Posted by shoe3 on 12/10/2020 9:49:00 PM (view original):
I’ve supported something like NPB’s conference baselines for a long time, though I think it should be 3 tiers - the first at B, the 2nd at C, and the rest at D. I don’t know that the Colonial or Big West need to be set above the other small conference schools. The other 7 conferences are solid mid majors, I think. And the power conferences have plenty advantage with a tether to B, IMO.

I'm cool with this Base Prestige adjustment variation too, as described by Shoe3

Tier 1 Conferences:
All 72 teams in 6 conferences have baseline prestige of B.
- ACC
- B1G
- Big-12
- Big East
- Pac-12, and
- SEC.

Tier 2 Conferences:
All 84 teams in 7 conferences have baseline prestige of C.
- Atlantic-10.
- West Coast Conference.
- Mountain West.
- Conference-USA.
- Horizon.
- Missouri Valley.
- MAC.

Tier 3 Conferences:
In the remaining 14 conferences, all teams have baseline prestige of D.
- Ohio Valley.
- Colonial.
- Big West.
- Patriot.
- NEC.
- Sun Belt.
- MAAC.
- Summit.
- MEAC.
- Ivy League.
- Southern.
- Big South.
- Southland.
- Big Sky.

Some of these conferences can shift to other tiers depending on what you guys think.

Key is that base prestige is retained for upper tier schools, but every team is equal within their own conference.

Right now in Phelan the top 25 D3 players are all above 725 with 2 of them over 800. This is only slightly lower than the top 25 in D2. This would be like playing in a rec league with LeBron on a team where he just absolutely wrecks you because you weren't smart enough to go to the D League and start recruiting from there. How many new users would be laid out this is what you need to do to be *competitive* (not win, just not to get blown out by 60+ points a game).

Nobody has yet explained WHY it is necessary for D3 (or D2) to have access to high end recruits (i.e. those that can grow to 800+ instead of maybe only 600+). This would be like D1 coaches asking WHY don't I have access to 99+ core players in the draft if I'm at a A+++ school now.

Posted by buddhagamer on 12/10/2020 10:11:00 PM (view original):
Right now in Phelan the top 25 D3 players are all above 725 with 2 of them over 800. This is only slightly lower than the top 25 in D2. This would be like playing in a rec league with LeBron on a team where he just absolutely wrecks you because you weren't smart enough to go to the D League and start recruiting from there. How many new users would be laid out this is what you need to do to be *competitive* (not win, just not to get blown out by 60+ points a game).

Nobody has yet explained WHY it is necessary for D3 (or D2) to have access to high end recruits (i.e. those that can grow to 800+ instead of maybe only 600+). This would be like D1 coaches asking WHY don't I have access to 99+ core players in the draft if I'm at a A+++ school now.

Why didn't D1 coaches sign those top players?

Buddha, new players have access to those guys. They didn’t have access to the elite-for-level guys before, and they won’t if you close the pool (I’ll get into the illogic of “just make the pool bigger in a minute). Sportsbulls signed this guy in one of his first seasons, and that wasn’t even the best guy he signed (I was one of the guys chatting with him his first few seasons, I was also helping the guy who had Nazareth before him, which is why I just took that team when he told me he was moving). *The only thing that stops new players from signing that kind of guy is knowledge.* Once they have a mentor, or figure it out some other way, they absolutely can sign that caliber talent. The key is that they *don’t have to compete with established veterans* who have entrenched advantages for them.

Even if you make the D3 pool bigger, you still have elite players at that level. The best guy I ever signed at D2, the guy I almost got drafted as a D2 player, was from the D2 pool. Currently, my best D2 player is a D2 pool recruit. C- level teams can’t compete with me for those players in a closed environment. But in an open environment, they can get comparable talent. If all you’re doing is enlarging the pool, you’re just shifting premium onto other advantages that, you guessed it, still heavily favor veterans. Recruiting in an open environment is *the one area that actually doesn’t heavily favor veterans*, as long as the new player has access to the knowledge. And we see this in action when a veteran changes jobs in 3.0 and starts recruiting at a new school. A coach can move into a small conference school and immediately start challenging power conference teams for *some* recruits that have not been highly prioritized, or recruits that are better preference matches. There is fast upward mobility in this system - that is a great feature of 3.0. There is a wide range of competitiveness, so long as the coach knows about it.

You guys are arguing why can't I have LeBron James on my rec team league team and I'm telling you it would upset the league balance. You two are now advocating that other teams in the rec league can go ask some other NBA players to join their rec league if they so choose to.

