I started playing again last year (D3) and for the last few days I've been reading about recruiting in 3.0. Because my first recruiting class were four solid D3 recruits and one went up 300 points so by senior year these guys made a run into the Elite Eight.

Since then I realize how lucky that was as recruiting because unless you get D1 top 200 guys, you can't compete.

I'm starting to miss the old 2.0 format and especially being able to recruit D3 players. Why did they make them so point less?

D3 players are only pointless in relatively empty worlds. If every D1 and D2 team had a competitive human coach, then D1 players wouldn't be falling down to D3. And the guys you landed would be the cream of the crop.

"unless you get D1 top 200 guys, you can't compete" in D3.

WTH world are you talking about?

The Top 200 D1 players is an overstatement, but the valid point is that is unlikely ANYONE can win a title in D3 if you just recruit D3 players.

D1 players are too available to D3 teams in 3.0.

Newbies, and returnees, have little chance of figuring this out in a season or two.

The real problem IMO with D3 is not recruiting but scouting. Smaller budget AND you have to scout three levels. So your recruit pool is not going to have that many D1 players that fit for you, compared to D2 teams.

I disagree about D1 being way too available for D3 teams. Recruits not even considering signing them until the last 24 hours is a hideous disadvantage.

Keep the divisions separate D-1, D-2, D-3 when recruiting. Give all 3 divisions the same scouting/ recruiting budget as D-1. Let all 3 divisions sign players on the same timeline as D-1, therefore it's not so boring for D-2 and D-3.

If you don't like recruiting at D3, move up. If you don't like recruiting at D2, move up. Simple as can be.

"D3 players are only pointless in relatively empty worlds"

Uh... this all of them.

Posted by phalla on 12/22/2017 12:39:00 AM (view original):
The Top 200 D1 players is an overstatement, but the valid point is that is unlikely ANYONE can win a title in D3 if you just recruit D3 players.

D1 players are too available to D3 teams in 3.0.

Newbies, and returnees, have little chance of figuring this out in a season or two.

Bingo.

I'm not sure if he's still doing it but TJ ran an experiment of just getting D3 players. I think he might have gotten to the S16 once but the other seasons were unremarkable and much less successful than his other D3 teams.

And yeah you don't need top 200 D1 but you need at least D2.

"I'm starting to miss the old 2.0 format and especially being able to recruit D3 players. Why did they make them so point less?"

I agree, its a head scratcher. No idea why Seble chose to do this but I think it was a HUGE mistake.

I'd prefer no prospect divisions. Just players. With current budget construction, D3 would essentially be a local recruiting, D2 would be regional and D1 would be national. Which, I assume, pretty much mirrors the real world.

Damn, there's D3 players to be had?

Good luck competing with D3 only players when there are teams like this running around.

Sorry, to clarify I meant TOP 200 per position. And damn, that team is good.

Reason I like D3 and maybe D2 is that there is a wide gap in talent and top guys aren't maxed out at 100 in their core attributes.

Posted by Benis on 12/22/2017 6:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by phalla on 12/22/2017 12:39:00 AM (view original):
The Top 200 D1 players is an overstatement, but the valid point is that is unlikely ANYONE can win a title in D3 if you just recruit D3 players.

D1 players are too available to D3 teams in 3.0.

Newbies, and returnees, have little chance of figuring this out in a season or two.

Bingo.

I'm not sure if he's still doing it but TJ ran an experiment of just getting D3 players. I think he might have gotten to the S16 once but the other seasons were unremarkable and much less successful than his other D3 teams.

And yeah you don't need top 200 D1 but you need at least D2.

Still doing it....my team this year may get past the S16.