Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):
I enjoy D3. A lot. So let's be careful with the use of "everyone".

I'll tell you the same thing I told benis. If your business plan is no new users, so why bother making/keeping the game somewhat manageable?, you have a failed business plan.

You want to cap D2/D3? Fine. Move people out of D3 after 3 seasons(abandoned team is SIM-controlled for a full season in order to prevent aliases from taking them) and do the same at D2. Don't let vets park, build dynasties and destroy new users.

Mike is being hyperbolic, but I basically agree with the outline of this plan. I have always said the same thing and have never heard anything else that made sense. Experienced D3 users (after, say 4 NT appearances) should see their bonus cash diminish with each successive season. You want to dominate D3, pay for the privilege! It would not be necessary to force sim-control for a season.

All the same, none of that would eliminate the need to cap recruiting into D1. It just makes no sense that obvious D1 talent is paying any attention to D3 effort.

SIM control for a season, preferably 2, would be necessary. MikeT23's NC, when 23 is forced to move on(or just being pushed in that direction) could be taken over by MikeT24. Or, possibly, another cherry-picking vet.

"Experienced D3 users (after, say 4 NT appearances) should see their bonus cash diminish with each successive season. You want to dominate D3, pay for the privilege! "

They did this in SIM baseball (open leagues)...people complained but the core group stayed and took the smaller reward structure.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/14/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):
"Experienced D3 users (after, say 4 NT appearances) should see their bonus cash diminish with each successive season. You want to dominate D3, pay for the privilege! "

They did this in SIM baseball (open leagues)...people complained but the core group stayed and took the smaller reward structure.

Sure. In my view, this is a much more obvious implementation. Users can easily move up to D2 to receive the full rewards or stay at D3 and pay a little more. This is a no brainer. Although, there is sure to be ********.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):
I enjoy D3. A lot. So let's be careful with the use of "everyone".

I'll tell you the same thing I told benis. If your business plan is no new users, so why bother making/keeping the game somewhat manageable?, you have a failed business plan.

You want to cap D2/D3? Fine. Move people out of D3 after 3 seasons(abandoned team is SIM-controlled for a full season in order to prevent aliases from taking them) and do the same at D2. Don't let vets park, build dynasties and destroy new users.

Mike is being hyperbolic, but I basically agree with the outline of this plan. I have always said the same thing and have never heard anything else that made sense. Experienced D3 users (after, say 4 NT appearances) should see their bonus cash diminish with each successive season. You want to dominate D3, pay for the privilege! It would not be necessary to force sim-control for a season.

All the same, none of that would eliminate the need to cap recruiting into D1. It just makes no sense that obvious D1 talent is paying any attention to D3 effort.

SIM control for a season, preferably 2, would be necessary. MikeT23's NC, when 23 is forced to move on(or just being pushed in that direction) could be taken over by MikeT24. Or, possibly, another cherry-picking vet.

I understand what you are saying. We probably disagree on the cap more. If there is a cap (say position ranked recruits, or recruits with initial ratings > 520, automatically reject D3 effort), then I don't think the 1 season hold would be necessary.

I've said before that the top 50 at each position should be D1 only.
Top 125 at each, D1/D2.

I don't really have an issue with it. But, when zorzii starts talking cap, I'm almost positive he means three different pools. At least I know he did when I started arguing with him about it. If you're going to do that, just have completely different worlds. Cut down the number of actual worlds but maybe have 10 D1, 6 D2, 4 D3(or whatever the population data suggests).

My cap is simple :

D3 recruit from any pools 520-530 max, sign whenever you can.
D2 recruit from any pools 550-560 max, sign whenever you can.

You can't scout players above these max. D3 recruitable players are still the biggest number.
And you can still get green players that will grow to 800, some close to 900. But they will start lower.

It's a raise in cap of about 40 to 50 I think, If I remember what I could pull down.

In 2.0, the talent gap between D-3 teams was just as extreme as today in 3.0... i was in Crum D-3 in the 60's Seasons... jsajsa at Delaware Valley, the Dickinson team under myers, Maryville with tarvolon, MacMurray, Fisk, LeTourneau, Eastbay, etc... all those top level teams had D-1 quality rosters. My first NT in s67 i lost to ggallagh at Southwestern by 35. Next year in s68 i lost to Hamline by 55.

So noobs got crushed back then too. In my 6 years in Crum D-3, the same 10 owners competed for championships each year. Probably every Elite 8 school came from a pool of 16 owners tops if i were to guess.

My recommendation would be for D-3 recruits to be unlocked to Level 4 as soon as you scout a particular state. Simplify it for new owners, and allow them to see a wide range of recruits.

Ignore the self-serving backward idea of first-session signings that Zorzii keeps peddling.

