Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

Can’t totally tell if that was an indirect shot at me but I will say that Duke teams roster wasn’t in good shape at all and had been to the sweet 16 once in 40ish seasons. Still with A+ prestige, that’s a lot easier than other rebuilds. That said, I’ve done fine with other D1 rebuilds since I started paying in 3.0 (without the A+ prestige).

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=14029
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=5254

and just started a 3rd

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=8131

I understand this will come off as an arrogant post, but my point is mostly to say, I don’t think our game is “broken” and it doesn’t need wholesale changes. Best thing I did was to listen to the successful people in this game. And as he’s been one of the primary antagonists in this thread, shoe has been the most helpful to me (although I certainly asked and listened to many in the community).

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 8:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

LOL, ok ceej$. I’ll play on your turf.

If you don’t want to define “massive rebuild,” go search Phelan Duke’s year 146 and 147 rosters. Since you’d like to compare, let’s compare the Duke roster Tex inherited with the 3 players I inherited. Let me know which team looks like the better team. Go player by player, I’d like to see your analysis.

(For the record, yes, Tex had to rebuild Duke, in much the same way I had to rebuild UConn in Naismith, A+ teams get beaten down sometimes. The Phelan MSU rebuild is more like my KU rebuild, which was just a complete overhaul after a still fairly high prestige team lost most of its roster through graduation and EE. No less a rebuild, just a very different kind.)

Here we go again. Shoe always has to be right, and if it means moving the goal posts mid discussion then he will do it. This isn't about assessing Duke's roster vs MSU's. This is about you claiming taking over an A+ baseline that slipped to an A is a massive/difficult rebuild. Let's stay on track here Mr. HD. Having an average roster for 1 or 2 seasons while you change offense/defense is hardly a MASSIVE rebuild. Again, every mid major coach is eye rolling you right now. You got the #1 overall PG in your class. I am so sorry you have to go through this very very difficult time. Thoughts and prayers, shoe.

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 11:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 8:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

LOL, ok ceej$. I’ll play on your turf.

If you don’t want to define “massive rebuild,” go search Phelan Duke’s year 146 and 147 rosters. Since you’d like to compare, let’s compare the Duke roster Tex inherited with the 3 players I inherited. Let me know which team looks like the better team. Go player by player, I’d like to see your analysis.

(For the record, yes, Tex had to rebuild Duke, in much the same way I had to rebuild UConn in Naismith, A+ teams get beaten down sometimes. The Phelan MSU rebuild is more like my KU rebuild, which was just a complete overhaul after a still fairly high prestige team lost most of its roster through graduation and EE. No less a rebuild, just a very different kind.)

Here we go again. Shoe always has to be right, and if it means moving the goal posts mid discussion then he will do it. This isn't about assessing Duke's roster vs MSU's. This is about you claiming taking over an A+ baseline that slipped to an A is a massive/difficult rebuild. Let's stay on track here Mr. HD. Having an average roster for 1 or 2 seasons while you change offense/defense is hardly a MASSIVE rebuild. Again, every mid major coach is eye rolling you right now. You got the #1 overall PG in your class. I am so sorry you have to go through this very very difficult time. Thoughts and prayers, shoe.

So to recap, you’re taking a blip from a post, removing it from context, refusing to define the issue you’re taking, but insisting that some phrase means something different from how I’m using it, and that everyone agrees with you, and then claim that I have “moved the goalposts” by following your argument, and that I think I must always be right.

Does that about cover it?

And don’t worry Tex. Though his point is mostly incoherent outside of his distaste for me, I’m pretty sure he was just picking your Duke out of thin air as an example of an A+ baseline team that was taken over with a lower functional prestige, hence yours must be the *real rebuild*. Or something.

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 11:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 8:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

LOL, ok ceej$. I’ll play on your turf.

If you don’t want to define “massive rebuild,” go search Phelan Duke’s year 146 and 147 rosters. Since you’d like to compare, let’s compare the Duke roster Tex inherited with the 3 players I inherited. Let me know which team looks like the better team. Go player by player, I’d like to see your analysis.

(For the record, yes, Tex had to rebuild Duke, in much the same way I had to rebuild UConn in Naismith, A+ teams get beaten down sometimes. The Phelan MSU rebuild is more like my KU rebuild, which was just a complete overhaul after a still fairly high prestige team lost most of its roster through graduation and EE. No less a rebuild, just a very different kind.)

Here we go again. Shoe always has to be right, and if it means moving the goal posts mid discussion then he will do it. This isn't about assessing Duke's roster vs MSU's. This is about you claiming taking over an A+ baseline that slipped to an A is a massive/difficult rebuild. Let's stay on track here Mr. HD. Having an average roster for 1 or 2 seasons while you change offense/defense is hardly a MASSIVE rebuild. Again, every mid major coach is eye rolling you right now. You got the #1 overall PG in your class. I am so sorry you have to go through this very very difficult time. Thoughts and prayers, shoe.

