THe problem with THAT, BUrton, its that using that as a metric you can NEVER change the engine. .because even if you beta test for 20 years, its not going to be the same as a bunch of determined coaches actually trying to win and looking for loopholes.  And you will always, no matter what, have to wait for a full cycle of recruits to see the real effects of the engine.  INcidently, Daalter, yes I have had a D1 team, in Rhode Island (which I keep having important players get injured on, but thats another story)  Just switched from it to a definite low end D1 team in St. Louis.  D+ prestige, coming off a 3 - 24 record, always sim controlled.  WIll that be sufficiently outside of the top teams for you?

Thats true a in the b, but why not then implement it more gradually, rather overhaul the whole thing, make recruit changes more slowly until we get to the desired result rather than just blow up the whole thing.

Posted by cburton23 on 8/5/2010 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the wait and see approach, is we are at least 3 seasons away from knowing, and probably more than that to good a decent sample to see the effect.  So that means $40-70 per team to wait and see.  and if you have multiple teams even more.  So we continue to pay to be BETA testers.

and if those who are most experienced at this game are right about the poor implementation strategy of low pot players, and few top notch players surrounded by a sea of d2 level guys in d1, not only will it take 3-4 seasons to come to a conclusion, but it also will take 3-4 seasons to fix, as these players will be with us while they get cleared out.  But for A/A+ schools, this is not a bad deal, funny, many of those coaches arguing against the new recruiting system, are those who are benefiting the most - oh well - whatever.

Last week when I recruited with my A+ d1 team in tark, I targeted ($10 coaches calls to see what offense they ran) 4 players who ended up going to d2 - I am sure had I pursued any of those guys the coaches would have been very unhappy, I often get crap on my coaches corner if I even go after a mid major's recruit, let alone a d2 team's recruit - by and large there is very little difference in the game between the 20th ranked d1 guy by position, and unranked, but good d2 level players right now.

It just is not as much fun for me as before, that much I know already.  And why s\\will midmajor coaches play season after season against 5 star d1 recruits with d2 players, when they can play against d2 players with d2 players??????  I suppose there is something admirable about taking on an apache helicopter with a slingshot, but it is can't be the best this game has to offer its coaches can it????

This reminds me a great deal of FSS, the vets knew about real quick, the game designers and newbies figured it out after about 6 months, and about 5% of the coaches just blankly supported the change, even as seble was announcing the fix, then quickly applauded seble for his rapid response.  By the way, seble's fix of FSS was near epic it was so good, unfortunately, lots of the good went away with the latest recruiting changes.

enough ranting - carry on

that really was darn near a rant, OR.  nice work!

and, even though i was a big proponent of  "weaking" the top end recruits, I do agree withomost of your thoughts here.  i still think, in the end,  it will make the game better to have fewer 90's players.  but i think you are right that seble will need to figure out how to make sure the midmajors still have ability to compete.

As much as i hate to say it,  maybe EE's will even the field?   still seems like the five stars will be better players even as frosh than the three star seniors,  but maybe not,  depending on how much importance is place on IQ. 

Also,  my understanding was that the biggest reason for the last engine update was to create a situation where seble understood the engine and could make tweaks and changes quickly and easily.  it will be interesting to see if that is true.  although i guess i prolly wont be around to see

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/3/2010 8:52:00 AM (view original):
chewdad, I am also in agreeance with you.  I've fought through 6 years of program updates to maintain my passion for the game and this latest change has pretty much worn me out.  I will never quit HD, it's a part of my blood at this point, but my interest in keeping 7-8 teams (as I have traditionally have done) is gone with recruits that only improve small amounts each season.  I was against the implementation of potential, so that should give you a reference on my feelings about what is happening now.

I have dropped all of my DI schools (except Hawaii) down to DIII, where the game is still enjoyable for me because there are no pre-determined dynasties for marketing purposes and everybody has a chance to build a Championship program, even with the recruits as they are.  I almost find DI unplayable now and that really is too bad.  I used to love bringing teams like South Florida, Furman, etc. to national relevance.  Now, I think it's so stacked against those schools, why bother.  Hawaii has been my only remaining link to DI because it really is a low DI program that benefits from the money and conference prestige of one of the CHOSEN (Pac-10). 

HD used to be such a wonderful game...such a shame.

