Help me understand this thought guys, really....

As I say often, I'm strictly a D2 coach and don't play D1. And the divisions are only different, based off of recruiting styles/tactics/reach and things like that. The team names and colors just make it seem life like.

So my question is.... WHY are there 180 humans in D1s and 60 in D2s?! (Exaggeration to fit my topic). If I want to compete for titles, I go to D2 where prestige is basically equal across the board, no EEs, and I'm off and running right from the start. All 60 of us are likely competitive. Maybe not all, but most.

But if I move up to D1, i have to play at Pepperdine or somewhere, for many seasons, as a doormat. Maybe I'll have a very lucky S16 season in my first 8 seasons. All the same Big 6 schools will continue to pound me and win titles, while coaches don't change programs, and only 30 or so coaches will be competing at the highest level. Sure I may move up to good ol Baylor eventually. But that took me 10 seasons of "why didn't I just stay at my D2 juggernaut?"

But overall, what is the point of moving up to D1 if you're not one of the elite coaches? (and I'm elite now, just to let everyone know!) Coaching at Slippery Rock is the same as coaching at Lipscomb. Only difference is at Slippery Rock I'm gonna win every season. So when I see 180 D1 and 60 D2, it just makes me think.... why in the world are there that many coaches there? Those coaches from 100-180 would have a much better game experience in D2 where they can win more frequently, and quickly. I guess personally, I don't value a Towson or Robert Morris any more than I do D2 and D3 teams. So I just never understood people's thought process there. And I'm asking for others perspective on this.

To add to this, I'm not a person that is in a hurry. If someone is trying to build and get the job at Duke, I get that part of it. But.... some of those 180 D1 coaches KNOW they'll never sniff Duke in 20 years of real life time. So the unbalance of coaches between D1 and D2 is shocking to me.

It's a good question, here is what I think-

I think D1 is much more different than just different team names/colors. Baseline prestige and early entries COMPLETELY change the game versus D2/D3. Taking over a D1 D prestige team and building it into a contender is a totally different challenge than doing it at D2/D3. It's not even close. Speaking for myself personally, I got bored with D3 - especially with the 3.0 changes and wanted to have a bigger challenge. Making your way up in D1 is the ultimate challenge that this game as to offer in my opinion.

Now, I think the EE process is a complete mess and is way too random which makes me dislike D1 quite a bit sometimes. I do think that D2 has the best balance and the fewest flaws of all the divisions. But the competition just isn't there like in D1 and people get bored.

I will add another thing - because so many long time vets disliked 3.0, it caused many of the highly desirable jobs to become available. Getting to duke/syracuse/UCLA actually became obtainable. I know in Iba a few seasons ago there were THREE A+ baseline prestige teams available during the job period. That was unheard of previously.

Working your way up to these types of jobs is fun and is a challenge and is actually rewarding because it gives you a pretty big advantage in recruiting. So that is part of the appeal as well I think.

Finally, you get the most dice rolls in D1 because of the stupid 20 HV restriction but at least recruiting isn't boring as f*ck like in D3. You don't just sit and wait for 7 straight days.

Another theory I just thought of...

The populations of D1 aren't exactly high. They're just high relative to D2/D3. They're still down compared to a couple years ago.

So another reason to explain why D1 population is down LESS than D2/D3 population is that new user retention in 3.0 SUCKS BIG TIME. To be in D1, you have to be playing this game for typically 4-6 seasons but usually it's much longer (including other worlds/accounts). These are the people who play HD and actually like enough to stick around for the long haul. They're not the ones who are dabbling or just giving this a try to see if they like it.

So D2/D3 were populations previously propped up by all these "newish" coaches. Those people are now gone because they try it for one season, see that the game sucks and don't renew.

I agree that if you're wanting a challenge, and building a low D1 school into a contender, that makes perfect sense. But I'm willing to bet half the coaches in a given world at D1 aren't at that level of being able to do that.

Posted by topdogggbm on 10/18/2018 10:13:00 PM (view original):
I agree that if you're wanting a challenge, and building a low D1 school into a contender, that makes perfect sense. But I'm willing to bet half the coaches in a given world at D1 aren't at that level of being able to do that.

I mean, speaking frankly, I'd say about 25% of the people who play this game are BAD at it.

I should say - they're bad and they don't know it.

Posted by topdogggbm on 10/18/2018 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Help me understand this thought guys, really....

As I say often, I'm strictly a D2 coach and don't play D1. And the divisions are only different, based off of recruiting styles/tactics/reach and things like that. The team names and colors just make it seem life like.

