Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2017 6:55:00 AM (view original):
One thing bears repeating:

Whether there are 50 users or 250 users, whether it's D1, D2 or D3, every user wants the best player for the least resources. That's the game. If any of the D1 experts wants to dispute that, please do. Then explain yourself.

One thing you excel at (as opposed to winning in this game) is building straw men. No one argues that "every user wants the best player for the least resources." What I and others have said is that the mechanism to recruit in DI is very different than in DII/DIII, and that a 250 user DI will be a debacle. You have no way to dispute either statement, as you haven't ever recruited DI in 3.0, and a 250 person DI will be hypothetical forever.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/22/2017 6:10:00 PM (view original):
I say this with all due respect but you really are stupid. If you argue long enough, you forget what you're arguing. Today started with JSS telling me I didn't understand D1 because I haven't played it in 3.0. I think that's bullshit, and nothing either of you have posted has convinced me any different, but let's say I accept that premise. Problem is we were speculating on a world with 250 users in D1. No one has that experience. Then you started on "it will kill FB/Press" and. somehow or another, you just don't understand that EVERY ROSTER would be diluted. You seem to have the intelligence of a 3rd grader. One that was held back a couple of times.

DI recruiting is a completely different experience and strategy than DII or DIII. If you think that is bull then you are willfully ignorant at best, or stupid AF at worst. I picked up a second team a few seasons ago to see what DII and DIII are like in 3.0, and it is an entirely different game strategy wise from DI, especially from high level DI. In my experience it is much much easier to succeed in DII and DIII, and if you do happen to lose coin flip for a recruit there are tons of serviceable backups available. At high DI if you lose a coin flip there are little to no options for a serviceable player--you would be picking up players who's talent level is woefully insufficient to be competitive. I'm not saying insufficient to win a championship (that is a given), I am saying insufficient to even be remotely competitive. You really need to experience it so you can see just how misinformed you are.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/23/2017 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2017 6:55:00 AM (view original):
One thing bears repeating:

Whether there are 50 users or 250 users, whether it's D1, D2 or D3, every user wants the best player for the least resources. That's the game. If any of the D1 experts wants to dispute that, please do. Then explain yourself.

One thing you excel at (as opposed to winning in this game) is building straw men. No one argues that "every user wants the best player for the least resources." What I and others have said is that the mechanism to recruit in DI is very different than in DII/DIII, and that a 250 user DI will be a debacle. You have no way to dispute either statement, as you haven't ever recruited DI in 3.0, and a 250 person DI will be hypothetical forever.

250 users competing for the same pool of resources would be more challenging, no doubt. I don't see how it would be a "debacle". The talent would be spread out more. Please explain the "debacle" part of that.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/23/2017 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/23/2017 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2017 6:55:00 AM (view original):
One thing bears repeating:

Whether there are 50 users or 250 users, whether it's D1, D2 or D3, every user wants the best player for the least resources. That's the game. If any of the D1 experts wants to dispute that, please do. Then explain yourself.

One thing you excel at (as opposed to winning in this game) is building straw men. No one argues that "every user wants the best player for the least resources." What I and others have said is that the mechanism to recruit in DI is very different than in DII/DIII, and that a 250 user DI will be a debacle. You have no way to dispute either statement, as you haven't ever recruited DI in 3.0, and a 250 person DI will be hypothetical forever.

250 users competing for the same pool of resources would be more challenging, no doubt. I don't see how it would be a "debacle". The talent would be spread out more. Please explain the "debacle" part of that.

Good lord, you're as bad as mike, which I guess makes sense, since you're clearly carrying his water. I directly explained why -- to you -- yesterday in this thread. Reread the thread if you don't remember it.

If you can find about 150 people who want to spend $10 a season on a game where they will likely never even reach the NT let alone win a NT game, then yeah maybe you got a shot. Good luck.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/22/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

It isn't magically different, but it absolutely is different for all of the reasons benis and I stated (and probably others). To answer your last question, though, I'll repost what I posted this morning in another thread:

"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 is already happening in DI -- in 2.0, there were 15/20 elite teams (or so), all of whom had a shot at the NT, then a big gap to the next tier -- much harder to make a S16. In 3.0, there's a much larger pool of teams that can make the S16, but a smaller pool of true NT contenders. More people in DI will heighten this effect.

Yeah, you didn't really "explain" anything here. This was really more of a whine-fest.

To summarize: "A larger population of human users means that it will be harder to land elite players, and it will be harder to get fall-back alternatives because everybody else will be going after them too".

Sounds like a lot of whining because your sense of entitlement to get the players (or fall-back options) you want is being challenged, and recruiting will be harder.

A fixed pool of D1 quality players spread out over 250 humans instead of 50 humans means the talent is spread out over a larger pool of coaches,which should lead to MORE competitive balance rather than less.

