This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/11/2010
Furry, it's largely because you weren't around when it happened, so you don't understand the furor.

People were very upset because they felt as though the rug was pulled out from under them, and it was basically a declaration of war against WIS's most loyal customers. People were ******.

At this juncture, the more important point is that restoring rewards points would greatly help rescucitate DIII. The other part isn't even worth debating. But if it has the ability to help restore the lower levels, it's a good idea, period.

this cannot be emphasized enough. the experience for new coaches is absolutly dull. we need new blood, which is done through advertising. but the coaches we are getting, we need to keep. and sticking them in an empty conference to compete against simai is just not going to keep them around.

Oh for crying out loud, dalter, I'm not making the differances up in my head and you are aware if that. I'm not citing any WIS rational, nor did I ever claim to be. I'm saying why I believe that the rewards should be tiered. That is a seperate issue to why WIS changed the rewards system. If you want to tell us how the divisions are actually equal, I'd welcome that discussion. Are there good coaches at all levels, yes. Are they the same challenge? No. And that takes nothing away from those coaches, it just says that they don't play the same game and shouldn't expect the same rewards.

As far as the WIS line on why the change was made, if you want to take that as gospel, I don't know what to say. You were around and you heard the same things I did. We all know that they weren't about to come out and say they didn't want as many coaches as there were to pay for free (sorry z, but there were enough testimonials then and now to say that there were), and the reasons given WERE part of the rational, but to say that they were the only factor is honestly niave or just argumentative.

Just for the record, I never said that those divisions were not competitive, but any quick glance at a lower division (with a very few exceptions) shows you that it is a smaller group of highly motivated coaches who have extreme competition amongst themselves as compared to a much wider sample of full confrences and long term coaches at D1. Does that make it less of a challenge for them to maintain, no, but it isn't the same challenge as D1 and that should be acknowledged instead of dismissed.

Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 2/11/2010Yeah, I wasn't here. I have accepted the way it works and have no problem with it. The problem is, even if rewards were put back the same 20 teams who are always dominating now would still hog up the reward points. The users that are not me, you, or, gil, lost, rails etc who joined up would still be paying to play and wouldn't notice a difference. The "full" rewards for them wouldn't mean much because they wouldn't get out of the 2nd round if all of us signed up there. So while it helps about 3% of the users get extra free teams, I don't see it helping overall. Coaches get frustrated and go to a weaker world, leave, or move up.

misconception. most worlds, if you're a decent coach you'll make the S16 no prob. with worlds that are more full, getting out of the first round is a chore.

join up in wooden DIII furry, see if you can even come close to averaging E8 appearances

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/11/2010
Furry, it's largely because you weren't around when it happened, so you don't understand the furor.

People were very upset because they felt as though the rug was pulled out from under them, and it was basically a declaration of war against WIS's most loyal customers. People were ******.

At this juncture, the more important point is that restoring rewards points would greatly help rescucitate DIII. The other part isn't even worth debating. But if it has the ability to help restore the lower levels, it's a good idea, period.

We agree, in part here, I do think that what VD was saying makes the most sense, making the lower division rewards 1/2 of D1 would answer both issues. Successful coaches can still get free seasons at lower divisions, they just can't finance all their teams without continued deep runs by all of them, just like D1. You have to agree that the NT is pretty much the same people in lower divisions, so money is an issue in regards to any idea WIS would agree to. And getting new people to stay IS important (although I still say that as many will be turned off that they can't coach at their D1 target for many years well before they get miffed about rewards).

What would most rescusitate D3 is to mandate the same 4 years as the other divisions. Having to only play one season, regardless of success, not only hastens the exodus from D3, but breeds some frustration for new coaches who don't know the game well enough to compete at the higher levels. That and you'll have some who like their D3 schools and want to stay there.

I just don't think rewards is any answer to keeping new people since they won't logically earn enough points to get a free team, even with the old system. Not in the first couple of seasons at any rate. Rewards points are a veteran issue.

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 2/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 2/11/2010
Yeah, I wasn't here. I have accepted the way it works and have no problem with it. The problem is, even if rewards were put back the same 20 teams who are always dominating now would still hog up the reward points. The users that are not me, you, or, gil, lost, rails etc who joined up would still be paying to play and wouldn't notice a difference. The "full" rewards for them wouldn't mean much because they wouldn't get out of the 2nd round if all of us signed up there. So while it helps about 3% of the users get extra free teams, I don't see it helping overall. Coaches get frustrated and go to a weaker world, leave, or move up.

misconception. most worlds, if you're a decent coach you'll make the S16 no prob. with worlds that are more full, getting out of the first round is a chore.

join up in wooden DIII furry, see if you can even come close to averaging E8 appearances

If you are decent coach kinda reinforces what furry was saying, as does your Wooden observation. A new coach WON'T be ready to be a "decent" coach right off the bat and they certainly wouldn't have a great experience in Wooden... Increasing rewards wouldn't change that; they aren't going to magically run deep into the tourney to earn the rewards that quickly.