He's got a point Kev

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2021 3:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 11:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 8:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

LOL, ok ceej$. I’ll play on your turf.

If you don’t want to define “massive rebuild,” go search Phelan Duke’s year 146 and 147 rosters. Since you’d like to compare, let’s compare the Duke roster Tex inherited with the 3 players I inherited. Let me know which team looks like the better team. Go player by player, I’d like to see your analysis.

(For the record, yes, Tex had to rebuild Duke, in much the same way I had to rebuild UConn in Naismith, A+ teams get beaten down sometimes. The Phelan MSU rebuild is more like my KU rebuild, which was just a complete overhaul after a still fairly high prestige team lost most of its roster through graduation and EE. No less a rebuild, just a very different kind.)

Here we go again. Shoe always has to be right, and if it means moving the goal posts mid discussion then he will do it. This isn't about assessing Duke's roster vs MSU's. This is about you claiming taking over an A+ baseline that slipped to an A is a massive/difficult rebuild. Let's stay on track here Mr. HD. Having an average roster for 1 or 2 seasons while you change offense/defense is hardly a MASSIVE rebuild. Again, every mid major coach is eye rolling you right now. You got the #1 overall PG in your class. I am so sorry you have to go through this very very difficult time. Thoughts and prayers, shoe.

So to recap, you’re taking a blip from a post, removing it from context, refusing to define the issue you’re taking, but insisting that some phrase means something different from how I’m using it, and that everyone agrees with you, and then claim that I have “moved the goalposts” by following your argument, and that I think I must always be right.

Does that about cover it?

And don’t worry Tex. Though his point is mostly incoherent outside of his distaste for me, I’m pretty sure he was just picking your Duke out of thin air as an example of an A+ baseline team that was taken over with a lower functional prestige, hence yours must be the *real rebuild*. Or something.

About the answer I would expect. Act like my very simple comment is some crazy incoherent rant that has no meaning or direction. I made my point, and if you want to ignore it or spin it to make yourself feel better that’s fine. I got my 2 cents in already.

No, Tex. Not a shot at you at all. Duke was just the first A+ I thought of with a recent history of new coaches.

“About the answer I would expect. Act like my very simple comment is some crazy incoherent rant that has no meaning or direction. I made my point, and if you want to ignore it or spin it to make yourself feel better that’s fine. I got my 2 cents in already.”

Yeah, your point is stupid. You just have a personal beef with me. Come out and say it, ok? I know some people don’t like me. I care about about as much as a horse cares about a fly on his ****. But if you’re going to pretend it’s about making it something in my post, then defend your argument. I didn’t ask for sympathy, and I’m not calling for changes - mostly the opposite, in fact, which assuming you can read, you should know. Which is why *it is actually incoherent* that you would try to spin it like I’m using the phrase “massive rebuild” to make it look like I need a handout or sympathy. I used the phrase because I’m turning over 75% of a roster that only came with one true Big 10 caliber player in half of a recruiting season. If that isn’t literally rebuilding a team, then please let me know what you mean by the phrase. You may not agree with me - I don’t demand that everyone agrees with me, and everyone that has actually talked with me, including Tex, will probably tell you that I will go out of my way to acknowledge that there are always different ways to look at things. But at least I’m defining my terms.

I feel like there will be some unintended consequences to a lot of these proposed changes that are hard to see now. And most of them seem to favor A+ teams. It seems like people want to be able to go all in on a 5 star recruit but then still be able to land that 4 star when they lose a roll. That takes away a lot of risk/reward.

I do think there needs to be a cap on HVs per cycle though. It’s too risky to bank on signing someone for minimal money so you have to stockpile enough cash to drop 20 HVs in case you get blitzed. If you make it harder to blitz then it frees up resources to find backups or take a chance at a roll.

Somebody crapped in Poopshoe's cornflakes again.

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2021 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody crapped in Poopshoe's cornflakes again.

LOL he lives in fantasyland.

Not to distract from ceej$/benis sh!+posting, but here’s the pertinent piece to get back to OP:

”While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point”

Because Mr. $’s point has been obscured by his displeasure with my very essence, it’s hard to tell what he thinks of the difficulty level of recruiting competitive teams in the second session (keeping in mind the upcoming firing standards, which I touch on later). OP has made it out to be unanimous, though I’m not entirely sure - as I said, as long as my year 1 expectations are realistic, even turning over the whole team with *mostly* transfers, D2 pool jucos, and lower D1 pool rejects that only D3 coaches were on (and as the dolla will point out, the “#1 pg in the country”, of course, let’s not forget), can put me in a position to have a team I feel I can compete with in years 3-5 and beyond. We won’t win more than 10 games this season, because like I said, it’s a massive rebuild year, and the conference is full. The prestige will drop, hopefully not more than 2/3 of a grade, before I can stabilize it.

