I understand what you're saying Spud, and it makes logical sense to someone who hasn't played at all the levels in HD. however, the core assumption in your viewpoint is mistaken. your core assumption on this matter is that D1 is where all the best players go, and therefore it's the hardest and would be unfair to start new players against the very best. however, that's simply not true. you really don't have to be good to get to low D1....you just have to play for a long enough time. most low D1 teams play at least 15-20 games per season that are no harder to prepare for than D3.

in Knight I'm in the Ivy. this is a far less competitive conference than the D2 conference i played in before i decided to change jobs 2 seasons ago. it's really just a different game entirely, as benis said.

Here's what you said-
"To be fair and see both sides of the coin, we'd need to see what prompted it, too." Translation - WIS is justified in their response to AB because he said something first.

Reading comprehension is your friend. What I'm saying is that without knowing both sides of the story we don't know either side of the story. You can misread it all you want, be as confused as you want, rant all you want ... but in the end, reading comprehension would have been your friend.

personally, if i were the god of WIS, i would let anyone apply for D or lower D1 jobs at any time. it's a good point that more people might take an additional team if they didn't have to burn 5 seasons and months of their lives getting to D1 (if that's what they wanted). honestly, i just don't see the harm. while it's a valid point that this may depopulate D3, at the same time, were i god of WIS, i would strongly consider eliminating D3 altogether. in my own experience, it's pretty similar to D2 in gameplay. eliminating D3 would consolidate those players that enjoy the gameplay outside of D1 and make that level more competitive.

that's just my two cents, though. I admit that I've had a lot of fun playing D2 but D3 has always felt like watered-down D2 to me. others may disagree.

I should just repeat after you so I don't embarrass myself anymore


Duurrr WIS good. D1 coaches bad.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/29/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
I understand what you're saying Spud, and it makes logical sense to someone who hasn't played at all the levels in HD. however, the core assumption in your viewpoint is mistaken. your core assumption on this matter is that D1 is where all the best players go, and therefore it's the hardest and would be unfair to start new players against the very best. however, that's simply not true. you really don't have to be good to get to low D1....you just have to play for a long enough time. most low D1 teams play at least 15-20 games per season that are no harder to prepare for than D3.

in Knight I'm in the Ivy. this is a far less competitive conference than the D2 conference i played in before i decided to change jobs 2 seasons ago. it's really just a different game entirely, as benis said.

No, I have no "core assumption." My understanding is much like bhansalid posted one page ago.(His is a pretty good post, check it out.) To hear the D1 coaches crow, though, you would be sure that D1 is where the creme de la creme reside. That was where I was making a little poke.
In all seriousness, though, at least one other game that I am aware of tried the same idea, letting newbies enter at any level, and it was a disaster. Think about this: people claim to be concerned for the newcomer, who is apt to blow through his money too fast at D3. So the same newcomer wouldn't blow through his money just as fast at D1? Riiiiight. Shark bait.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/29/2016 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/29/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
I understand what you're saying Spud, and it makes logical sense to someone who hasn't played at all the levels in HD. however, the core assumption in your viewpoint is mistaken. your core assumption on this matter is that D1 is where all the best players go, and therefore it's the hardest and would be unfair to start new players against the very best. however, that's simply not true. you really don't have to be good to get to low D1....you just have to play for a long enough time. most low D1 teams play at least 15-20 games per season that are no harder to prepare for than D3.

in Knight I'm in the Ivy. this is a far less competitive conference than the D2 conference i played in before i decided to change jobs 2 seasons ago. it's really just a different game entirely, as benis said.

