Posted by gillispie on 7/8/2021 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/8/2021 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Here me out. How about we cap the divisions?

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of that before...

agreed... i am not really for or against the myriad of ideas like capping hv per cycle, adding little things here and there like assistant coach whatevers, i just don't think they address the core competitive landscape issue. even if they added more moderate players, if most of them go d2 early in RS2, there's not really enough time.

of course you would agree with me that... the fundamental design of the 2 sessions is a barrier. i think it could be worked around - i think there's a lot of viable scenarios i guess - but *something* has to give, when everyone and their mother is battling like crazy for the great and good recruits, there needs to be a substantial bank of decent players to fall back on. i know those players exist, and that astute coaches can find them, and all those things - but the volume of players and the effort required to keep tabs on them, it just feels fundamentally out of balance with the number of folks competing for great players.

to shoe's point, maybe folks could just stop competing for those great players in such wide volume - but i think a lot of folks would agree that such is one of the only clear wins of 3.0 recruiting, the end of 4-5 5* players per class going to a+ schools without a fight and all that. and besides, with today's population, if you drop down 1-2 rungs of recruits - there are still battles everywhere! if you are going to flip, may as well flip for someone good, right? d1 recruiting should be competitive. it just needs a safety net.

Yeah, I guess my list of improvements to recruiting were a little off-topic since they weren't really meant to fix the competitive balance. They were more of a general improvement to the recruiting process.

I totally agree with your sentiments though. This is especially true on the East Coast where there are so many solid mid-major conferences/teams. I was excited to get to an A prestige with my Georgia Tech team, but I'm still getting pecked to death by B and C prestige teams. I even targeted some lower-tier recruits thinking that I could grab them for cheap in order to free up more resources for the elite battles, but it's been a real blood bath. I was even willing to snag a 40 athleticism guard from a D2 team, but a B- mid major beat me to them haha.

You almost have to be willing to go all-in on every single target, which is going to make it difficult to field a deep team. I believe the effect of this will be an indirect buff to the zone defense and stamina.

Posted by cra666 on 7/7/2021 9:42:00 AM (view original):
How about put more emphasis on the coach. Too many times coaches get into a power 5 conference, and reap the conference prestige benefit. While not getting passed the second round of the NT. Make things like CPOY, COY etc...help in recruiting also. The coach is generally the reason kids sign. Team success. Player success. Awards. All conference. Drafted players. Are all reasons kids signs. Very few sign with , say Oregon, cuz they're in the pac12.

I agree with this. I had a surprising CPOY, only to miss out on more ties the following season. I figured a drafted player CPOY, I'd have some luck in recruiting. 3 seasons later, still missing on coin flips... :(

Like others have said, I really feel prefs need more impact in recruiting. Too often I have 4 or 5 VH only to watch them chase lesser playing time gigs at big time teams despite wanting playing time... sigh...

Posted by themonstars on 7/8/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Gigrant is dead on with the absurdity of an elite team losing a coin flip and ending up having to offer a guy that had one offer from a D3 school. That's totally ridiculous and, while certain things can't be true to life in any simulation, this is just a situation that is laughably terrible.

I think recruiting should be less about managing limited resources, i.e. recruiting dollars, and should be almost all about prestige/preferences.

So what's the game? You get to Duke and you can basically pick from any recruits who preferences match, anyone who's not at an A or A+ prestige team is out of luck?

Sounds fun

Count me in the group of coaches who doesn't think DI recruiting is broken.

I could get behind adding some more mid/low tier guys to player generation, or moving back to one recruiting period that happens after the season to remove the huge disincentive to switching teams.

I'm not sure what problem some of the suggestions are meant to fix (no budget cap per recruit, limit only X visits per cycle) and in a few cases I wouldn't be surprised to see them create a whole new set of issues.

Posted by themonstars on 7/8/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Gigrant is dead on with the absurdity of an elite team losing a coin flip and ending up having to offer a guy that had one offer from a D3 school. That's totally ridiculous and, while certain things can't be true to life in any simulation, this is just a situation that is laughably terrible.

I think recruiting should be less about managing limited resources, i.e. recruiting dollars, and should be almost all about prestige/preferences.

