Addressing ranger's comments: Vision does need to be restricted - like I said to DeBeque - Only the two final game teams for one season. Currently I can see the "I have earned it" argument. The current game makes a rebuild a long process and getting a team up to top level is an accomplishment. What I don't like is when the NC coach leaves and someone else steps into that high vision team without earning the vision.

In HD, all players can be recruited by all teams. The coding gives higher division teams a definite advantage, even sims, but at DIII you can still find those that fall through the cracks. In GD, those leftovers from D1AA or any level should be available to anyone who can maneuver the game to find them given the disadvantages in Division and recruiting money.

A lot of good ideas so far. Trying to add something different to the pile.

1. Additional depth chart slots for out of position backups - For those seasons that you're not two deep at a position, it would be nice to specify who to pull to fill in a position that's short. Whether you're running a 100% run offense with no real QB and you want to specify who's handing the ball off to incorporate them into the running game, or if you're running a pass heavy offense while short on WRs and want to make sure you stud backup RB is the first one pulled to fill in as a slot receiver, being able to control where those backups are pulled from would help.

2. NIL - Recruiting already has the Booster Gifts option that nobody uses (because it came with consequences). If it could be recoded to be used as an NIL feature, then that would be a pretty cool change in my opinion. The way I would envision it is that each D-1A team has X amount of money (let's say 1 million). Amount would vary based on Division. If a coach wanted to go all out to sign that star QB, he could throw it all at him, or maybe just a portion. If that recruit signs, then he accounts for the amount of NIL that was offered for 4-5 year, or as long as he's on the roster. You could have 1 player getting 1mil, 10 players getting 100k, or any other way you want to split it up. This would give non-elites a better chance at stealing a top player, while giving more variance of roster management. That's probably a much bigger change than what would be considered, but I personally like this idea.

3. Big game hype option - Allow coaches to identify one or two games out of the season (picked before the season kicks off / or default to highest rated opponents if not manually picked) that a coach can hype up their team. That would give a small ratings boost for the entire roster. Think of it like rivalry games. OSU vs. Mich, Bama vs. Auburn, Notre Dame vs. USC, Oklahoma vs. Texas. In real life, those games mean more for those teams, and the players give a little more in those games. It would be cool to circle a game on my schedule and tell my team that this game means more. Probably wouldn't be a traditional rivalry game, but if there's a game that obviously will have a bigger impact on my season then I'd like to hype my team up for it.

Again, tried to come up with different options than what's already been mentioned. It's fun to dream, but I imagine changes will come in small adjustments over time.

1. You can get rid of vision in this game. Move up to D1A.

2. Biggest change I'd like to see is dynamic or fluid elite status at 1A. There is no reason an elite that's been 8-5 or 7-6 for multiple years should have more prestige in recruiting than a non-elite team that's been to 4 straight final 4's and won a NC.

1. You can achieve fluid elite status. Move down to D2.

2: Doesn’t really address the issue, does it.

I love this suggestion from BigZeke . . . "For recruiting - If a team hasn't offered a scholarship by the 2nd recruiting period after signing, that player drops off that schools list."

If a school hasn't offered a scholarship after signings have begun then that school should start losing ground with that player. The player would start to wonder whether the school really wanted him if they haven't offered him a scholarship, so it makes sense that school would start losing ground.

Ill reiterate this....MORE PLAYBOOKS I have 9 teams and in DIV 3 thats a joke ..Please expand this

I think this is a simple and easy request, but it could be more complicated than I realize . . . Please, PLEASE give us more slots for custom formations and custom playbooks. Ten formations is not enough for all coaches, especially those who have multiple teams. Likewise, twelve playbooks is not enough for all coaches, especially those who have multiple teams. If you could increase that to 15 of each that would be super helpful. 20 of each would be blissful. (Brings to mind a Modest Mouse song: "If it takes sh!t to make bliss, well then I feel pretty blissfully.")

Posted by ranger1951 on 2/18/2025 2:37:00 PM (view original):
IMHO the simplest revision that would greatly improve the balance of the game is GET RID OF VISION. I acknowledge that there are arguments for keeping it. The most prominent one I hear is "I have earned it." The question I pose is does vison assist the dominant player stay dominant. Some worlds are so dominated by one team it is not worth competing in that world. Season after season their recruited freshman team is ranked #1. If you are that good you don't need vision superiority over your opponents. And if not then your record is over inflated. For example after the recruiting period is completed. numerous really good players in D1AA which are not available to most D2 teams go unsigned. If they were available that would seem to make it more competitive. It would make for very interesting recruiting sessions. Could something make a D1A talented player fall to D3? Again some will argue if one wants better vision get better at the game. Valid maybe, but I cannot think of a completion where best are given advantages. The Super Bowl Champ chooses last in the draft. So does the World Series winner. The tennis champ is not given a smaller court area to defend nor is the Hockey champ given s smaller net to have to protect. My wish has been to level the playing field. So far I seem to be in the minority on that, at least as far as those that matter.

ranger, you are absolutely right that vision is the number one thing to get rid of. And "I have earned it" is NOT a valid excuse to keep it. Coaches can earn prestige; that is well and good, it is as it should be. But vision on top of prestige is (1) completely redundant, and (2) introduces an absolute limit to recruiting that (a) has no comparison in real life and (b) is a massive rich-get-richer effect (as ranger points out) that imbalances the competition while adding nothing of a helpful nature to the game. It effectively creates a recruit pool of quality players available only to the higher teams. That's just SO bogus.

