D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

A brief observation …

“this guy was going to be the backup option to the backup option i am also pursuing, so this was indeed the first AP i put into him” [in recruiting session two]

Well, that’s not even a backup to a backup plan. Backup plans start in session one. Starting from scratch in session two is just grasping at straws.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

spud, how many backup options do you think you can reasonably open up recruiting actions for in session 1 without totally ruining your efforts on your early-signing targets? AP are pretty powerful. if you spread them around too much, you just end up with a lot of unlocked players you didn't sign. you can unlock a few options, sure, but when so many sign in session 2 cycle 1 it's a problem, regardless of division. the twist of players with high D1 interest suddenly signing with lower division teams is another wrinkle that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/17/2016 7:43:00 AM (view original):
spud, how many backup options do you think you can reasonably open up recruiting actions for in session 1 without totally ruining your efforts on your early-signing targets? AP are pretty powerful. if you spread them around too much, you just end up with a lot of unlocked players you didn't sign. you can unlock a few options, sure, but when so many sign in session 2 cycle 1 it's a problem, regardless of division. the twist of players with high D1 interest suddenly signing with lower division teams is another wrinkle that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you want a mediocre team, you can do this pretty easily.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

If you kept the divisions separate for recruiting, some of the problems would be addressed automatically and would eliminate a lot of frustration for coaches. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Seble had a pretty good vision in mind, but lacked the common sense to execute it.

Yes, there will always be a certain level of frustration, but it shouldn't be to the point where a coach should want to quit the game.

But that's exactly what we have here. A system that frequently frustrates many users.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

one could code the game in any permutation of these - and folks at any level could pursue tactics knowing that thems the breaks. No a priori reason that one way or the other is "right"

factors like realism, gameplay and what will make a marketable product become relevant in deciding how these things should work. WIS has made some choices with which folks may agree or disagree, but there is, in my view, no abstract right answer

"If you kept the divisions separate for recruiting, some of the problems would be addressed automatically and would eliminate a lot of frustration for coaches."

You could also turn chess into checkers. It becomes a simpler game, but that would destroy it as a game of chess. It kind of surprises me that some guys want HD chess turned into HD checkers.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/17/2016 11:38:00 AM (view original):
"If you kept the divisions separate for recruiting, some of the problems would be addressed automatically and would eliminate a lot of frustration for coaches."

You could also turn chess into checkers. It becomes a simpler game, but that would destroy it as a game of chess. It kind of surprises me that some guys want HD chess turned into HD checkers.

I'm bored and basically snowed/iced in today with almost nothing to do, so I'll play along.

The problem is we aren't playing chess or checkers. At least in those games there are no dice rolls and it's more about skill, so that analogy fails right off the bat.

I presented a potential solution, so what I would like for you to do is to list all the cons/arguments against why we shouldn't keep the divisions separate.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/17/2016 7:43:00 AM (view original):
spud, how many backup options do you think you can reasonably open up recruiting actions for in session 1 without totally ruining your efforts on your early-signing targets? AP are pretty powerful. if you spread them around too much, you just end up with a lot of unlocked players you didn't sign. you can unlock a few options, sure, but when so many sign in session 2 cycle 1 it's a problem, regardless of division. the twist of players with high D1 interest suddenly signing with lower division teams is another wrinkle that doesn't make a lot of sense.

This. I have tried to explain this to
SPud, he still hasn't come up with a legit plan.

Posted by fd343ny on 12/17/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

one could code the game in any permutation of these - and folks at any level could pursue tactics knowing that thems the breaks. No a priori reason that one way or the other is "right"

factors like realism, gameplay and what will make a marketable product become relevant in deciding how these things should work. WIS has made some choices with which folks may agree or disagree, but there is, in my view, no abstract right answer

Well, the biggest problem here, once you get past the incessant EE whining, is that D1 users absolutely hate losing players to D2 teams. Despite Benis' "Thems the breaks" philosophy, which he only applies to certain situations because he's a raging hypocrite, a lot of users don't accept it. I'm in D3 so it doesn't apply to me but I understand their frustration. Realistically, virtually any high level D1 school calling a recruit kind of late will likely get said recruit from the D2 school. But that's a bad model for an internet game. So we have what we have. By having "brackets" for D1 projected like the following, it's resolved.

D1 only - 75%
D2 possible - 15%
D3 possible - 10%

It doesn't have to be the best 75% that will reject any attention from D2/3 but the D1 users would have their own special little pool to choose from. And, in RS2, they'll know if their new back-up is accepting offers from D2/3 schools and that they just might lose before they can even get their foot in the door. Then, when they inevitably post "WAAAAH, my 11th option signed with W Conn St in D3. That's not realistic" we can all mock them and say "Hey, dumbass, did you see that he was accepting offers from D2/3 teams?"

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2016 8:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/17/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:07:00 PM (view original):
D1 should always win. Yet, you can't let D2 USERS to dump all their resources into a player to have him poached late by D1 USERS.

This isn't Duke beating Elon for a recruit. It's fd#ny beating miket# for a recruit. We're both paying the same. Give miket# enough recruiting losses like that, which turn into game losses, and miket# finds something else to do.

#SpudLogic

Call it what you will. But it's pretty simple whether you can see it or not.

A user loses a battle between two users. Which is fine. **** happens. But, if D2 user does all the right things, dumps all his resources into a player and loses to a D1 user in RS2, simply because he's the badass D1 user playing at Duke, D2 user will be just as discouraged with the game as badass D1 user playing at Duke when he lost his other battle.

Again, one could code the game so some D1 players just won't accept AP from D2 teams. Prevents D2 user from wasting resources. But, if D1 player does accept AP/HV/CV/Scholarship offer from D2 team in RS1, badass D1 user playing at Duke should recognize he might lose that battle early in RS2 before he can even unlock the scholarship offer.

There is no cap Mike. A D2 should not be able to touch any star D1 players but they can now, so we need to prevent it if we want D1 to be as strong as possible and encourage battles for recruits.

If there are 2 D-2 schools putting a lot of money into a recruit, I think it's problematic for a D-1 to jump in at the last minute, although it doesn't happen all that often. That's why I had suggested to slightly increase the recruit population.

If I'm the owner of the game, I want something that is both an enjoyable experience for the user, but at the same time challenging.