No, I have no "core assumption." My understanding is much like bhansalid posted one page ago.(His is a pretty good post, check it out.) To hear the D1 coaches crow, though, you would be sure that D1 is where the creme de la creme reside. That was where I was making a little poke.
In all seriousness, though, at least one other game that I am aware of tried the same idea, letting newbies enter at any level, and it was a disaster. Think about this: people claim to be concerned for the newcomer, who is apt to blow through his money too fast at D3. So the same newcomer wouldn't blow through his money just as fast at D1? Riiiiight. Shark bait.

why are you so mean spirited? Have you ever sitemailed other coaches and asked them why they left? I've probably done that 100 times in the past ten years? How many d3 team have you started off with? Counting all my alias's, I probably have done that 50 times. How many coaches have you mentored? At one point, probably ten per cent of the coaches here used the cliff notes I wrote up on how to play the game. I used to routinely reply to several help sitemails a day.

Sure the new coaches could burn through their money in d1. But they'd have more of it to burn. And I simply replied to someone else congratulating them on thinking outside of the box. You know, looking at both sides of an issue.

By the way, you could be right that letting new coaches play d1 is a bad idea. I'm not positive. What I applauded was the notion of throwing out some of the preconceptions we all have about the game to make it better. Would it work? I don't know.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/29/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
personally, if i were the god of WIS, i would let anyone apply for D or lower D1 jobs at any time. it's a good point that more people might take an additional team if they didn't have to burn 5 seasons and months of their lives getting to D1 (if that's what they wanted). honestly, i just don't see the harm. while it's a valid point that this may depopulate D3, at the same time, were i god of WIS, i would strongly consider eliminating D3 altogether. in my own experience, it's pretty similar to D2 in gameplay. eliminating D3 would consolidate those players that enjoy the gameplay outside of D1 and make that level more competitive.

that's just my two cents, though. I admit that I've had a lot of fun playing D2 but D3 has always felt like watered-down D2 to me. others may disagree.

I really haven't had much fun in D2, because it seems like the 6-6-0-0 class structure is so common (and so dominant). I haven't seen it used nearly as often in D3. I think with lower recruiting budgets it's tougher to make sure you fill the six-man class when you need to (although maybe it's just luck of the draw). That's why my current teams are all D1 or D3.

That said, eliminating carryover and adding probabilistic battles is really going to hurt the 6-6-0-0 folks, which I think will make D2 a lot more playable.

the fact is no one knows how to play this game when they start and the first team someone picks is almost always a bad choice. the first season would be a learning experience in D3 or in D1. i personally don't really think it makes much of a difference where you learn. there are "sharks" in all divisions and there are coaches who will help people along in every division.

"why are you so mean spirited?" You're right, I should lighten up.

"Sure the new coaches could burn through their money in d1. But they'd have more of it to burn. And I simply replied to someone else congratulating them on thinking outside of the box. You know, looking at both sides of an issue.
By the way, you could be right that letting new coaches play d1 is a bad idea. I'm not positive. What I applauded was the notion of throwing out some of the preconceptions we all have about the game to make it better. Would it work? I don't know."

I'm totally with you on thinking outside the box, looking at both sides of an issue, throwing out preconceptions. Where the conversation sometimes goes astray what often seems to be the assumption by everyone who posts a new idea that because he thought of it, it is automatically a good idea. (Not referring to this thread, BTW). As far as the specific idea of newbies starting at higher levels, I've seen it fail elsewhere. I hadn't thought of guys with experience taking extra D1 teams without going through the steps. I'd have to percolate that idea a bit. It might work better for them than for newbies.

"No offense to anyone... but some people are assuming that D1 coaches are the cream of the HD crop and I'm not sure that's true. You can get to low D1 pretty easily I think. There are D1 coaches who have never won a SINGLE NT game at D2 or D3 in their careers."

You mean like Sp^&hole?

Posted by mullycj on 9/29/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):
"No offense to anyone... but some people are assuming that D1 coaches are the cream of the HD crop and I'm not sure that's true. You can get to low D1 pretty easily I think. There are D1 coaches who have never won a SINGLE NT game at D2 or D3 in their careers."

You mean like Sp^&hole?

Yes that's a good example.