Posted by l80r20 on 9/24/2017 12:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/23/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/22/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

It isn't magically different, but it absolutely is different for all of the reasons benis and I stated (and probably others). To answer your last question, though, I'll repost what I posted this morning in another thread:

"Here's what will happen in a full 3.0 DI w/re elite recruits: certain teams will win their dice rolls and be loaded; certain teams will split them (win 1, lose 1) and have a team with a few studs and a bunch of holes, and certain teams will go 0-fer. Currently, the teams that go 0-fer have alternatives (not great alternatives, but alternatives), because it's so easy to push SIM off recruits -- those backups will be much harder to obtain in a full DI, since you'll be falling back against humans. Multiply this over a few years, and you're going to have even more coach frustration than you do now (and a couple of monstrous teams that were lucky, went 6-0 in dice rolls over a couple years, and are nearly unbeatable). Additionally, right now there is a viable strategy of building up a team via picking up non-elite players who will be decently strong (700-750 overall) by their senior years -- those teams can make runs (probably can't win NTs, but you can make some S16s). While there's some competition for those recruits, it's often SIMs, or you can snag a few recruits w/o any competition at all. That path will be closed in a full DI, because you won't be able to win anyone playable without full-out battles."

This is already happening in DI -- in 2.0, there were 15/20 elite teams (or so), all of whom had a shot at the NT, then a big gap to the next tier -- much harder to make a S16. In 3.0, there's a much larger pool of teams that can make the S16, but a smaller pool of true NT contenders. More people in DI will heighten this effect.

Yeah, you didn't really "explain" anything here. This was really more of a whine-fest.

To summarize: "A larger population of human users means that it will be harder to land elite players, and it will be harder to get fall-back alternatives because everybody else will be going after them too".

Sounds like a lot of whining because your sense of entitlement to get the players (or fall-back options) you want is being challenged, and recruiting will be harder.

A fixed pool of D1 quality players spread out over 250 humans instead of 50 humans means the talent is spread out over a larger pool of coaches,which should lead to MORE competitive balance rather than less.

Seems like that should be a good thing.

Good for you, tecwrg. It is good to see someone making sense in this thread.

Recruiting in D3 involves learning to recruit the best players you can reach, always considering your team's prestige and the prestige of the other schools around you. You learn to evaluate what you can reach. You learn which schools around you are legitimate recruiting threats, and whether and how to challenge them. You learn that shooting for the moon has a severe penalty if you miss. You learn that you better be prepared with plan B and plan C before you even risk attempting that extra stretch for a player that will cost you a LOT and might be picked off by a bigger school. There isn't a lot of human competition yet, so you can use a pretty broad brush -- the process isn't very exacting at this level.

Recruiting in D2 involves the same things. All of them. And there is the added factor that some coaches get stars in their eyes, win a so-called "D1" recruit once, and immediately feel entitled to more of the same. You are competing with some coaches who learned their lessons in D3 and are good competition for you. This makes the game more exacting at this level. You are also competing with some coaches who haven't learned their lessons and still think of the game as coin flips and dice rolls, a crippling mindset. This makes the game fun, because you get to read their drivel in the forums. They find more and more creative ways to blame the game for their failures.

Then you come to D1, the pinnacle of both the skilled and the merely entitled. Fun for some, not for others.

BTW, the actual problem that a nearly full D1 or worse yet, a nearly full world, would present would be the breakdown of the job process: near total gridlock with almost nowhere to advance. It seems to me that Seble once said the job process was the next big project they were working on, before the sale of the company probably derailed them. I hope it is still the case that the job process gets overhauled.

Hi spud - was wondering when you'd climb out of the clown car.

It's interesting to me that the only people disagreeing (and noisily disagreeing, at that) with my arguments are those who haven't played DI in 3.0.

Is water wet in D1 3.0, or would I not understand unless I played D1?

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 7:53:00 AM (view original):
Is water wet in D1 3.0, or would I not understand unless I played D1?

you could understand. Its being explained to you by several people.

You don't WANT to understand.

All I've heard is "more competition for the same resources, a limited number of which is elite, and fall-back options suck".

Should all D1 schools feel entitled to top-quality D1 talent?

Did you not read gomiami's post? You might have missed it so here is the link

Let's look at this another way:

We're dealing with one large pool of recruits for all three divisions. Each HD world has 984 teams. At 12 players per team, that's 11,808 players allocated to rosters every season. Assuming an average of 25% turnover every season, that means that there are approximately 2,952 players to be recruited across all three divisions each season. Let's assume that there's a surplus of 15% players who are available to recruit but are not signed. That means that there is a pool of around 3,400 "new" players available to recruit from for all 984 teams across three divisions.

How many of these 3,400 players would you expect to be "elite"?

