If you want new users to stick around and you insist that they start at D3 (without being able to recruit their own players they can use until they actually played a FULL season), then you need to tone down the large chasm there is right now between the top D3 teams and those available for new coaches. This is a direct result of allowing D3 coaches to recruit D1 level recruits (back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously).

New users who sign up get absolutely destroyed come NT if they somehow managed to get there (or worse they get into a near full human conference and get destroyed every game period and leave before even the post season starts).

Split the recruits into 3 distinct pools where each division can only recruit in their own pool. This will at least make the SIM teams more competitive. Coaches sitting in near empty conferences, getting auto NT berths shouldn't be rewarded more than coaches who take Big 6 bottom jobs unless there is *some* type of reward for doing so (2.0 at least had conference money, now there's only a conference strength preference if the recruit even has that). Perhaps adding new preferences like Big 6 or even school which has deep NT runs "elite" and apply them to most top 100 would be enough.

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 1:58:00 AM (view original):
If you want new users to stick around and you insist that they start at D3 (without being able to recruit their own players they can use until they actually played a FULL season), then you need to tone down the large chasm there is right now between the top D3 teams and those available for new coaches. This is a direct result of allowing D3 coaches to recruit D1 level recruits (back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously).

New users who sign up get absolutely destroyed come NT if they somehow managed to get there (or worse they get into a near full human conference and get destroyed every game period and leave before even the post season starts).

Split the recruits into 3 distinct pools where each division can only recruit in their own pool. This will at least make the SIM teams more competitive. Coaches sitting in near empty conferences, getting auto NT berths shouldn't be rewarded more than coaches who take Big 6 bottom jobs unless there is *some* type of reward for doing so (2.0 at least had conference money, now there's only a conference strength preference if the recruit even has that). Perhaps adding new preferences like Big 6 or even school which has deep NT runs "elite" and apply them to most top 100 would be enough.

Great idea about recruit pools, buddha. I also really like the additional preferences ideas.

Now for the love of -5 defense can we please move on from the baseline prestige debate? I haven't had to skim that much nonsense since zorzii told us he was leaving the game.

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 1:58:00 AM (view original):
If you want new users to stick around and you insist that they start at D3 (without being able to recruit their own players they can use until they actually played a FULL season), then you need to tone down the large chasm there is right now between the top D3 teams and those available for new coaches. This is a direct result of allowing D3 coaches to recruit D1 level recruits (back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously).

New users who sign up get absolutely destroyed come NT if they somehow managed to get there (or worse they get into a near full human conference and get destroyed every game period and leave before even the post season starts).

Split the recruits into 3 distinct pools where each division can only recruit in their own pool. This will at least make the SIM teams more competitive. Coaches sitting in near empty conferences, getting auto NT berths shouldn't be rewarded more than coaches who take Big 6 bottom jobs unless there is *some* type of reward for doing so (2.0 at least had conference money, now there's only a conference strength preference if the recruit even has that). Perhaps adding new preferences like Big 6 or even school which has deep NT runs "elite" and apply them to most top 100 would be enough.

i have long agreed with this..

when i started in 1.0, you could recruit players from d2 and d3, but not immediately. there was an incredible lack of clarity and understanding about how this worked, such that the top 5-10 coaches in a d2/d3 world were basically not even competing with the rest. that still happens today to an extent, but i'm talking 150+ full worlds with lots of quality coaches, and a wide moat around those top 5-10 who understand pulldowns and could execute those immediately. at various points as pulldown info got out and changes were made, sometimes 2% of coaches in a world knew everything about pulldowns, and sometimes it was higher, maybe as high as 20%. but the whole thing, IMO, was completely ridiculous.

i always enjoyed the dropdown and pulldown part of d2/d3, but it was so messy, added so much time and overhead, and i thought - for new coaches - if you really want d3 to be for new coaches - you scrap this ****. its too complicated, too beneficial for the veterans. seble agreed - he scrapped them completely for d2/d3. but he went the wrong way. opening d1 recruits totally to d3 was a terrible idea IMO.

part of this is, lower divisions should prep coaches for the big leagues where the level of competition is higher, worlds are fuller, and recruiting in general is more competition. on the game planning, team building, player development fronts - d2/d3 prepare you perfectly well for d1. i was able to walk into d1 as a true rookie and crush it due to 100% of my coaching excellence from d2/d3 translating. but i was clueless AF about d1 recruiting, just like everyone else. d2/d3 prepares you terrible for d1 recruiting. and it still does.

