I think capping D3 to D3 recruits would really make that game interesting. I would be playing, going back to Naismith where D3 use to be really amazing. Or even Knight.

I disagree with letting players get to D1 right away. If you play your cards right, it's 5 seasons, if not you need more to learn the game. Don't forget that when you do not understand the game, playing against the bests could mean over 10 seasons without a NT bid. The game needs to be learned and D3 used to provide that, not anymore with the silly recruiting that permit top coaches to land too good recruits from D1

That's silliness.

As I said, mully, myself and justsignedupjoe wouldn't cross paths in D1 if all 3 of us were allowed to take a D1 team right now based on our resumes.
1. Mully would get Duke, I'd get some schlub team in Southland, justsignedupjoe would get one of the bottom 15 teams.
2. Mully would chase the #1 recruit in the nation, I'd be hoping to get a top 28 at his position, jsuj would be fighting with D2/D3 schools.
3. I'm not scheduling mully or jsup and mully isn't scheduling either one of us.
4. jsuj is learning against D1 sims not mully, not me. I'm just trying to improve my resume' so I can get a better team.

Tell me what part of that you dispute.

Recent resume', of course, I was in the ACC 10 years ago. Not sure if that should count as to where I'd qualify.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/30/2017 4:17:00 PM (view original):
In many cases the silent majority plays quietly season after season, paying no attention to the kindergarten that the forums have largely become, entirely or mainly satisfied with their game experience. The loud minority on the forums shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they are a part of a majority just because they are loud.

Take a moment to think, people. Regarding letting people start at D1:
1. It would be a certain death knell for D2 and D3 in HD.
2. Some people like to play at a college they attended or is nearby to where they live or work. There are a helluva lot more D2 and D3 schools than there are D1 schools.
3. If someone is so attention-deficit crippled that he cannot tolerate moving through the ranks, there is no reason to believe he would tolerate the down time that some of you have so loudly complained about.
4. As currently constituted, D1 enjoys a degree of stability that supports the game experience. Allowing players to make D1 job changes in and out of Worlds almost willy-nilly would totally disrupt that stability, and risk (if not assure) the demise of D1.
5. I doubt that a financial model is attractive to WIS or SportsHub if limited to the number of users that could occupy D1, compared to the number of users that could occupy three divisions. I doubt there is incentive for them or SportsHub to undertake the investment in time and resources to diminish their game.
6. If you think everybody should play at D1, and D2 and D3 should be trashed, you obviously haven’t thought about the so-called problems of EE’s and recruit generation.
7. If you think the job process sucks, terminating D2 and D3 is no solution. The solution is fixing the job process. WIS could do this in a way that retains some stability in D1 and shortens the period in which users become D1 eligible without discarding D2 and D3 from the game.
8. If you think too many sim teams is the problem, terminating D2 and D3 is no solution. WIS could:
a. contract the number of conferences in each world, which of course has its own problems.
b. reduce the number of worlds, which of course has its own problems.
c. finally do something effective to market the game to new users.
Any of those three would be better solutions, properly implemented, than trashing D2 and D3.

A reminder to those who stop reading when they see my user name on a post, never see the content of the post (you know who you are), and immediately start spewing your bile -- you are still nothing more or less than background noise to me and many others, of no more significance to the world than a dust bunny under your bed. Let’s try to keep this thread on topic.

OK, two successful users said this had merit. I decided to read it beyond the first three lines. I'm not seeing much merit.

1. So?
2. They can stay there and coach
3. I'm all for a D1 start and I've complained loudly about down time.
4. There is no proposed willy-nilly job change. You have to qualify and go thru the current process.
5. If you pay attention to population data, you'd know there are 200-250 users in each world. D1 has something like 340 teams. Either way, I don't think "eliminate D2/D3" has gotten a foothold. Free D3(no credits) seems like a good idea. Reduced D2 credit would probably incentivize some folks to move to D1. Not sure how that's a bad thing.
6. I, for one, believe the game is designed for 200+ in D1. The discussion on player generation has been discussed ad nauseam in HBD. I won't get into it but "mo bettah players" isn't a solution. It just requires users to think differently. I know some don't like that.
7. WifS could do a lot of things. But, if you've read this thread, several people have said they have LESS teams because they don't want to do the year-long march to D1. Starting at some crap D1 school is the solution.
8. A/B are both terrible ideas. People hate to have their **** taken from them. Hate it. Marketing has been discussed over and over again. I'll pass.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 8:19:00 AM (view original):
That's silliness.