That's not to say I don't think the rewards for lower divisions shouldn't be increased, just that I don't see that it as something that will cause an influx in new coaches.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 2/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 2/11/2010
Yeah, I wasn't here. I have accepted the way it works and have no problem with it. The problem is, even if rewards were put back the same 20 teams who are always dominating now would still hog up the reward points. The users that are not me, you, or, gil, lost, rails etc who joined up would still be paying to play and wouldn't notice a difference. The "full" rewards for them wouldn't mean much because they wouldn't get out of the 2nd round if all of us signed up there. So while it helps about 3% of the users get extra free teams, I don't see it helping overall. Coaches get frustrated and go to a weaker world, leave, or move up.

misconception. most worlds, if you're a decent coach you'll make the S16 no prob. with worlds that are more full, getting out of the first round is a chore.

join up in wooden DIII furry, see if you can even come close to averaging E8 appearances

If you are decent coach kinda reinforces what furry was saying, as does your Wooden observation. A new coach WON'T be ready to be a "decent" coach right off the bat and they certainly wouldn't have a great experience in Wooden... Increasing rewards wouldn't change that; they aren't going to magically run deep into the tourney to earn the rewards that quickly.

That's not to say I don't think the rewards for lower divisions shouldn't be increased, just that I don't see that it as something that will cause an influx in new coaches.

I can tell you that I know multiple coaches who have stayed in Wooden D3 simply because of the activity and "friendships" built there. I know people that don't like the rewards, don't like potential at D3, but stay because of the conference they are in. It's about more than the rewards, it's about getting people in the conferences.

Young coaches learn the game faster if being taught by experienced conferencemates. If rewards are driving vets away from lower divisions, then it is also negatively affecting the enjoyment that new coaches have at those levels.

Quote: Originally posted by doomey on 2/11/2010As far as the WIS line on why the change was made, if you want to take that as gospel, I don't know what to say. You were around and you heard the same things I did. We all know that they weren't about to come out and say they didn't want as many coaches as there were to pay for free (sorry z, but there were enough testimonials then and now to say that there were), and the reasons given WERE part of the rational, but to say that they were the only factor is honestly niave or just argumentative.

If you continue to believe that there are so many coaches playing for free then there is no point in having this discussion with you any longer. It just doesn't exist. If you can maintain the level of success that is required to play for free then props to you but it just does not happen on a regular basis. If you can't understand that then I am done here.

z, do you just ignore those who have repeatedly stated it happened out of conveniece? That they themseves say did so? That the forum was filled with that very topic at the time? And it isn't ARE it's WERE. Was it "so many"? No. Was it enough to make an impact? Yes. Those rewards weren't very well spead out and still aren't as compared to D1. It was also an incentive (negative) to have poeple move up so that newer coaches COULD get them before being thrown to the D1 wolves. I mean really, all you have to do is listen to the coaches that quit or pared down BECAUSE the rewards were cut down and you can see the truth in the statement. You are a smart guy, but sometimes you just are wrong.

isack, nobody is saying that people don't stay for community and that that isn't a good aspect, as is any guidance given, but implying that we should give the D3 vets reward incentives to stay is kind of a slap in the face to the other division coaches. If you think coaches aren't still guiding at D1, I can tell you differantly. There is as much burn out there as D3, but they are ones who whated to give the game more than a one season shot. I can think of other reasons to give higher rewards, but that isn't one of them.

I guess I am done here then. It just doesn't happen. A very very few coaches, possibly, but barely anyone plays for free. Props to lost for being able to do so but it just doesn't happen.

Enjoy the debate gentlemen I am out.

I don't have a problem with free seasons, but I don't like the idea of a free new team. Part of the reason it was dropped was because coaches were signing up for free teams and using all the recruiting money to scout for their "real team".

Before they ended the free introductory season, I counted 61 teams in Iba DIII that 1) had a new coach; and 2) didn't sign any recruits. I don't want to see that happen again

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/11/2010I guess I am done here then. It just doesn't happen. A very very few coaches, possibly, but barely anyone plays for free. Props to lost for being able to do so but it just doesn't happen.

Enjoy the debate gentlemen I am out

Seriously, z, listen to what is being said. Nobody is saying it happens NOW, it did happen and that is a fact. People can tell you they did it. Do you not believe them?

I'm trying really hard to figure out why any coach would want to limit rewards points for other coaches. If WIS comes out and says they don't want to do it because of x, y or z, that's their prerogative and they will live with the consequences, for better or for worse.

But why someone would be arguing strenuously to limit rewards points for their fellow coaches is completely beyond me.

And that's all besides the fact that restoring rewards points would dramatically improve the overall health of HD at the lower levels.

So, in short: Good for coaches in general. Good for the game as a whole.

when were reward points taken away? i would like to look at how it affected the population in each division over time. and does anybody know how many days there are to a season in 1 a day and 2 a day worlds?

To the first question - You can't really look. When I started (after reward points) the worlds were pretty full from what I remember. My conf was week and had only 4-6 coaches for a while. When FreeHD came every world was always full.


The second - Regular season for 2 a day world is 14 days. This doesn't include CT,NT. Regular seasons for 1 a day world is exactly 30 days. This again does not include CT/NT.