I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, especially for those that have become experts at all aspects. However, I think the EE system needs to be tweaked some to make it more manageable. In my opinion the categories should be "leaving", "on the fence" and "staying". For those that are "leaving", half recruiting credit can be given for the first recruiting period. Nobody should find out that they have two "likely staying" players that leave early. Especially since the quality of the recruiting pool is thin to begin with, especially in period 2.

Posted by nobagel69 on 11/20/2024 9:41:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, especially for those that have become experts at all aspects. However, I think the EE system needs to be tweaked some to make it more manageable. In my opinion the categories should be "leaving", "on the fence" and "staying". For those that are "leaving", half recruiting credit can be given for the first recruiting period. Nobody should find out that they have two "likely staying" players that leave early. Especially since the quality of the recruiting pool is thin to begin with, especially in period 2.

something like that would be cool to reduce the trauma of EE

And its not un realistic

Posted by nobagel69 on 11/20/2024 9:41:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, especially for those that have become experts at all aspects. However, I think the EE system needs to be tweaked some to make it more manageable. In my opinion the categories should be "leaving", "on the fence" and "staying". For those that are "leaving", half recruiting credit can be given for the first recruiting period. Nobody should find out that they have two "likely staying" players that leave early. Especially since the quality of the recruiting pool is thin to begin with, especially in period 2.

Having EE declare after the season adds no value to the game. While it might be realistic, it doesn't work for the game. I suggest EE announce at some point during the season before recruiting starts.

I would like to see NET added. I know it's cosmetic, but no one talks about RPI anymore.

I would also like to see some additional transfers in recruiting cycle two. Not full on NIL madness like current CBB but a tamed version with transfers only coming from SIM AI coached schools. For example, Sim AI coached East Tenn State has a player that is better than the conf. player avg (any number of metrics could be used to determine if a player would enter the portal). The player enters the transfer portal. If the player is signed by another school, then East Tenn State gets a replacement player generated by the RNG (maybe a JUCO player). If the player is not signed, he returns to East Tenn State for the next season.

I like the transfer portal idea. It might be messy at first but could solve some issues and make the game more realistic (Is that a bad thing, though?) D3 schools (guilty myself) signing D1 guys is fine but once they blow up after year 1 or 2 they should move up a level or two. D1 teams promising freshman starts and minutes then drastically cutting both in year two? That guy would transfer, so let him. Coaching and roster management might gain more importance. As for NIL money... I would love to hear discussions on how that could work.

Hmmm... first, i enjoy the game, just don't have the time for it is used to. But, i would throw out a few changes:

1. Just like d3 has to wait to sign d1 talent, d2 should have to do so in session 2 also. Maybe 3 cycles so they still sign guys before d3 can. This would give d1 schools with lost battles or ees a chance to add a role players.

2. I've said before i think we need a transfer board at d2 and d3 similar to ees at d1. It would help keep d2 and d3 more even talent wise, while adding a certain number of players to recruiting session 2. It is similar to the transfer portal. We also need significantly more late recruits and whenever to not pretty much equal end of period 1, if not "early".

3. I don't hate having a floating prestige at d1, gonzaga wasn't gonzaga before they were gonzaga, but agree the blue bloods should have some advantage. Instead of prestige make it a yearly budget. A+ teams in the current system get $50000 to scout and $25000 to recruit. A teams get 48000 and 23000 (numbers could be argued). D prestige gets more than d2, maybe 20000 and 8000. Again numbers are just off the top of my head and may need editting. Numbers would have to be accessible to all.

4. As I alluded to above, I'd have same budget each year for teams, not scholarship based. I think the 6 person classes have a major advantage in game play, they don't need one in recruiting also. If a school gets a player with only one scholarship that would normally be a bit above there level, so be it. In this model, all teams would get 100 aps regardless of scholarship openings.

5. i echo the ability to "wipe all" ap when recruiting.

6. All transfers should be fully scouted to everyone. In real life, there would be tape on them.

7. A really off the wall one that could work is get rid of signing tendencies completely and base it off preferences. It would be essentially a very good is worth 2, a good 1, neutral 0, bad -1, and very bad -2. The better the preference score, the earlier you can sign a guy. So 10 points would sign first possible cycle, 9 the next, and so on. I'm not sure i even like this, but it's like if a guy know what he wants and you offer it, why shouldn't he sign right away? Meanwhile, if a guy isn't crazy about your program, he might sign as time goes on and he doesn't get interest from other schools. D2 and d3 would still have to wait as they do now for higher recruits.

8. I'll say again, more late recruits. This helps solve ees and job changes, as new coaches need a chance to get on considering list.

