Has anyone ever experienced a D1 world with 200+ D1 coaches. I'm just curious how much recruiting would change. Maybe one day we will see.

Posted by Nick_Bennett on 3/19/2021 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone ever experienced a D1 world with 200+ D1 coaches. I'm just curious how much recruiting would change. Maybe one day we will see.

It would change a ton. People would have to adapt at all levels, and fast. There would be tears.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/19/2021 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Nick_Bennett on 3/19/2021 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone ever experienced a D1 world with 200+ D1 coaches. I'm just curious how much recruiting would change. Maybe one day we will see.

It would change a ton. People would have to adapt at all levels, and fast. There would be tears.

I fear the norm in D1 will become taking 3-4 walk-ons each season and while running slowdown every game.

not super up to date world population data (from 6 weeks ago) - if anyone wants to see the fullness of old vs now etc. its super ugly though. i'll make it less horrible when i get around to adding it to the rankings website.

world population data updated 2/10/21 - Hoops Dynasty | WhatIfSports.com

200 folks in D1 would be an interesting problem to have. I trust that our new team will deal with it and other issues as they arise. I mean, I can't speak for old timers here but the amount of change we've seen over the past 3 months has been more than the first year I played the game combined. It's refreshing to see HD getting some attention and fixes.

when new worlds opened and you raced to get a school in a location etc that you liked...

then you raced to see if you could be among the first to DI......

a full DIII - those were the days

Posted by darnoc29099 on 3/19/2021 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/19/2021 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Nick_Bennett on 3/19/2021 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone ever experienced a D1 world with 200+ D1 coaches. I'm just curious how much recruiting would change. Maybe one day we will see.

It would change a ton. People would have to adapt at all levels, and fast. There would be tears.

I fear the norm in D1 will become taking 3-4 walk-ons each season and while running slowdown every game.

^^^ this +100000. 3.0 will not function with much higher of a world population than we have right now without some type of rework (1/2 resources for walkons or something)

This is why I generally consider myself pro new-World

Why is everyone so concerned about DI schools having to take walk-ons? Genuinely asking because I don’t understand and think I am missing something. From a realism standpoint it’s not unusual at all for DI teams to run 8-9 man rotations.

From an HD standpoint stamina’s are so high in DI I see a ton of teams with 9-10 players already. I already take 2 walk ons basically every year as a DII zone team, I could easily get away with 9 in years where I have high ST among starters.

Posted by A_B_G on 3/20/2021 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Why is everyone so concerned about DI schools having to take walk-ons? Genuinely asking because I don’t understand and think I am missing something. From a realism standpoint it’s not unusual at all for DI teams to run 8-9 man rotations.

From an HD standpoint stamina’s are so high in DI I see a ton of teams with 9-10 players already. I already take 2 walk ons basically every year as a DII zone team, I could easily get away with 9 in years where I have high ST among starters.

No one should really be concerned about it, per se. From a gameplay perspective, it’s a valid choice. I dislike how powerful slowdown is in terms of benefits for short rotations with no real gameplay counter for deeper teams who are not running FB/press, but that’s kind of a different topic. Tangentially related, but not really worth getting into here.

I definitely *strongly* disagree with the notion that WIS should think about structural changes to the game if it faces 200+ users in D1. Like, that’s absolutely bonkers. The system is built for that. The game is not designed to let teams have rosters of 10 superstars every year, the low population is the whole reason why parts of the game feel dysfunctional. Higher population simply means users will have to adjust their gameplay and strategies. Some will choose to take more walkons, yes, though many already do that. Many more will do something closer to what I do, which is perfectly viable *right now*, and will run full or mostly full rosters, and recruit more players from lower levels of the D1 pool on a routine basis, either redshirting them, or limiting exposure until they are upperclassmen.