Even if people would only understand the redundancy that vision represents, they would understand that it brings no value to the game, none whatsoever, and has to go. It is absolutely valueless and the biggest cancer on the game. I don't know how to say it any more clearly or forcefully.

Posted by DeBeque on 2/21/2025 6:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ranger1951 on 2/18/2025 2:37:00 PM (view original):
IMHO the simplest revision that would greatly improve the balance of the game is GET RID OF VISION. I acknowledge that there are arguments for keeping it. The most prominent one I hear is "I have earned it." The question I pose is does vison assist the dominant player stay dominant. Some worlds are so dominated by one team it is not worth competing in that world. Season after season their recruited freshman team is ranked #1. If you are that good you don't need vision superiority over your opponents. And if not then your record is over inflated. For example after the recruiting period is completed. numerous really good players in D1AA which are not available to most D2 teams go unsigned. If they were available that would seem to make it more competitive. It would make for very interesting recruiting sessions. Could something make a D1A talented player fall to D3? Again some will argue if one wants better vision get better at the game. Valid maybe, but I cannot think of a completion where best are given advantages. The Super Bowl Champ chooses last in the draft. So does the World Series winner. The tennis champ is not given a smaller court area to defend nor is the Hockey champ given s smaller net to have to protect. My wish has been to level the playing field. So far I seem to be in the minority on that, at least as far as those that matter.

ranger, you are absolutely right that vision is the number one thing to get rid of. And "I have earned it" is NOT a valid excuse to keep it. Coaches can earn prestige; that is well and good, it is as it should be. But vision on top of prestige is (1) completely redundant, and (2) introduces an absolute limit to recruiting that (a) has no comparison in real life and (b) is a massive rich-get-richer effect (as ranger points out) that imbalances the competition while adding nothing of a helpful nature to the game. It effectively creates a recruit pool of quality players available only to the higher teams. That's just SO bogus.

Even if people would only understand the redundancy that vision represents, they would understand that it brings no value to the game, none whatsoever, and has to go. It is absolutely valueless and the biggest cancer on the game. I don't know how to say it any more clearly or forcefully.

I'm not an advocate of vision but the only thing I found that could counter it at the lower levels was recruiting and developing only high potential players.

As for prestige, vision doesn't exist at 1A. But even prestige at 1A is messed up. Elites have full advantage. Power conference has an advantage. Mid-majors have none. I have Navy. I can't win a battle with a power school who is human if they want the player. Even with promised start and PT. The only way to even remotely win a battle for a recruit that a power school wants is to blow up the rest of your class and go all in on a recruit. Giving elites the advantage on every recruit sounds good on paper. But some players shouldn't want to go to an elite just because they are elite. If a player wants to play and be the star on Navy in this game he will forego that just so he can sit on the bottom of Penn States depth chart and never play because Penn State is elite. Penn State can easily be replaced by Maryland etc in the sentence as well. So prestige too is broken and it always has been. Basically at a mid major the only tool we have to be competitive on the field again is potential. Potential however only goes so far, your depth is always substandard compared to bigger schools. But if the ladder of prestige in 1A was different it might actually bring a lot more spice to the game. It might bring more NC's to mid majors and even an actual dynasty or two at that level. And more guys who would want to coach at that level. But as it is mid major conferences will continue to have only one coach in most conferences throughout GD.

I have never had a problem with vision. We all start from the same spot. I have done several rebuilds where i start from the bottom. If you win 10-12 games, which you will because people only play sims in those lower divisions, you will see everything you need in your vision to make your team better. Like rice said. There is always d1 if you hate the vision mechanic.

i think getting rid of vision would kill those lower divisions anyway. The vision mechanic doesn’t just protect proven coaches, id argue it protects the unproven ones even more.

If you let people who arent proven recruit the best guys, you are going to have the best guys going to teams full of sims. You will have people selling the farm for a guy or two and not filling the rest of their classes. The proven coaches will make do and still be fine, and the ones punching above their weight are going to be in for a rough time with 4-5 good players on their roster and 45 sims. Those 10-12 easy wins i was talking about have all vanished at that point and id bet you’re lucky to win 6 or 7 games.

