I like the idea of changing it but I do not think it has to be all or nothing.
I would like to see them keep 5 of the 11 worlds the same and make 1 world a new player world.
The other 5 could implement changes like this.

I’ll not vote but it would be okay if they added a new world or 2 with new stuff and so you have option of sticking with original or going with new. I know the new kids on block will definitely say go new and lots of older players would say no especially ones with multiple elite teams. I’d go for both but if I have to choose one probably go with new.
Starting out I think only minor changes best and don’t mess much with recruiting. If that gets effed up I’m done.

I'm in. I like the idea . Total Reboot with upgrades. Every coach would have to take a crap team and turn it into a winner.
I "Especially" like the idea of Expanded Playbooks. Right now if you have multiple teams with different formations(and this is due not to choice but what the team you inherited was practicing) and each team has a mostly passing, mostly running and a balanced playbook then you quickly use up the allowed custom playbooks.
Good Challenge . Bring it on !

Posted by wdfox on 11/29/2020 1:26:00 PM (view original):
I like the idea of changing it but I do not think it has to be all or nothing.
I would like to see them keep 5 of the 11 worlds the same and make 1 world a new player world.
The other 5 could implement changes like this.

Yes, give us option of choosing. Some of us and more likely a lot would do both versions.

GD definitely needs to be updated. Animated replays on the play by play would be awesome.

Don't forget the smartphone app

A total reboot is unnecessary and not fair if you're taking teams away. Substantial compensation for that would be necessary. If you allowed coaches to keep teams, even if you reset rosters, that would be much more acceptable.
Conference re-alignment would be good. Also revamping elites for modern times (Tennessee? Nebraska? No Clemson?) and scaling back the gap elites have in recruiting. Not erase it, but where they can't get recruits yellow with a phone call or assistant scout. Also, if you do conference re-alignment, give coaches who would lose an elite or D1 school a choice for a new school (Like DePaul or Marquette in Big East or Air Force in Pac 12 for example) with a couple free seasons.
If injuries are put back in expanded rosters would be a necessity for more depth. Also more redshirts would be good.
Other stuff sounds fine too.
I think there could be opportunities to make recruiting better. Limited in season scouting and recruiting. Separate budgets for in-season and off-season recruiting. Say 12 open scholarships is 180k plus bowl money in D1. Keep that for off-season but have maybe 5k per scholarship (no bowl money yet) in-season. (3k in D1AA, 2k in D2, and 1k in D3).

One thing I think needs addressed is formation IQ being so vital. The way it is freshman qb's are completely worthless which is not realistic. IQ should be a factor but not so drastic. Also if you want to compete at all the first few seasons with a new team you basically have to run a formation the previous coach or sim ran.

Re. injuries. Putting injuries back in is doing nothing more than adding a factor of randomness. Good coaches should want game results to follow from skilled play, not added randomness. Crappy coaches should welcome injuries as a chance to get the random luck they need when they don't have coaching skills.

Re. expanded rosters. Great for the top teams, not so much for everyone else. The top teams already skim off the top players, especially in D2 and D3 with the added help of vision. So, expanded rosters, more top recruits on the top teams. Good for those coaches, bad for everyone else. Bad for competitiveness and parity.

Re. animated play results. You mean like moving comic strips? Swellllllll.

Re. Conference Re-Alignment, Individualized Practice Plans, scrimmages. Could be okay.

If WIS figures out an equitable way to reduce the number of worlds by a few, now THERE would be an improvement.

Posted by l80r20 on 12/1/2020 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Re. injuries. Putting injuries back in is doing nothing more than adding a factor of randomness. Good coaches should want game results to follow from skilled play, not added randomness. Crappy coaches should welcome injuries as a chance to get the random luck they need when they don't have coaching skills.

Re. expanded rosters. Great for the top teams, not so much for everyone else. The top teams already skim off the top players, especially in D2 and D3 with the added help of vision. So, expanded rosters, more top recruits on the top teams. Good for those coaches, bad for everyone else. Bad for competitiveness and parity.

Re. animated play results. You mean like moving comic strips? Swellllllll.

Re. Conference Re-Alignment, Individualized Practice Plans, scrimmages. Could be okay.

If WIS figures out an equitable way to reduce the number of worlds by a few, now THERE would be an improvement.

