Posted by darnoc29099 on 9/19/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/19/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):
There's something to be said about gaining experience on how the game works during the ascension to D1. While experienced users don't need it, new users do. Winning season at D3 and PI or NT appearance at D2 = D1 eligible would solve all problems. Experienced users would breeze thru in 2 seasons, new users would take longer but would get the required experience.

Problem with this is a new user could easily cherry-pick a good D3 and D2 team, meet your requirements, and still not know a damn thing about the game. Having to prove yourself for a minimum of 4 seasons helps users gain some experience. (Yes, I realize you could cherry pick for 4 seasons, but it's less likely you'd be able to do that compared to just two seasons).

This is very true but I do think as the other user said nobody dreams of playing multiple seasons in D2. I would of much rather taken a D1 team sooner and gotten beaten around instead of mulling around D2 for as long as I did. I think opening it up as an option wouldn't hurt anything.

If you don't know anything, it's unlikely you'll even know how to cherrypick. Or, possibly worse, just not cherrypick. I didn't with either of my teams. My first was just a completely open conference so I could get my HBD guys all together. I just quickly grabbed one. The second I just wanted a different O/D set.

One benefit to this idea: for a relatively inexperienced coach, low-level D1 is going to be more forgiving than D3 will be, for at least two reasons.

D1 scouting budget is big enough that if you waste some money on a "learning experience," you still have enough left over to find some good players. At D3, one mistake in your scouting budget might cripple your recruiting efforts that season.

D1 can jump right in on recruits. In D2/D3 right now, the key to success is to put out some nibbles on D1 guys, see who falls through the cracks and then pounce in the second session. A brand new coach isn't going to know to do that, will spend all of their time/money recruiting D3 players in the first session and end up in a cycle of mediocrity. At low-level D1, they can identify and pursue high potential guys right away.

In some ways, this game is backwards from most games. In most games, you start at the most forgiving level (in terms of resources, ability to recover from mistakes and need for high-level strategy) and then work your way into unforgiving territory. It's the opposite here. Right now, a D3 coach has to carefully manage resources and strategy much more than a low-level D1 coach does.

Posted by grimacedance on 9/19/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
One benefit to this idea: for a relatively inexperienced coach, low-level D1 is going to be more forgiving than D3 will be, for at least two reasons.

D1 scouting budget is big enough that if you waste some money on a "learning experience," you still have enough left over to find some good players. At D3, one mistake in your scouting budget might cripple your recruiting efforts that season.

D1 can jump right in on recruits. In D2/D3 right now, the key to success is to put out some nibbles on D1 guys, see who falls through the cracks and then pounce in the second session. A brand new coach isn't going to know to do that, will spend all of their time/money recruiting D3 players in the first session and end up in a cycle of mediocrity. At low-level D1, they can identify and pursue high potential guys right away.

In some ways, this game is backwards from most games. In most games, you start at the most forgiving level (in terms of resources, ability to recover from mistakes and need for high-level strategy) and then work your way into unforgiving territory. It's the opposite here. Right now, a D3 coach has to carefully manage resources and strategy much more than a low-level D1 coach does.

I totally agree with this post. Unless you make it to where D3 can only recruit D3 players, D2 only D2 and D1 can recruit anyone. At D3, you are very liable to blow your limited budget out early, both on scouting and recruiting. At D1, you may still blow the budget, but you are more likely to be reasonable competitive.

You can count me on board with mikes idea for the auto-qualify for previous DI owners. I would ponder another team if it was that way.

I think that's also a good idea, if it is a low level team - like maybe D or D-, and not a mid major or big 6 team.

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/19/2017 10:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 9/19/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
One benefit to this idea: for a relatively inexperienced coach, low-level D1 is going to be more forgiving than D3 will be, for at least two reasons.

D1 scouting budget is big enough that if you waste some money on a "learning experience," you still have enough left over to find some good players. At D3, one mistake in your scouting budget might cripple your recruiting efforts that season.

D1 can jump right in on recruits. In D2/D3 right now, the key to success is to put out some nibbles on D1 guys, see who falls through the cracks and then pounce in the second session. A brand new coach isn't going to know to do that, will spend all of their time/money recruiting D3 players in the first session and end up in a cycle of mediocrity. At low-level D1, they can identify and pursue high potential guys right away.

In some ways, this game is backwards from most games. In most games, you start at the most forgiving level (in terms of resources, ability to recover from mistakes and need for high-level strategy) and then work your way into unforgiving territory. It's the opposite here. Right now, a D3 coach has to carefully manage resources and strategy much more than a low-level D1 coach does.

I totally agree with this post. Unless you make it to where D3 can only recruit D3 players, D2 only D2 and D1 can recruit anyone. At D3, you are very liable to blow your limited budget out early, both on scouting and recruiting. At D1, you may still blow the budget, but you are more likely to be reasonable competitive.

Both these posts are spot on. D1 scouting takes very little thought while there are several different ways to do it in D3. Not to mention its not very intuitive and there's a steep learning curve.

Meh. There's a learning curve at all levels. If not, I'd be steamrolling D2 as I found success at D3 before starting D2. This is not my definition of "steamrolling":

98	MikeT23	2-0	0-0	2-0	0-0	0-0	11	0	0	-
97	MikeT23	18-11	7-3	10-6	1-2	11-5		53	54	B-	NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
96	MikeT23	13-14	7-3	6-10	0-1	10-6		101	89	C+
95	MikeT23	16-13	8-5	7-7	1-1	7-9		119	163	C+	PI (1st Round)
94	MikeT23	15-13	7-6	7-6	1-1	7-9		136	186	C+

Gotta blame the operator on that one.