in d1, you go hot and heavy from cycle 1. this does not happen in d2/d3. you are waiting and waiting and playing the exact opposite game. IMO d2/d3 should have larger pools of quality talent relative to the number of human coaches, and smaller scouting budgets, to reduce the need to compete. but the fundamental flow of recruiting should be similar. more regional, less cutthroat, but mechanically similar. this is IMO 101 level stuff if you want new coaches to stick around for the long haul. the new-to-d3 cliff is already massive. having a second and perhaps third cliff in d1 (and the third being BCS play) is really a problem IMO.

I think the best preference to add would be an EE preference (wanting to play for a coach that is getting kids to the NBA early). This has 2 benefits: (1) during recruiting it would allow coaches to know if a player is more likely to go EE and (2) it would give coaches that are losing EEs a slight benefit. You could tone down the importance of this preference because teams getting those top recruits probably don't need much more of an advantage, but it would take some of the sting off of losing players early.

Separate recruiting pools is another old debate, and it remains a bad idea, lots of unintended consequences. New players are never going to compete with veterans right away, so as long as vets are parked in D3, that is what it is. But open pools allow new players to move up much faster than they would otherwise. Close off the pools, and it’s a much smaller pond; now there is a premium on prestige for the top recruits available. Guess who that benefits most year after year?

Every new player I’ve mentored has caught on quickly, and has had no problems with the system that exists once they understand how to scout higher levels, and how to wait for the players to fall through the cracks. If we want to really help new players “master” D3, improve communication. With the welcome email from the fake AD, send a link to the mentor thread on the forum. Mention the possibility of scouting and recruiting D1 and D2 pool players from the start. Players struggle because they start doing things and wasting resources without knowing what they’re doing. There’s no good reason not to make more information like that available from the start.

It’s good for the game at every level for market pressures from above and below to force coaches to make decisions about how they use their resources. Closing off these pools will have too many ripple effects that will affect competitiveness at all levels, and will be a disaster in the long run.

“back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously”

Beating a dead horse, but yeah, it was as severe. The best D3 teams were always crushing their opponents. My first D3 title team was in 2.0, it beat Ohio St. in exhibition by 60 points. It had guys like Russ Allison and John Willits and Stanley Smith on it, guys new players wouldn’t be able to beat me for (in 2.0, they literally didn’t have access to those types of pulldowns, unless they had A+ prestige). And I was by no means in even the top 10% of D3 coaches in 2.0. That gap is wide, was always wide, and will always be wide. What we can do is make the bridge quick and easy to cross. As long as you have access to the knowledge, that bridge is available. Having access to all the same caliber recruits as the top D3 teams in the country is a big advantage new players have now, compared to how it used to be.

Posted by adlorenz on 12/9/2020 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/9/2020 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 12/9/2020 1:30:00 PM (view original):
I guess I like baseline prestige because it keeps the game more in line with real world NCAA basketball. I don't want to see mostly low to mid-major schools in the top-25 and NT. A school like Hartford could almost never sustain a real life dynasty because its a small school and they simply don't have the funding and recognition to do so. Baseline prestige replicates that.

I wouldn't mind seeing prestige updated every 5 years or so, but its realistic and that's why I'd want to keep it. But that's just my opinion. Its a preference. HD is obviously not real life, but there's also no way a school like chapel's Delaware State has that type of multi-year success in real life. So I feel like this sim is already slanted towards smaller schools having a better chance than they should.

Now if you wanted to get rid of baseline prestige and create some type of revenue/budget, then I'd be down for that. The better your team is playing, the more revenue you make (limited by the size of your stadium). The revenue would be your recruiting/scouting budget for the next season. The caveat being that you can also use that money to upgrade your stadium every few seasons (in lieu of some recruiting/scouting $$). That would give smaller schools a chance to compete with long-term sustainability, although it would take a long time to build that program into an elite. It also wouldn't keep the already elite schools at the top since they'd already have the large stadiums. The flip side is that the smaller schools would start at a huge deficit, which would make it much harder for coaches that aren't staying long-term. To adjust for that, they'd have to make it easier to get hired at a higher prestige school. This would work similar to how the soccer dynasty system is set up. Just a thought.

My man.

