Quote: Originally Posted By csherwood on 10/04/2006

I started on HD, but am now totally hooked on HBD. In my opinion, it blows HD out of the water in terms of the depth and quality of the game. HD is still fun though, and I am looking forward to the upgrades that Admin has promised. Once those go in, especially if ready by the time college hoops starts taking center stage in the national sports scene, I think HD will flourish. I do enjoy my 2 HD teams, just not as much as my 4 HBDs.

EDIT: Of course, it helps that I totally suck at HD and have had a lot of success over at HBD.

Quote: Originally Posted By stevegamer on 10/04/2006

Quote: Originally Posted By cappelgp on 9/02/2006

Is GD seeing similar trends?

GD has less of a problem attracting players, I think. D3 is much more full than D3 in HD seems to be. It's D2 and above that have issues with amount of humans. In GD I made the leap last season, and my old team's new coach is doing a gerat job - #1 in the nation at D3.

This is my first year of HD, and we'll see whether I return. I haven't decided either way yet.

Additionally, I think that Tark is the inverse of what WiS needs to do. They don't need worlds that are speeded up, they need a world that is slowed down, so they can keep the guys who have time crunches.

They obviously didn't see this coming, but I think Tark was one of the worst things that's happened to HD. Most people that joined only did so in order to race to DI (nothing wrong with that), insuring that DIII (and, in time, DII) would basically become ghost towns.

And since Tark is twice as time consuming, a lot of Tark coaches dropped other teams once they joined (particularly less successful ones that are less attractive for new coaches to pick up).

Your general premise (in the overall post) was that WIS should ease the requirements for low-level DI coaches to move up to mid-major. Plenty of the exposition on the increased difficulty for success at that level was clearly correct, and I can easily see where the above situation is irksome.

Your argument is that it's not a level playing field. That it's not fair. But instead of asserting that the standards should be relaxed for yourself and others in similar situations, the more convincing argument is that the promotion logic should MAKE it fair.

Considering the hypothetical above, I think the more convincing argument is that DII coaches shouldn't be able to leapfrog over low level and straight into mid-level. That could be persuasive, and if every single coach who progresses BEYOND a low level DI school had to do it by gaining success IN low level DI, that strikes me as having a very leveling effect.

Similarly in the other bloated thread complaining about promotion logic, there was a guy who was stuck at low level DI for a long, long time. He had made the tournament twice (by virtue of CT victory) but had never won an NT game in DI. Ever.

He argued that the standards should be scaled back to allow the coaches with an "above average" resume like his to advance and throw out any requirements for tournament success.

That didn't strike me as valid. I don't think it's at all out of line for a team to expect its new coach to have a history of winning tournament games. But what he said that I DID view as valid was the complaint that coaches would hop to a loaded team, make a good run in one year, and get promoted by virtue of that one run while the rest of their recent resume was crapola.

Once again, it seems that the problem should not be with demanding criterion to get out of low level DI become more pussified, but the problem is more with standards that are too loose for those who chose that particular path of least resistance.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I want the game to be fair, but I don't want it to be "easy".