Or just admit there's a learning curve. You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting.

A) It's a different world. Stands to reason the humans at the higher levels don't play the same as the humans at higher levels in other worlds. And there's a really good chance there's a different number of them at said levels.
B) If you're playing different sets, you have to know how high you can reach and learn what kind of players you're reaching for.
C) A and B apply to low level D1 as well. W.Carolina is not the same as UNC. Assuming somewhat similar resources, UNC will have the advantage.

Posted by grimacedance on 9/19/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
One benefit to this idea: for a relatively inexperienced coach, low-level D1 is going to be more forgiving than D3 will be, for at least two reasons.

D1 scouting budget is big enough that if you waste some money on a "learning experience," you still have enough left over to find some good players. At D3, one mistake in your scouting budget might cripple your recruiting efforts that season.

D1 can jump right in on recruits. In D2/D3 right now, the key to success is to put out some nibbles on D1 guys, see who falls through the cracks and then pounce in the second session. A brand new coach isn't going to know to do that, will spend all of their time/money recruiting D3 players in the first session and end up in a cycle of mediocrity. At low-level D1, they can identify and pursue high potential guys right away.

In some ways, this game is backwards from most games. In most games, you start at the most forgiving level (in terms of resources, ability to recover from mistakes and need for high-level strategy) and then work your way into unforgiving territory. It's the opposite here. Right now, a D3 coach has to carefully manage resources and strategy much more than a low-level D1 coach does.

When you put it like this it makes a lot more sense to open up low level D1. The only way to correct this is to take D1 recruits and make the signing preference weighted towards late. For example 75% Late 15% Whenever 10% By the end of period 1. Then what you could do is allow D2 and D3 to recruit at anytime. This would flip the game back so its not so inverted right now.

I do believe I learned much more from the game when I transitioned to D2 and had more budget allowing me to miss and make mistakes. D3 is so limited that someone could easily screw up a team worse than a SIM AI could. At least with a D1 budget you can easily scout half the country and make better calculated decisions.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2017 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Or just admit there's a learning curve. You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting.

A) It's a different world. Stands to reason the humans at the higher levels don't play the same as the humans at higher levels in other worlds. And there's a really good chance there's a different number of them at said levels.
B) If you're playing different sets, you have to know how high you can reach and learn what kind of players you're reaching for.
C) A and B apply to low level D1 as well. W.Carolina is not the same as UNC. Assuming somewhat similar resources, UNC will have the advantage.

"You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting." That is a 100% true statement. And every single HD player has learned that lesson the hard way during their career.

At D3, when you learn that lesson the hard way, it is pretty likely that you blew almost all of your scouting/recruiting budget in the process.

At low-level D1, when you learn that lesson the hard way, there is a decent chance that you have enough money left over to recover.

Posted by grimacedance on 9/20/2017 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2017 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Or just admit there's a learning curve. You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting.

A) It's a different world. Stands to reason the humans at the higher levels don't play the same as the humans at higher levels in other worlds. And there's a really good chance there's a different number of them at said levels.
B) If you're playing different sets, you have to know how high you can reach and learn what kind of players you're reaching for.
C) A and B apply to low level D1 as well. W.Carolina is not the same as UNC. Assuming somewhat similar resources, UNC will have the advantage.

"You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting." That is a 100% true statement. And every single HD player has learned that lesson the hard way during their career.

At D3, when you learn that lesson the hard way, it is pretty likely that you blew almost all of your scouting/recruiting budget in the process.

At low-level D1, when you learn that lesson the hard way, there is a decent chance that you have enough money left over to recover.

2.0 dampened this problem by making D1 players unrecruitable by D3s, leaving all the D3 teams on reasonably level sod.

Ah, the good old days, when obvious solutions to big problems were in place.

We talk realism all the time. There's no restrictions on D3 W Conn State talking to the 122nd ranked PG in the real world. Pretty much a waste of time but they could. And, if D1/D2 teams show any interest in the same guy in HD before the end of RS2, it's a waste of time in HD. But they don't. Then we have these discussions.

In my mind, I feel like those who say "Restrict recruiting levels" are really just asking for 30 worlds instead of 10. Which would be fine and ties PERFECTLY into this thread. Everyone would be eligible for D1 schools right from the get go.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/20/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 9/20/2017 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2017 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Or just admit there's a learning curve. You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting.

A) It's a different world. Stands to reason the humans at the higher levels don't play the same as the humans at higher levels in other worlds. And there's a really good chance there's a different number of them at said levels.
B) If you're playing different sets, you have to know how high you can reach and learn what kind of players you're reaching for.
C) A and B apply to low level D1 as well. W.Carolina is not the same as UNC. Assuming somewhat similar resources, UNC will have the advantage.

"You have to know how high you can reach during recruiting." That is a 100% true statement. And every single HD player has learned that lesson the hard way during their career.

At D3, when you learn that lesson the hard way, it is pretty likely that you blew almost all of your scouting/recruiting budget in the process.

At low-level D1, when you learn that lesson the hard way, there is a decent chance that you have enough money left over to recover.

2.0 dampened this problem by making D1 players unrecruitable by D3s, leaving all the D3 teams on reasonably level sod.

Ah, the good old days, when obvious solutions to big problems were in place.

Yeah no kidding! Logic has no place around these parts though.