Posted by digitalv on 8/21/2021 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 8/20/2021 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mike1004 on 8/19/2021 4:07:00 PM (view original):
I am amazed at the number of posts which greatly or entirely dismiss the idea that anything other than D1 is important. I - and many other players - have no interest in moving to D1. I don’t need “a taste of the EE hell that awaits” me in D1. I have no plan on going there. All this discussion when we are talking about only a very few truly new coaches seems a bit disingenuous. There are some people who hop from school to school every couple of seasons. That’s a legitimate personal choice. Are we now being asked to change the game in order to actually accommodate that play choice by eliminating the negative consequences of that choice? I don’t think that kind of change would belong in a “Dynasty” league.

The subject of this topic is improving RS2 for D1 schools. I don't know what type of posts you were expecting to see here.

I don't think anyone has dismissed D2 or D3 schools. They're obviously important, but D1 has more coaches than D2 and D3 combined. It's nothing personal against D2/D3 coaches, it's just that the reality is Sportshub needs to fix D1 if they want to bring new users to this game as D1 is the main attraction.

I have no idea where you're going with your job hopping comment. How is anyone trying to accommodate that? Just curious because I didn't see any connection to that from any of the previous comments (but I also didn't read back through all of them).

not trying to speak for mike on this, but I think what he means about the job hopping comment is that there is no penalty for the coaches who move jobs every 2-3 seasons frequently. It used to be back in the day that schools started getting turned off by the coaches that just tried to jump around to the good teams to achieve success. Now it doesn't seem like they get penalized nearly as much.

Thanks for the response digital. I understand the issue he was speaking about. I just don't see how it relates to this thread, or to the individual responses within this thread. But like I said, maybe I missed something.

Posted by piman314 on 8/17/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Frist, I hope this is not a major change. I play high level D1 and deal with early entries all the time and have no problem with how they are set up. I hope the twist involves any of the following:
1. Making D2 schools wait until the cycle before D3 schools can sign D1 players to sign D1 players (so 5 PM eastern on the second day of session 2). This would mean in theory that D1 schools could open a scholarship at 5 eastern, offer minutes and a start and home and maybe campus visits by 11PM. In a lot of cases this would mean the D1 school getting the recruit over the D2 school, which is really how it should be. This would also help the lucky crapshoot that is D2 right now be more playable, because right now it is almost unplayable (I have 2 D2 teams and I'm really trying to like it, but it's just so hard to). You could also make it so late recruits don't sign with anybody until 11 AM on the second day to give new coaches a chance to battle other D1 schools as well, but it also means the guys looking to replace EEs could get involved and I don't think that is a good thing.

2. Give more original recruits late signing preferences. This could be done in conjunction with 1 above. Alone this does not solve the problem, because so many late recruits sign early in session 2. Don't create more recruits for session 2 just out of thin air.

3. This is the one I like and could be done in conjunction with both above, but I know I am in the minority on this one. Make a "transfer board" similar to the early entry board for D2 (and possibly some really top D3 players). Each year the top 30 - 50 returning D2 players (and maybe a D3 player or two would sneak in there) leave their school and and are immediately scouted to level 4 for all D1 schools to see. Actions would still need to be opened. These players would have to go D1 (even if it is to a sim, you couldn't have a D2 school lose their best player because he wants bigger and better things and then have them go to a rival D2 school). The coaches at D2 and maybe even D3 who is recruiting this level player knows how to replace them, and it is a lot easier to find talent late that can play D2 and D3 when compared to D1. Again, I know most will hate this idea but it gives more talent to the end of D1 recruiting and levels the playing field in D2 (and possibly D3) a bit.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Thank you to the development team for all you do and for taking our opinions during the firing update. You've done a great job.

Piman you and I have discussed this a dozen times, but in your #1 point, I just can't wrap my head around it. D2 is easily THE most fun level of the game to play. To be clear, I view you as one of the best coaches ever to play HD. And maybe THE best. So please don't take this comment out of context. But I just feel like you don't grasp how to approach D2. It's not because you can't do it of course, you're a legend! But you dominate D1 and D3. And in D2 you don't have near the success. That doesn't make it almost unplayable. It's just not your groove.