Anyone else of the opinion that those that run HD don't really pay attention?  When I've posted issues like this, the responses I have received can be summarized as "it is what it is."  There really seems to be a disturbing lack of interest in the paying customers.  And I think it is showing by how many people are tiring and either dropping teams or dropping out all together.

yeah, i definitely have gotten that vibe at times, bobby.  i think part of it may be that they have to try to decide between the valid criticisms and the whining, of which we would all have to agree there is a fair amount  (and i will take credit for a good deal of it)

now, your response may be,  "davey, if they cant tell the difference between a tongue-incheek postgame rant, and a serious comment on the functionality of the game... that's sad"   and i wouldnt disagree with that either.

one thing i do have to give them credit for,  the last ticket i sent,  which i will have to admit was partly postgame whining,  they answered me back fairly quickly and with an answer that would make the white house press secretary proud.  on one hand,  they really didnt promise to do anyting,  but they did acknowledge there may be an issue and they would be looking into it etc.  for me, in the state of mind i was in,  that was prolly all i wanted/ needed.

here's a related question,  during the couple of years that i played hbd, i got the impression that thier admins where much more involved, lots of updates,  responded to feedback (and i mean actually listened and made changes)  i felt that way when hbd first started,  and then there was a little lull when they changed admins,  but it seemed like a very slight lull and then they were back up full steam.

do any of you hbders feel the same?  and why is that?  other than they just happened to get lucky with a couple of great admins?    i dint really mean all that as a knock on seble.. i have no idea what goes into his job and whether he does it well or not...... or whether it is apples to apples to compare him to hbd admins...?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/5/2010 10:13:00 AM (view original):
THe problem with THAT, BUrton, its that using that as a metric you can NEVER change the engine. .because even if you beta test for 20 years, its not going to be the same as a bunch of determined coaches actually trying to win and looking for loopholes.  And you will always, no matter what, have to wait for a full cycle of recruits to see the real effects of the engine.  INcidently, Daalter, yes I have had a D1 team, in Rhode Island (which I keep having important players get injured on, but thats another story)  Just switched from it to a definite low end D1 team in St. Louis.  D+ prestige, coming off a 3 - 24 record, always sim controlled.  WIll that be sufficiently outside of the top teams for you?

My point there was that you don't have much DI experience, so all else being equal, you're not going to be able to identify these types of things as quickly and easily as (for instance) OR, who has dozens of DI seasons under his belt. Since we're talking about a DI issue, hopefully we'd agree that the people best equipped to analyze it are those who know and understand DI the best?

That doesn't mean what you have to say doesn't matter, but simply the fact that what was almost instantly apparent to a bunch of DI vets wasn't immediately apparent to you isn't surprising. I occasionally get sitemails from coaches asking about things like DIII ratings and I tell them I'm really not the right person to ask, as it's been years since I've played in DIII. This is no different.

I remember pretty much the very first day that the new recruits and system came out live, OR and I exchanged sitemails about the obvious effect on low/mid DI teams. Very shortly thereafter, I read the same sentiment from vandydave in the forums, and then probably about half dozen other uber vet users that I communicate with. Can't remember the last time that there was a clear consensus among that group of people that turned out to be incorrect.

And as OR pointed out above, it's telling that many of the people trying to fix this are those with high prestige teams, so it's not like it's a personal agenda. I coach UNC, I know for a fact this is good for me, but I want a set-up that is best of everyone and all of HD.

Posted by daalter on 8/5/2010 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/5/2010 10:13:00 AM (view original):
THe problem with THAT, BUrton, its that using that as a metric you can NEVER change the engine. .because even if you beta test for 20 years, its not going to be the same as a bunch of determined coaches actually trying to win and looking for loopholes.  And you will always, no matter what, have to wait for a full cycle of recruits to see the real effects of the engine.  INcidently, Daalter, yes I have had a D1 team, in Rhode Island (which I keep having important players get injured on, but thats another story)  Just switched from it to a definite low end D1 team in St. Louis.  D+ prestige, coming off a 3 - 24 record, always sim controlled.  WIll that be sufficiently outside of the top teams for you?

My point there was that you don't have much DI experience, so all else being equal, you're not going to be able to identify these types of things as quickly and easily as (for instance) OR, who has dozens of DI seasons under his belt. Since we're talking about a DI issue, hopefully we'd agree that the people best equipped to analyze it are those who know and understand DI the best?

That doesn't mean what you have to say doesn't matter, but simply the fact that what was almost instantly apparent to a bunch of DI vets wasn't immediately apparent to you isn't surprising. I occasionally get sitemails from coaches asking about things like DIII ratings and I tell them I'm really not the right person to ask, as it's been years since I've played in DIII. This is no different.

THat is true. . but its also true that that doesn't automatically mean you are RIGHT on it either.   A consensus can also be wrong.   I don't disrespect your opinion or your experience.  THat doesn't mean,however, that I have to agree with it.  No disrespect intended, but I don't.  Plenty of times in an argument the views of people who AREN'T in the system are just as valuable because they haven't acquired the prejudices and preconceptions that someone who has been there has.  I just really think that people have leapt all the way from the beginning to a conclusion much too rapidly..  Straight from Hypothesis to theory without the testing in the middle.