I think the folks coming in convinced it’s much too hard for new coaches might have unrealistic expectations, generally, about year one. I think the kind of changes I’ve talked about targeting the second session would be mostly positive and productive - and will be absolutely vital if they go ahead with firings - but as it stands now, isn’t entirely a game breaker. The degree of difficulty is what it is, and should probably just be looked at as part of the calculation when you decide you want to change jobs.

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/10/2021 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2021 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody crapped in Poopshoe's cornflakes again.

LOL he lives in fantasyland.

The guy is the most thin skinned and sensitive person on here. He acts like you just called his mom a filthy hooker or something.

It's just a game Poopshoe. Go smoke some pot and watch kitten videos to chill out, you'll live longer.

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2021 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/10/2021 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2021 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Somebody crapped in Poopshoe's cornflakes again.

LOL he lives in fantasyland.

The guy is the most thin skinned and sensitive person on here. He acts like you just called his mom a filthy hooker or something.

It's just a game Poopshoe. Go smoke some pot and watch kitten videos to chill out, you'll live longer.

Nah. My BP is good. As I said when cj$ declined to actually define the phrase, I’m just playing on his turf. It’s a discussion forum. This is what people do, I just try to stay on topic and keep it germane. I’d be interested to see an example of what you think is “thin skinned” though. My suspicion is that you’re projecting. Most folks have no problems communicating with me, but as I said, I know there are a few who don’t like my direct style. Im alright with you being one of them, believe me.

Posted by gigrant on 7/6/2021 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Let’s fix recruiting for D1

1. One session only, after early entrees leave and after new coaches are hired. New coaches get screwed so hard in current set-up.
2. No budgets, just limits on recruiting actions per player per avail scholly. Once a player signs, if it was with a different team you get your actions back for the next guy. Why should good teams take sub-D3 walk-ons after striking out? This would solve that horrible problem. It’s unrealistic for an ACC team to be stuck with 3 guys with 450 overall ratings just because they lost 3 coin flips that didn’t make much sense. Does anybody remember the time real life Kentucky missed out on three recruits and ended up with 3 drunk frat boys instead? If you want to spread your actions out amongst several players, so be it.
3. There can still be early/whenever/late, just during one session.
4. Make the elite in-coming freshmen better. And make more crap level guys available too (500-550 overall ratings). There just is not enough guys to go around, especially now that everyone and their brother can be in D1 after a season or two in the world at D3.
5. Keep the preferences. This is one of the few parts that works well and should stay. Some players want certain things, such as starting at a mid-major rather than mop up duty at an elite. Some want the mop-up duty. It’s all good.

Recruiting is a major part of the sim. Very important. And it’s been broken for far too long. We deserve better.

One session only, after early entrees leave and after new coaches are hired. New coaches get screwed so hard in current set-up.

Good idea.


No budgets, just limits on recruiting actions per player per avail scholly. Once a player signs, if it was with a different team you get your actions back for the next guy. Why should good teams take sub-D3 walk-ons after striking out? This would solve that horrible problem. It’s unrealistic for an ACC team to be stuck with 3 guys with 450 overall ratings just because they lost 3 coin flips that didn’t make much sense. Does anybody remember the time real life Kentucky missed out on three recruits and ended up with 3 drunk frat boys instead? If you want to spread your actions out amongst several players, so be it.

There are plenty of decent players leftover in the second session... taking walkons is a choice for D1 teams.... hundreds of usable D1 rotation players go D3 every year. Hate the idea of infinite actions, it just doesn't make sense to me from a game functionality standpoint.

There can still be early/whenever/late, just during one session.

Sure

Make the elite in-coming freshmen better. And make more crap level guys available too (500-550 overall ratings). There just is not enough guys to go around, especially now that everyone and their brother can be in D1 after a season or two in the world at D3.

How would making more elite incoming freshmen help... it's harder than ever to be in low D1 already

Keep the preferences. This is one of the few parts that works well and should stay. Some players want certain things, such as starting at a mid-major rather than mop up duty at an elite. Some want the mop-up duty. It’s all good.

Agreed we need to find promised starts/wants to play

Posted by Baums_away on 7/10/2021 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I feel like there will be some unintended consequences to a lot of these proposed changes that are hard to see now. And most of them seem to favor A+ teams. It seems like people want to be able to go all in on a 5 star recruit but then still be able to land that 4 star when they lose a roll. That takes away a lot of risk/reward.

I do think there needs to be a cap on HVs per cycle though. It’s too risky to bank on signing someone for minimal money so you have to stockpile enough cash to drop 20 HVs in case you get blitzed. If you make it harder to blitz then it frees up resources to find backups or take a chance at a roll.

^^