Now that I've stepped up to D1 to make everyone happy, and I'm solid at it (as well as D2) and competing, and winning ships, I STILL view D2 as the most fun to play by a wide margin FOR GAMING PURPOSES. It's got so many twists and turns in recruiting that it's 1000x more fun than D1 and D3 are. I'm not sure how you dont have fun (or don't have success, whichever you're referring to mostly for your personal opinions), but it's the only level that really feels like we're recruiting!

D1 feels like you just throw darts and wait to see who hits the bullseye (winning the roll). D3 you just wait and see.... wait and see..... wait and see...... and wait and see some more. At D2, you're actually recruiting! You're starting out by trying to find the proper talent within your reach, aim too low and you're not going to contend. But you can also reach high enough to wrestle those fringe players away from D1 schools that they aren't valuing, and in a timely manner. Not at the last second. If you swing and miss, you still have time to pick on D3 schools that are leading on a player that shouldn't be in D3 anyways, and get you a nice back up. It's like the perfect balance of real gaming.

In D1 most big 6 schools have all very good preferences (at least the teams I've put together after a few seasons), you just pick who you want and hope you get them until you're out of money. Then you either take a walk on, or a player that fills a roster spot so the sim doesn't sign one for you. That's not "recruiting". That feels like working around game logic/rules to me. (And to be clear I don't mean "YOU" specifically, piman. I mean any coaches).

D2 is the best game play and it's really not even close. I think most coaches generally have the outlook of whatever they are most successful at, is what they feel is "best". It's their style, their approach. And piman is super super elite at D1 and D3, but (we could argue that he's) not on the same level with his D2 career. To me that doesn't show it's not good game play. It's just that piman is not AS successful at D2, so it's "this is unplayable" to him. I don't agree with that. It's very playable, very fun, and has the most options and strategy of all levels if you know what you're doing.

I waited until the right time to comment on this because the community has rightfully viewed me as a D2 coach for a long time, and the same could be said about my vision. "Top plays D2 so of course he'll like D2 the best". But now that I'm an all D1 coach basically, and a proven winner (and I personally feel I'm better at D1 than I was D2 but I just need more time to pass to REALLY show that), I still believe D2 is a much much better game.

piman, you're still the man. One of the best this game has seen! Not attacking you. Just agreeing to disagree. And hoping you understand my thought process even tho you disagree.

And also I dont remember who mentioned it, so I won't quote it. But D3 being forced to recruit from D3 pool would not kill D3 at all. But the pool itself needs to be revamped a bit.

But if everyone is fishing in the same pond, all teams will be equal. Creating more even game play and bigger impact on coaching and roster construction. Right now all the D3 coaches are fishing in a lake, elites are pulling out sharks and killer whales. THAT is what's ruining D3. And it's a bigger problem that it's been this way for so long that we can't even see it as a problem. And it's now just the norm.

I’ve always been a proponent of making promises apply to the whole career (including post season) and making the bonus significantly higher. The top teams couldn’t offer every recruit 25 and a start and then bench them when the post season and/or their soph season rolls around.

The RS2 benefit is likely you’d get a few more transfers as coaches would have to make more decisions on who to keeps vs. desire to win games especially in light of the new firing logic.

Posted by texashick on 8/24/2021 5:37:00 PM (view original):
I’ve always been a proponent of making promises apply to the whole career (including post season) and making the bonus significantly higher. The top teams couldn’t offer every recruit 25 and a start and then bench them when the post season and/or their soph season rolls around.

The RS2 benefit is likely you’d get a few more transfers as coaches would have to make more decisions on who to keeps vs. desire to win games especially in light of the new firing logic.

That's the exact point that I've been trying to push for awhile now, but many users don't seem to like the idea. I guess because it means more work on the roster management side of things. Anyways, I won't get into because I'm pretty sure I've already pushed shoe3 to the point of calling me an idiot haha.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/24/2021 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by piman314 on 8/17/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Frist, I hope this is not a major change. I play high level D1 and deal with early entries all the time and have no problem with how they are set up. I hope the twist involves any of the following:
1. Making D2 schools wait until the cycle before D3 schools can sign D1 players to sign D1 players (so 5 PM eastern on the second day of session 2). This would mean in theory that D1 schools could open a scholarship at 5 eastern, offer minutes and a start and home and maybe campus visits by 11PM. In a lot of cases this would mean the D1 school getting the recruit over the D2 school, which is really how it should be. This would also help the lucky crapshoot that is D2 right now be more playable, because right now it is almost unplayable (I have 2 D2 teams and I'm really trying to like it, but it's just so hard to). You could also make it so late recruits don't sign with anybody until 11 AM on the second day to give new coaches a chance to battle other D1 schools as well, but it also means the guys looking to replace EEs could get involved and I don't think that is a good thing.

