Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 2/23/2017 9:30:00 AM (view original):
If we want to play lottery/ coin flip basketball, this makes perfect sense.
If we want to reward everyone and give participation trophies at the end, this is a good result. And we should probably have Kum-by-a singalongs afterwards.
If we want to play a game that tries to build DYNASTIES, this makes Zero sense at all. It is moronic.
If we want this to mirror real life, this also makes zero sense at all.

OTOH, looks like you're in your 42nd season at GaTech. Real life?

Straw man argument since 1- i get zero extra credit for being at my school for anything beyond 4-5 years; next- I would actually like some changes with job changes, C, a year WIS isn't a year IRL, and fourth, great coaches do stay at schools they have made into dynasties, the name of the game, in real life as well.

So are you advocating making the game intentionally more unrealistic? If not, your argument is a sideshow and that's it. It's a distraction to keep people from focusing on the issues. And it isn't working.
If you are advocating making the game intentionally more unrealistic, you are clearly delusional trying to make a simulation game less in line with real life thinking that would be a good thing.

Not really a strawman. You're arguing for realism. In the real world, no one coaches for 93 seasons nor do they coach at the same school for 42 seasons. I'm certainly NOT in favor of term limits but users really can't scream "realism!!!!" without noting that anyone coaching 93 seasons is doing it from the grave.

Anyway, if you want me to address your points, I will.
It's not a coin flip or a lottery. That implies 50%(coin) or much less(lottery).
There are no participation trophies. The better users will still come out on top. Because, well, they're better at HD.
Sing-alongs would be nice. I prefer 99 bottles of beer on the wall but I guess that's just preference.
You can still build DYNASTIES. Some of the advantages have been removed. I think it's a better game. Some agree, some don't.
Now we're back to realism with your 93 seasons coaching career and 42 seasons at GaTech. Not exactly mirroring real life.

There are no advantages to coaching somewhere more than 10 years. So it doesn't really matter.
Also, I would LOVE FOR THEM TO REWORK HIRING AND FIRINGS. we agree.
Straw man.
so should we have a mandatory retirement year? If there were accumulated advantages, I would say it would matter. But it doesn't. So it's just an aspect a sim like this can't get realistic but it really has zero consequences.
Straw man.
But yes, we should always strive for realism in a sim game when possible.

Back to the argument and away from your distraction...
a D3 would NEVER in real life beat an A level D1 that puts real effort in a recruit unless dad is the coach or is getting paid more than the coach.
we should strive for This realism. And things like this have happened multiple times, fix it. And Mike, quit being silly. You know this is messed up.

Realism. Advantage or no, no one coaches at a school for 42 years nor do they coach for 93 seasons. Yes or no?

Did you read my post at all or just respond? "I'm certainly NOT in favor of term limits" is there for all to see.

Are you sure that a kid would NEVER choose a D3/D2 over a D1? If so, why did you just give examples? Mom gets cancer, little bro paralyzed in car wreck, waiting for girlfriend to graduate HS, etc, etc. We have ONE example of a D3 beating a D1 that actually put in effort. ONE example and you and I both agree that it COULD happen under certain circumstances. So why all the hoopla?

After reading this thread, I still believe people are putting too many eggs all in one basket. IMO, the first two days of recruiting period one, you need to cast a really wide net. I'm talking 1 AP for at least 20 "backup guys". I've been going into the second recruiting cycle with 6-7 "backup" guys, who I would consider serviceable to good DIV I players, and I'm the only team on them. No SIMS, no humans, nobody but me. And all I did was give them 1 AP per cycle.

So if I do lose a battle I spent more money on, I'm not frantically searching for a replacement. Up the AP's on one of the backups that have nobody on them, and in a couple of cycles you can offer that schoolie at a min. price. This keeps you from having the gapping holes in your lineup.

That is definitely a legit strategy. As you probably know, some are still playing the "sure victory" game so they're driving to drive their opponent to "moderate". That requires a lot of resources. When they win, we don't hear about it. When they lose, we see the 75/25% loss.

It's resource allocation and some/many/most do not want to use their resources like you do.



And, no, I am not telling anyone how to win at HD. Just talking basic math/economics.

If a D3 school puts in more resources than a D1 school, and they hit the lottery and get a player, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that with a D1 school's surplus of resources, you just tied your own noose if you're left hanging.

Further, I don't believe that a D- Division One school should have a prestige advantage over an A+ Division Two school. In our fictional set-up, every school can offer full scholarships, which is the primary driver behind getting a kid to come to your school. If I can get a full scholarship and win a national championship at NYU, why would I want to go to Bethune Cookman?

Posted by ab90 on 2/24/2017 1:19:00 PM (view original):
If a D3 school puts in more resources than a D1 school, and they hit the lottery and get a player, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that with a D1 school's surplus of resources, you just tied your own noose if you're left hanging.

Further, I don't believe that a D- Division One school should have a prestige advantage over an A+ Division Two school. In our fictional set-up, every school can offer full scholarships, which is the primary driver behind getting a kid to come to your school. If I can get a full scholarship and win a national championship at NYU, why would I want to go to Bethune Cookman?

D3 Union beat D1 UConn... and UConn actually put a good deal of effort in.
Read what happened.
Yes, it is crazy and would never happen IRL.

To quote from earlier in the thread.
UConn, an A- DI program put 15 HVs, 1 CV, and 500 APs. They still lost to a top DIII program.

