Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/24/2020 8:26:00 PM (view original):
If you want to close the loophole, just allow new coaches to "cut" the previous signed recruits from RS1 if they so choose.

Great solution.

It would have been nice if somehow had suggested that 5 years ago

But it wasn't meant to be.

Posted by ab90 on 8/24/2020 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Lastly, seble, I’m still curious how me signing D3 guys goes over the gray area of dumping a roster and hurts the next coach, but ab or other proven coaches not recruiting, running practice plans, and scheduling does not. What’s that explanation?

Hahahaha find these teams I didn’t recruit for. Surely there are a handful because I often lose interest and don’t log in, but that’s why there’s a 2nd recruiting window. That said, the vast majority of the teams– I am confident it is above 85%– that I left behind had studs on the roster and had studs in position to be signed. Not my problem if the next guy can’t land the fish. I’m going back through old rosters of team after I left them. Good gracious were there ever some championships on platters. West Florida, Humboldt, Chad St, San Fran St, San Bernardino– long list of teams I voluntarily walked away from that were tailor made for titles.

The Post team in Smith is no different. 1 kid coming in is a murderer, the Canadian is a coldblooded hitman if you can finish landing him, and the juco signee is capable of being the leading scorer on a national championship team.

Lostmyth, gillispie, usfqb, and a handful more. That’s it above me. For those of you who complain about me, I can’t make you better at this game. Sorry.

I keep coming back because I want to recapture the first joy I held for this game. It was revolutionary, and it was exciting, and recruiting was like Christmas morning. Now, like Kanye on or off his meds, my levels of commitment are mercurial.

But, the hell with it- maybe I’ll start paying attention again. TBD.

"Lostmyth, gillispie, usfqb, and a handful more. That’s it above me. "

Hahaha I wouldn't go that far.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I didn't mean the actual beta testing. I meant the period of feedback and adjustments that happened after my initial proposal. I consider all of that part of the beta.

The problem isn't necessarily the two periods, but it's when job changes happen in the middle. My initial ideas toyed with having two periods, but both would be prior to job changes. Once you have people changing jobs, that's what really introduced these loopholes that Sportsbulls is exploiting. The core of my preference is that I didn't want to force new coaches to recruit right away. The compromise was allowing the job period to happen in the middle, so that existing coaches could recruit some at the new job.

I'm not going to comment on the thread so I apologize for being a little off topic.

"The core of my preference is that I didn't want to force new coaches to recruit right away."

Seble - From what I've gathered from all the commotion and bickering is that Bulls can't recruit those guys because they are well below competitive level. Why do we not allow new players to recruit their own players in year 1 (if they wish) when they're going to get a bunch of guys that you just scolded bulls for?

It has nothing to do with complexity of recruiting because a blind squirrel could recruit better than your sims (which is fine), but it ruins new customers experience for sure. I'd rather suck with my players than the sims. There's no interaction for them year 1. This is a major problem that should have never been an issue in the first place. It takes me 3 seasons to be nationally competitive on a complete new rebuild (because year 1 is worthless) so I could only imagine what it is for a new player and how much fun that is.

if you want retention, this needs to be fixed.

That’s an excellent point that ties in to Bulls previous comment about going 1-26 in the first season. It’s such a pointless season and so restrictive to anyone taking over a team that was completely recruited by the sim.

I should also add in, that new users aren’t as familiar with how things are. So if you sign up for a team that just signed 6 players and has no upcoming seniors, that’s an even worse position to be in.

Posted by qb4usf on 8/25/2020 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I didn't mean the actual beta testing. I meant the period of feedback and adjustments that happened after my initial proposal. I consider all of that part of the beta.

The problem isn't necessarily the two periods, but it's when job changes happen in the middle. My initial ideas toyed with having two periods, but both would be prior to job changes. Once you have people changing jobs, that's what really introduced these loopholes that Sportsbulls is exploiting. The core of my preference is that I didn't want to force new coaches to recruit right away. The compromise was allowing the job period to happen in the middle, so that existing coaches could recruit some at the new job.

I'm not going to comment on the thread so I apologize for being a little off topic.

"The core of my preference is that I didn't want to force new coaches to recruit right away."

Seble - From what I've gathered from all the commotion and bickering is that Bulls can't recruit those guys because they are well below competitive level. Why do we not allow new players to recruit their own players in year 1 (if they wish) when they're going to get a bunch of guys that you just scolded bulls for?