It will be harder for mid-majors to recruit like A baseline teams, for sure. They will need to adjust. So will everyone who is not at the top of the food chain. But it will work itself out.

shoe, i am curious about your comment on the 200+ user situation. it seems to me if d1 has 200+ users per world, or probably anything close to that, they should definitely think about opening another world. agree/disagree?

if d2/d3 are pretty full, i would agree the game as-is is fine - just open another world. i don't think the influx of coaches is sufficient to power those numbers, and i don't really think having 500 humans in a world works out well in today's format. however, i could see the moderate increase in humans from covid and maybe the promotion, combined with the jobs change to open d1 to more coaches, resulting in a pretty substantial increase in d1 population (without much increase for d2/d3). at least i think that is the premise contemplated here, however unlikely or likely it may be.

so my question, i suppose, is what should be done if such a scenario does play out, d2/d3 are in the double digits while d1 is in the upper 100s or maybe even 200?

Posted by A_B_G on 3/20/2021 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Why is everyone so concerned about DI schools having to take walk-ons? Genuinely asking because I don’t understand and think I am missing something. From a realism standpoint it’s not unusual at all for DI teams to run 8-9 man rotations.

From an HD standpoint stamina’s are so high in DI I see a ton of teams with 9-10 players already. I already take 2 walk ons basically every year as a DII zone team, I could easily get away with 9 in years where I have high ST among starters.

they are concerned half the coaches will start taking walkons as a strategy to boost per-recruit resources in recruiting. if everyone else is doing it, it is really hard to build a deep team yourself, i suppose. i think in general folks just don't like the strategy anyway (of intentionally taking walkons to boost recruiting resources later).

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/20/2021 10:06:00 PM (view original):
shoe, i am curious about your comment on the 200+ user situation. it seems to me if d1 has 200+ users per world, or probably anything close to that, they should definitely think about opening another world. agree/disagree?

if d2/d3 are pretty full, i would agree the game as-is is fine - just open another world. i don't think the influx of coaches is sufficient to power those numbers, and i don't really think having 500 humans in a world works out well in today's format. however, i could see the moderate increase in humans from covid and maybe the promotion, combined with the jobs change to open d1 to more coaches, resulting in a pretty substantial increase in d1 population (without much increase for d2/d3). at least i think that is the premise contemplated here, however unlikely or likely it may be.

so my question, i suppose, is what should be done if such a scenario does play out, d2/d3 are in the double digits while d1 is in the upper 100s or maybe even 200?

I don’t really know when they should open a new world, whenever they feel like it I guess? I mean population should probably be stable enough to where they are confident that it isn’t going to end up cannibalizing too much of the existing population. But I think it’s a given that opening a new world is pretty much automatically going to get big interest to begin with, as people race to elite positions. It will level off over time, and if the world is just another world like the 10 that already exist, I’m not sure it’s a net positive in the long run, but if there’s something new they can offer in this world, like realignment or a 50-60 year coach career cap, or something novel like that, it could be interesting.

I don’t see the gap between D1 and D2/D3 staying that wide for very long, as long as incentives are uniform. Credits will draw a number of users to the lower divisions as D1 fills up. Ideally, I’d like to see 150-200 for D1, and 100-150 for the lower divisions. I think that’s pretty healthy, and given the current $12.95 price point, is probably about what the market will bear, I’d guess. If they want to get above that number, I think we’re talking about pricing changes, not necessarily structural changes to make that work. From a gameplay perspective, that should be left to the users to adjust to the environment, that’s what I was getting at above.

It will definitely be interesting to see how recruiting plays out with an influx of D1 coaches. I think there will be a lot more 3-4 team rolls on top-100 recruits. The talent on individual teams will be watered down a bit, but hopefully that should bring more parity, in which case things like game planning and roster management might become even more important than they are now. Good for the health of the game, imo.

What do you guys think about these changes:
1. Remove the cap of 20 home visits. Make them unlimited.
2. Add a cap for home visits per cycle. Maybe 5? This is so no one can drop 30 home visits.
3. Recruits with late signing preference don't start signing until 2nd day of RS2.

I always like seeing more strategy and less luck. By not having a cap on home visits, I think coaches will need to make more decisions and rely less on the cookie-cutter 1 CV, 20 HV, Promised Start/Minutes and then waiting to see if you get lucky. This will also lead to less rolls as coaches can outspend on a single recruit if they REALLY want him, while forsaking their other open scholarships.

With allowing more home visits, having a HV cap per cycle makes sense. In fact, it's probably something that we should already have. The big issue with capping HV per cycle is with schools that just lost an EE. They would have an even more difficult time signing someone in RS2, which is why...

