Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 6:13:00 PM (view original):
No one likes this but here's what HAS to happen because, when there's a battle, a USER loses:

Some players will not drop down. They WILL not accept AP from lowel level schools. It doesn't have to be every player. It doesn't have to be a player at x-overall. But you can't let a user dump resources into a player at a higher level who will simply bail if a projected level school comes calling.

IOW, D1 player says "No thanks, I'll not play at your crap D2 school. I'd rather serve burgers at McDonalds, *****."

Two things happen:
1. D2 user does not waste resources on a guy who'll jump ship immediately if a D1 school shows up.
2. D1 user sees player considering a D2 school. D1 user knows he might lose on the next cycle and moves on.

Why would anyone disagree with this?

Mike,

The problem with #1 is that it puts us right back where we started. They opened up divisions for a reason, not necessarily that I agree with it, but there were already recruits that would not be recruited by lower levels, and others that would.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2016 6:13:00 PM (view original):
No one likes this but here's what HAS to happen because, when there's a battle, a USER loses:

Some players will not drop down. They WILL not accept AP from lowel level schools. It doesn't have to be every player. It doesn't have to be a player at x-overall. But you can't let a user dump resources into a player at a higher level who will simply bail if a projected level school comes calling.

IOW, D1 player says "No thanks, I'll not play at your crap D2 school. I'd rather serve burgers at McDonalds, *****."

Two things happen:
1. D2 user does not waste resources on a guy who'll jump ship immediately if a D1 school shows up.
2. D1 user sees player considering a D2 school. D1 user knows he might lose on the next cycle and moves on.

Why would anyone disagree with this?

This solves your problem.

Not one user has said "This isn't bad" yet every D1 that loses to a D2 tells their sob story. You CANNOT let a D2 user dump tons of resources into a recruit then let a D1 poach him after a couple of cycles.

Realism or not, you're just transferring a problem from one user to another if you allow that to happen. D2 or D3 users pay the same $$$ to WifS as D1 users.

Business, bros.

Mike : Sometimes, you get on a player after losing a vh to vh roll. You could not move ap because of what was at stake and money will be short after this all-in. Before, there was a cap for this so d2 team could not pour money into these because they would not sign anyways.

Posted by zorzii on 12/16/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):
It needs to be changed. If I show at PSU on a one star project, offered him a start and minutes, why would he sign with a D2 team. When a d2 team goes for a player like this, it's high risk, high reward, so if we challenge, too bad.

+1
High risk, high reward should be the statement I used. That is how lower classes recruiting D1 projected guys should be.

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/16/2016 9:45:00 PM (view original):
OK - Here is an example of why I agree. With my A+ prestige UConn team, I had one opening in the first cycle and signed a player, while building credit on two more late players. However, I had 4 EEs. So, in the first cycle of the second period I went all in with 80 AP to unlock another player (Bradley Jennings, the #140 PF) that was only being recruited by D2 St. Michael's. I unlocked him, and unlocked every possible recruiting action, and was very high, compared to St. Michael's who dropped to high. Yet, the player signed with St. Michael's, because I did not have time to unlock the scholarship offer. It should have been obvious that a Top D1 program was extremely interested in him, but he signed with a D2 program.

Even worse, a 4 star PF William Christian, the #13 PF was signed by D2 Benedict as "high" over Very High Virginia and Hofstra. He was also being recruited by 8 other D1 teams. I didn't go after this player because I saw so many D1 teams on him. But, what is the logic of a 4 star highly recruited player going to a D2 school?

It should be possible for an A+ D1 team to beat a D2 team if they are serious. I really like most everything about the new system, but this part is definitely not realistic and should be addressed.

I am OK because I will probably just have another walk-on, but I am really looking for realism, and this is not realistic.

+1

Update. As you guys know, I like the system in general. I just don't like the lack of realism of a situation where a top D1 program is heavily recruiting a player, and that player emails the D1 program about how he is ready for a scholarship, campus visit, PT, and a start. Then five minutes later you get an email saying playing at Michael's was just too good to pass up - sorry UConn.

In the first period I had only one opening and signed a guy. I started building credit on a 5 star guy and a good juice who knew my offense and defense, since I was expecting a couple of EEs. It turned out I had 4 EEs. I was able to sign the 5 star guy and the Juco, so I am not totally screwed. And it shows that with planning, you can keep your team from being devastated by EEs.

