I believe realignment isn't even a consideration. It's just something that would be too hard to keep enough people happy. When if you really think about it, I doubt there is anyone playing right now that thinks..... if they don't change these conferences soon I'm out.

As far as D3 needing a fix, I can't argue. I think separate pools or new rules can help with this. Whatever is best for the game. If more humans were around, I doubt this would even be discussed. That is a key point to the future of HD upgrades

Not saying it should be the first by any means but one super minor change I'd like to see is the ability to view Team Ratings without walkons included. Maybe make it an option in settings to toggle on/off, or just add a column on the team rating page.

I'm confused as to why there are people complaining about D3 getting D1 projected recruits.. How is this hurting your D1/D2 team? I don't think it has any impact, and albeit there are players on D3 teams that certainly could be on D1 teams, it makes it fun to be in D3 and land a stud that you had to battle for in recruiting. I was not around in 2.0 where you had to recruit your own division (my interpretation of what everyone is saying), but that would take major adjustment for a coach that has spent the majority of his time with a certain lens of how to evaluate a player I would want to sign on my D3 team.

That also being said, I am not a coach who is "feasting" on credits at the D3 level. Im in an active D3 conference with players I enjoy competing against, and we have attracted new users to the conference over the last few years, only growing the enjoyment I have. I have two D2 teams, one with aspirations of jumping to D1 and getting into that carousel. I can't say that any D3 coach in either of those worlds have had ANY impact on how I play the game, or my experience in D3 has done anything but benefit the jump I made to D2 in other worlds. There is certainly a learning curve when joining the game, but that is equivalent to any game you play. If you aren't willing to put the money into the game with aspirations of getting better and earning rewards, then why are you playing? If winning championships and earning credits in D3 is so easy, then why aren't you all doing it? The premise of saying that good coaches aren't allowed to sit in D3 and consistently have competitive teams because new users HAVE to join D3 to start and proceed to get beaten up, is a flawed thought.

Posted by jfoges on 12/28/2020 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I'm confused as to why there are people complaining about D3 getting D1 projected recruits.. How is this hurting your D1/D2 team? I don't think it has any impact, and albeit there are players on D3 teams that certainly could be on D1 teams, it makes it fun to be in D3 and land a stud that you had to battle for in recruiting. I was not around in 2.0 where you had to recruit your own division (my interpretation of what everyone is saying), but that would take major adjustment for a coach that has spent the majority of his time with a certain lens of how to evaluate a player I would want to sign on my D3 team.

That also being said, I am not a coach who is "feasting" on credits at the D3 level. Im in an active D3 conference with players I enjoy competing against, and we have attracted new users to the conference over the last few years, only growing the enjoyment I have. I have two D2 teams, one with aspirations of jumping to D1 and getting into that carousel. I can't say that any D3 coach in either of those worlds have had ANY impact on how I play the game, or my experience in D3 has done anything but benefit the jump I made to D2 in other worlds. There is certainly a learning curve when joining the game, but that is equivalent to any game you play. If you aren't willing to put the money into the game with aspirations of getting better and earning rewards, then why are you playing? If winning championships and earning credits in D3 is so easy, then why aren't you all doing it? The premise of saying that good coaches aren't allowed to sit in D3 and consistently have competitive teams because new users HAVE to join D3 to start and proceed to get beaten up, is a flawed thought.

i don't think the main concern here is for d1/d2 teams, if competition from d3 teams is a real problem to those folks, i think they have bigger problems.

personally my biggest concern is the difficulty for new coaches. i think the current system is barely more intelligible than the old pulldown system and is at least as tricky to pick up - while also doing less to prepare new coaches for the recruiting competition they'll face in d1.

i'm not exactly sure what everyone else's concerns are - but i know plenty of folks with concerns about d3 don't have concerns due to lack of success or inability to compete in the lower divisions. i personally have no issues with the reward points either, a lot of long time users think having long time coaches in d3 to show the new guys the ropes is essential - i would like to see reward points stay (but i know others see that differently). the main consideration IMO is - is the game approachable for new coaches? there's a lot of room for different takes on the subject, but that has to remain the focal point of d3 discussions if the game is to have a healthy future (which is unlikely but i don't think should be written off as irrelevant). i think the other stuff is largely a distraction, especially after d3 lost so much of its population the last few years.

One argument I've made forever is that D3 would be much more fun if coaching made a bigger impact. You do that by making D3 what it should be..... not so talented players overall. Having to recruit a kid that could rebound but couldn't do anything else at all. Or a PG with elite ball skills but he's slow as molasses and can't jump. Making recruiting, team building, and game planning much more important.

But I want to mention D1. In D1 the sims are worse than they should be. Does it hurt D1? Sure it does, because those guys your fighting for should be on D1 rosters. I'm also willing to bet that most coaches at D3 sign MORE players for free that are left behind, (or just fighting another D3 coach), than they do sign players they fought hard to steal from a D1 or D2. Often times the D3 will win by default in those situations. Not because the D3 coach did some crazy feat. Now don't get me wrong, I know it happens. A D2 has signed a 5*. So lots of things are "possible" in HD. But generally speaking, you take what's left, regarding D3.

I also think we lose sight of the fact that the way we view players is all relative by scale. For example, if ratings capped at 80 instead of 100, every player on your roster would look amazing to you. So if all of a sudden recruiting changed and you were pulling in 400 ovr, good and well rounded players, while your D3 counterparts were only pulling in 350 ovr type of players, you'd still feel excited about your signings. It would just be a different scale.

So uh, this is a super tiny thing, I'm too lazy to read through all ten pages...but I think this applies to GD too.

