I think there is a lot less conference chat posted overall in 3.0 - generally, there are exceptions.

could be the format change

could be reduced numbers of users in DI

could be something else

some good ideas in this thread - some simple ones that seem like that would be easy and would make the game better for users without risk of side effects

Posted by poncho0091 on 6/2/2017 7:37:00 PM (view original):
As the rest have said many times Mike, coaches go look at the standings, maybe see prior chat and have something they want to say in or out of conference, and the chat box was right there. Now it's a few extra clicks and most don't bother, or chat is out of sight out of mind. It seems trivial, but whether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact that most everyone prefers it where it was in 2.0, and it has 0 effect on how the game is played. It was a change that didn't need to be made.

I was responding to rugburn saying his conference's coaches aren't posting as much in his conference chat. That's not a 3.0 problem. It's one click. You open your chat, you post. If you don't have time for one click(was it zero click's before?), you're probably not posting anyway.

In conferences with guys who are 1) enjoying themselves, and 2) talkative, it's not a problem. Attributing it to the format change fits the "I told you so" narrative of change is bad, but it doesn't really describe what is happening. Chat is prominent, more prominent now than it was before. It is not hard to find, or understand. It takes no more clicks to chat than it used to, unless you are trying to access it in the roundabout way because that's what you've always done. What's happening is a lot of conferences have been hurt by attrition. Fewer players is probably going to mean less chat. But in conferences that are still healthy, it's less likely to be an issue. Go poking around in any given world, and you'll find conferences filling up lots of chat pages every season.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/3/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
In conferences with guys who are 1) enjoying themselves, and 2) talkative, it's not a problem. Attributing it to the format change fits the "I told you so" narrative of change is bad, but it doesn't really describe what is happening. Chat is prominent, more prominent now than it was before. It is not hard to find, or understand. It takes no more clicks to chat than it used to, unless you are trying to access it in the roundabout way because that's what you've always done. What's happening is a lot of conferences have been hurt by attrition. Fewer players is probably going to mean less chat. But in conferences that are still healthy, it's less likely to be an issue. Go poking around in any given world, and you'll find conferences filling up lots of chat pages every season.

So what are the benefits of the new chat system vs before?

I know this has been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again. I'm about to play Clemson in Naismith and they have 7 walk-on's. Not okay.

A small change that I always thought would be nice is on the 'team rankings' page, walkons were excluded from the team averages. I like to compare my team to all others but you really don't get a good read unless everyone had the same number of scholarship players.

Posted by rsvphr on 6/3/2017 9:14:00 AM (view original):
The lack of posting is widespread and I have feared for awhile that it may indicate a decline in enthusiasm for the game. I suspect that there are a number of players who've reached a point where they don't like the game as much as they used to, but they hate not playing.

The game is less fun for sure but conference cash is another reason, good, bad, your conf success has practically no impact. Less to talk about or to cheer about. We had the best rpi in D2 Rupp as a conf... So what?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2017 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 5/31/2017 8:40:00 AM (view original):
D1 recruiting not easier but at Alabama, I would like to be able to recruit everywhere, costs make it tough and I never get to see if a player has long distance pref for that reason. I don't even scout away states unless there are no D1 teams in the state. That makes the pref irrelevant.

Ees is in need of a fix to make it less random and actually not a reason why some win and some rebuild. It has a huge impact on whether you are a top team or whether you keep putting pieces together. No skills in that.

I would like to recruit everywhere also but that's kind of the game. You have to make decisions. "Everywhere" is not a decision. If we're not making decisions, what are we doing?

Mike : I make efficient decision but say I am at Clemson and this kid from Texas wants to get away from home, why does he costs me twice as much as Texas teams to get him?

It's not less fun for everybody. And I'm not convinced there are less users.

Here's an easy fix:

#7 Wisconsin loses a tight one against Notre Dame in OT, 80-83.

It happens in the news and last game sections. In what world does the losing score come first? Is that some soccer crap or something?

Getting rid of conference cash was a good thing. If conference cash were put back in I would quit. Strong conference preference still benefits deep conferences. I lose enough battles because of this preference to know it is effective. FYI I am also In some deep conferences with quality coaches so I would benefit if cash returned. I experienced both sides of conference cash and it is not good for the game.

One change that might be good for the game and pretty simple would be to change the parameters for the "Wants Rebuild" preference. Besides Sims and people ghosting their teams does anyone get this preference for more than your first season at a school? Maybe change the parameters to include anyone who has not made the NT in 3 straight seasons. Also maybe include anyone at a school for less than 3 seasons. Just a thought on helping those stuck in the middle ground or new to a school.

It's a multi-season preference.