So my question is.... WHY are there 180 humans in D1s and 60 in D2s?! (Exaggeration to fit my topic). If I want to compete for titles, I go to D2 where prestige is basically equal across the board, no EEs, and I'm off and running right from the start. All 60 of us are likely competitive. Maybe not all, but most.

But if I move up to D1, i have to play at Pepperdine or somewhere, for many seasons, as a doormat. Maybe I'll have a very lucky S16 season in my first 8 seasons. All the same Big 6 schools will continue to pound me and win titles, while coaches don't change programs, and only 30 or so coaches will be competing at the highest level. Sure I may move up to good ol Baylor eventually. But that took me 10 seasons of "why didn't I just stay at my D2 juggernaut?"

But overall, what is the point of moving up to D1 if you're not one of the elite coaches? (and I'm elite now, just to let everyone know!) Coaching at Slippery Rock is the same as coaching at Lipscomb. Only difference is at Slippery Rock I'm gonna win every season. So when I see 180 D1 and 60 D2, it just makes me think.... why in the world are there that many coaches there? Those coaches from 100-180 would have a much better game experience in D2 where they can win more frequently, and quickly. I guess personally, I don't value a Towson or Robert Morris any more than I do D2 and D3 teams. So I just never understood people's thought process there. And I'm asking for others perspective on this.

To add to this, I'm not a person that is in a hurry. If someone is trying to build and get the job at Duke, I get that part of it. But.... some of those 180 D1 coaches KNOW they'll never sniff Duke in 20 years of real life time. So the unbalance of coaches between D1 and D2 is shocking to me.

Couple things here.

1. D1 is the game. It’s absurd that D3 even exists, and D2 is only understandable as a cheap port of entry for new players to learn the game with a little less extreme competition. If I’m a game developer, and I want to have a lower division at all, I’m aiming to get D1 up to double the population. If it isn’t double, something is out of whack with incentives or gameplay at D1. People who are interested in playing a college basketball simulation aren’t showing up to coach Slippery Rock. So if they’re staying at Slippery Rock, unless it’s a novelty thing, like a hometown, alma mater sort of deal, there’s a problem.

2. People do stick at D2 and D3 as credit farms, and it’s another thing I’d want to disincentivize, if the game was mine. I suspect an awful lot of the overall attrition from the switch to 3.0 was from guys who had at least at some point in their HD career used lower division teams as credit farms to rack up seasons to invest in D1. It was kind of a racket, and I know at least a handful of guys who exploited that to a high degree. I’m sure it’s still happening.

3. Right now, a team like Pepperdine is not likely a “doormat”. It is not hard at all to get competitive as a low D1 team. It is always an achievement to build a championship caliber team, but right now it’s much easier to get to Sweet 16 level with a team like Pepperdine than a low level big 6 team like Rutgers or Fresno St, assuming the big 6 conference is full or nearly full. The hardest thing to do is turn around a big 6 doormat in a full conference.

4. I like the mid major step. Coaching a Lipscomb or CSUN can be fun for a while, and is generally a good way to work into a decent B- level big 6 job, which is much preferable to a D+ or C- level gig in a full big 6 conference.

I get credits. But im not in D2 because of that. Im in D2 because D1 has EEs. I'm just not interested in trying to recruit the best players, only to have them leave in 2 seasons. When at D2, I can get "the best players" now. And keep them. I'm an A++ recruiter. By far, my best skill in the game. I struggle in other areas, but not recruiting. If you want to say.... that is what is wrong with the game, because people want to park in D2 or D3, I'd agree.

As far as Radford or Yale, I can see how it's interesting to build there. People like different things. But my point in bringing those type of schools into this, is because if you're building there, you're not really playing the D1 that you're talking about. D1 to me means Big 6. I feel like if your not in a Big 6 conference (or maybe a couple of the 2nd tier conferences), then it's still kind of D2ish. Sure, you're IN D1. But you are still a no name school battling other no name schools. I feel like that's what D2 is. You said no one is showing up at this game to play at Slippery Rock. You're right. But no one is showing up to play at UT-Chattanooga either.

EEs keep me from considering D1, personally. That's what I feel is wrong with the game play.

"But my point in bringing those type of schools into this, is because if you're building there, you're not really playing the D1 that you're talking about. D1 to me means Big 6. I feel like if your not in a Big 6 conference (or maybe a couple of the 2nd tier conferences), then it's still kind of D2ish. Sure, you're IN D1. But you are still a no name school battling other no name schools. "

Maybe in 2.0 this was true, but not in the game today. Small schools can compete with big name schools. Take a look at Joey's Vermont team that won multiple titles. Or even my NMSU team that finished ranked in top 10 for 9 straight seasons and went to two Final Fours. My no name school was typically battling for recruits against Arizona, So cal, UCLA, Texas, Colorado, etc.