I think you'd come close just because of the potential for a race to the top scenario and the allure for folks to experience what the game is like in a full/near-full world. Even though my personal view is that 3.0 would be a complete, unmitigated disaster in a full/near-full world, I would definitely grab a team just for the sake of riding along for whatever happens and because I'm a competitive SOB and would see it as a grand challenge.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I voted no. There are so many BCS school openings now there is no need to have a new race to the top. If the new world was a 2.0 world, that would be different. Hell, I would buy multiple 10 packs to see a 1.0 world created.

I would also commit a 10 pack to play 1.0 HD in a new world.

well, to be clear, my response, "not in a million years," reflects my vote on the questiona asked, not my interest. i don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of completely filling D3 in a new world given WIS's lack of effective promotion and...i mean...are there even more current coaches than there are D3 teams? so i don't think it would happen. but i would join it if they made it.

I think a lot of people would join. Probably have to shut down the forum so the Negative Nellies wouldn't kill it but nobody would miss this forum for a few weeks.

And, yes, there are more users than D3 openings. 10 worlds, around 300 each, 3000 schools taken. No way does the average user have 8 teams. My guess is there are 600+ users.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 5/1/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I voted no. There are so many BCS school openings now there is no need to have a new race to the top. If the new world was a 2.0 world, that would be different. Hell, I would buy multiple 10 packs to see a 1.0 world created.

I would also commit a 10 pack to play 1.0 HD in a new world.

Amen, brother. 1.0 allowed so much creativity in roster building...virtually any recruit could be turned into some sort of asset. For me, it was the best HD version for DIII, hands down.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 5/1/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I voted no. There are so many BCS school openings now there is no need to have a new race to the top. If the new world was a 2.0 world, that would be different. Hell, I would buy multiple 10 packs to see a 1.0 world created.

I would also commit a 10 pack to play 1.0 HD in a new world.

Amen, brother. 1.0 allowed so much creativity in roster building...virtually any recruit could be turned into some sort of asset. For me, it was the best HD version for DIII, hands down.

Completely agree. Potential is ok in it's own right, but all this ******** about people having the built in advantage would die a bit as you could turn any player (with respectable WE) into a good player.

If hiring ever gets fixed so it doesn't take 2 years to get to a Big 6 job, I think the answer is probably yes. But that isn't an option, so I'm not going to vote.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 5/1/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I voted no. There are so many BCS school openings now there is no need to have a new race to the top. If the new world was a 2.0 world, that would be different. Hell, I would buy multiple 10 packs to see a 1.0 world created.

I would also commit a 10 pack to play 1.0 HD in a new world.

1.0, pre discipline. I would send booster gifts up the ying yang.

Posted by beachhouse on 5/1/2017 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 5/1/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I voted no. There are so many BCS school openings now there is no need to have a new race to the top. If the new world was a 2.0 world, that would be different. Hell, I would buy multiple 10 packs to see a 1.0 world created.

I would also commit a 10 pack to play 1.0 HD in a new world.

1.0, pre discipline. I would send booster gifts up the ying yang.

I'm not sure I would implement all aspects of 1.0. I wouldn't want to see the re-introduction of 12-man superclasses and the like...but the idea of attribute growth being based on practice plan strategy (and WE) rather than capped by potential would get my undying support. Although, I would drop the occasional throwback jersey and stereo on a recruit just for fun.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Well, one of the reasons for the question was, and maybe I have the details wrong, many veteran coaches asked for a world of their own when HD was changing to 3.0. Maybe they just wanted a 2.0 world. Can't recall.

I don't think ALL would fill but, given a month, I wouldn't be surprised if 250ish spots could be taken. Users in different worlds, who would like to compete with one another on even footing, would be afforded that opportunity. Nothing motivates sim users like "new". And, of course, you have the whole bragging rights thing. If the guy dominating Smith thinks he's the best and the Rupp, Iba guys think the same thing, there's their chance to prove it.

Yeah, you remember it right. Much of the conversation was rearward-looking, yearning for 2.0 and, as you see in this thread, even 1.0.

Although that new world would be exciting, it would be a further drain on the existing worlds, a net negative for the website.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 10:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 5/1/2017 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 5/1/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I voted no. There are so many BCS school openings now there is no need to have a new race to the top. If the new world was a 2.0 world, that would be different. Hell, I would buy multiple 10 packs to see a 1.0 world created.

I would also commit a 10 pack to play 1.0 HD in a new world.

1.0, pre discipline. I would send booster gifts up the ying yang.

I'm not sure I would implement all aspects of 1.0. I wouldn't want to see the re-introduction of 12-man superclasses and the like...but the idea of attribute growth being based on practice plan strategy (and WE) rather than capped by potential would get my undying support. Although, I would drop the occasional throwback jersey and stereo on a recruit just for fun.

If anything they should let us just open up some private worlds if the worlds are this empty anyway. Let 100 of us play in a 1.0 HD world, only makes them money.

I said no, but the average world has what, about 270 users? If you start them all in D3 that's a pretty good start right there. And with the oft-mentioned opportunity to establish a new dynasty and/or chase the elite schools, I think you'd get to at least 80%. I don't think you'd have to advertise or do anything to get 300+. I think 300+ would be a gimme. You'd lose a lot in 4-5 seasons, though. As soon as they were off pace to win the race to Duke or UNC, some of the coaches would be out.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/2/2017 12:36:00 AM (view original):
I said no, but the average world has what, about 270 users? If you start them all in D3 that's a pretty good start right there. And with the oft-mentioned opportunity to establish a new dynasty and/or chase the elite schools, I think you'd get to at least 80%. I don't think you'd have to advertise or do anything to get 300+. I think 300+ would be a gimme. You'd lose a lot in 4-5 seasons, though. As soon as they were off pace to win the race to Duke or UNC, some of the coaches would be out.

Why not restart Crum altogether? Isn't CRUM the emptiest?

No one wants to give up their team.

Posted by zorzii on 5/2/2017 8:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/2/2017 12:36:00 AM (view original):
I said no, but the average world has what, about 270 users? If you start them all in D3 that's a pretty good start right there. And with the oft-mentioned opportunity to establish a new dynasty and/or chase the elite schools, I think you'd get to at least 80%. I don't think you'd have to advertise or do anything to get 300+. I think 300+ would be a gimme. You'd lose a lot in 4-5 seasons, though. As soon as they were off pace to win the race to Duke or UNC, some of the coaches would be out.

Why not restart Crum altogether? Isn't CRUM the emptiest?

That would not make those users very happy and would cause many of them to drop their teams.