Why not let everyone who has a D3 school have the option of keeping it. Just make it a D2 school and eliminate the SIM schools that are bottom feeders. This would eliminate D3 and everyone could keep their schools.

Posted by runnrun on 5/27/2017 9:01:00 AM (view original):
Why not let everyone who has a D3 school have the option of keeping it. Just make it a D2 school and eliminate the SIM schools that are bottom feeders. This would eliminate D3 and everyone could keep their schools.

Except the part about eliminating bottom feeding sims, this is about exactly what I'm proposing. Combine the 2 in every world. No more distinction between those two divisions. Now there would be one large entry-level division, D2, and then D1. Something like the top 25 or so conferences by RPI would get automatic bids, the rest would have to fight for at-large bids, or settle for PIT championships.

Since every world is populated differently, it probably doesn't work to eliminate sim teams at the bottom rung. I don't see a problem with keeping a lot of mostly empty sim conferences in this kind of arrangement, it provides plenty of room for new players to learn the mechanics of the game without having to butt heads with entrenched teams.

You could start by eliminating empty conferences in D3/D2. Then, once you have a reasonable number of schools(700ish at the same level is nonsense), combine.

What I meant to say is if 85 D3 schools are moved up to D2 eliminate the 85 bottom fed SIM schools. That way it helps fill D2 and still keeps the same number of schools at that level

Neither of those ideas really works in a multiple world game, IMO. You disappear currently "empty" conferences in a given world, and now someone's alma mater is available in some worlds, not others. And the historical records of past coaches are just gone.

Theres no real harm in having lots of sim teams or empty conferences in a world. Having lots of sims to beat up on makes the climb more palatable for many new players.

Why is ~700 teams too many for an entry-level division? What are the negatives? I would expect the number of human-controlled teams to about double per world in the proposed new D2, but I don't think that's much of a problem. Now you have ~200 guys, give or take a few dozen, competing for 128 NT spots across 2 divisions in a given world. That's absurd. That's the heart of the incentive problem right there, guys use multiple D2 and D3 teams as credit farms. Those credits can definitely be more scarce at that level.

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.

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.

This is one of the things I was thinking too.

Also, people that are average in D3 currently won't be getting any better in this new system. I'm sure they'll love not even making the PIT now.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 3/21/2017 9:50:00 PM (view original):
I don't mind a person parking at a school if it is their alma mater or their favorite school. My alma mater is at the D2 level and I have parked on them in football and considered it in basketball.

In terms of credits more credits should go to the winner in D1, next most to the D1 runner up, then the D2 winner, then D2 runner up, then winner at D3 and then the D3 runner up. If you combine D2&D3 perhaps credits could be equal between the 2 divisions (D1 and D2D3)

A 55 conference format of D2&D3 could be interesting if it came with a tournament of 124 teams. 55 conference tournament winners and 69 at large. Just shave off a game or two from the regular season at that level and start the tournament earlier or consider the first round a play-in for the tournament. Nothing says that D2&D3 schools need to play the same number of games as D1 schools.

I wouldn't support a doubled field for the tournament. One of the things I like about the proposal is encouraging teams to get into good conferences again, to fight for conference RPI and automatic bids for their conference champs.

Suppose one's alma mater is a D3 school that ends up in a ghost conference. Should he be penalized by staying in that ghost conference just because a handful of other random people decide to fill up some other random conference? Conference champions should be NT teams regardless of how many human coached teams are in that conference.

I know it's a very unpopular suggestion but I still believe the game would be best served by contracting worlds. Go from three two-a-day worlds to two. Go from seven one-a-day worlds to maybe four. WiS got way too greedy when they opened up all these worlds. Several issues with contraction which means it would almost assuredly never happen though. For instance, which of the seven coaches who have North Carolina in the one-a-days would have to give them up and move to a different team, etc.?

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2017 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 5/27/2017 2:55:00 AM (view original):
shoe, your statements contradict each other in that you say the mountain for new guys in DIII is too high to climb against veterans who are "parked", but you'd rather remove the limitations to recruiting from a lower division, because your recruiting skill determines your success and want to merge divisions. New coaches would have an even larger mountain to climb as they are now playing against vets who are pulling DI level teams at DIII. Just the release of 3.0 itself, there are DIII teams that would make deep runs in the DII NT and that is with the restrictions. Then you are taking an easier learning environment at DIII and merging it with DII which is actually very competitive and filled with solid vets. A new guy is not going to stick around for that.

Personally, it'd be better off to completely cap recruits to their divisions. There would be no advantages of someone pulling higher level recruits than someone else, and the new coaches would just have to learn to challenge the vets for their recruits which increases battles, and actually keeps "parked" coaches from building as much of a powerhouse, because they will be challenged constantly for good recruits. In the current setup, they just have to look for uncontested DI guys.

You may want to read the thread again poncho, you are confused about who said what. Spud is the one claiming the "mountain" is too high. My contention is that the gap is already miles wide, and that new players are always going to be facing that gap as long as veterans are allowed to park.

Capping divisions won't increase parity (not that I personally care much about that), and is generally a horrible idea. A smaller and limited pool is going to put an even higher premium on experience and location, where vets have entrenched advantages, and will make it harder for others to find gems. More important for gameplay, people simply like pull downs, and capping recruits to their divisions is going to make the game less fun for many players at lower levels because of that.