It has nothing to do with complexity of recruiting because a blind squirrel could recruit better than your sims (which is fine), but it ruins new customers experience for sure. I'd rather suck with my players than the sims. There's no interaction for them year 1. This is a major problem that should have never been an issue in the first place. It takes me 3 seasons to be nationally competitive on a complete new rebuild (because year 1 is worthless) so I could only imagine what it is for a new player and how much fun that is.

if you want retention, this needs to be fixed.

Totally agree qb.

The ironic part here is that the entire point of NOT letting people recruit right away was for the benefit of new coaches. That was one of the core things that Seble was trying to fix. And then everyone complained that not letting us ALL recruit 1st season didn't make sense so we ended up with the split recruiting session which led to even more issues. So many problems with 3.0 could have been avoided if the recruiting time period had just stayed the same.

The point was to help new coaches but the end result produced the opposite. You have D3 teams recruiting D1 projected players (which new people wouldn't know they could do) which far exceeded the level of talent available in the previous version so they just get destroyed even worse and are even more behind the 8 ball on learning the game becoming competitive.

I get what Seble was going for here but so many things have resulted that are NOT to the benefit of new coaches that it seems silly that this was the whole point of what he was trying to do. Could he have just stuck to 1 recruiting session and some of these issues go away? Sure, but then you'd have even more people unhappy because changing jobs would suck even worse.

Posted by qb4usf on 8/25/2020 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I didn't mean the actual beta testing. I meant the period of feedback and adjustments that happened after my initial proposal. I consider all of that part of the beta.

The problem isn't necessarily the two periods, but it's when job changes happen in the middle. My initial ideas toyed with having two periods, but both would be prior to job changes. Once you have people changing jobs, that's what really introduced these loopholes that Sportsbulls is exploiting. The core of my preference is that I didn't want to force new coaches to recruit right away. The compromise was allowing the job period to happen in the middle, so that existing coaches could recruit some at the new job.

I'm not going to comment on the thread so I apologize for being a little off topic.

"The core of my preference is that I didn't want to force new coaches to recruit right away."

Seble - From what I've gathered from all the commotion and bickering is that Bulls can't recruit those guys because they are well below competitive level. Why do we not allow new players to recruit their own players in year 1 (if they wish) when they're going to get a bunch of guys that you just scolded bulls for?

It has nothing to do with complexity of recruiting because a blind squirrel could recruit better than your sims (which is fine), but it ruins new customers experience for sure. I'd rather suck with my players than the sims. There's no interaction for them year 1. This is a major problem that should have never been an issue in the first place. It takes me 3 seasons to be nationally competitive on a complete new rebuild (because year 1 is worthless) so I could only imagine what it is for a new player and how much fun that is.

if you want retention, this needs to be fixed.

This is, I think, where people are talking about different things. If we want coaches to recruit their own players in year 1, then you *have* to have the second recruiting session. That’s the only place it could be. What seble is saying is that in his original vision of the 3.0 changes, recruiting would be moved in-season. The “clamoring” he’s talking about was concern about early entry, and job changes, which were legitimate, and that’s why the second session was added.

Since a truly new player’s first experience is highly discounted, and sometimes free (perhaps it should always be free), I don’t have an issue with the original start point being with someone else’s recruits, starting fresh with the scouting process for next season’s team.

But the big sticking point for most folks, I think, is that for every new team they pick up, they need to start this way. That’s absurd. Coaches with any level of experience past a season should be able to start at D2, and should be able to begin recruiting in RS2 before the season starts if they wish.

I think that’s the compromise that leaves the guts of the game intact, and gets us where most of us want to be.

Posted by Basketts on 8/25/2020 12:34:00 AM (view original):
Sportsbulls also mentioned he has done this going from a D3 team to another D3 team, and D2 to another D2 team. I feel like that advantage is a bit higher than jumping up a division. You're reserving players with a potentially a higher prestige and getting double the scouting money for the same division. That's an advantage any incoming coaches in RS2 wouldn't have and could potentially harm them from a competition stand point. Even this doesn't really bother me. But I can see why it would be considered a gray area.

Other than that though, I agree with Shoe. Just doesn't seem like its that big of an advantage. Certainly not enough to waste seble's time evaluating how good recruits are and how much effort was put in to recruit those players.