But I do think that they should delay the signings at the start of the second period for at least one cycle, probably two, so that teams with EEs or teams with a new coach have an opportunity to get a scholarship offer in place and recruit a player they want.

When I took over Kansas, from Oklahoma, I saw a few good players out there. But they all signed in the first cycle, so the AP I put on them to unlock the scholarship were useless. I feel like the job change is probably even a bigger issue than the EEs.

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Update. As you guys know, I like the system in general. I just don't like the lack of realism of a situation where a top D1 program is heavily recruiting a player, and that player emails the D1 program about how he is ready for a scholarship, campus visit, PT, and a start. Then five minutes later you get an email saying playing at Michael's was just too good to pass up - sorry UConn.

In the first period I had only one opening and signed a guy. I started building credit on a 5 star guy and a good juice who knew my offense and defense, since I was expecting a couple of EEs. It turned out I had 4 EEs. I was able to sign the 5 star guy and the Juco, so I am not totally screwed. And it shows that with planning, you can keep your team from being devastated by EEs.

But I do think that they should delay the signings at the start of the second period for at least one cycle, probably two, so that teams with EEs or teams with a new coach have an opportunity to get a scholarship offer in place and recruit a player they want.

When I took over Kansas, from Oklahoma, I saw a few good players out there. But they all signed in the first cycle, so the AP I put on them to unlock the scholarship were useless. I feel like the job change is probably even a bigger issue than the EEs.

They slso need to reduce efforts from D2 teams on D1 players... I feel a start and a scholly from any D+ programs, with the proper AP should beat out a A+ D2 program. Or cap the thing or make players over 580 impossible to discover... there will always be some illogical outcomes but there should be a lot less. I am not whining cause I have decided to stick around but this one star solid forward that preferred D2 over a start at the 3 spot on Penn State university, big 10 D1 should not happen. He was a legit D1, not a bench warmer who had a tough choice : sit on the bench until senior year in D1 or be a contributor on a D2 team.

“Not sure "WHY" another thread was needed when this same issue was addressed in the TOP thread at the time”

Amen. It isn’t even an “issue,” but I can shed some light on the “why.” Every coin has two sides. If you look at only one side you don’t know the coin and you are not fairly describing it.

Some teams are fortunate to get an incredibly valuable commodity (future NBA player) for a while, then the player leaves. If all you talk about is the player leaving you are looking at only ½ of the matter, one side of the coin.

In HD2.0 it was easy to replace that commodity without risk. Bad feature; everyone realizes that by now. If you argue that it should be as easy as it used to be to replace that valuable commodity, you are simply wrong. There needs to be a reasonable risk/reward balance (like there is now, by the way). If you argue that there needs to be risk for D2 coaches but not for D1 coaches, you aren’t making sense.

"They slso need to reduce efforts from D2 teams on D1 players" Garbage. If you argue that there should be non-signing cycles at the start of recruiting period two, you are arguing that there should be reduced risk for D1 coaches. D2 and D3 already have an unfair, artificial and arbitrary impediment to their recruiting that isn’t removed until the second recruiting period. Arguing for non-signing cycles at the start of recruiting period two is exactly arguing that Seble’s red light, the unfair, artificial and arbitrary impediment mentioned above, continue longer. It is understandable that a few coaches at the top want recruiting made easier for themselves that way, especially if they are insecure about whether they are at the top based on merit. I like the thought that coaches at the top are there on merit and don’t need or want anything more handed to them. Let’s have a thread like that, eh?

I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

Me too. Heck my d3 team is monitoring all D1 players near campus and ready to grab em. But say Elon, human owned gets on one of my D1 recruit, i think it's part of the game, same with D2 and know that my teams in D2 and D3 are A+ teams. But A+ d2 should not be compared to D1 owned teams.

Posted by zorzii on 12/17/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

Me too. Heck my d3 team is monitoring all D1 players near campus and ready to grab em. But say Elon, human owned gets on one of my D1 recruit, i think it's part of the game, same with D2 and know that my teams in D2 and D3 are A+ teams. But A+ d2 should not be compared to D1 owned teams.