Late recruits don't sign until 2nd day of RS2. That would give everyone a fair shot at these guys. D2 schools could still sign Early and EoP1 recruits in the first cycle so hopefully it wouldn't hurt them too much either. This is another change that probably should have been made years ago. It really helps with EE situation without having any huge negatives. What was the point of having a RS2 and Late recruits if not for creating a viable option for EEs?

Anyways, just kinda spit-balling here. Maybe I missed some glaring issue, but it makes sense to me.

Posted by mlitney on 3/21/2021 3:55:00 PM (view original):
It will definitely be interesting to see how recruiting plays out with an influx of D1 coaches. I think there will be a lot more 3-4 team rolls on top-100 recruits. The talent on individual teams will be watered down a bit, but hopefully that should bring more parity, in which case things like game planning and roster management might become even more important than they are now. Good for the health of the game, imo.

What do you guys think about these changes:
1. Remove the cap of 20 home visits. Make them unlimited.
2. Add a cap for home visits per cycle. Maybe 5? This is so no one can drop 30 home visits.
3. Recruits with late signing preference don't start signing until 2nd day of RS2.

I always like seeing more strategy and less luck. By not having a cap on home visits, I think coaches will need to make more decisions and rely less on the cookie-cutter 1 CV, 20 HV, Promised Start/Minutes and then waiting to see if you get lucky. This will also lead to less rolls as coaches can outspend on a single recruit if they REALLY want him, while forsaking their other open scholarships.

With allowing more home visits, having a HV cap per cycle makes sense. In fact, it's probably something that we should already have. The big issue with capping HV per cycle is with schools that just lost an EE. They would have an even more difficult time signing someone in RS2, which is why...

Late recruits don't sign until 2nd day of RS2. That would give everyone a fair shot at these guys. D2 schools could still sign Early and EoP1 recruits in the first cycle so hopefully it wouldn't hurt them too much either. This is another change that probably should have been made years ago. It really helps with EE situation without having any huge negatives. What was the point of having a RS2 and Late recruits if not for creating a viable option for EEs?

Anyways, just kinda spit-balling here. Maybe I missed some glaring issue, but it makes sense to me.

1. Hard no. Probably the shortest, simplest answer is that this is a college basketball simulation, not a marketplace simulation. The simulation should be focused on recruiting players, not buying them. 20 HVs, with no diminishing returns (especially for players with negative preference matches), is already way too many.

This has come up a few times since the start of beta. There’s a serious misconception here that going to “roll” on a player is luck, and that “strategy” is about deciding how many HVs (above 20, I guess) one is willing to spend for a given player. But lots of great players go for something other than the “cookie-cutter” offer; I just signed the #9 OVR in the country in Phelan for far less (won’t get specific as recruiting is not done, but it was not the max, not by a long shot). That’s not rare for me. I go all in for guys, sure, but I sign lots of great players for something other than all-in effort, too. “Strategy” is about decisions you make all along that process, including how many guys you’re willing to roll for, and how often you line up backup options (and when).

2. Fine with it, BUT, it will make life much harder for teams with early entries, especially multiple. Currently, lining up a late signing target, ready to spring when you get the resources right away in the 2nd session, is the standard method for dealing with expected EE loss. I know the intention is to probably to mitigate that with the 3rd point, but moving those the second day gives everyone more time to react, and also probably makes it more likely those targets will be invested in by other teams *prior to* the 2nd session, reducing the chances of landing good recruits. Again, I’m alright with this, I adjust alright, I just foresee a lot of consternation given how much folks complain about how tough it is for them to replace EEs as it is.

3. Again, kind of ambivalent. I’ll adjust, but I doubt this will be very popular when actually in practice, at least at D1. One or *maybe* two no-sign cycles, sure. More than that probably compresses the 2nd signing period too much, and especially if this goes along with 2, where folks are limited in how many HVs they can send during this time as they’re trying to scramble to replace EEs and make up for lost battles, I don’t see this helping too much.

In all, again, I don’t think any structural changes to recruiting in response to higher population are necessary, in fact I think most will be a bad idea. Certainly #1 above. We adjust to higher population in a competitive multiplayer environment by adjusting our gameplay.