2. Give more original recruits late signing preferences. This could be done in conjunction with 1 above. Alone this does not solve the problem, because so many late recruits sign early in session 2. Don't create more recruits for session 2 just out of thin air.

3. This is the one I like and could be done in conjunction with both above, but I know I am in the minority on this one. Make a "transfer board" similar to the early entry board for D2 (and possibly some really top D3 players). Each year the top 30 - 50 returning D2 players (and maybe a D3 player or two would sneak in there) leave their school and and are immediately scouted to level 4 for all D1 schools to see. Actions would still need to be opened. These players would have to go D1 (even if it is to a sim, you couldn't have a D2 school lose their best player because he wants bigger and better things and then have them go to a rival D2 school). The coaches at D2 and maybe even D3 who is recruiting this level player knows how to replace them, and it is a lot easier to find talent late that can play D2 and D3 when compared to D1. Again, I know most will hate this idea but it gives more talent to the end of D1 recruiting and levels the playing field in D2 (and possibly D3) a bit.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Thank you to the development team for all you do and for taking our opinions during the firing update. You've done a great job.

Piman you and I have discussed this a dozen times, but in your #1 point, I just can't wrap my head around it. D2 is easily THE most fun level of the game to play. To be clear, I view you as one of the best coaches ever to play HD. And maybe THE best. So please don't take this comment out of context. But I just feel like you don't grasp how to approach D2. It's not because you can't do it of course, you're a legend! But you dominate D1 and D3. And in D2 you don't have near the success. That doesn't make it almost unplayable. It's just not your groove.

Now that I've stepped up to D1 to make everyone happy, and I'm solid at it (as well as D2) and competing, and winning ships, I STILL view D2 as the most fun to play by a wide margin FOR GAMING PURPOSES. It's got so many twists and turns in recruiting that it's 1000x more fun than D1 and D3 are. I'm not sure how you dont have fun (or don't have success, whichever you're referring to mostly for your personal opinions), but it's the only level that really feels like we're recruiting!

D1 feels like you just throw darts and wait to see who hits the bullseye (winning the roll). D3 you just wait and see.... wait and see..... wait and see...... and wait and see some more. At D2, you're actually recruiting! You're starting out by trying to find the proper talent within your reach, aim too low and you're not going to contend. But you can also reach high enough to wrestle those fringe players away from D1 schools that they aren't valuing, and in a timely manner. Not at the last second. If you swing and miss, you still have time to pick on D3 schools that are leading on a player that shouldn't be in D3 anyways, and get you a nice back up. It's like the perfect balance of real gaming.

In D1 most big 6 schools have all very good preferences (at least the teams I've put together after a few seasons), you just pick who you want and hope you get them until you're out of money. Then you either take a walk on, or a player that fills a roster spot so the sim doesn't sign one for you. That's not "recruiting". That feels like working around game logic/rules to me. (And to be clear I don't mean "YOU" specifically, piman. I mean any coaches).

D2 is the best game play and it's really not even close. I think most coaches generally have the outlook of whatever they are most successful at, is what they feel is "best". It's their style, their approach. And piman is super super elite at D1 and D3, but (we could argue that he's) not on the same level with his D2 career. To me that doesn't show it's not good game play. It's just that piman is not AS successful at D2, so it's "this is unplayable" to him. I don't agree with that. It's very playable, very fun, and has the most options and strategy of all levels if you know what you're doing.