How many of those 3,400 players would you expect to be high quality D1 players?

currently in Phelan there were 1,600 D3 recruits generated and 1,200 D1 recruits generated.

There are 55 human coached D3 teams and 113 human coached D1 teams.

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Did you not read gomiami's post? You might have missed it so here is the link

Yes, I did.

I questioned the need for "baseline prestige" to be built into the game a long time ago. I would suggest either scaling its effects WAY down, or eliminating it altogether. Prestige should be based on a coaches track record, period. If coach_joe can build a powerhouse program at the University of Vermont, while coach_tommy struggles at Kentucky, them UVM should be a more attractive school to recruits than UK.

Shouldn't that be the goal? Reward the coaches who have the most success, rather than reward the coaches who get to land at the "prestigious" schools?

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Did you not read gomiami's post? You might have missed it so here is the link

Yes, I did.

I questioned the need for "baseline prestige" to be built into the game a long time ago. I would suggest either scaling its effects WAY down, or eliminating it altogether. Prestige should be based on a coaches track record, period. If coach_joe can build a powerhouse program at the University of Vermont, while coach_tommy struggles at Kentucky, them UVM should be a more attractive school to recruits than UK.

Shouldn't that be the goal? Reward the coaches who have the most success, rather than reward the coaches who get to land at the "prestigious" schools?

Okay good. So then you understand how baseline prestige would make for a bad time for most folks if there are 250 teams.

See! You did learn something!

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:16:00 AM (view original):
currently in Phelan there were 1,600 D3 recruits generated and 1,200 D1 recruits generated.

There are 55 human coached D3 teams and 113 human coached D1 teams.

Those numbers roughly correspond to the number of schools at each division.

The D1/D2/D3 designation for recruits are basically just window dressing, as players can be signed at any level. They're really just guidelines.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:16:00 AM (view original):
currently in Phelan there were 1,600 D3 recruits generated and 1,200 D1 recruits generated.

There are 55 human coached D3 teams and 113 human coached D1 teams.

Those numbers roughly correspond to the number of schools at each division.

The D1/D2/D3 designation for recruits are basically just window dressing, as players can be signed at any level. They're really just guidelines.

Great point. I know of many great D1 coaches who have built up their program using only D3 rated recruits. It's a super secret strategy that not many people know of. But I guess the cat is out of the bag now.

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Did you not read gomiami's post? You might have missed it so here is the link

Yes, I did.

I questioned the need for "baseline prestige" to be built into the game a long time ago. I would suggest either scaling its effects WAY down, or eliminating it altogether. Prestige should be based on a coaches track record, period. If coach_joe can build a powerhouse program at the University of Vermont, while coach_tommy struggles at Kentucky, them UVM should be a more attractive school to recruits than UK.

Shouldn't that be the goal? Reward the coaches who have the most success, rather than reward the coaches who get to land at the "prestigious" schools?

Okay good. So then you understand how baseline prestige would make for a bad time for most folks if there are 250 teams.

See! You did learn something!

I'll ask the same question that I asked last night, which was ignored.

Do you think WIS designed HD with the intent of having 80% of D1 teams run by SIMAI? Do you think that was their intended business model?

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Did you not read gomiami's post? You might have missed it so here is the link

Yes, I did.

I questioned the need for "baseline prestige" to be built into the game a long time ago. I would suggest either scaling its effects WAY down, or eliminating it altogether. Prestige should be based on a coaches track record, period. If coach_joe can build a powerhouse program at the University of Vermont, while coach_tommy struggles at Kentucky, them UVM should be a more attractive school to recruits than UK.

Shouldn't that be the goal? Reward the coaches who have the most success, rather than reward the coaches who get to land at the "prestigious" schools?

Okay good. So then you understand how baseline prestige would make for a bad time for most folks if there are 250 teams.

See! You did learn something!

I'll ask the same question that I asked last night, which was ignored.

Do you think WIS designed HD with the intent of having 80% of D1 teams run by SIMAI? Do you think that was their intended business model?

This game has evolved and changed so much over the last decade. Who knows what the original intention was. Why is that even relevant now?

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/24/2017 9:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 9:16:00 AM (view original):
currently in Phelan there were 1,600 D3 recruits generated and 1,200 D1 recruits generated.

There are 55 human coached D3 teams and 113 human coached D1 teams.

Those numbers roughly correspond to the number of schools at each division.

The D1/D2/D3 designation for recruits are basically just window dressing, as players can be signed at any level. They're really just guidelines.

Great point. I know of many great D1 coaches who have built up their program using only D3 rated recruits. It's a super secret strategy that not many people know of. But I guess the cat is out of the bag now.

Stop acting retarded (unless you can't help it).

You KNOW that many great D3 teams are built from primarily/exclusively from D1 rated recruits.

That cat's been out of the bag for quite some time.

But But but. I thought the designation was just window dressing??