I don’t really buy the “reserving players” thing though. He’s not doing anything other coaches can’t do, and he’s not utilizing any real advantage. He’s just building a diversion. At Augustana, I have never once been moved off a guy by another D2 school that I prioritized. The sorts of guys Sportsbulls could move me off with this tactic are guys who are easy for me to replace, ie guys I can find anywhere. Double scouting money? Not really. This isn’t like the old “forgot to renew” loophole. These are different teams. If he’s getting more scouting money, he’s also giving up all the old effort, so again, there is no substantial cumulative advantage, except perception.

If he actually has succeeded in moving coaches off of excellent recruits using this method, good for him. But that’s his ingenuity, that is not, in my estimation, anything like cheating or even bending rules. He’s using the system that exists in creative ways. It’s not unfair if others have access to it, and we do. Just because we didn’t think of it and/or don’t feel like working that hard doesn’t mean we don’t have access to it.

He can push down a sim school in D3 RS1 to ensure that the sim's resources don't stack and make it too expensive for him in RS2 a the new program. A new coach coming in to RS2 at a D3 program won't have that same access. And he can scout two areas if he wants with the extra scouting because he'll carry over all the knowledge from the previous school in the same division. Again, a new coach starting in RS2 doesn't have that access. I don't think its cheating either, which is why I said it doesn't bother me. Just a weird situation the two recruiting sessions brings up.

Posted by texrangers25 on 8/25/2020 11:42:00 AM (view original):
I think it is hilarious that AB lives in some of your heads rent free. I

Says the D1 natured coach

He doesn't have to live in our heads. I see him on my schedule at a different contender every season.

what lives in my head is abnormal tendencies that i see. If you went to heavy metal concerts every weekend and of 10 bands, Jimmy Buffett happens to play at every site, gee would that stand out to you as weird? Well what is ab90 does is weird to me. And countless others.

“He can push down a sim school in D3 RS1 to ensure that the sim's resources don't stack and make it too expensive for him in RS2 a the new program. A new coach coming in to RS2 at a D3 program won't have that same access.”

I get that, but he’s not just competing against the new coach to a D3 program. He’s competing against other experienced coaches, at D3, and D2. What kinds of recruits is this going to work with, and is the advantage he’s creating for himself with those types of recruits really “unfair” then, from a competitive standpoint? That’s the question I’d like the powers that be to be focused on. My argument is that the advantage is really pretty small, because those recruits are not likely to be difference makers; and if they are, that’s more an indication that the coaches around him are too averse to challenging him, and need to step it up a little, IMO.

“And he can scout two areas if he wants with the extra scouting because he'll carry over all the knowledge from the previous school in the same division.”

The scouting resource thing is the one area that gives me most pause, and is the closest thing to a gray area for me. But in the end, this is not two accounts, or two players colluding and sharing information. This is one account, one career path, and really, probably using the system the way it is designed, given the realities of job changes in the timeline of scouting. Honestly, why would we expect a coach who has spent the resources to scout a player once to use them again to have access to recruit the player at all in a new setting? If they scouted a player and liked a player, of course they’re going to remember the player. If moving to a new school gives them more scouting resources, because that’s how the system works, then that’s how it works. There are enough *disadvantages* built in to job changes that I’m not too concerned about extra scouting money, so long as we’re not talking about something like the old renewal loophole.

Has anyone sent in a ticket about AB90 constantly jumping to new teams to get guaranteed deep runs and not even attempting to recruit? That's got to be against the fair play guidelines too.

Has anyone sent in a ticket about AB90 constantly jumping to new teams to get guaranteed deep runs and not even attempting to recruit? That's got to be against the fair play guidelines too.

If we want better new coach retention we need to:

1. Split recruits into distinct divisions. All D3 coaches recruit from a D3 pool period. If you want to put better quality recruits there fine. Don't let anyone recruit outside their specified division and generate enough recruits for everyone. That way new coaches need to only recruit from the same pool as the D3 coaches that have been their from day one. Same applies for D2/D1 (no signing from lower divisions either). The way it is now, the experienced D3 coaches have low D1 quality rosters which are destroying most new coaches teams (more so than it was in HD 2.0).

2. Go back to a single recruiting period which occurs AFTER the NCG plays (and EEs occur). The whole point of not having new coaches recruit just put them at a disadvantage in that they are forced to play with SIM recruits (unless they are lucky enough to sign up to a human coached team where the coach at least tries to recruit in RS1. This just delays them from getting their own recruits as they can only cut players and recruit at the end of their first season (and then only get the scraps left over).

Maybe we can keep in-season scouting but only have a single extended recruiting session during the off-season.