Baseline HAS to exist. I'm not flexible on that at all. And I wouldn't expect the new crew behind the controls to feel otherwise, after reviewing everything that needs to be considered.

As far as tweaks, leaving it alone, updating, changing..... that's at least a debatable topic.

Most importantly, the community is talking, and it appears the WifS ears are also listening more. All good stuff!

I mean, HAS to exist is a stretch for me, but I generally think its a good thing. But... if we are going to boil down the what I think is the real problem is that right now there is a prestige boost with no accountability. Everything is about balance, if you promise minutes to a player in HD you get a bonus in recruiting if others don't, but you have to commit to the promise or you get negative WE adjustments or the player leaves if the promise isn't fulfilled.

If coaches at a higher baseline prestige school are going to get an advantage there needs to be a negative side to the advantage, which logically is more accountability in keeping your job. If you want that UConn job, then missing the tournament 3 of 4 years probably isn't going to cut it.

*Disclaimer: Anything I say is NOT what we are going to do, we are still planning priorities and road mapping, so please... don't freak out*

I should make that Disclaimer my signature.

-Adam

Right on the mark. I am encouraged by seeing your comments.

In my opinion, the best Baseline Prestige idea (because i support it) is this:

Tier 1 Conferences:
All 72 teams in 6 conferences have baseline prestige of A.
- ACC
- B1G
- Big-12
- Big East
- Pac-12, and
- SEC.

Tier 2 Conferences:
All 72 teams in 6 conferences have baseline prestige of B.
- Atlantic-10.
- West Coast Conference.
- Mountain West.
- Conference-USA.
- Horizon.
- Missouri Valley

Tier 3 Conferences:
All 48 teams in 4 conferences have baseline prestige of C.
- Ohio Valley (edit-- had listed Horizon twice).
- Colonial.
- Big West.
- MAC.

Tier 4 Conferences:
In the remaining conferences, all teams have baseline prestige of D.
- Patriot.
- NEC.
- Sun Belt.
- MAAC.
- Summit.
- MEAC.
- Ivy League.
- Southern.
- Big South.
- Southland.
- Big Sky.

Some of these conferences can shift to other tiers depending on what you guys think.

Key is that base prestige is retained for upper tier schools, but every team is equal within their own conference.

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 1:58:00 AM (view original):
If you want new users to stick around and you insist that they start at D3 (without being able to recruit their own players they can use until they actually played a FULL season), then you need to tone down the large chasm there is right now between the top D3 teams and those available for new coaches. This is a direct result of allowing D3 coaches to recruit D1 level recruits (back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously).

New users who sign up get absolutely destroyed come NT if they somehow managed to get there (or worse they get into a near full human conference and get destroyed every game period and leave before even the post season starts).

Split the recruits into 3 distinct pools where each division can only recruit in their own pool. This will at least make the SIM teams more competitive. Coaches sitting in near empty conferences, getting auto NT berths shouldn't be rewarded more than coaches who take Big 6 bottom jobs unless there is *some* type of reward for doing so (2.0 at least had conference money, now there's only a conference strength preference if the recruit even has that). Perhaps adding new preferences like Big 6 or even school which has deep NT runs "elite" and apply them to most top 100 would be enough.

I'll be the naysayer here and advocate for one large pool, and getting rid of the D1/D2/D3 designations for recruits. Open game for all schools across all divisions.

Recruits will always favor D1 schools over D2/D3, etc. So you're not going to start seeing four and five stars falling to D3 teams. Top tier players will still end up filling out D1 rosters.

The top D3 teams are recruiting from D1 anyways. New coaches likely don't know better, and will usually at first only be recruiting from D3. So that unwittingly is putting the noobs at a distinct disadvantage. One pool breaks down that artificial wall as everybody is playing on the same field. Even the sim coaches, who I'm guessing are only currently recruiting from their own division. Let the lower division sims pull down from what is currently the higher division pools, provided it's a recruit who is attracting little to no interest from humans.

Posted by cregen7 on 12/10/2020 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 1:58:00 AM (view original):
If you want new users to stick around and you insist that they start at D3 (without being able to recruit their own players they can use until they actually played a FULL season), then you need to tone down the large chasm there is right now between the top D3 teams and those available for new coaches. This is a direct result of allowing D3 coaches to recruit D1 level recruits (back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously).

New users who sign up get absolutely destroyed come NT if they somehow managed to get there (or worse they get into a near full human conference and get destroyed every game period and leave before even the post season starts).