Not sure whether capping recruits would make the game less fun or not, honestly. When I first starting playing, recruits were capped at each team's level and there were FAR more coaches playing then than there are now. Now, of course, the uncapping of recruit level had little to no relevance to how many coaches are playing now but my point is that worlds were full back then and very few, if anyone, were complaining about it.

With this new 3.0 setup in place, with preferences coming into play, I don't think that the veteran coaches would have so much of a lock on the great players as people may think. I hate to sound like the old disgruntled dude but way back when I started, location didn't matter as much at D3 as prestige did. Some D3 teams simply couldn't "see" some recruits that the top teams could. But that problem has now been taken care of with teams allowed to recruit anyone they wish.

I'm not necessarily advocating for caps on divisions for players, I feel like I'm mediocre enough to do well either way. Just saying that it might not prove as unpopular as some might imagine. I mean, come on, if you want to talk about "any" sort of realism in the game, there shouldn't be more than a handful, at most, of D1 players signed by D3 schools. What I mean is, any player is starts out rated as a D1 player, should almost never fall past D2 teams. The only ones that should would be when EVERY D2 team has filled their allotted number of scholarships and there are no more D2 slots to be filled. Then, and only then, should D1 players be signed by D3 teams. If you want realistic of course.

Capping is certainly important if you do not let D3 and D2 teams sign anything in the first cycle. The waiting game is simply bad for the game. You get no rush at D3, last day is almost the only relevant day of recruiting, D2 is about second session. It's not fun to me, that is why I hate D3... And when you think about it, I think it hurts renewing teams at D2 and D3. If you do not know what you are getting until last day... why renew?

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!

I always loved coaching at Grand Canyon, Palm Beach Atlantic and Colorado College. The lower divisions were, IMHO, the purest form of the game. I had all three prior to 3.0 going live but the new recruiting format, as I saw it in BETA, ruined the lower divisions for me and I dropped every one of them. While I initially disliked the suggestion of combining DII and DIII, to be honest I really don't care. As long as HD 3.0 recruiting is in effect, I am a DI-only coach.

What a damn shame...

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2017 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 5/27/2017 2:55:00 AM (view original):
shoe, your statements contradict each other in that you say the mountain for new guys in DIII is too high to climb against veterans who are "parked", but you'd rather remove the limitations to recruiting from a lower division, because your recruiting skill determines your success and want to merge divisions. New coaches would have an even larger mountain to climb as they are now playing against vets who are pulling DI level teams at DIII. Just the release of 3.0 itself, there are DIII teams that would make deep runs in the DII NT and that is with the restrictions. Then you are taking an easier learning environment at DIII and merging it with DII which is actually very competitive and filled with solid vets. A new guy is not going to stick around for that.

Personally, it'd be better off to completely cap recruits to their divisions. There would be no advantages of someone pulling higher level recruits than someone else, and the new coaches would just have to learn to challenge the vets for their recruits which increases battles, and actually keeps "parked" coaches from building as much of a powerhouse, because they will be challenged constantly for good recruits. In the current setup, they just have to look for uncontested DI guys.

You may want to read the thread again poncho, you are confused about who said what. Spud is the one claiming the "mountain" is too high. My contention is that the gap is already miles wide, and that new players are always going to be facing that gap as long as veterans are allowed to park.

Capping divisions won't increase parity (not that I personally care much about that), and is generally a horrible idea. A smaller and limited pool is going to put an even higher premium on experience and location, where vets have entrenched advantages, and will make it harder for others to find gems. More important for gameplay, people simply like pull downs, and capping recruits to their divisions is going to make the game less fun for many players at lower levels because of that.

Maybe I missed the intent of what you were trying to say, but you stated in the 1st post the gap between the elite and the bottom feeders is wide and is a problem in the game. My statement is that uncapping recruiting, the gap is now wider. The good coaches at DIII are going to know how to recruit guys who could start in DI, while the bottom feeders will be recruiting guys who should be riding the bench at DII. By capping the recruiting divisions, you will normalize the recruits you see within a division. The current range is high DI level player to low DIII player. Capping the recruiting would create a range of high DIII players vs low DIII players. The gap is now significantly smaller and the only challenge is for the bottom feeders to begin challenging the top guys for the same recruits. That's how I got better. My first class or 2 wasn't cutting it, so I upped my game, but the gap wasn't insurmountable. Add to that more challengers for the top recruits in a division will create more battles, and will weaken the coaches who are entrenched at the top. They can only fight off so many other coaches for competition, and it would reduce the advantage of teams like PBAU taking the DII scraps with little competition.

Guys are going to park somewhere no matter what, but if coach A can only achieve a team rating of like 580, vs the current format where there are DIII teams at 662 (which in Tark is on par with the top ranked DII teams), then the gap to close is significantly less. I understand team ratings are not overall important, but it is a simple metric to display the example.

While you say people like pulldowns, I actually disagree. I think many people would prefer the simplicity of not having pulldowns and being able to focus on their divisions recruits. I was not a fan of pulldowns in 1.0 or 2.0, as it created a significant advantage to higher prestige teams before. Additionally I believe you said before, coaches need an incentive to move to DI. Well playing with lesser players can provide that. Why would I leave DII or DIII when I can recruit DI level players and face teams who may not be skilled enough to do so. If I'm tired of guys who can't get past 70 per or 60 def, I might want to step up to the next level for better players.

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.

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.

No need to do away with anything. Put a cap, 600 D2, 560 D3 and let us draft when we want