9. Make d3 free to play with no rewards. It can't be a very profitable division anyway, so let new players play there for free, and try to attract more people to the game.

10. I also echo, if recruiting stays as is in format, get money back if you're very high on a player and lose. "Man coach, that was a tough one. Everyone thought he was coming here to play. Well, I looked around, and the golf team can get 1 more year out of their clubs, so you have $2000 extra dollars to use (not to exceed amount spent on recruit). Go get us that all American i know you were holding onto as a backup option".

Anyway, i know some of these are off the wall and unrealistic, but some may be applicable and make the game better.

While entirely cosmetic, I think they could increase some enjoyment by somehow showcasing final fours, sweet 16s just like real schools do with banners.

I also think they need to align schools with the proper leagues. I’d like to coach Xavier in the Big East for example. I think the only easy pathway to do this is to open new worlds. If I was a new user and I came to the game, I’d be turned off by all the misaligned schools and leagues.

i love the idea of making recruiting budgets less based on scholarship openings and adding more late preference recruits.

i also think that EEs / recruiting dice rolls are too high variance in terms of impact on your following season outcome. i don't know the perfect solution here, but some good ideas were raised in this thread. personally i think that there should be a cutoff for EEs similar to what we have in recruiting where if you're below say 20% likelihood of leaving, the recruit is guaranteed to return. my main issue is surprise EEs, i don't have any gripes with having a bunch of stud players get drafted in the top 10 and boosting my prestige the following season

i also think there should be a recruiting preference for draft success, based on how many players a coach has put into the draft (weighted towards recent seasons similar to prestige but maybe based on a slightly longer timespan than 4 seasons). and this preference should tie directly into how likely a recruit is to leave early. it should be feasible that a player is determined to stay 4 seasons even if they would be a top 10 pick because they care about academics or just want to win a championship. but make it a strategic element rather than a purely random one

Another option, if the new owners don't want to overhaul recruiting: Eliminate, or re-work potential. Instead of random, hard and fast caps in some attributes, or (worse), the randomness of how much a black, green, or blue attribute is going to go up, implement a system whereby we can still improve all or most attributes by applying practice minutes. Leave the decision in our hands as to how we want to allocate our practice minute resources--you want to keep increasing a guy's passing? Fine, but you won't be able to dedicate enough to do that and raise everything else.

Posted by rugburn on 11/20/2024 1:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 11/19/2024 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bk41129 on 11/1/2024 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I know it was talked about on the discord but I would love to see changing Baseline Prestige and have it visible on the history and team page. I think it needs to be hard but not impossible to turn a low major into a solid program with years and years of success. Also, some of the power schools are a coach away from putting their program on the map in real life. Maybe make the floor higher for the power schools but add the ability for all schools to increase their baseline prestige after long runs of success!

Oh and reading other team's play by plays before seeing the results. For example tourney results page much like the results page on the main page that allows you to read a game without knowing the final score. I know when I have a conference mate in a title I would like to read it.

I do agree baseline prestige should be available to see for all schools, that way everyone knows what they are getting into.

While I believe there could be some improvements to prestige, like a larger scale a team can go up or down in prestige, but I don't think New Mexico St should be the same as say Syracuse.

While I believe there could be some improvements to prestige, like a larger scale a team can go up or down in prestige, but I don't think New Mexico St should be the same as say Syracuse.

For me, I'd ask why? Not every elite program today was always elite. Not every elite program from the old days is still elite. Without the ability to build say a New Mexico to the level of Syracuse, what's the point of building a dynasty if you're capped? This feels more like king of the hill rather than dynasty unless the only dynasty that matters are those already at the top.

Personally I'd like to see a large window of years considered with the most recent years holding the most weight in the prestige calculation. I think 15-20 seasons would be great for a built-in security blanket to prevent any team from dropping too fast and would prevent a team from rising too fast so any equal prestige level would be very gradual and would ultimately feel natural for those who've been around for that period of time. I think the hiring and firing logic needs to be significantly revamped as well though.

I suggested a rolling baseline for years. Take the last 30 years and keep it rolling every season. Take off the farthest out IRL season and add in the last IRL season into the formula.

That way coaches maybe go after the next up and coming team. Houston could be a rising destination while others may become a more fading destination as they decline IRL. Keeps it closer to trending

Fix recruiting first. This should be my “parting comment” after what happened in my most recent cycle. Lost 2 “on the fence” EEs plus one “likely staying”…3 in total. Then lost two coin flips as a slight favorite and three other players - signing ZERO new recruits. Had 3 walk ons on last season roster and one senior. So for my next season I will have 5 scholarships that I recruited and WIS will cram a few bad scholarships on my team. Total garbage. Change the EE system and add more serviceable recruits.