That D2 pool you drafted was Less likely to be battled for because he was in the D2 pool. Can you imagine how much he would be battled for if D2 coaches could only recruit D2 players. Nobody still has explained why its so good for the game that as a D3 coach it should be *allowed* for them to recruit D1 players? D3 recruiting should prepare new players to how to recruit for D1 and recruiting in D3/D2 right now is nothing similar.

And the reason those players didn't get recruited to D1 is there is only about 33% of D1 filled right now due to new D3 coaches getting drilled when they join and the loss in attrition is not being replaced with new D1 coaches.

Nobody is signing the next LeBron James on their Bates College D3 team. LeBron will be in D1.

The D1 guys getting signed in D2 or D3 are the ones that D1 humans don't want.

You're right, if there were more human D1 coaches, there would be fewer D1 quality players dropping down to the lower divisions. But the lack of D1 humans is a different problem, and not a result of D1 recruits getting pulled down to D2 or D3.

So I'll throw it back at you. I don't see you providing a valid reason why unwanted players shouldn't be allowed to be pulled down. Or why we NEED separate and untouchable pools.

Because the D3 SIMs (you know the teams the NEW USERS are signing up with since they don't get to pick ahead existing/returning coaches) are only filled with D3 players (the ones nobody wants). Pit those teams (since they can't recruit) versus the D1 stocked D3 teams and the results are big blowouts. And yes the fact that some D3 teams have D1 recruits is chasing away *most* new D3 coaches because when you get blown out in your 10 non-conference games, you might get discouraged about sticking around paying full price to get your teeth kicked in for the first X seasons.

You're reasoning is that its better for your D3 team to have that D1 player (so you can go bash D3 SIM/human teams better) instead of a plain D1 SIM. Is that your stance? Do you not agree that the top D3 teams are probably MORE better than the average D3 SIM ever was?

The way things are right now, there are likely 1000+ recruits in each of the 3 division tiers. The D1 coaches fight for maybe the top 300. The next 200 are battled for by D2 coaches and the other 200 by D3. This leaves about 300 D1 recruits and most D2 and nearly ALL D3 recruits for the SIMs. The absolutely biggest chasm is going to be between the top tier D3 team and the average SIM team and that is where the NEW users enter making it the worst outcome for them.

So go ahead and keep telling yourself that new users love having access to D1 recruits when they typically don't even know they can switch the scouting service to another division.

If a new D3 coach is leaving immediately because they’re not competitive right away against experienced human coaches, they’re probably not the kind of people you want to attract anyway. They don’t have the temperament or patience to learn the game and learn how to improve.

This game is meant to be challenging, not one of instant gratification. Half the discussion in this and the related thread are defending baseline prestige at D1 because you want coaches to have to earn their way into the prestigious jobs and then enjoy the recruiting perks that come along with that. And now you’re arguing exactly the opposite at the lower levels . . . we need to make it easy and don’t allow experienced coaches get too good.

As to your last point . . . that’s exactly the reason why I’m advocating for one large pool for all divisions, not three separate ones. So thank you for unwittingly supporting my point.

There is no possible universe in which you put veterans who are farming for credits in the place where new players have to start, and the new players don’t get beat up right away. It’s delusional to think that closing off the pool is going to change anything about that situation. D3 vets beat new player teams by 40 points in the last version of the game too.

Give the players access to the knowledge. Give players the option to start at higher levels, and move up faster, to help populate D1. Remove the division separations, if possible to make compatible with scouting, because it’s dumb and unrealistic. But don’t close off the pools. No one tells the #185 pg in the country that he can’t sign with a lower division school because he’s supposed to be a D1 recruit, even though no D1 school wants him.

The last thing we should be doing is removing the one real equalizer new players have, just because of the optics of high OVR D3 teams.

The whole point is to make it appeal to MORE people (and to retain them). If the new developers only keep this a niche game which only appeals to only people with a specific temperament, then we'll end up bleeding coaches like we are until its no longer sustainable for them. There's a huge difference between going 2-25 and losing most games by 50 and going 12-13 and being competitive.

Most SIM AI D3 teams are about 100+ points lower than the top D3 teams (and that's being generous as the top D3 teams are optimized in core attributes while the SIM ones are not). You still haven't explained what is the big deal about the 800+ player going to a SIM AI instead of a D3 team. Even if its NOT Lebron and its only a bunch of D1 bench players, having that quality of player in among 40+ year old guys who are trying to relive their HS glory years is a mismatch which will tell them they are better to be on the coach that to come to their scheduled rec game.