I agree. My D3 teams are my main teams. Obviously I want them to be successful. But if we're trying to play a game that makes sense then a D2 team getting beat by a B10 team easily needs to happen. If I happen to be that particular owner who loses to a B10 school, well that sucks. But am I am going to whine about it or quit playing all together? No, I'll adjust my recruiting tactics and not try to overreach as much. Or I'll continue to try to go for guys that a D1 school might want and roll the dice. Totally within my control.

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

Are we talking RL or HD? What may fit into your impression of what is realistic for RL is terrible for game playability. WIS has to be concerned with the latter, not the former. I'm not surprised to see zorzi and Bevis argue that the game should be made easier yet for D1 coaches, but frankly I am surprised to see you start sounding like that.

As long as D1 coaches are at that level based on merit, they don't need D1 welfare. If they are not there based on merit and need D1 welfare, well, too bad. (Let the flaming begin.)

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

It's a poor model to sell to the public.

You just can't let a user at D2 drop all his AP and most of his $$$ on a low level D1 projection then have him snatched away because a D1 school comes knocking late in the process. Realistic or not, you've just transferred the problem D1 users have with the current procedure to the D2 user.

Speaking of, PROJECTION is a 100% word. I'm projecting myself to be super awesome at HD but I just might fall short and simply be awesome. A player may be projected to be a D1 player but maybe, just maybe, he's a really a D2 guy. So, really, if you look at it that way, the D1 school that loses him to D2 really just put him where he needed to be.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/17/2016 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

Are we talking RL or HD? What may fit into your impression of what is realistic for RL is terrible for game playability. WIS has to be concerned with the latter, not the former. I'm not surprised to see zorzi and Bevis argue that the game should be made easier yet for D1 coaches, but frankly I am surprised to see you start sounding like that.

As long as D1 coaches are at that level based on merit, they don't need D1 welfare. If they are not there based on merit and need D1 welfare, well, too bad. (Let the flaming begin.)

Spud : the game is really tough at D1, pretty simple at D2 and D3. Say I lose a three stars at D2, I will still sign a legit player. I tested getting to a job,second session at D3, and ended up with five quality players, for five spots. I recruit easily on 1to 6 openings in D2 and my teams are stronger than ever ( other teams too). D1 needs help, believe me. It's already tough battling all D1 owners, if D2 gets stars players, top 200 players easily in second session because of lack of difference in efforts between D2 and D1 or recruits signing too fast, it's not working as intended. D2, d3, not broken. Ctech d3 just won on a642 overall rating. It's better than most d2 and d1 teams (sims in d1)

Posted by zorzii on 12/17/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/17/2016 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/17/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the effort reduction would probably be appropriate as well. I have two D2 teams, as well as the D1 teams, and if a D1 team comes along and takes a recruit at the last minute, that does not bother me in the slightest because it is realistic.

Are we talking RL or HD? What may fit into your impression of what is realistic for RL is terrible for game playability. WIS has to be concerned with the latter, not the former. I'm not surprised to see zorzi and Bevis argue that the game should be made easier yet for D1 coaches, but frankly I am surprised to see you start sounding like that.

As long as D1 coaches are at that level based on merit, they don't need D1 welfare. If they are not there based on merit and need D1 welfare, well, too bad. (Let the flaming begin.)

Spud : the game is really tough at D1, pretty simple at D2 and D3. Say I lose a three stars at D2, I will still sign a legit player. I tested getting to a job,second session at D3, and ended up with five quality players, for five spots. I recruit easily on 1to 6 openings in D2 and my teams are stronger than ever ( other teams too). D1 needs help, believe me. It's already tough battling all D1 owners, if D2 gets stars players, top 200 players easily in second session because of lack of difference in efforts between D2 and D1 or recruits signing too fast, it's not working as intended. D2, d3, not broken. Ctech d3 just won on a642 overall rating. It's better than most d2 and d1 teams (sims in d1)

This is spot on.

"Spud : the game is really tough at D1, pretty simple at D2 and D3."

I know that. And that is as it should be. Winning in the NBA is tougher than winning in college is tougher than winning in high school. That is as it should be. Only the best competitors at the top. That is as it should be. That is not "broken," it is as it should be. And I am confident that WIS knows that and will not dumb down the game for the true competitors at the top.