Posted by stewdog on 2/24/2017 5:10:00 PM (view original):
To quote from earlier in the thread.
UConn, an A- DI program put 15 HVs, 1 CV, and 500 APs. They still lost to a top DIII program.

Yes! No one is arguing about a D- D1 school vs. A+ D2 school. In what world does a kid choose to go D3 when being recruited by UCONN!. That's just indefensible and the fact that the defenders are creating low prestige D1 vs. D2 arguments to hide the actual problem shows how indefensible it really is.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
Realism. Advantage or no, no one coaches at a school for 42 years nor do they coach for 93 seasons. Yes or no?

Did you read my post at all or just respond? "I'm certainly NOT in favor of term limits" is there for all to see.

Are you sure that a kid would NEVER choose a D3/D2 over a D1? If so, why did you just give examples? Mom gets cancer, little bro paralyzed in car wreck, waiting for girlfriend to graduate HS, etc, etc. We have ONE example of a D3 beating a D1 that actually put in effort. ONE example and you and I both agree that it COULD happen under certain circumstances. So why all the hoopla?

One example. If there were more, you know we'd have heard about it. 10 worlds, 3-4 seasons(maybe more), 1 example.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/25/2017 6:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
Realism. Advantage or no, no one coaches at a school for 42 years nor do they coach for 93 seasons. Yes or no?

Did you read my post at all or just respond? "I'm certainly NOT in favor of term limits" is there for all to see.

Are you sure that a kid would NEVER choose a D3/D2 over a D1? If so, why did you just give examples? Mom gets cancer, little bro paralyzed in car wreck, waiting for girlfriend to graduate HS, etc, etc. We have ONE example of a D3 beating a D1 that actually put in effort. ONE example and you and I both agree that it COULD happen under certain circumstances. So why all the hoopla?

One example. If there were more, you know we'd have heard about it. 10 worlds, 3-4 seasons(maybe more), 1 example.

The fact that it only happened once is completely immaterial.

This specific case gives us insight into where the programmers set the parameters for each recruiting action, and which scenarios fall on the side of "could conceivably happen" vs "could never, ever happen". We all agree that two schools of equal prestige, distance, prefs and effort should both have approx the same chance at a recruit. And we can all agree (or at least I hope we can) that, say, a D1 A+++ who matches all prefs and puts in full effort and promises to get to VH shouldn't have to battle a D+ D3 school that puts in 20 AP and no promises. That scenario could happen a million times and not once would the D3 get to VH, and rightfully so.

So the question is, where's the line drawn in between those extreme scenarios? What's at the exact edge of what's permitted? And many of us feel that this specific case should fall into the "never ever permitted" side. And I'm glad this case was brought up, because I just want to know if the programmers intended this to be allowed (in which case we can have a community discussion about it, or at least better understand the game) or if they look at this case and say "crap, that went too far" and adjust the parameters. Either way, it's worth them knowing.

Now, you can disagree with others on this thread, and say "I'm fine with this case occurring". Fair enough, that's your opinion. But the notion of "it only happened once, what's the big deal" is a nonstarter.

Incorrect. As both myself and stewdog stated, there ARE specific incidents that MIGHT cause a recruit to go to local college as opposed to some big time D1 halfway across the nation. Therefore, once in thousands of times seems pretty damn accurate.

Using words like "immaterial" and "nonstarter" are simply words to prohibit/discourage discussion. So, be a pal and let that be the last time you do it. Thanks in advance.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/25/2017 7:10:00 AM (view original):
Incorrect. As both myself and stewdog stated, there ARE specific incidents that MIGHT cause a recruit to go to local college as opposed to some big time D1 halfway across the nation. Therefore, once in thousands of times seems pretty damn accurate.

Using words like "immaterial" and "nonstarter" are simply words to prohibit/discourage discussion. So, be a pal and let that be the last time you do it. Thanks in advance.

Mike, I chose those words carefully and I stand by them. Here's why.

1. Throughout the years, on chats and forum posts, WIS has said there are some recruiting "battles" that can never be won. Now, where that "hard line" is has obviously changed with 3.0, but it still exists. A D1 A++++ putting in huge effort, prefs and promises can never lose to a D3 D school with bad prefs putting in minimal effort. Can't happen. Not once in a thousand or trillion. If you're not ok with there being a hard line for extreme cases, take it up with the developers.
2. So the OP scenario is interesting because many of us feel it should be on the "never" side of the hard line. You're welcome to disagree with that and say it should be allowed infrequently. But the fact it "only happened once" doesn't matter for the question of whether it should ever happen.
3. Once every couple of weeks, someone brings up the "extenuating circumstances" argument. What if the recruit's mom got cancer and wants him to play at a specific place? Short answer: HD doesn't care. Mom's cancer, brother went there, Dad's sleeping with the AD's secretary - HD has already factored those types of chaotic events into the likelihood percentages. There are no "incidents" that aren't already baked into the equation. So again, the OP's example broke the hard line, and it doesn't matter for what reason that happened.

How would we KNOW if it happened in another world with other teams? Not that many people post on the forums so it's possible will all the teams out there and all the coaches, something similar could have happened and went unnoticed.

And okay, so we're about 6 months in to 3.0 and we see this wacky result. Is anyone going to guarantee that it NEVER happens again?