As I said, mully, myself and justsignedupjoe wouldn't cross paths in D1 if all 3 of us were allowed to take a D1 team right now based on our resumes.
1. Mully would get Duke, I'd get some schlub team in Southland, justsignedupjoe would get one of the bottom 15 teams.
2. Mully would chase the #1 recruit in the nation, I'd be hoping to get a top 28 at his position, jsuj would be fighting with D2/D3 schools.
3. I'm not scheduling mully or jsup and mully isn't scheduling either one of us.
4. jsuj is learning against D1 sims not mully, not me. I'm just trying to improve my resume' so I can get a better team.

Tell me what part of that you dispute.

I think maybe his point is that it's much easier to take over a D3 team from scratch and win a NT game versus doing it at D1.

It should be harder at D1. But that's a different goal.
If you want to win a NT game quickly, join an empty(or close) conference, win the CT, get into the NT, win a game.
But, if you want to coach at a school you've heard of, or has a chance to be on TV in March, you coach D1.

But I think his point was that you have to learn the game before you compete against the best. Quite frankly, some of the best are in D3 as well. And, for the most part, new users aren't competing against them in D2 or D3.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:16:00 AM (view original):
It should be harder at D1. But that's a different goal.
If you want to win a NT game quickly, join an empty(or close) conference, win the CT, get into the NT, win a game.
But, if you want to coach at a school you've heard of, or has a chance to be on TV in March, you coach D1.

Well, I think the winning the NT game is the tough part, not winning the CT in an empty conference. If you're in an empty conference (bad conference) and don't schedule a tough non conf, you're going to get a bad seed and get wrecked in the 1st round.

Talking D1 here.

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 9:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:16:00 AM (view original):
It should be harder at D1. But that's a different goal.
If you want to win a NT game quickly, join an empty(or close) conference, win the CT, get into the NT, win a game.
But, if you want to coach at a school you've heard of, or has a chance to be on TV in March, you coach D1.

Well, I think the winning the NT game is the tough part, not winning the CT in an empty conference. If you're in an empty conference (bad conference) and don't schedule a tough non conf, you're going to get a bad seed and get wrecked in the 1st round.

Talking D1 here.

But then again, if everyone is allowed to start at D1 right away, I doubt you'll have any empty conferences (which is a good thing).

I'm sure some will prefer to stay in D2/D3. I certainly wouldn't eliminate them. I would reduce/eliminate credits at those levels. And I still like FREE D3!!! a lot. I'd stay in Smith-Little East as long as my conference mates did without credits even if it were free, reduced, or regular price.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure some will prefer to stay in D2/D3. I certainly wouldn't eliminate them. I would reduce/eliminate credits at those levels. And I still like FREE D3!!! a lot. I'd stay in Smith-Little East as long as my conference mates did without credits even if it were free, reduced, or regular price.

I'm not understanding why you guys think WIS would go for a FREE D3. Reduced credits at D3 to encourage folks to move up is a much better idea.

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure some will prefer to stay in D2/D3. I certainly wouldn't eliminate them. I would reduce/eliminate credits at those levels. And I still like FREE D3!!! a lot. I'd stay in Smith-Little East as long as my conference mates did without credits even if it were free, reduced, or regular price.

I'm not understanding why you guys think WIS would go for a FREE D3. Reduced credits at D3 to encourage folks to move up is a much better idea.

If we want to allow ppl to move to D1 quickly without destroying D3, why don't we reduce credits at D1? Some successful coaches would stay at D2/D3 because they could go years without paying a dime to play, but the D1 coaches -- even the most highly successful ones -- would not be able to play solely off credits.

I never understood a business model where your most devoted customers -- the guys with 5 teams who spend a lot of time playing/studying HD -- are the ones that generate the least amount of revenue.

I don't think WifS would go for FREE D3!!!!, I just don't think it's a bad idea. An introduction to the game.

Reducing D1 credits will not encourage people to move to D1.

keep in mind, there is a fixed total $ amount of credits to be distributed so long as they maintain the current system

no real business concern about WHO gets those credits, except as they are or are not useful marketing devices

I would be in favor of this with one caveat, and that being if you don't excel in year one you get fired and have to go back to D3 and work your way up.

It is strictly risk / reward, and I am not meaning just sorta success, I mean totally *** kicking, big time success. Persons wanting this option would be required to purchase a five (or ten) pack minimum. I would also take it one other step and block out Hoops 101 after they pick a team.

Sound harsh?? Get over it. Some guys who have played similar games would jump at it, and some guys are just naturally good at games. But if you think you can play any game without working into it, you are typically wrong. I started in Rec league not the NFL, and I was in Little League before I NEVER made my way to the MLB, and I sucked at HD the first several tears I tried it on my own. If that is paying my dues (and getting a mentor) then lesson learned.
Having said all that, I strongly believe that if you have played several hundred games in one world, you should be able to start at the same level in a new world as you have qualified for in your first world.