Well said. Except maybe killing worlds....all except the ones I’m in is okay...lol...

Quick ?....

What does Indy practice plans look like? Per player?

Re. injuries. Putting injuries back in is doing nothing more than adding a factor of randomness. Good coaches should want game results to follow from skilled play, not added randomness. Crappy coaches should welcome injuries as a chance to get the random luck they need when they don't have coaching skills. Injuries are part of the real-life game this is supposed to simulate. Good coaches would evaluate available risk factors (DUR rating) and plan accordingly with backups and avoiding high-risk players. I wouldn't implement injuries without larger rosters to allow for potential mitigation.

Re. expanded rosters. Great for the top teams, not so much for everyone else. The top teams already skim off the top players, especially in D2 and D3 with the added help of vision. So, expanded rosters, more top recruits on the top teams. Good for those coaches, bad for everyone else. Bad for competitiveness and parity. Expanded rosters would probably need a modification to the recruit generation subroutines, so that more players would be available in the mid- to mid-upper range. But, I wouldn't expand rosters without implementing injuries. Just having more players

Re. animated play results. You mean like moving comic strips? Swellllllll. I mean something like this (I hope this link works).
https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=3033651&pbp_id=301696

Re. Conference Re-Alignment, Individualized Practice Plans, scrimmages. Could be okay.

If WIS figures out an equitable way to reduce the number of worlds by a few, now THERE would be an improvement. The goal should be reducing the number of SimAI's by increasing the number of players, not contracting the existing pools. However, I have an idea of how contraction could be pulled off. Historically, free seasons only provide temporary spikes of newcomers, with an overwhelming majority of them abandoning their team, largely due to the steep learning curve.

For holdaway : Individual Practice plans would be per player. Say you have an OL that has high STR but low block, you could have that guy concentrate on blocking drills, where an opposite player (low STR, high BLK) would spend more time lifting weights.

Posted by bhazlewood on 12/1/2020 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Re. injuries. Putting injuries back in is doing nothing more than adding a factor of randomness. Good coaches should want game results to follow from skilled play, not added randomness. Crappy coaches should welcome injuries as a chance to get the random luck they need when they don't have coaching skills. Injuries are part of the real-life game this is supposed to simulate. Good coaches would evaluate available risk factors (DUR rating) and plan accordingly with backups and avoiding high-risk players. I wouldn't implement injuries without larger rosters to allow for potential mitigation.

Re. expanded rosters. Great for the top teams, not so much for everyone else. The top teams already skim off the top players, especially in D2 and D3 with the added help of vision. So, expanded rosters, more top recruits on the top teams. Good for those coaches, bad for everyone else. Bad for competitiveness and parity. Expanded rosters would probably need a modification to the recruit generation subroutines, so that more players would be available in the mid- to mid-upper range. But, I wouldn't expand rosters without implementing injuries. Just having more players

Re. animated play results. You mean like moving comic strips? Swellllllll. I mean something like this (I hope this link works).
https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=3033651&pbp_id=301696

Re. Conference Re-Alignment, Individualized Practice Plans, scrimmages. Could be okay.

If WIS figures out an equitable way to reduce the number of worlds by a few, now THERE would be an improvement. The goal should be reducing the number of SimAI's by increasing the number of players, not contracting the existing pools. However, I have an idea of how contraction could be pulled off. Historically, free seasons only provide temporary spikes of newcomers, with an overwhelming majority of them abandoning their team, largely due to the steep learning curve.

For holdaway : Individual Practice plans would be per player. Say you have an OL that has high STR but low block, you could have that guy concentrate on blocking drills, where an opposite player (low STR, high BLK) would spend more time lifting weights.

Thanks bhazelwood, I thought that was the idea, but wanted to make sure. I like the idea but it is a logistical, book keeping nightmare that I see sucking more of my life into this screen. But I do like it.

I am with you on injuries. I remember playing when we had them, it could really screw you over if it hit the wrong position group. For example, you carry only a Kicker....ouch. Or, you only have two QB’s....etc. It did add an extra layer to recruiting though as well as roster mgmt. Just to have either is not really useful imho, they would need to work together.

I like the expanded pool at certain tiers because I many times wish to be able to move scholarship distribution around but it is a long process. Maybe we could use recruiting budget to “buy” an extra scholarship? I am sure that is a crazy idea.

Thank you again for clarification.