More laughable is when the d3 actually BEATS the elite d1 team.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/8/2021 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dw172300 on 7/8/2021 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by themonstars on 7/8/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Gigrant is dead on with the absurdity of an elite team losing a coin flip and ending up having to offer a guy that had one offer from a D3 school. That's totally ridiculous and, while certain things can't be true to life in any simulation, this is just a situation that is laughably terrible.

I think recruiting should be less about managing limited resources, i.e. recruiting dollars, and should be almost all about prestige/preferences.

So what's the game? You get to Duke and you can basically pick from any recruits who preferences match, anyone who's not at an A or A+ prestige team is out of luck?

Sounds fun

So this is where I think we get into why this upcoming firing gambit is so poorly conceived. I know Adam understands that a good game requires “problems” at every level, disruptions, choices that users have to make, choices that have real consequences. The game that exists *already* has those problems baked into high D1. That’s what 3.0 was all about, what this whole thread complains about. Feature, not a bug. This firing thing is likely designed to be that kind of “disruptive problem”, but the miscalculation is that it is going to act as a poison pill for all the “problems” that already exist, because now we’re talking about losing teams, not just losing recruits.

Introduce these absurd firing expectations, and now all these existing problems are untenable. The game that exists will truly be unplayable, at least at its current price point. Unless the admins have a real quick epiphany about that, I’m afraid this frustrating but lovable game is really on the brink of collapse within a couple years.

I just don't see it. This game has been on life support for many years now. If anything, the new developers have breathed new life into it. We've seen so many new and returning players in the past 6 months. This firings change affects such a small percentage of the overall jobs in a world. If they back off the restrictions a bit, it will only really matter to maybe 1-3% of the world population.

But you're really only looking at this from the side of someone losing a team. On the flip side, imagine all of the coaches that will be happy to actually have a shot at their dream job. UNC might actually be available at some point?

If the firings are done correctly, they'll **** off a few people but make the game more dynamic. The expectations will be clearly laid out so if you don't want to deal with the pressure of winning coin flips, then just take a team that isn't on the list. Just grab some buddies and form a mid-major super conference. But if you want to coast forever on your A+ baseline prestige that you got back in 1973, its not going to happen anymore (and it shouldn't).

The job hiring logic update now allows mostly any coach to get a P6 job. Fine, now prove that you belong there.

There's an obvious counter to the analogy of UK missing out on 3 studs and having to settle for 3 drunk frat boys.

Do you think the UK coaching staff had backup plans in case AD, or John Wall, or Cousins, et al. decided to play for other schools?

I completely agree with those who refuse to let people blame the game when the *human* coaches make the decision to go all or nothing for top-tier talent, and have to live with the consequences.

It's obvious that you won't get any top-tier guys without going all in, but if that's your resource limit then you should consider picking one or two of them to pursue and use the remaining resources for your backup plan. Or pursue all three knowing you might end up with 3 drunken frat boys - and then try not complaining about it when *your* decision blows up in your face.

Posted by mlitney on 7/8/2021 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/8/2021 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dw172300 on 7/8/2021 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by themonstars on 7/8/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Gigrant is dead on with the absurdity of an elite team losing a coin flip and ending up having to offer a guy that had one offer from a D3 school. That's totally ridiculous and, while certain things can't be true to life in any simulation, this is just a situation that is laughably terrible.

I think recruiting should be less about managing limited resources, i.e. recruiting dollars, and should be almost all about prestige/preferences.

So what's the game? You get to Duke and you can basically pick from any recruits who preferences match, anyone who's not at an A or A+ prestige team is out of luck?

Sounds fun

So this is where I think we get into why this upcoming firing gambit is so poorly conceived. I know Adam understands that a good game requires “problems” at every level, disruptions, choices that users have to make, choices that have real consequences. The game that exists *already* has those problems baked into high D1. That’s what 3.0 was all about, what this whole thread complains about. Feature, not a bug. This firing thing is likely designed to be that kind of “disruptive problem”, but the miscalculation is that it is going to act as a poison pill for all the “problems” that already exist, because now we’re talking about losing teams, not just losing recruits.

Introduce these absurd firing expectations, and now all these existing problems are untenable. The game that exists will truly be unplayable, at least at its current price point. Unless the admins have a real quick epiphany about that, I’m afraid this frustrating but lovable game is really on the brink of collapse within a couple years.

