Posted by MikeT23 on 11/13/2016 7:19:00 PM (view original):
I suppose one could ignore real-life ego.

Lebron really enjoyed his free agency because everyone wanted him. He could have said "I'm going to South Beach" on Day 1 but he liked the process. It fed his ego.

So, what you're saying is that a kid whose **** didn't stink all thru HS will accept being 12th man at KY if they call him 3 hours before commitment time ends after not even letting him know he's on their radar. Sorry, that doesn't seem realistic at all.

That said, perhaps D3 should lose some guys to D2/D1 when they "outgrow" that school. Not sure if that's part of the game or not. Transfers.

Well the reason it doesn't seem realistic is that it's not going to happen because the system doesn't represent real life. In real life, a player who coach Cal wants on his team doesn't get absolutely zero attention from D1 or even D2 programs until the last minute. That's my whole point, it's not a realistic system so making any argument that this is or isn't realistic doesn't make sense to me. It's all unrealistic.

And great point about transfers. I don't see anyone clamoring for transfers to leave their D3 or D2 program if they can make it at D1. Why isn't this part of the game?

I agree. Coach K or Cal would call the kid and say "Hey, we'd like to like to consider you. I think we have a full commitment to scholarships but we'll keep in touch. Things change, you know." And, as I understand this game, that might be a HV or some AP. I just don't think you can call a kid at the 11th hour, when he's all set to go to D3 University, offer a scholly and expect him to say "OMG!!! YES!!! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!"

As for the transfer part, I don't know. If a D3 can get a D1 prospect by giving love all thru recruitment, that kid, after dominating, should certainly consider a move up to the big boys if he can compete at that level. That seems realistic to me. But it would add another layer to the game. Programmers would have to get to work.

FWIW, I don't think anyone is clamoring for it because most of the postings are done by D1 coaches who are unhappy because of EE. They should probably start on D3/D2 transfers too.

" I just don't think you can call a kid at the 11th hour, when he's all set to go to D3 University, offer a scholly and expect him to say "OMG!!! YES!!! A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!""

I think that's a part of the problem. Seble mentioned several times that his goal with 3.0 was to encourage battling and fix some of the issues with 2.0. One of them was that the first team on a recruit would typically get him. Now we're saying, well UK wasn't on this particular player in the first session and maybe not until the last couple days, so that means-

1) UK didn't really want them
2) The computer generated player is now has a complex and highly unpredictable 18 year old brain and can think and act like a real person.

Also, the last 'day' of recruiting isn't a real life day. Our recruiting is what, 9 days or something? So each day is at least a month in real life time. So it's not like the kid has his bags packed and is on the way to his dorm room when Cal calls. It's as if it's still several months prior to him committing. Again - misrepresentation of real life.

But I don't think people are clamoring for transfers because that would SUCK as a D2/D3 coach. Or even as a low D1 coach. It would suck to lose a great player unexpectedly.... but then again, that's the thing that people are complaining about with EEs, isn't it? The argument from several is that EEs carry an inherent risk that he may leave early BUT you got to have a stud player for a couple seasons so you should be okay with that trade off. Are we now saying that same thing for D2 and D3? Would people be okay with signing a D1 rated player but with the full understanding that they will likely transfer? I doubt it but honestly would like to hear people's opinions on this. FWIW I spent the vast majority of my seasons at D3 and I'm only on my 2nd season of D1 so I'm not only trying to make things great for D1 but want to have great game for D3 too.

Edit- I should say that people are complaining about not having a FAIR way to replace EEs, not that they exist.

I'm a 1/3 of my way thru my first season in 10 years but I'd be OK with it. If I got a great player, who I had no business getting in the 1st place, for one season, I'd be fine with that. It would just be the same as EE for D1 teams.

After all, if Kate Upton says "I'm going to have sex with you for 28 minutes and never look your way again", we're all good with that, right? Not sure what I'd do with all those extra minutes but I'm still down for it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/13/2016 8:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm a 1/3 of my way thru my first season in 10 years but I'd be OK with it. If I got a great player, who I had no business getting in the 1st place, for one season, I'd be fine with that. It would just be the same as EE for D1 teams.

After all, if Kate Upton says "I'm going to have sex with you for 28 minutes and never look your way again", we're all good with that, right? Not sure what I'd do with all those extra minutes but I'm still down for it.

Officially my favorite "new" player.

Posted by reinsel on 11/12/2016 6:15:00 PM (view original):
If the D1 puts in enough effort to offer a scholarship and does, no way should a D3 school win. Ever.

I'm at Army (in the Patriot) lost a recruit to a D3. I got to very high on the cycle that the player signed with the D3 team, Haverford, I think. I would have been on him earlier, but I only discovered him as I was scouting looking for good players that fell through the D1, better than Patriot (Army) cracks. What's stupid and totally unreal is that I had promised PT. What person would turn down PT at a D1 for a D3?