Posted by jbasnight on 12/13/2024 7:03:00 AM (view original):
Another option, if the new owners don't want to overhaul recruiting: Eliminate, or re-work potential. Instead of random, hard and fast caps in some attributes, or (worse), the randomness of how much a black, green, or blue attribute is going to go up, implement a system whereby we can still improve all or most attributes by applying practice minutes. Leave the decision in our hands as to how we want to allocate our practice minute resources--you want to keep increasing a guy's passing? Fine, but you won't be able to dedicate enough to do that and raise everything else.

This is what HD used to be lol. Going full circle, but honestly I enjoyed it more. The downside is you'll end up with lots of teams that look about the same at every level and WE becomes a high priority attribute.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 12/13/2024 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rugburn on 11/20/2024 1:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 11/19/2024 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bk41129 on 11/1/2024 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I know it was talked about on the discord but I would love to see changing Baseline Prestige and have it visible on the history and team page. I think it needs to be hard but not impossible to turn a low major into a solid program with years and years of success. Also, some of the power schools are a coach away from putting their program on the map in real life. Maybe make the floor higher for the power schools but add the ability for all schools to increase their baseline prestige after long runs of success!

Oh and reading other team's play by plays before seeing the results. For example tourney results page much like the results page on the main page that allows you to read a game without knowing the final score. I know when I have a conference mate in a title I would like to read it.

I do agree baseline prestige should be available to see for all schools, that way everyone knows what they are getting into.

While I believe there could be some improvements to prestige, like a larger scale a team can go up or down in prestige, but I don't think New Mexico St should be the same as say Syracuse.

While I believe there could be some improvements to prestige, like a larger scale a team can go up or down in prestige, but I don't think New Mexico St should be the same as say Syracuse.

For me, I'd ask why? Not every elite program today was always elite. Not every elite program from the old days is still elite. Without the ability to build say a New Mexico to the level of Syracuse, what's the point of building a dynasty if you're capped? This feels more like king of the hill rather than dynasty unless the only dynasty that matters are those already at the top.

Personally I'd like to see a large window of years considered with the most recent years holding the most weight in the prestige calculation. I think 15-20 seasons would be great for a built-in security blanket to prevent any team from dropping too fast and would prevent a team from rising too fast so any equal prestige level would be very gradual and would ultimately feel natural for those who've been around for that period of time. I think the hiring and firing logic needs to be significantly revamped as well though.

I suggested a rolling baseline for years. Take the last 30 years and keep it rolling every season. Take off the farthest out IRL season and add in the last IRL season into the formula.

That way coaches maybe go after the next up and coming team. Houston could be a rising destination while others may become a more fading destination as they decline IRL. Keeps it closer to trending

I agree. It's not a high priority on my list as I stopped playing DI and the lower levels basically operate this way already. It might be nice to open up the range of years considered for prestige at the lower levels as well though.

Posted by rugburn on 12/14/2024 3:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jbasnight on 12/13/2024 7:03:00 AM (view original):
Another option, if the new owners don't want to overhaul recruiting: Eliminate, or re-work potential. Instead of random, hard and fast caps in some attributes, or (worse), the randomness of how much a black, green, or blue attribute is going to go up, implement a system whereby we can still improve all or most attributes by applying practice minutes. Leave the decision in our hands as to how we want to allocate our practice minute resources--you want to keep increasing a guy's passing? Fine, but you won't be able to dedicate enough to do that and raise everything else.

This is what HD used to be lol. Going full circle, but honestly I enjoyed it more. The downside is you'll end up with lots of teams that look about the same at every level and WE becomes a high priority attribute.

what if the colors corresponded to speed of growth so there was a limit on forming guys however you wanted to. it'd be a middle-step between the current structure and the historical structure for potential

Posted by nobagel69 on 12/13/2024 11:23:00 PM (view original):
Fix recruiting first. This should be my “parting comment” after what happened in my most recent cycle. Lost 2 “on the fence” EEs plus one “likely staying”…3 in total. Then lost two coin flips as a slight favorite and three other players - signing ZERO new recruits. Had 3 walk ons on last season roster and one senior. So for my next season I will have 5 scholarships that I recruited and WIS will cram a few bad scholarships on my team. Total garbage. Change the EE system and add more serviceable recruits.

yea also if you have too many EEs that push you over the 3 walk-on limit, i feel like there should be an exception and you get resources for those walk-ons