Split the recruits into 3 distinct pools where each division can only recruit in their own pool. This will at least make the SIM teams more competitive. Coaches sitting in near empty conferences, getting auto NT berths shouldn't be rewarded more than coaches who take Big 6 bottom jobs unless there is *some* type of reward for doing so (2.0 at least had conference money, now there's only a conference strength preference if the recruit even has that). Perhaps adding new preferences like Big 6 or even school which has deep NT runs "elite" and apply them to most top 100 would be enough.

Great idea about recruit pools, buddha. I also really like the additional preferences ideas.

Now for the love of -5 defense can we please move on from the baseline prestige debate? I haven't had to skim that much nonsense since zorzii told us he was leaving the game.

These last couple threads are groundbreaking in my opinion. No matter which side of the street you're on as far as the way you see the game fit, we haven't voluntarily had admin here to comment on suggestions in my entire career. I think the "nonsense" you mentioned, has created great communication

Posted by shoe3 on 12/10/2020 3:43:00 PM (view original):
“back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously”

Beating a dead horse, but yeah, it was as severe. The best D3 teams were always crushing their opponents. My first D3 title team was in 2.0, it beat Ohio St. in exhibition by 60 points. It had guys like Russ Allison and John Willits and Stanley Smith on it, guys new players wouldn’t be able to beat me for (in 2.0, they literally didn’t have access to those types of pulldowns, unless they had A+ prestige). And I was by no means in even the top 10% of D3 coaches in 2.0. That gap is wide, was always wide, and will always be wide. What we can do is make the bridge quick and easy to cross. As long as you have access to the knowledge, that bridge is available. Having access to all the same caliber recruits as the top D3 teams in the country is a big advantage new players have now, compared to how it used to be.

By you logic, opening up D1 to the VETERAN D3 coaches against a NEW User, who do you think is going to come out ahead of that? If it was severe before its TEN times wider now. Until D1 fills up near capacity the D3 vets are going to absolutely own new users. And there is ZERO benefit to allowing D3 coaches access other than "LOOK at my uber D1 quality recruit so I can wreck other D3 teams who don't have said quality".

As it is right now the new user has ZERO chance to beat a veteran coach. This is like the difference between taking my standard vehicle and racing a normal guy in a Ferrari and then saying now I allowed to buy that Ferrari (but obviously can't afford it) and now racing professional drivers racing around in F1 formula cars.

[Edit] And you example of players is STILL using more than a single pool (you were recruiting *above* your supposed pool. If you have a FIXED pool of players, the top teams will battle for the best available recruits to them (just like we do in D1). In 2.0, if you had A++++, you might of been able to recruit players that no *peer* in your division had access to.

I’ve supported something like NPB’s conference baselines for a long time, though I think it should be 3 tiers - the first at B, the 2nd at C, and the rest at D. I don’t know that the Colonial or Big West need to be set above the other small conference schools. The other 7 conferences are solid mid majors, I think. And the power conferences have plenty advantage with a tether to B, IMO.

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 9:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/10/2020 3:43:00 PM (view original):
“back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously”

Beating a dead horse, but yeah, it was as severe. The best D3 teams were always crushing their opponents. My first D3 title team was in 2.0, it beat Ohio St. in exhibition by 60 points. It had guys like Russ Allison and John Willits and Stanley Smith on it, guys new players wouldn’t be able to beat me for (in 2.0, they literally didn’t have access to those types of pulldowns, unless they had A+ prestige). And I was by no means in even the top 10% of D3 coaches in 2.0. That gap is wide, was always wide, and will always be wide. What we can do is make the bridge quick and easy to cross. As long as you have access to the knowledge, that bridge is available. Having access to all the same caliber recruits as the top D3 teams in the country is a big advantage new players have now, compared to how it used to be.

By you logic, opening up D1 to the VETERAN D3 coaches against a NEW User, who do you think is going to come out ahead of that? If it was severe before its TEN times wider now. Until D1 fills up near capacity the D3 vets are going to absolutely own new users. And there is ZERO benefit to allowing D3 coaches access other than "LOOK at my uber D1 quality recruit so I can wreck other D3 teams who don't have said quality".

As it is right now the new user has ZERO chance to beat a veteran coach. This is like the difference between taking my standard vehicle and racing a normal guy in a Ferrari and then saying now I allowed to buy that Ferrari (but obviously can't afford it) and now racing professional drivers racing around in F1 formula cars.