Yeah,its pretty dumb if a D1 team offers a player PT and the dude signs with a d3 team.

Posted by boballog on 11/13/2016 9:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 11/12/2016 6:15:00 PM (view original):
If the D1 puts in enough effort to offer a scholarship and does, no way should a D3 school win. Ever.

I'm at Army (in the Patriot) lost a recruit to a D3. I got to very high on the cycle that the player signed with the D3 team, Haverford, I think. I would have been on him earlier, but I only discovered him as I was scouting looking for good players that fell through the D1, better than Patriot (Army) cracks. What's stupid and totally unreal is that I had promised PT. What person would turn down PT at a D1 for a D3?

It's BS. All the effort in the world by a DIII school should amount to a steaming pile of **** when compared to a DI scholarship offer. DIII should only sign DI players when nobody (including SIMs) are on them. If that happens, congrats...DIII has a player.

So it's your contention that a low level D1 being recruited only by a D3 should sign on the last cycle with a D1(or D2 using that logic) if they drop a scholarship offer on them at the last minute? How on earth does that seem "right"?

People are used to having a pool of players that were not available to lower levels; leftovers, so to speak. So if, on the final day, you found yourself needing to try to formulate a plan C, you had a group of players just waiting around for you -and you could sign them in one cycle with a "$110 special" package of scholarship and promise to start. There are still D1 players waiting around for you now, but you have to find them via scouting, not just searching a comprehensive database. And no players are protected from anyone, so lots of those players have D2/3s invested in them. It's not so much that this scenario isn't "right" or realistic, it's just a significant difference that many coaches are struggling to adjust to.

You dont have to invest many early APs in a recruit to establish some interest, and keep most lower level teams looking elsewhere. But it's a tough sell to get people used to the idea that there is more than one strategy that can be successful, so you see a lot of these gameplay complaints coming from people convinced that they *need* to absolutely maximize their chances with their top targets, and any expenditure of attention on back-ups is wasteful.

Gotcha. I thought that might be the case but didn't want to assume.

I don't think I'd have a problem if a low level D1 was poached from me on the last day if the D1/D2 had at least shown some interest along the way. But I'd be rather unhappy if I dumped a ton of resources into this D1 12th man, who was completely unrecruited by anyone but me, and some D1 drops a scholarship offer on the last cycle to get him. That would leave D3s with no back-up plan and walk-ons.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/14/2016 9:06:00 AM (view original):
People are used to having a pool of players that were not available to lower levels; leftovers, so to speak. So if, on the final day, you found yourself needing to try to formulate a plan C, you had a group of players just waiting around for you -and you could sign them in one cycle with a "$110 special" package of scholarship and promise to start. There are still D1 players waiting around for you now, but you have to find them via scouting, not just searching a comprehensive database. And no players are protected from anyone, so lots of those players have D2/3s invested in them. It's not so much that this scenario isn't "right" or realistic, it's just a significant difference that many coaches are struggling to adjust to.

You dont have to invest many early APs in a recruit to establish some interest, and keep most lower level teams looking elsewhere. But it's a tough sell to get people used to the idea that there is more than one strategy that can be successful, so you see a lot of these gameplay complaints coming from people convinced that they *need* to absolutely maximize their chances with their top targets, and any expenditure of attention on back-ups is wasteful.

This isnt my position personally. For me, its not adjusting my thinking because I only played D3 in 2.0 so ive never had the experience of grabbing leftover D1 guys when other plans fell through. my opinion is coming from what I think makes the most sense from a playability standpoint.

We have a similar situation in HBD. You may have the best offer for the entire FA period then get topped on the last cycle by a desperate owner. But he had to drop a ton of resources(payroll) on the last cycle and you get your money back. Then you can still sign FA, lower level, so you're not standing there holding the bag.

In the HD scenario suggested above, a team invests virtually nothing, you don't get your resources back and you get a walk-on. That's a terrible deal for D2/D3 teams. Might be incentive to move up as quickly as possible but you'd have slog thru that crap every season until you could move up.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2016 9:55:00 AM (view original):
We have a similar situation in HBD. You may have the best offer for the entire FA period then get topped on the last cycle by a desperate owner. But he had to drop a ton of resources(payroll) on the last cycle and you get your money back. Then you can still sign FA, lower level, so you're not standing there holding the bag.

In the HD scenario suggested above, a team invests virtually nothing, you don't get your resources back and you get a walk-on. That's a terrible deal for D2/D3 teams. Might be incentive to move up as quickly as possible but you'd have slog thru that crap every season until you could move up.

But that goes back to the point that you should assess the risk. you can recruit D3 projected guys without the risk that kentucky will come and take him.

D3 has an entire pool of players to recruit from. if they dont like D1 "stealing" their players at the 11th hour then they shouldnt try recruiting them. IMHO.