In 2.0, there were a number of recruits who would refuse my home and/or campus visits because I was C prestige mid-major. It happened to me on numerous recruits when I was at Tulane. In 3.0, even recruits in the top 100 who want success accept visits from anyone regardless of prestige.

Why did this change?

IMO, some recruits should reject AP. Maybe if they have 2 VB or 1 B, 1 VB preference. Or a top 100 player with D2/D3 calling. Even expand it to top 200/300 respectively.

I agree. Every player accepts effort now. Reverting back in that one small area would close a big loophole!

I agree, but I'm curious as to where everyone would want that line drawn. Would this affect D3s going after D1 players? I think it'd be really interesting if the only way D3/D2 teams could even assign AP to D1 guys is if they had ++ preferences.

Posted by mbriese on 2/21/2017 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I agree, but I'm curious as to where everyone would want that line drawn. Would this affect D3s going after D1 players? I think it'd be really interesting if the only way D3/D2 teams could even assign AP to D1 guys is if they had ++ preferences.

I agree with this change, but I might go farther -- if you're an A+ DI team, and the player has a "wants rebuild" preference, what about having that recruit reject recruiting effort? I think a major problem with recruiting is that certain preferences don't have enough teeth -- I think that it should be very difficult (if not impossible) to get a "wants to play" recruit without offering minutes (or if another player offers a start, also offering a start), or if the recruit has a "far from home" preference to get him if you're nearby. For the recruit that "wants a rebuild," maybe invert prestige, so that a D- team is treated like an A+, and vice versa.

Seems if you did this, you could also cut down on the "dice roll" issue, or at least limit it.

As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

Yeah, we know. But you haven't explained how that makes the game better.

Posted by zorzii on 2/21/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):
As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

And, again, I'll ask you to identify the D1 projected players on my team. IF you get it right, and I don't think that's a gimme, tell me if you'd have them on your D1 team.

Posted by zorzii on 2/21/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):
As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

zorzii I would agree to this IF the rankings were actually realistic. Unfortunately, they are not. There are recruits in the top 200 with Ath or Def ratings in the 30's that are orange or red. There are many recruits that are labeled as D1 that I would not take as back-ups on my D3 teams.

I don't see a good answer here. We want new D3 coaches to stick around. In this new system they are getting blown out much worse than in 2.0 as the good coaches have teams in D3 that are much stronger than the good teams of old in 2.0.

I could easily come up with a list of fixes that would solve every issue in 10 minutes.

Problem is, WIS doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

Posted by bofreedom on 2/21/2017 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/21/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):
As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

zorzii I would agree to this IF the rankings were actually realistic. Unfortunately, they are not. There are recruits in the top 200 with Ath or Def ratings in the 30's that are orange or red. There are many recruits that are labeled as D1 that I would not take as back-ups on my D3 teams.

I don't see a good answer here. We want new D3 coaches to stick around. In this new system they are getting blown out much worse than in 2.0 as the good coaches have teams in D3 that are much stronger than the good teams of old in 2.0.

The "good" answer is to not allow users to plant themselves in D3. I think it was designed to be a "training ground" for eventual upward movement. 1st problem is that a lot of people would not accept that. If you bring a user in, you probably would like him to be in your conference. 2nd problem is aliases. If users were "forced" to move to D2 after x-number of seasons or certain levels of success, many would just create a new username to take their old team. 3rd problem is WifS probably doesn't need to inconvenience users in this time of changing of the guard.

Posted by zorzii on 2/21/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):
As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

+1

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bofreedom on 2/21/2017 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/21/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):
As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

zorzii I would agree to this IF the rankings were actually realistic. Unfortunately, they are not. There are recruits in the top 200 with Ath or Def ratings in the 30's that are orange or red. There are many recruits that are labeled as D1 that I would not take as back-ups on my D3 teams.

I don't see a good answer here. We want new D3 coaches to stick around. In this new system they are getting blown out much worse than in 2.0 as the good coaches have teams in D3 that are much stronger than the good teams of old in 2.0.

The "good" answer is to not allow users to plant themselves in D3. I think it was designed to be a "training ground" for eventual upward movement. 1st problem is that a lot of people would not accept that. If you bring a user in, you probably would like him to be in your conference. 2nd problem is aliases. If users were "forced" to move to D2 after x-number of seasons or certain levels of success, many would just create a new username to take their old team. 3rd problem is WifS probably doesn't need to inconvenience users in this time of changing of the guard.

D3 was a "fun place" to hang out in 2.0. Everybody had about the same starting point of not so good players, and you could play for the fun of it!

I am in two D3 Worlds, and in order to win now you MUST game the system for the most part. Some Coaches have figured out that D1 is the way to recruit, and I find it a little less "fun".

Posted by wvufan76 on 2/21/2017 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bofreedom on 2/21/2017 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/21/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):
As I said, cap D3 to D2, D3 only.

Cap D2 to D2 and D1 (except top 200, unreachable)

And it's done.

zorzii I would agree to this IF the rankings were actually realistic. Unfortunately, they are not. There are recruits in the top 200 with Ath or Def ratings in the 30's that are orange or red. There are many recruits that are labeled as D1 that I would not take as back-ups on my D3 teams.

I don't see a good answer here. We want new D3 coaches to stick around. In this new system they are getting blown out much worse than in 2.0 as the good coaches have teams in D3 that are much stronger than the good teams of old in 2.0.

The "good" answer is to not allow users to plant themselves in D3. I think it was designed to be a "training ground" for eventual upward movement. 1st problem is that a lot of people would not accept that. If you bring a user in, you probably would like him to be in your conference. 2nd problem is aliases. If users were "forced" to move to D2 after x-number of seasons or certain levels of success, many would just create a new username to take their old team. 3rd problem is WifS probably doesn't need to inconvenience users in this time of changing of the guard.

D3 was a "fun place" to hang out in 2.0. Everybody had about the same starting point of not so good players, and you could play for the fun of it!

I am in two D3 Worlds, and in order to win now you MUST game the system for the most part. Some Coaches have figured out that D1 is the way to recruit, and I find it a little less "fun".

I have to believe that this negatively impacts the retention of new users. Going after D1 players is just not intuitive for a new coach in D3. Every recruiting action defaults to your current level.

Also, as the best teams in D3 and D2 get progressively better due to signing D1 recruits it becomes even harder for new players to compete. I'm not saying that it should be too easy, but it should definitely be more intuitive.

Ratings are NOT a secret. If you want to know how to compete with the top teams, you look at their rosters. If you can't find those types in D3, you have to know to look elsewhere. Camps offer D1/D2 or D2/D3. And D3 schools can click that D1/D2 camp with no restriction. While it may not be intuitive, it is not restrictive either. Sometimes you gotta think it out. Even n00bs.