Posted by 0bigzeke0 on 2/18/2025 3:11:00 PM (view original):
1. For recruiting - If a team hasn't offered a scholarship by the 2nd recruiting period after signing, that player drops off that schools list.

2. Make Formation IQ max out by the end of 2nd season (So or RS Fr).

If a recruit is yellow to you and another team, you have offered and they haven’t. You shouldn’t have to wait until they fill. I think 2 cycles and then drop off is too fast, but something should be done to reward the ones willing to sign them right now vs the ones on the fence or unwilling to.

im sure that would have unintended consequences, but i can’t come up with them right now.

Posted by papachooby on 2/22/2025 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by 0bigzeke0 on 2/18/2025 3:11:00 PM (view original):
1. For recruiting - If a team hasn't offered a scholarship by the 2nd recruiting period after signing, that player drops off that schools list.

2. Make Formation IQ max out by the end of 2nd season (So or RS Fr).

If a recruit is yellow to you and another team, you have offered and they haven’t. You shouldn’t have to wait until they fill. I think 2 cycles and then drop off is too fast, but something should be done to reward the ones willing to sign them right now vs the ones on the fence or unwilling to.

im sure that would have unintended consequences, but i can’t come up with them right now.

IF they are both yellow, one with and one without, there needs to be a holding pattern on the one with and a reduction in interest for the one without.

What I don't like (speaking as a D1AA coach) are the teams with one scholarship left to fill and sitting on many more as back-ups. Some coaches seem to sit on them until the last cycle to prevent anyone else from trying to recruit them.
After signing starts, scholarships should hold the greatest clout with recruits.

papachooby, I read your response and note there are always two sides to the vision issue and you have made a reasonable argument for vision. I do not agree with your assessment but it is something that should be considered. I think people can pick up on how to approach recruiting fairly quickly which they have to do anyway. And yes getting 10 - 12 wins does get you to a point where you can make the team better. I think it might be a stretch that someone going through recruiting would only be able to get 5 quality players and have to accept 45 sims. I did find one statement you made which I completely agree with 100%. "The proven coaches will make do and still be fine." So let them compete on a level playing field.

I’m looking at QBs in Bryant from our current recruiting season. I’m at a low vision D-II school so I did a search using the D-1AA QB pool and then scrolled until I saw the first D-II school favored to sign a QB. There are currently 29 undecided QBs with a WIS QB position rating between the highest rated QB favoring a D-II school and my favored QB, who is at or near the highest rated QB I could get in my current vision without having the benefit of playoff $ since it’s my first season. Of the 29 undecided QBs, one QB within my 360 has a rating 4 points higher than my QB. One has a rating 3 points higher than my QB. Three have ratings 2 points higher than my QB. I can’t see any of these players.

I think coaches will do just fine with the autonomy.

Taking this another step further, a high vision team raided my backyard for two DBs that are 60 miles from me. They are 450 miles away from him. I can’t even think about battling him for these two DBs because he plucked a 47 rated undecided QB with probably one scout and one CV, giving him a massive dollar advantage over me from just one position because I had to spend a ton fighting off Sims for my 41 rated QB.

Going back to just the QBs, those 29 undecided QBs that ultimately don’t get signed by human teams should be playing for somebody. But they will just disappear down the WIS rabbit hole.

Vision creates massive talent discrepancies between upper tier human teams and Sim teams and lower vision teams. There is a reason why we routinely see games with a final score of 97-3.

I know my team will catch up three or four seasons from now but the post-recruiting talent discrepancies are simply too high.

And Sim teams should do 2 formations at most. Most human coaches do only 1 formation. Sim teams should also really only have one formation.

Posted by papachooby on 2/22/2025 6:00:00 PM (view original):
I have never had a problem with vision. We all start from the same spot. I have done several rebuilds where i start from the bottom. If you win 10-12 games, which you will because people only play sims in those lower divisions, you will see everything you need in your vision to make your team better. Like rice said. There is always d1 if you hate the vision mechanic.

i think getting rid of vision would kill those lower divisions anyway. The vision mechanic doesn’t just protect proven coaches, id argue it protects the unproven ones even more.

If you let people who arent proven recruit the best guys, you are going to have the best guys going to teams full of sims. You will have people selling the farm for a guy or two and not filling the rest of their classes. The proven coaches will make do and still be fine, and the ones punching above their weight are going to be in for a rough time with 4-5 good players on their roster and 45 sims. Those 10-12 easy wins i was talking about have all vanished at that point and id bet you’re lucky to win 6 or 7 games.

100% agree here. I started playing this game in the last year. There's a lot to learn and being put on the same playing field as the top coaches would have driven me away. Instead, I was given a helping hand by my conference mate running a perennial top 10 team, because he knew I wasn't going to be competition for him with recruits anytime soon.

Good coaches don't need vision to build a NC roster in 4 seasons anyway, there are many that can do this. It's a luxury you obtain and follows realism.