isn't level but it's no longer a long, tiresome uphill battle to compete with the top teams. I still believe the 110 season user is going to have many advantages over the 10-30 season user but they just aren't as big.

stewdog seems to think the mountain should be torture to climb. That's just not good for the game.

Mike does not feel pinkish today.

I'll be honest. I have no idea what that means. Enlighten me.

There is very little incentive to go to a B6 job now. Even if they fix jobs, it still takes a long time to make it there and you need to go through at least a couple job changes. Each job change will likely be long and potentially painful. You need to give up a successful Low Major school to take over a rebuild at a B6 that probably has a lower prestige.

For example, I'm a C prestige at NMSU and will likely move to B after this season. I have guys already on my team that I really like for next season and should easily make the NT next season. Why would I want to move to C- Illinois which would require me to cut several crappy SIM players (which I can't even do in my 1st season so you're stuck with them) and I get to face A prestige B10 teams. So 3ish seasons of losing just to have a higher baseline prestige and a namebrand school. Very little incentive.

Sure, you can do it. Maybe I will go for it one day but the set up is backwards. All the changes they've made have swung the pendulum so far that they've made getting to B6 no longer the pinnacle of success but not even desirable. The game was designed so you'd work your way up through the divisions and reach these prestigious schools.

I'm not saying we should go back to 2.0 where it was nearly impossible to beat B6 schools. There needs to be a middle ground where you WANT to get there because it's going give you an advantage over other teams. That's how college basketball works.

I've mentioned this maybe a week ago, might have been in a different thread, but I'll mention it again.

Why should the B6 conferences be "special"? Why should building a strong and successful program at a Kentucky or North Carolina be any different from building a strong and successful program at a Tulsa or Vermont?

Posted by mullycj on 3/2/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'll disagree with the idea of making certain recruits totally unavailable to lower levels. If for some reason, the 125th ranked SG draws no interest from a D1 school, a D2 school should be able to snag him. Or even a D3 school.

I would imagine that D1 schools are weighted more heavily than D2 schools, and D2 are weighted more heavily than D3. Assuming that's true, maybe the weights should be adjusted to make it more difficult (though not impossible) to pull a recruit down to a lower level.

So for example, a D2 school would have to put in 3x the effort (AP and money spent on HV/CV) of a D1 school to get equal consideration for a particular recruit. The same for a D3 school and a D2 school. And the difference between D3 and D1 might be 8-10x. Difficult, but not impossible.

Disagree. That's why the game has JUCOs.

Kids would rather go JUCO for a season and latch onto a DI team than drop to D2/D#

Dear Mully,

That makes too much sense. This thread is for people who don't make sense. Please stop being correct.

Many Thanks,
cubcub

In other words, why shouldn't D1 be a level playing field for all schools and all conferences? Why shouldn't the only differentiating factor should be the skills of the humans playing the game?

People obviously play for different reasons but I somewhat agree that there should be incentive to get those desirable jobs. The problem was they were taken and getting one practically required someone to die. Using my boy stew as an example, he's been at GaTech 43 seasons. I imagine, if he sticks around, he'll be there another 43 seasons. How is anyone else to get that job? Firing makes no sense. Term limits make no sense.

So, if those desirable jobs are taken and there is no way to open them up, you have to accept a mid-major job. Now, if the B6 schools have huge advantages in recruiting, the mid-majors just can't beat them. So there's no incentive to take one of those jobs(if NT dreams is why you're playing). Just stay in D2/D3 seems to be the answer.

It's a Catch-22. You want the B6 full but you also want mid-majors and even low level D1 to be taken. So, at some point, they have to be able to compete for recruits so they can compete in the tourney.

I don't think you've answered the question.

Why should B6 jobs be more desirable? Why should Kentucky inherently have an advantage over Rhode Island? Or Hartford?