I just don't see it. This game has been on life support for many years now. If anything, the new developers have breathed new life into it. We've seen so many new and returning players in the past 6 months. This firings change affects such a small percentage of the overall jobs in a world. If they back off the restrictions a bit, it will only really matter to maybe 1-3% of the world population.

But you're really only looking at this from the side of someone losing a team. On the flip side, imagine all of the coaches that will be happy to actually have a shot at their dream job. UNC might actually be available at some point?

If the firings are done correctly, they'll **** off a few people but make the game more dynamic. The expectations will be clearly laid out so if you don't want to deal with the pressure of winning coin flips, then just take a team that isn't on the list. Just grab some buddies and form a mid-major super conference. But if you want to coast forever on your A+ baseline prestige that you got back in 1973, its not going to happen anymore (and it shouldn't).

The job hiring logic update now allows mostly any coach to get a P6 job. Fine, now prove that you belong there.

I know you don’t see it. You’ve always been looking at this myopically, as they are. The whole point here is that now the folks at high D1 have to care that much more about all the “problems” that already exist, and then those problems trickle down to everyone from a gameplay standpoint. If you have to worry about having a connection severed with a team you’ve waited years for, and paid hundreds of dollars for, you’re going to play the game differently. 13$ per season is way, WAY too high for the casual kind of “oh I’ll just **** around and see if I can turn this dumpster fire at UConn into a Sweet 16 team in the next 4 (or 6, or 8) seasons, and if not, oh well, I’ll start again somewhere else” kind of game they apparently want this to be.

They are delusional if they think folks are going to pay that much for that kind of experience, to have the team yanked away right as it is prepared for the next guy. If they go through with this firings plan, they will have to make all sorts of changes to the structure of game to keep folks at D1, and if this thread is any indication, all of those changes are likely to make the game much, much worse.

And none of this was necessary. All they had to do was just sit back and let the coaches who wanted to try D1, try D1. Those that “fail” and didn’t like it would go back to lower levels. Those that “fail” and want to stick it out would be paying full price for the product (which… I mean, if the game really IS on “life support”…). The sky is falling act was a true disaster.

I think that one major improvement would be increasing the likelihood of transfers. Bury a sophomore behind an inferior freshman? In real life, he’s leaving. Have a fourth PG who would be a starter on 85% of teams, he’s probably leaving. Force coaches to recruit and manage. Allow other coaches to benefit when they don’t.

Some think DI recruiting is broken because they dont succeed at it. Then come up with crazy ideas that would actually break DI recruiting.
2 recruiting sessions is broken
everything else is a mild inconvenience

D1 D- prestige recruiting is very hard. That’s all I have to contribute. Carry on.

i don't agree with the "back-up plan" discussions. how can you have a back-up plan if you lose a bunch of coin-flips and don't have budget left? i'm not talking about a mid major with a C prestige chasing 5 stars. that is suicidal and deserves failure. but chasing a 2 star recruit, and then a high prestige drops in to take him. why can't that mid-major then go chase another 2 or even just a zero star with potential after losing the battles? this is why late preference guys are important - they are the fall back options for everyone. but you can't fall back if you budget is gone. to me, this is the biggest problem - you can't recover. in real life ALL teams can try to recover. but we are denied that opportunity here. running a pre-existing A prestige program is very easy, and the last update on recruiting didn't change that. building a strong program is a challenge, as it should be. i feel most of the people not in agreement with improving recruiting are coaches holding on to their cake programs. they don't want to be challenged. i think that mentality is predictable.

anyway, when you can't recover, you end up with crap walk-ons. that's not realistic. if you don't agree that this is a problem......

I read the proposed solutions at the start of the thread, but could someone state simply what they see as the problems with recruiting? There are a bunch of ideas in this thread - some of which seem good, some seem not very good.

I have various issues with recruiting, but it would help to know what folks who propose change think is currently broken

For example,

1. I think the degree of difficulty for a new coach in session 2 is too high. That needs some sort of fix.

2. I dont think it is a problem that folks face disaster when they pursue top talent without also having in place backup plan and or some less highly touted recruits. Fly without a net, one can crash. Answer - recruit some lesser guys too.

but what are the problems that these solutions are intended to fix?