Posted by npb7768 on 7/14/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):
In 2.0, the talent gap between D-3 teams was just as extreme as today in 3.0... i was in Crum D-3 in the 60's Seasons... jsajsa at Delaware Valley, the Dickinson team under myers, Maryville with tarvolon, MacMurray, Fisk, LeTourneau, Eastbay, etc... all those top level teams had D-1 quality rosters. My first NT in s67 i lost to ggallagh at Southwestern by 35. Next year in s68 i lost to Hamline by 55.

So noobs got crushed back then too. In my 6 years in Crum D-3, the same 10 owners competed for championships each year. Probably every Elite 8 school came from a pool of 16 owners tops if i were to guess.

My recommendation would be for D-3 recruits to be unlocked to Level 4 as soon as you scout a particular state. Simplify it for new owners, and allow them to see a wide range of recruits.

Ignore the self-serving backward idea of first-session signings that Zorzii keeps peddling.

What's wrong about the idea of signing recruits in the first session too? Why would D3 teams not be aloud to sign their players during the first session? Waiting until the last day of recruiting for a D1 player is truly boring... It's like you do not recruit. If someone shows up, you reallocate your resources somewhere else. You are only a puppet of higher division teams.

Also i didn't even begin to start competing in any meaningful way until i learned that Athleticism and Defense are critical attributes. That should be plastered on new owners' Main Team Page.

Keep it simple. Only let D3 teams recruit D2 and D3 players. It will put a cap on how good a team you can have at D3 and and the new players won't be getting beat up as bad by the veteran coaches that want to stay at D3.

They could make a few simple fixes to the game and make it so much better--but FOX has no interest in doing it.

Not allowing new users to recruit before 1st season was such a mistake.

Posted by npb7768 on 7/14/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):
In 2.0, the talent gap between D-3 teams was just as extreme as today in 3.0... i was in Crum D-3 in the 60's Seasons... jsajsa at Delaware Valley, the Dickinson team under myers, Maryville with tarvolon, MacMurray, Fisk, LeTourneau, Eastbay, etc... all those top level teams had D-1 quality rosters. My first NT in s67 i lost to ggallagh at Southwestern by 35. Next year in s68 i lost to Hamline by 55.

So noobs got crushed back then too. In my 6 years in Crum D-3, the same 10 owners competed for championships each year. Probably every Elite 8 school came from a pool of 16 owners tops if i were to guess.

My recommendation would be for D-3 recruits to be unlocked to Level 4 as soon as you scout a particular state. Simplify it for new owners, and allow them to see a wide range of recruits.

Ignore the self-serving backward idea of first-session signings that Zorzii keeps peddling.

No. Gap is wider now.

and deeper. You had some elite coaches before who had great teams but now even average coaches have teams as good as those guys back in the day.

Another thing with 2.0...

D-3 teams with higher prestige had access to more and higher-rated D-2 recruits. So A-prestige Delaware Valley could actually recruit a kid who had told me at C-prestige Albertus Magnus to go f-ck myself.

So if nothing else comes from my posts here, please understand that in 2.0 the talent gaps between D-3 were freakin enormous. Look up past rosters and see for yourself.

Posted by Benis on 7/14/2017 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 7/14/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):
In 2.0, the talent gap between D-3 teams was just as extreme as today in 3.0... i was in Crum D-3 in the 60's Seasons... jsajsa at Delaware Valley, the Dickinson team under myers, Maryville with tarvolon, MacMurray, Fisk, LeTourneau, Eastbay, etc... all those top level teams had D-1 quality rosters. My first NT in s67 i lost to ggallagh at Southwestern by 35. Next year in s68 i lost to Hamline by 55.

So noobs got crushed back then too. In my 6 years in Crum D-3, the same 10 owners competed for championships each year. Probably every Elite 8 school came from a pool of 16 owners tops if i were to guess.

My recommendation would be for D-3 recruits to be unlocked to Level 4 as soon as you scout a particular state. Simplify it for new owners, and allow them to see a wide range of recruits.

Ignore the self-serving backward idea of first-session signings that Zorzii keeps peddling.

No. Gap is wider now.

and deeper. You had some elite coaches before who had great teams but now even average coaches have teams as good as those guys back in the day.

Look up Crum Delaware Valley and others in the 60's... Athleticism in the 80's and 90's.

Posted by npb7768 on 7/14/2017 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Another thing with 2.0...

D-3 teams with higher prestige had access to more D-2 recruits. So A-prestige Delaware Valley could actually recruit a kid who had told me at C-prestige Albertus Magnus to go f-ck myself.

So if nothing else comes from my posts here, please understand that in 2.0 the talent gaps between D-3 was freakin enormous. Look up past rosters and see for yourself.

I have. It proves teams are better now.