That hasn’t played out at all. Lots of new users have come out and had great, fast success in 3.0. The key is having access to the knowledge. That’s all.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/10/2020 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 9:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/10/2020 3:43:00 PM (view original):
“back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously”

Beating a dead horse, but yeah, it was as severe. The best D3 teams were always crushing their opponents. My first D3 title team was in 2.0, it beat Ohio St. in exhibition by 60 points. It had guys like Russ Allison and John Willits and Stanley Smith on it, guys new players wouldn’t be able to beat me for (in 2.0, they literally didn’t have access to those types of pulldowns, unless they had A+ prestige). And I was by no means in even the top 10% of D3 coaches in 2.0. That gap is wide, was always wide, and will always be wide. What we can do is make the bridge quick and easy to cross. As long as you have access to the knowledge, that bridge is available. Having access to all the same caliber recruits as the top D3 teams in the country is a big advantage new players have now, compared to how it used to be.

By you logic, opening up D1 to the VETERAN D3 coaches against a NEW User, who do you think is going to come out ahead of that? If it was severe before its TEN times wider now. Until D1 fills up near capacity the D3 vets are going to absolutely own new users. And there is ZERO benefit to allowing D3 coaches access other than "LOOK at my uber D1 quality recruit so I can wreck other D3 teams who don't have said quality".

As it is right now the new user has ZERO chance to beat a veteran coach. This is like the difference between taking my standard vehicle and racing a normal guy in a Ferrari and then saying now I allowed to buy that Ferrari (but obviously can't afford it) and now racing professional drivers racing around in F1 formula cars.

That hasn’t played out at all. Lots of new users have come out and had great, fast success in 3.0. The key is having access to the knowledge. That’s all.

So again WHY does D3 (or even D2 recruits) having access to other division recruits make the game BETTER (other than hey I've got better recruits)? To me it's just making them be able to NOT battle for other recruits? Why not just make the D3 recruit pool BIGGER then? Why the hell do they need access to better recruits than their slotted division? Why even bother generating D3 recruits at all then?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/10/2020 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 1:58:00 AM (view original):
If you want new users to stick around and you insist that they start at D3 (without being able to recruit their own players they can use until they actually played a FULL season), then you need to tone down the large chasm there is right now between the top D3 teams and those available for new coaches. This is a direct result of allowing D3 coaches to recruit D1 level recruits (back in 2.0, the difference between the top D3 teams wasn't as severe obviously).

New users who sign up get absolutely destroyed come NT if they somehow managed to get there (or worse they get into a near full human conference and get destroyed every game period and leave before even the post season starts).

Split the recruits into 3 distinct pools where each division can only recruit in their own pool. This will at least make the SIM teams more competitive. Coaches sitting in near empty conferences, getting auto NT berths shouldn't be rewarded more than coaches who take Big 6 bottom jobs unless there is *some* type of reward for doing so (2.0 at least had conference money, now there's only a conference strength preference if the recruit even has that). Perhaps adding new preferences like Big 6 or even school which has deep NT runs "elite" and apply them to most top 100 would be enough.

I'll be the naysayer here and advocate for one large pool, and getting rid of the D1/D2/D3 designations for recruits. Open game for all schools across all divisions.

Recruits will always favor D1 schools over D2/D3, etc. So you're not going to start seeing four and five stars falling to D3 teams. Top tier players will still end up filling out D1 rosters.

The top D3 teams are recruiting from D1 anyways. New coaches likely don't know better, and will usually at first only be recruiting from D3. So that unwittingly is putting the noobs at a distinct disadvantage. One pool breaks down that artificial wall as everybody is playing on the same field. Even the sim coaches, who I'm guessing are only currently recruiting from their own division. Let the lower division sims pull down from what is currently the higher division pools, provided it's a recruit who is attracting little to no interest from humans.

Yeah, I have no idea why the pools got split out into divisions. The whole thing would have worked a lot better as one big pool. I think seble just had this vision of how scouting was going to go, and then changing it got too complicated. I definitely agree, having separate pools of recruits is pretty dumb, and is probably the thing hurting brand new players (who don’t have access to the knowledge) the most. One big pool makes the most sense. The trick at this point is figuring out how to make scouting work at the different levels within that system if you make that change.