Posted by zagsrulez on 5/27/2017 6:59:00 PM (view original):
How about having the projected level removed entirely for recruits? I loathe having to wait til the last day and especially the last 24 hours for players who have gotten little to no attention from any other school!

This.

Just make them college prospects and let the market sort it out by itself what is D1, D2 and D3. That takes away the need for red lights or anything of the sort. Location still would be a big deal, for sure, but there's really not any way around that, nor should there be necessarily. I mean, Minnesota and California have two different recruiting environments now.

We could still have advertisement of the top 100 players, the top 200 players, top 100 by position, Mr. Basketball whatever state, Stars, etc. But ultimately coaches would need to look and see what's out there and recruit absent any labels that say what division a kid might be primed for.

Posted by ab90 on 5/27/2017 8:16:00 PM (view original):
D2 and D3 are more fun. At D1, all of the top teams are the same. If you do away with lower division incentives, I— and half of the HD community— am out.

Is DII and DIII really more fun now, as compared to HD 2.0, or is it just easier for an elite coach such as yourself to dominate?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2017 8:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ab90 on 5/27/2017 8:16:00 PM (view original):
D2 and D3 are more fun. At D1, all of the top teams are the same. If you do away with lower division incentives, I— and half of the HD community— am out.

Is DII and DIII really more fun now, as compared to HD 2.0, or is it just easier for an elite coach such as yourself to dominate?

Half is a HUGE exaggeration. I suggested reducing rewards and I play at the lower levels. It wouldn't impact my decision to play HD at all if it was reduced.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2017 4:24:00 PM (view original):
1. 500+ open spots is a bad look. "Nobody plays this damn game."
2. You're completely ignoring that good D3 teams are going to be crap D2 teams. "Sucks to be you, #24 ranked D3."

So, you're willing to screw over 300ish users(30 per world with good D3 that will be crap competing against D2) to save "historical records" and ensure Joe Schmoe gets Fitchburg St because that's his alma mater? No thanks.

The look is the same regardless of how the divisions are split. 500 empty teams is 500 empty teams, whether it's one giant division or two.

Good D3 teams will be good D2 teams, if given the same resources. They're not going to drop just because. I know you don't believe this, but the game actually is essentially the same at all three levels, the sets work the same, the ratings work the same... it's just a matter of scale, and how good the competition is. How good the completion is depends mostly on experience and locale of the user, assuming resources would be equalized. My guess is, you'd see lots of current D3 teams and conferences competing on equal footing within a few seasons. There could be a transition period of a few seasons where they equalize resources and red light restrictions before combination.

As I said from the outset, this is just for fun discussion. It won't happen, even though I fully believe it should. If I'm developing a college basketball simulation right now, there is 0% chance there would be a D3, and only a small chance of a D2. Neither is necessary, or particularly interesting. Hardly anyone is drawn to a college basketball simulation to coach Carnegie Mellon. The only reason to have a single lower division in a game like this is to give trial and newer players a place to learn the mechanics before they have to compete with entrenched dynasties. The idea of stratifying to milk more dollars out of users is a wash at best for WIS when their incentive structure gets gamed by people the way it does. If they were going for a total re-boot, I'd totally say just eliminate D3 (and maybe D2) entirely.

Posted by rednu on 5/27/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 5/27/2017 6:59:00 PM (view original):
How about having the projected level removed entirely for recruits? I loathe having to wait til the last day and especially the last 24 hours for players who have gotten little to no attention from any other school!

This.

Just make them college prospects and let the market sort it out by itself what is D1, D2 and D3. That takes away the need for red lights or anything of the sort. Location still would be a big deal, for sure, but there's really not any way around that, nor should there be necessarily. I mean, Minnesota and California have two different recruiting environments now.

We could still have advertisement of the top 100 players, the top 200 players, top 100 by position, Mr. Basketball whatever state, Stars, etc. But ultimately coaches would need to look and see what's out there and recruit absent any labels that say what division a kid might be primed for.

I would get behind this, except removing the projections would mean another complete overhaul of the scouting process.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2017 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 5/27/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 5/27/2017 6:59:00 PM (view original):
How about having the projected level removed entirely for recruits? I loathe having to wait til the last day and especially the last 24 hours for players who have gotten little to no attention from any other school!

This.

Just make them college prospects and let the market sort it out by itself what is D1, D2 and D3. That takes away the need for red lights or anything of the sort. Location still would be a big deal, for sure, but there's really not any way around that, nor should there be necessarily. I mean, Minnesota and California have two different recruiting environments now.

We could still have advertisement of the top 100 players, the top 200 players, top 100 by position, Mr. Basketball whatever state, Stars, etc. But ultimately coaches would need to look and see what's out there and recruit absent any labels that say what division a kid might be primed for.

I would get behind this, except removing the projections would mean another complete overhaul of the scouting process.

I'd get behind it as well...as long as my scouting budget was tripled.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2017 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2017 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 5/27/2017 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 5/27/2017 6:59:00 PM (view original):
How about having the projected level removed entirely for recruits? I loathe having to wait til the last day and especially the last 24 hours for players who have gotten little to no attention from any other school!

This.

Just make them college prospects and let the market sort it out by itself what is D1, D2 and D3. That takes away the need for red lights or anything of the sort. Location still would be a big deal, for sure, but there's really not any way around that, nor should there be necessarily. I mean, Minnesota and California have two different recruiting environments now.

