Posted by CoachSpud on 2/19/2017 12:25:00 PM (view original):
“Spud, and I mean this sincerely, are you a real life college basketball fan or just a fan of online simulation games? Your opinions are always outliers on these forums, and I want to know where you are coming from. The type of recruiting that you're talking about… “
I’m a fan of both, and always aware that they are not one and the same. If we’re talking about an online sim, there is no requirement that it exactly mirror real life, just simulate it. I think realism in an online game is desirable, but playability trumps realism any time they conflict. So, in short, keep realism pretty much out of the debate when it conflicts with a game’s playability.
I used to post a lot of agreement with stuff on the forums, but that provoked a bunch of whining (imagine that) so I stopped. I am a person who always looks at both sides of a coin, and in these forums I always look at an idea from the point of view of the whole game, not just my team or my own personal preferences. The “type of recruiting” I’m talking about complies with those standards.

BTW, “I think removing the caps is a good idea because we are now all on equal footing for resources.”
What do you have against being on equal footing for resources? Caps were put in place because a team with one or two openings had no chance against a team with 4, 5 or 6 openings. Really, you want to go back to that? Chapel said it well, “My thinking on the HV and CV cap has always been that I like it … I do like the fact that a team with one opening can compete evenly with a team with 6 openings.” And that applies to D2 and D3 as well.

And always remember it is very difficult already to step up a projected division for a recruit, and with just a small number of new coaches it will be nigh unto impossible. No tweak is needed here, just a small number of additional coaches.

That's maybe just a natural difference between our viewpoints. For me, the further the game gets away from realism (I realize it can't be met 100%), the less appealing the game is for me. Having DIII and DII beat high level D1 schools for recruits is an affront to any level of realism IMO. I believe that there's a balance between realism and playability and realism shouldn't be out of the debate at all, otherwise the game is no longer a simulation.


I don't mind when a C- D1 beats an A D1,due to higher recruiting effort/preferences or a A+ DII even beats a D prestige D1 for the same reason, but some of the results of battles in 3.0 have made no sense at all, and there are pretty simple fixes that wouldn't turn the game into 2.0, or even come close to detracting from its playability.


I have nothing against being on relatively equal footing for recruiting $ and resources. I think you misread or misunderstood my quote. Because we are on much more equal footing for resources, the caps are likely either pointless or too low in my opinion.

That being said....caps aren't my biggest issue. Fixing the first day of phase 2 is my biggest issue with 3.0.

And again, Spud, re-arguing the other extreme (the perils of going back to 2.0) doesn't validate your point...as I've said all along, 3.0 is not wrong, and it's an improvement, but definitely an overcorrection, and often unrealistic and frustrating for many coaches.

"For me, the further the game gets away from realism (I realize it can't be met 100%), the less appealing the game is for me."

bbunch, we don't disagree on that. As I said, I like realism, too. Evidently where we disagree is that playability trumps "realism" whenever they conflict. I would not sacrifice playability for someone's idea of "realism."

I realize you are focused on removing or raising caps, but that is nothing more than a step backwards to the time when teams with more scholarship openings ruled, and we all know why that was bad for the game. Coaches would deliberately build super classes (where's your realism there?) so they could crush opponents in recruiting every fourth or second year. Sorry, that's a non-starter to me.

BTW, your statement that "some of the results of battles in 3.0 have made no sense at all" isn't really so. It has only been so when guys left things out of the debate that didn't fit their position, like preferences, or promises, for example. Every one with full info made sense, unless you are fixated on "D1 should always beat D2." I prefer "skilled recruiting should reasonably beat incomplete or partial recruiting," and that is how it is working.

I beat D1 St Johns with a D3 team. I beat D1 Loyola with a Day team.

There was nothing skillful I did.

Posted by Benis on 2/19/2017 1:06:00 PM (view original):
I beat D1 St Johns with a D3 team. I beat D1 Loyola with a Day team.

There was nothing skillful I did.

LOL, I believe you. More to the point, though, is that there was nothing skillful St. Johns did. They could take anyone they want away from a D3 team. That's the part everyone always leaves out when they argue for making D1 recruiting easier and easier.

Not sure why you said LOL