I waited until the right time to comment on this because the community has rightfully viewed me as a D2 coach for a long time, and the same could be said about my vision. "Top plays D2 so of course he'll like D2 the best". But now that I'm an all D1 coach basically, and a proven winner (and I personally feel I'm better at D1 than I was D2 but I just need more time to pass to REALLY show that), I still believe D2 is a much much better game.

piman, you're still the man. One of the best this game has seen! Not attacking you. Just agreeing to disagree. And hoping you understand my thought process even tho you disagree.

i get your point but im guessing you have the chicken and egg bit backwards, that the flow is enjoyment -> success, not the reverse. its somewhat unthinkable that a coach could be extremely successful at d1 and d3 and not at d2, and the reason be anything in the ballpark of 'he doesn't get d2'. its almost certainly lack of enjoyment.

anyway i agree its all opinion. for a long time i liked d2 better and resented the 'd1 coaches are the best' mentality. so i think i get where you are coming from, and definitely sympathize with the need to extoll the virtues of d2, as i once did. but when the cheerleading gets to 'folks who don't like d2 must not be good at it', its a bit much.

I agree with piman on almost everything, except I would like to see a few dozen jucos added in the second session (or just obscured in the first session).

The big problem with D2 recruiting from a gameplay perspective, as I see it, is that for so many recruits (D1 pool recruits with early or EOP1 signing tendency), the signing cycle is set and known. That’s a serious problem. And I understand that is likely what a few folks love so much about it, particularly the kinds of folks who absolutely hate the ambiguity and uncertainty of “dice rolls” in recruiting and early entries.

The sort of thing I had in mind, when I brought up the idea of rolling signing tendencies in 3.0 beta, was that a recruit would sign with A+ Kansas early, B- Iowa St EOP1, C Memphis whenever, D2 Fort Hays St Late, and D3 Carnegie Mellon in the last 24 hours. Seble obviously took it in a different direction. If the tendency was more fluid, based on the quality of the program recruiting it (and preference match), we wouldn’t have all these issues, IMO. Knowing exactly when the recruit is going to sign leaves the game open in that area to manipulation and gaming, and that’s what makes D2 “borderline unplayable,” an assessment I agree with, despite 62.5% of my championships coming in D2 (with far fewer overall seasons played than D1).

Recruiting is recruiting at every level, as far as that goes; scouting efficiently, getting a wide pool, selecting good targets, figuring out what you can reasonably reach for, taking calculated risks, and mitigating those risks with alternate options. A good open world, multiplayer game, which is what this should be, is going to let recruiting strategies be user driven, it’s not going to ham-handedly force us into certain choices or methods.

Posted by mlitney on 8/25/2021 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by texashick on 8/24/2021 5:37:00 PM (view original):
I’ve always been a proponent of making promises apply to the whole career (including post season) and making the bonus significantly higher. The top teams couldn’t offer every recruit 25 and a start and then bench them when the post season and/or their soph season rolls around.

The RS2 benefit is likely you’d get a few more transfers as coaches would have to make more decisions on who to keeps vs. desire to win games especially in light of the new firing logic.

That's the exact point that I've been trying to push for awhile now, but many users don't seem to like the idea. I guess because it means more work on the roster management side of things. Anyways, I won't get into because I'm pretty sure I've already pushed shoe3 to the point of calling me an idiot haha.

”I guess because it means more work on the roster management side of things“

lol no

This game functions on probabilities, risks and rewards. Choose your own adventure, pick your poison, whatever. Chilling promises is the wrong step, promises are one of the big equalizers lower prestige teams have to be able to compete with higher prestige teams for high level recruits. The right step is to have the players playing time preference - whether offered promises or not - follow them throughout their career, and for non-freshmen to follow through on threats to transfer sometimes, like they used to do.

I think what texashick is proposing is the opposite of chilling promises-- it's supercharging them for those who can afford to offer them by requiring them to last through a career and increasing the recruiting value. That makes a ton of sense to me.

If elite teams have 4 players returning who were promised starts once upon a time, they can now only offer a start to one player, and can't drop them from the lineup late in the season. Much more likely that a non-elite team can make that promise now than one trying to win a title this season.