Adam, could you fix the fact that on the Locker Room page teams are ordered by Team Name (A-Z) but under "My Teams" when you're actually in one of the worlds they're ordered by World Number (1-10)? Gets confusing if you have 3 or more teams.

Hardball Dynasty has "Diamonds in the Rough", in which young players in the minor leagues can get random bumps in their potential projected ratings. It might be nice to see something like this in HD. Lots of possibilities in how this could be done. Walk-ons, unranked freshmen, etc. It would need to be random and limited such that no one coach gets more than other coaches, and such that the players who benefit are not turning into LeBrons . . . just more useful players in their core skills and positions.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2020 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Hardball Dynasty has "Diamonds in the Rough", in which young players in the minor leagues can get random bumps in their potential projected ratings. It might be nice to see something like this in HD. Lots of possibilities in how this could be done. Walk-ons, unranked freshmen, etc. It would need to be random and limited such that no one coach gets more than other coaches, and such that the players who benefit are not turning into LeBrons . . . just more useful players in their core skills and positions.

Tbh, I like this. Could be a big boost to newer coaches at D3 level who struggle at first with recruiting. I know if I was brand new and one of my guys turned out to be a diamond in the rough it'd compel me to add a couple seasons and see him through to his senior year. I

If you are already playing HD and reserve a team in a different world, that reservation should serve as an application so you can recruit in RS2.

If they want to keep the rule that you only qualify for D3 that’s fine, but at least open RS2 so you can actually coach the first season.

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 12/29/2020 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2020 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Hardball Dynasty has "Diamonds in the Rough", in which young players in the minor leagues can get random bumps in their potential projected ratings. It might be nice to see something like this in HD. Lots of possibilities in how this could be done. Walk-ons, unranked freshmen, etc. It would need to be random and limited such that no one coach gets more than other coaches, and such that the players who benefit are not turning into LeBrons . . . just more useful players in their core skills and positions.

Tbh, I like this. Could be a big boost to newer coaches at D3 level who struggle at first with recruiting. I know if I was brand new and one of my guys turned out to be a diamond in the rough it'd compel me to add a couple seasons and see him through to his senior year. I

This already happens with high/high potential, doesn't it? A guard with 13 Per that's green can, in theory, reach 100 by senior year.

Posted by tkimble on 12/30/2020 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 12/29/2020 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2020 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Hardball Dynasty has "Diamonds in the Rough", in which young players in the minor leagues can get random bumps in their potential projected ratings. It might be nice to see something like this in HD. Lots of possibilities in how this could be done. Walk-ons, unranked freshmen, etc. It would need to be random and limited such that no one coach gets more than other coaches, and such that the players who benefit are not turning into LeBrons . . . just more useful players in their core skills and positions.

Tbh, I like this. Could be a big boost to newer coaches at D3 level who struggle at first with recruiting. I know if I was brand new and one of my guys turned out to be a diamond in the rough it'd compel me to add a couple seasons and see him through to his senior year. I

This already happens with high/high potential, doesn't it? A guard with 13 Per that's green can, in theory, reach 100 by senior year.

I vote for the creation of transfers starting in RS2.

I think AP should be the same regardless of how many openings you have. IRL a coach only has so much time and so many assistants and neither of those change if he has one scholarship or seven. Truly, I think the budget should be the same as well. It would stop players from holding walkon slots to get extra money. Or we just don't give money for walkons.

I think recruit preferences should matter most of all. If a west coast kid and has "far away" preference. an east coast school should be a prohibitive favorite. If a kid has a "zone" preference, a "zone" coach should have a significant advantage.

Transfers should happen more often. If a kid loses double digit WE in a season, he should transfer (he would in RL). And you should be able to recruit that kid with promises of future playing time/starter status and AP during RS1.

Wasn’t there a “dream school” feature in 2.0? I liked that.

If a kid grows up crazy about your school because his mom and dad met at the college dance and conceived him in a dorm room, chances are he’s likely to play for you over any other offers.

Best home court advantage rating = best fans = most number of recruits dreaming to go that school.

I’m not sure if we really want to make this game like real life... Duke, Kansas, North Carolina have enough recruits wanting to play there to fill 3 rosters each season.

Game planning really needs updated. Being able to choose who guards which player, not just assigning a person to a position for that game. Better control of substitutions, not relying on the AI to decide off of fatigue and depth chart, but actual different lineups for certain in game situations. Like a small ball lineup, a 3-ball lineup, defensive lineup when needed, etc. Maybe it could be set up similar to the Losing Late and Winning Late decisions?

I also feel like scouting should be less absolute, more realistic. Not every player lives up to expectations and some exceed. A little variance would be nice.

Posted by craigaltonw on 12/31/2020 3:58:00 AM (view original):
Wasn’t there a “dream school” feature in 2.0? I liked that.

If a kid grows up crazy about your school because his mom and dad met at the college dance and conceived him in a dorm room, chances are he’s likely to play for you over any other offers.

Best home court advantage rating = best fans = most number of recruits dreaming to go that school.

I’m not sure if we really want to make this game like real life... Duke, Kansas, North Carolina have enough recruits wanting to play there to fill 3 rosters each season.

yeah but it was close enough to meaningless to be totally irrelevant. you'd get just as many fans of kentucky as you would for ball state, and those fans would be randomly distributed geographically in a time when anyone over 200-360 miles (depending on circumstance / region) was often out of the question. so you'd be coaching UNC or something and you'd find like 4 d2/d3 caliber d1 recruits who you were favorite on. then once every 100 seasons you'd actually go after a guy who was your favorite school, and the impact was generally considered undetectable to the human eye (so probably 10% or less - which is far from meaningless - but still).

this was axed with preferences which IMO are much better. its a cool concept but its hard to implement in a way that is neither negligible or an undue advantage for the blue bloods.