Posted by MikeT23 on 9/21/2017 6:46:00 PM (view original):
So you agree that a 90/90 guy going against a 90/90 guy is the same as a 70/70 guy going against a 70/70 guy?

As I said, you find a "new normal". Had this argument for several years in HBD. 'mo better isn't a solution. Adjusting your gameplay and expectations is.

Recruit generation does not matter BECAUSE EVERY TEAM IS IN THE SAME BOAT!!!

Every team or every D prestige team?

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/21/2017 8:02:00 PM (view original):
Every team or every D prestige team?

ah. Someone who knows how to use their brain.

Every team. The player pool does not change because you're A prestige or D prestige. Your ability to sign them differs but the player pool is the same. The top programs will get the top players just as it's always been. App State will get the guys benis posted. Is it your contention that D programs should get A talent? Cuz that's pretty dumb.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/21/2017 5:20:00 PM (view original):
I think you're wrong. EVERYONE isn't going to play "I have to have all top 100 players" because that's a losing proposition. If 19 users are on one player, 18 walk away with nothing. Might be a legit strategy to go after players 205 and 207 because it's just you and another user. Hit on both and suddenly you're a top 25 team when coupled with previous season's recruits.

3.0 is fine. The problem is 6-8 seasons to get to D1. Where you'll likely take a bad program and spend another 6-8 seasons hoping something better comes along.

seble said he was building a staff from the ground up. Takes time. Quit being so needy.

You'd have a lot more credibility discussing DI if you had any DI experience in 3.0. That's why I don't opine on 3.0 DIII.

It depends if you want to win. If you want to make a final 4/win an NT in DI, you have to have top 100 players (there's a nearly impossible alternative path of hitting every single high-growth recruit in your area and wait a few years, but the failures of recruit gen are for another post). Additionally, a good number of those top 100 recruits aren't actually elite, but again, here nor there for the moment.

Here's what will happen in a full 3.0 DI w/re elite recruits: certain teams will win their dice rolls and be loaded; certain teams will split them (win 1, lose 1) and have a team with a few studs and a bunch of holes, and certain teams will go 0-fer. Currently, the teams that go 0-fer have alternatives (not great alternatives, but alternatives), because it's so easy to push SIM off recruits -- those backups will be much harder to obtain in a full DI, since you'll be falling back against humans. Multiply this over a few years, and you're going to have even more coach frustration than you do now (and a couple of monstrous teams that were lucky, went 6-0 in dice rolls over a couple years, and are nearly unbeatable). Additionally, right now there is a viable strategy of building up a team via picking up non-elite players who will be decently strong (700-750 overall) by their senior years -- those teams can make runs (probably can't win NTs, but you can make some S16s). While there's some competition for those recruits, it's often SIMs, or you can snag a few recruits w/o any competition at all. That path will be closed in a full DI, because you won't be able to win anyone playable without full-out battles.

This isn't brain surgery. Don't give me "If you had experience..." bullshit.

Risk/reward. What are we doing if not making decisions? I've never scored a basket in HD.

Everyone wants to win(I assume). You can go all in on top 10 talent and, if you hit, you're sitting pretty. If you miss, you ***** about how 3.0 is ****** up. I'm not the least bit concerned by "coach frustration". I'm frustrated. I had a Final Four team last season and lost on 3 PG replacements over 2 seasons. My team was crap this season. But you know what? I made the decisions to chase those 3 players and higher levels took them late. That's what will happen to those chasing all the top talent. All but one will miss on every player. And they'll have trouble finding quality replacement. The smart user will find an alternative way to win.

Another reality is you'd see waaaaaaay more zone, man, and man/zone teams playing with 7 guys.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 9/22/2017 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Another reality is you'd see waaaaaaay more zone, man, and man/zone teams playing with 7 guys.

haha yup, that's what I said. FB/Press would be dead.

Or users will change their expectations. Instead of 90/90 vs 90/90, you might find that 80/75 vs 75/70 produces better results.

Ha. No. People aren't idiots.

Well, not all of them at least.

Oh gee willikers, do I want to run FB/Press and make the NT once every 4 seasons or just do M2M where I take 2 walk ons and make the NT every single season. How will I ever make this darn decision! So difficult.

Numbers confuse you, don't they?

Serious question: How old are you? You seem like the kind of guy who thinks there is only one way to do things and, even if the situation changes, that's still the only way. Which means you're either 19 or 90.

Posted by Benis on 9/22/2017 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Oh gee willikers, do I want to run FB/Press and make the NT once every 4 seasons or just do M2M where I take 2 walk ons and make the NT every single season. How will I ever make this darn decision! So difficult.

Get in the right conference, win it and go to the NT. I know you don't know that's how it works but it does. Conference champs go to the NT. Their O/D sets don't matter when they win the conference.

We're talking about a scenario where there are 250 people playing D1. How many empty conferences do you think there will be where you can "just win it" with a crappy team?

Do you think you'd be the only user with a "crappy" team?

Let's use little numbers. Probably less confusing. 1 is the best, 10 is the worst.

1 plays 1. Pretty even match-up, right?
3 plays 3. Still even, right?
1 plays 3. 1 is better, right.

Now let's pretend that 1 is a current FB/press team. With 250 users, that 1 is now a 3 team. But, because the talent is spread out more, most 1s are now 3s. Do you think a 3 FB/press team would perform similarly against another diluted 3?