Posted by gillispie on 8/25/2021 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/24/2021 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by piman314 on 8/17/2021 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Frist, I hope this is not a major change. I play high level D1 and deal with early entries all the time and have no problem with how they are set up. I hope the twist involves any of the following:
1. Making D2 schools wait until the cycle before D3 schools can sign D1 players to sign D1 players (so 5 PM eastern on the second day of session 2). This would mean in theory that D1 schools could open a scholarship at 5 eastern, offer minutes and a start and home and maybe campus visits by 11PM. In a lot of cases this would mean the D1 school getting the recruit over the D2 school, which is really how it should be. This would also help the lucky crapshoot that is D2 right now be more playable, because right now it is almost unplayable (I have 2 D2 teams and I'm really trying to like it, but it's just so hard to). You could also make it so late recruits don't sign with anybody until 11 AM on the second day to give new coaches a chance to battle other D1 schools as well, but it also means the guys looking to replace EEs could get involved and I don't think that is a good thing.

2. Give more original recruits late signing preferences. This could be done in conjunction with 1 above. Alone this does not solve the problem, because so many late recruits sign early in session 2. Don't create more recruits for session 2 just out of thin air.

3. This is the one I like and could be done in conjunction with both above, but I know I am in the minority on this one. Make a "transfer board" similar to the early entry board for D2 (and possibly some really top D3 players). Each year the top 30 - 50 returning D2 players (and maybe a D3 player or two would sneak in there) leave their school and and are immediately scouted to level 4 for all D1 schools to see. Actions would still need to be opened. These players would have to go D1 (even if it is to a sim, you couldn't have a D2 school lose their best player because he wants bigger and better things and then have them go to a rival D2 school). The coaches at D2 and maybe even D3 who is recruiting this level player knows how to replace them, and it is a lot easier to find talent late that can play D2 and D3 when compared to D1. Again, I know most will hate this idea but it gives more talent to the end of D1 recruiting and levels the playing field in D2 (and possibly D3) a bit.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Thank you to the development team for all you do and for taking our opinions during the firing update. You've done a great job.

Piman you and I have discussed this a dozen times, but in your #1 point, I just can't wrap my head around it. D2 is easily THE most fun level of the game to play. To be clear, I view you as one of the best coaches ever to play HD. And maybe THE best. So please don't take this comment out of context. But I just feel like you don't grasp how to approach D2. It's not because you can't do it of course, you're a legend! But you dominate D1 and D3. And in D2 you don't have near the success. That doesn't make it almost unplayable. It's just not your groove.

Now that I've stepped up to D1 to make everyone happy, and I'm solid at it (as well as D2) and competing, and winning ships, I STILL view D2 as the most fun to play by a wide margin FOR GAMING PURPOSES. It's got so many twists and turns in recruiting that it's 1000x more fun than D1 and D3 are. I'm not sure how you dont have fun (or don't have success, whichever you're referring to mostly for your personal opinions), but it's the only level that really feels like we're recruiting!

D1 feels like you just throw darts and wait to see who hits the bullseye (winning the roll). D3 you just wait and see.... wait and see..... wait and see...... and wait and see some more. At D2, you're actually recruiting! You're starting out by trying to find the proper talent within your reach, aim too low and you're not going to contend. But you can also reach high enough to wrestle those fringe players away from D1 schools that they aren't valuing, and in a timely manner. Not at the last second. If you swing and miss, you still have time to pick on D3 schools that are leading on a player that shouldn't be in D3 anyways, and get you a nice back up. It's like the perfect balance of real gaming.

In D1 most big 6 schools have all very good preferences (at least the teams I've put together after a few seasons), you just pick who you want and hope you get them until you're out of money. Then you either take a walk on, or a player that fills a roster spot so the sim doesn't sign one for you. That's not "recruiting". That feels like working around game logic/rules to me. (And to be clear I don't mean "YOU" specifically, piman. I mean any coaches).

D2 is the best game play and it's really not even close. I think most coaches generally have the outlook of whatever they are most successful at, is what they feel is "best". It's their style, their approach. And piman is super super elite at D1 and D3, but (we could argue that he's) not on the same level with his D2 career. To me that doesn't show it's not good game play. It's just that piman is not AS successful at D2, so it's "this is unplayable" to him. I don't agree with that. It's very playable, very fun, and has the most options and strategy of all levels if you know what you're doing.