Honestly, I knew in less than five minutes of looking at the new set-up. So did OR.

Not taking it as disrespect at all, I welcome the dialogue despite sometimes coming off as pompous. And sure, there are times in life where the consensus opinion is wrong.

That said, I can't remember a time where this group of vets had a clear consensus that turned out to be wrong, and I also think this is an area where it's virtually impossible to have a well-formed opinion without a good amount of DI experience. Just the same as I'm not qualified to give out DIII-specific advice.

Posted by daalter on 8/5/2010 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I knew in less than five minutes of looking at the new set-up. So did OR.

Not taking it as disrespect at all, I welcome the dialogue despite sometimes coming off as pompous. And sure, there are times in life where the consensus opinion is wrong.

That said, I can't remember a time where this group of vets had a clear consensus that turned out to be wrong, and I also think this is an area where it's virtually impossible to have a well-formed opinion without a good amount of DI experience. Just the same as I'm not qualified to give out DIII-specific advice.

Agree 100%. Pretty obvious that things are not right. All my teams are in the A- to A+ prestige range at High DI so the changes won't have an adverse affect on me but I still hope they get it right. 

Posted by daalter on 8/5/2010 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I knew in less than five minutes of looking at the new set-up. So did OR.

Not taking it as disrespect at all, I welcome the dialogue despite sometimes coming off as pompous. And sure, there are times in life where the consensus opinion is wrong.

That said, I can't remember a time where this group of vets had a clear consensus that turned out to be wrong, and I also think this is an area where it's virtually impossible to have a well-formed opinion without a good amount of DI experience. Just the same as I'm not qualified to give out DIII-specific advice.

Sometimes coming off as pompous?

Posted by daalter on 8/5/2010 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I knew in less than five minutes of looking at the new set-up. So did OR.

Not taking it as disrespect at all, I welcome the dialogue despite sometimes coming off as pompous. And sure, there are times in life where the consensus opinion is wrong.

That said, I can't remember a time where this group of vets had a clear consensus that turned out to be wrong, and I also think this is an area where it's virtually impossible to have a well-formed opinion without a good amount of DI experience. Just the same as I'm not qualified to give out DIII-specific advice.

Sounds an awful lot like the Bush military intelligence team explaining the consensus opinion that Iraq had WMD.  hmmm

Posted by cbriese on 8/5/2010 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/5/2010 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I knew in less than five minutes of looking at the new set-up. So did OR.

Not taking it as disrespect at all, I welcome the dialogue despite sometimes coming off as pompous. And sure, there are times in life where the consensus opinion is wrong.

That said, I can't remember a time where this group of vets had a clear consensus that turned out to be wrong, and I also think this is an area where it's virtually impossible to have a well-formed opinion without a good amount of DI experience. Just the same as I'm not qualified to give out DIII-specific advice.

Sometimes coming off as pompous?

OK, OK ... the majority of the time.

Posted by boobyknight on 8/5/2010 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/3/2010 8:52:00 AM (view original):
chewdad, I am also in agreeance with you.  I've fought through 6 years of program updates to maintain my passion for the game and this latest change has pretty much worn me out.  I will never quit HD, it's a part of my blood at this point, but my interest in keeping 7-8 teams (as I have traditionally have done) is gone with recruits that only improve small amounts each season.  I was against the implementation of potential, so that should give you a reference on my feelings about what is happening now.

I have dropped all of my DI schools (except Hawaii) down to DIII, where the game is still enjoyable for me because there are no pre-determined dynasties for marketing purposes and everybody has a chance to build a Championship program, even with the recruits as they are.  I almost find DI unplayable now and that really is too bad.  I used to love bringing teams like South Florida, Furman, etc. to national relevance.  Now, I think it's so stacked against those schools, why bother.  Hawaii has been my only remaining link to DI because it really is a low DI program that benefits from the money and conference prestige of one of the CHOSEN (Pac-10). 

HD used to be such a wonderful game...such a shame.

Anyone else of the opinion that those that run HD don't really pay attention?  When I've posted issues like this, the responses I have received can be summarized as "it is what it is."  There really seems to be a disturbing lack of interest in the paying customers.  And I think it is showing by how many people are tiring and either dropping teams or dropping out all together.

i would be curious to know which engine was at the peak if HD versus where we are now.  people say the economic times are to blame, which i agree to a small point. 

i think more people would prefer a little less complex over realism.  while there are some that would like to get so realistic you have to give players x amount of water to prevent from cramping, i think its swung a little too far towards that angle.

i bet HD was at its peak when potential was first introduced.  personally, i loved it along with FSS i thought it was awesome.  probably too many studs then, but not nearly enough now.