Again now why do you NEED that 800+ player on your D3 roster. Or is it just because you HATE to see that quality of player on a SIM roster in a division you are NOT even playing against.

What is so wrong with instead of 1000+ D3 recruits that range from 400 to 700, you have 400 to 500 of those about the same quantity? If your peers are in the 500-550 range instead of the 600-650 it is now how does that make it any less enjoyable for the D3 vets? If you spread out the quality of the D3 pool such that more of them are in the upper end, that would make them still easily recruit able by new coaches. Top 200 is fought by the high prestige, but the next tier is close to the same quality.

And I think the assumption that overall attrition is primarily, or significantly comprised of new players who are discouraged by too much losing to high OVR teams at the D3 level, in relation to the immense time and money investment it takes to get to D1 in the current set up is simply way off base. This is a solution in search of a problem. If this is about new player experience, fix the amount of time and money it takes to get to D1, because that’s what most folks are thinking about when they go looking for a game like this. The “why am I losing?” thing is a pretty broad thing, but can be addressed by info - whether through searching or just observing.

I agree with buddha on most things here. I don't know how I would want it handled. Regarding, separate pools for each division to recruit from. Or other options.

But I don't play D3 at all. It's a similar game to D2 only more frustrating and less competitive beyond the top 10 teams. But I think D3 would be freaking awesome to play, if players were maxing at 600 ovr with proper skills and such. D3 would be a great game with coaching having a greater impact. And role players being crucial. I'd love to play a D3 where I have a PF with 30 DEF but 68 ATH and 95 REB and most other skills awful. And then a C to compliment him with 90 LP 80 DEF but a 30 REB. Maybe a PG with 45 BH but 80 PAS. And then a SG with 85 PER but is slow as dirt with 48 SPD. Playing a D3 like that where TEAM BUILDING becomes important. And polishing a turd to make him play an important role...... THAT would be a fun D3 again

I think we'll all recognize that the top end perennially competitive programs in D2 and D3 are built by their coaches pulling down D1 recruits; recruits who are not really wanted by D1 humans.

I think we'll also all agree that the best of the D3 recruits are pretty ****** compared to D1 standards. Even the low D1 players. That's why the successful D3 coaches are completely ignoring them and going after the D1 misfits. You can argue that the D3 recruit pool can be tweaked such that they're not so ****** as they are today, but the nature of your argument is that there still will need to be a differentiating difference in quality between D1/D2/D3. D3 recruits are just less smelly **** than they currently are.

If you were to now close that door of recruiting up, how are those D3 coaches going to react? Are they just (a) going to adapt to the new world order being imposed on them; (b) move up to D2 or D1; or (c) leave completely because the game has drastically changed against them?

My guess is that there will be some who will choose to stick around in D3 (a), but many more will choose (b) or (c).

So what will the optics be like for this game when D3, where all brand new players get their first HD experience, becomes a wasteland of SIMs and only a handful of humans?

Here's the population of the three worlds that I currently have teams in, by division:

Rupp: 118 D1, 75 D2, 64 D3
Iba: 98, 106,85
Smith: 117, 81, 91

Does this look better to you?

Rupp: 135 D1, 75 D2, 21 D3
Iba: 118, 106, 27
Smith: 137, 81, 30

Again, one large pool of recruits with no D1/2/3 designations. If you want to discourage or make it harder for D3 humans to land what we see as D1 quality players, then make higher level SIMs harder (though not impossible) to beat in recruiting battles.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/10/2020 11:55:00 PM (view original):
And I think the assumption that overall attrition is primarily, or significantly comprised of new players who are discouraged by too much losing to high OVR teams at the D3 level, in relation to the immense time and money investment it takes to get to D1 in the current set up is simply way off base. This is a solution in search of a problem. If this is about new player experience, fix the amount of time and money it takes to get to D1, because that’s what most folks are thinking about when they go looking for a game like this. The “why am I losing?” thing is a pretty broad thing, but can be addressed by info - whether through searching or just observing.

Where is this survey where you see players are losing because they cant get to DI vs leaving because they are having a non-competitive experience at DIII?

Are you sure you arent projecting your own thoughts onto everyone else? Just because you feel it takes too long to get to DI doesn't necessarily mean that's why new coaches are leaving the game.