I waited until the right time to comment on this because the community has rightfully viewed me as a D2 coach for a long time, and the same could be said about my vision. "Top plays D2 so of course he'll like D2 the best". But now that I'm an all D1 coach basically, and a proven winner (and I personally feel I'm better at D1 than I was D2 but I just need more time to pass to REALLY show that), I still believe D2 is a much much better game.

piman, you're still the man. One of the best this game has seen! Not attacking you. Just agreeing to disagree. And hoping you understand my thought process even tho you disagree.

i get your point but im guessing you have the chicken and egg bit backwards, that the flow is enjoyment -> success, not the reverse. its somewhat unthinkable that a coach could be extremely successful at d1 and d3 and not at d2, and the reason be anything in the ballpark of 'he doesn't get d2'. its almost certainly lack of enjoyment.

anyway i agree its all opinion. for a long time i liked d2 better and resented the 'd1 coaches are the best' mentality. so i think i get where you are coming from, and definitely sympathize with the need to extoll the virtues of d2, as i once did. but when the cheerleading gets to 'folks who don't like d2 must not be good at it', its a bit much.

You're not understanding what I mean. I'm not saying that "piman is bad at D2 so he doesn't like D2" specifically. I'm not even saying he's bad at it!

What I'm saying is, it's human nature for us to love winning. If we're winning or good at something we think it's great. Carl Lewis loves sprinting I'm sure. But he may not like basketball. And if he can't dribble, he may have the mentality of "dribbling a ball around is stupid anyways, why do we bounce a ball?"

So all I'm saying is that saying D2 is unplayable "is a bit much" as well. Using your words. D2 is a great game. If you know how to manage it. It's not about being a cheerleader

Posted by nc2457829305 on 8/25/2021 1:59:00 PM (view original):
I think what texashick is proposing is the opposite of chilling promises-- it's supercharging them for those who can afford to offer them by requiring them to last through a career and increasing the recruiting value. That makes a ton of sense to me.

If elite teams have 4 players returning who were promised starts once upon a time, they can now only offer a start to one player, and can't drop them from the lineup late in the season. Much more likely that a non-elite team can make that promise now than one trying to win a title this season.

It’s chilling them, in that promises will be far less common. They will have to be, because in effect, there are far fewer spots open. I get how, on the surface, it looks like you might be “supercharging” the effect of a promise, but good luck seeing that play out. With fewer starts and minutes being handed out, my A+ baseline teams have less to worry about from B+ and under schools. More recruits will go unchallenged.

Recruiting in this game is, for better or worse, an economic sim, and 4-year promises, besides being unrealistic, are bad economics. We achieve (what I think is) the desired result much better by simply re-instating the ability for non-freshmen to transfer when they’re upset over declining playing time, not tied to promises, but instead to the player’s playing time preference. That’s more realistic, leaves the recruiting economics alone so the prestige window doesn’t close on teams trying to challenge for good recruits, and it makes the game more fluid and intelligent.

Posted by nc2457829305 on 8/25/2021 1:59:00 PM (view original):
I think what texashick is proposing is the opposite of chilling promises-- it's supercharging them for those who can afford to offer them by requiring them to last through a career and increasing the recruiting value. That makes a ton of sense to me.

If elite teams have 4 players returning who were promised starts once upon a time, they can now only offer a start to one player, and can't drop them from the lineup late in the season. Much more likely that a non-elite team can make that promise now than one trying to win a title this season.

Need to look at ramifications from changes. Who loses more EEs? Elites or mid majors??

So who can keep stacking their rosters with promises to new freshmen??

Bad idea

anything that extends promises into the NT, i am against... its bad enough the overall quality of teams takes such a hit in the regular season from promises, at least we should see real teams out there in the NT.

Posted by gillispie on 8/26/2021 9:53:00 AM (view original):
anything that extends promises into the NT, i am against... its bad enough the overall quality of teams takes such a hit in the regular season from promises, at least we should see real teams out there in the NT.

Well if you think you have a shot at a deep NT run next season, maybe don't offer the promises you can't keep then? Adding another layer of decisions and strategy is the point. In fact, that's something that would benefit the lower D1 teams. And to mully's above comment, what if your EE stays? You might have to actually think about whether you can offer promises instead of just spamming start/25 on everyone.

The only real downside is that roster management becomes more complicated, which I think is why people are so against this idea. And I completely understand that reasoning, especially for users that have 3+ teams or for the more casual coaches.