We could still have advertisement of the top 100 players, the top 200 players, top 100 by position, Mr. Basketball whatever state, Stars, etc. But ultimately coaches would need to look and see what's out there and recruit absent any labels that say what division a kid might be primed for.

I would get behind this, except removing the projections would mean another complete overhaul of the scouting process.

I'd get behind it as well...as long as my scouting budget was tripled.

I don't know if you'd need to triple it, but clearly there would have to be some sort of significant readjust on the amount of scouting money each school gets given the increase in bodies one has in things like state-by-state scoutings. Would also have to readjust things like camps possibly to avoid things like Ohio St. holding a 200-person local camp and attracting a pool of largely D3-caliber players (although given some of the D1 projected recruits I've seen, that might already be closer to the case that we'd like...)

Would probably also want an added Assistant Coach scout option to only scout people already at Level 2 or 3 so that a coach could cut some of the chaff from the wheat after the initial scout from camp or Future Stars and avoid wasting resources from the AC going out and scouting a player that clearly isn't going to work for their program/level.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2017 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2017 4:24:00 PM (view original):
1. 500+ open spots is a bad look. "Nobody plays this damn game."
2. You're completely ignoring that good D3 teams are going to be crap D2 teams. "Sucks to be you, #24 ranked D3."

So, you're willing to screw over 300ish users(30 per world with good D3 that will be crap competing against D2) to save "historical records" and ensure Joe Schmoe gets Fitchburg St because that's his alma mater? No thanks.

The look is the same regardless of how the divisions are split. 500 empty teams is 500 empty teams, whether it's one giant division or two.

Good D3 teams will be good D2 teams, if given the same resources. They're not going to drop just because. I know you don't believe this, but the game actually is essentially the same at all three levels, the sets work the same, the ratings work the same... it's just a matter of scale, and how good the competition is. How good the completion is depends mostly on experience and locale of the user, assuming resources would be equalized. My guess is, you'd see lots of current D3 teams and conferences competing on equal footing within a few seasons. There could be a transition period of a few seasons where they equalize resources and red light restrictions before combination.

As I said from the outset, this is just for fun discussion. It won't happen, even though I fully believe it should. If I'm developing a college basketball simulation right now, there is 0% chance there would be a D3, and only a small chance of a D2. Neither is necessary, or particularly interesting. Hardly anyone is drawn to a college basketball simulation to coach Carnegie Mellon. The only reason to have a single lower division in a game like this is to give trial and newer players a place to learn the mechanics before they have to compete with entrenched dynasties. The idea of stratifying to milk more dollars out of users is a wash at best for WIS when their incentive structure gets gamed by people the way it does. If they were going for a total re-boot, I'd totally say just eliminate D3 (and maybe D2) entirely.

Well, yeah, it won't happen.

I guess we'll just disagree about the appearance of 500+ openings vs 250+ at two levels. I know how it looks to me. Maybe others, like you, see it differently. That's fine.

I don't believe the game is inherently different at each level. But the talent required is different and how "high" you can reach is certainly different. Recruiting is certainly different. At D3, when D1 shows up, you probably should just give in. At D2, you can stay and fight. At D1, you should stay and fight. You aren't going to get good at D1 recruiting by playing D2/D3. And recruiting is the crux of the game.

The transition period would have to be 4-5 seasons. The D3s would have to be given equal resources and their efforts would have to be treated the same as D2.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2017 8:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ab90 on 5/27/2017 8:16:00 PM (view original):
D2 and D3 are more fun. At D1, all of the top teams are the same. If you do away with lower division incentives, I— and half of the HD community— am out.

Is DII and DIII really more fun now, as compared to HD 2.0, or is it just easier for an elite coach such as yourself to dominate?

First, thank you for the compliment. But, I've always enjoyed the lower divisions more. Every year, I look to take Ohio State (I do take jobs largely based on schools at which I've studied/ visited/ heard of, etc.), but the job is never open. I also hate baseline prestige. That was why I quit GD; when you win a national title at Rutgers but still can't recruit with any of the umpteen elites, that's just a poor system.

Plus, I haven't won a championship since Nixon was office! Haha. It's at least been several months. Regardless of the level, winning titles is difficult.

"Good D3 teams will be good D2 teams, if given the same resources."

Now wait a minute, someone slipped in some trumpian double-speak.

They could just create a new world with 180 teams per level. I think it would get close to filling up. Call it an extra world for everyone wanting competition from the very start. We all complain on here that we want less sim, greater competition and less filler. That is the answer. 15 conferences per level. No levels need to go. That kind of set up would be wildly successful.

I haven't read anything in this thread, so if it's a recycled idea, then oh well.

Less conferences also work, I just used 180 as an example.

Still, whatever you decide, can we get action in the first session? The wait and see game kills the strategy. That is why I would cap so D1 teams don't end up fighting every division but giving more flow to recruiting at D2 and D3 is a must. Example : I finished first session at D2 Naismith, then it was the CT, then the NT, now jobs... I don't even remember my strat, the players I coveted, how the battles took place, when... It's like I needed to take notes to be more efficient.

Simple solution Zorzii. Have two teams. Seems great for business!!!

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/27/2017 8:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ab90 on 5/27/2017 8:16:00 PM (view original):
D2 and D3 are more fun. At D1, all of the top teams are the same. If you do away with lower division incentives, I— and half of the HD community— am out.

Is DII and DIII really more fun now, as compared to HD 2.0, or is it just easier for an elite coach such as yourself to dominate?

Both.

I have four.