Seems like that should be a good thing.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/23/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/22/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

It isn't magically different, but it absolutely is different for all of the reasons benis and I stated (and probably others). To answer your last question, though, I'll repost what I posted this morning in another thread:

"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 is already happening in DI -- in 2.0, there were 15/20 elite teams (or so), all of whom had a shot at the NT, then a big gap to the next tier -- much harder to make a S16. In 3.0, there's a much larger pool of teams that can make the S16, but a smaller pool of true NT contenders. More people in DI will heighten this effect.

Yeah, you didn't really "explain" anything here. This was really more of a whine-fest.

To summarize: "A larger population of human users means that it will be harder to land elite players, and it will be harder to get fall-back alternatives because everybody else will be going after them too".

Sounds like a lot of whining because your sense of entitlement to get the players (or fall-back options) you want is being challenged, and recruiting will be harder.

A fixed pool of D1 quality players spread out over 250 humans instead of 50 humans means the talent is spread out over a larger pool of coaches,which should lead to MORE competitive balance rather than less.

Seems like that should be a good thing.

You should ask your buddy Mike about why he quit playing HD in the 1st place. It was too HARD to compete against the big boys. People whined and whined and finally Seble threw them a bone with 3.0.

Pretty funny how we've come full circle on this one.

3.0 was created because people couldn't handle the competition. Now people say they want the competition..

This is hilarious.

Yeah, JS is REALLY concerned with more competition. I'm sure he's super duper worried he won't be able to compete anymore.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/23/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/22/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

It isn't magically different, but it absolutely is different for all of the reasons benis and I stated (and probably others). To answer your last question, though, I'll repost what I posted this morning in another thread:

"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 is already happening in DI -- in 2.0, there were 15/20 elite teams (or so), all of whom had a shot at the NT, then a big gap to the next tier -- much harder to make a S16. In 3.0, there's a much larger pool of teams that can make the S16, but a smaller pool of true NT contenders. More people in DI will heighten this effect.

Yeah, you didn't really "explain" anything here. This was really more of a whine-fest.

To summarize: "A larger population of human users means that it will be harder to land elite players, and it will be harder to get fall-back alternatives because everybody else will be going after them too".

Sounds like a lot of whining because your sense of entitlement to get the players (or fall-back options) you want is being challenged, and recruiting will be harder.

A fixed pool of D1 quality players spread out over 250 humans instead of 50 humans means the talent is spread out over a larger pool of coaches,which should lead to MORE competitive balance rather than less.

Seems like that should be a good thing.

Apparently, you're even less capable of reading than mike is. Guess I should have used words of fewer syllables. Good luck if you ever get to DI (maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about then), but I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

John is right. He played the game, analyzed it... But people can argue ... but I haven't experienced it.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/23/2017 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/23/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/22/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/22/2017 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I don't see what's so rocket-sciency about that. All levels are competing from the same overall pool of recruits. It's just a matter of determining how high up you and your school can reach to get the best players to fit your program. At the top level D1 schools, everybody in the pool is fair game and recruitable. As you drop down to lower level D1, then through D2, and finally through to D3, the realistic "reach" is going to be progressively lower.

So what's the problem? Why are some people here insisting "you don't understand D1 recruiting", as if it's magically different? And why would more humans in D1 somehow create a problem?

It isn't magically different, but it absolutely is different for all of the reasons benis and I stated (and probably others). To answer your last question, though, I'll repost what I posted this morning in another thread:

"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 is already happening in DI -- in 2.0, there were 15/20 elite teams (or so), all of whom had a shot at the NT, then a big gap to the next tier -- much harder to make a S16. In 3.0, there's a much larger pool of teams that can make the S16, but a smaller pool of true NT contenders. More people in DI will heighten this effect.

Yeah, you didn't really "explain" anything here. This was really more of a whine-fest.

To summarize: "A larger population of human users means that it will be harder to land elite players, and it will be harder to get fall-back alternatives because everybody else will be going after them too".

Sounds like a lot of whining because your sense of entitlement to get the players (or fall-back options) you want is being challenged, and recruiting will be harder.

A fixed pool of D1 quality players spread out over 250 humans instead of 50 humans means the talent is spread out over a larger pool of coaches,which should lead to MORE competitive balance rather than less.

Seems like that should be a good thing.

Apparently, you're even less capable of reading than mike is. Guess I should have used words of fewer syllables. Good luck if you ever get to DI (maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about then), but I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

Still not seeing anything more than "Waaaaahhhhhhh" in your "explanation".

Do you think that WIS designed HD with the intention of worlds/levels being 80% SIMAI coached?

I can see now why tec and Mike are such good buddies.

Posted by Benis on 9/23/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):
I can see now why tec and Mike are such good buddies.

WTF is your problem?

Posted by tecwrg on 9/23/2017 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/23/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):
I can see now why tec and Mike are such good buddies.

WTF is your problem?

Besides global warming, everything is groovy.

I do believe john's analysis of a DI with 250 users is dead on. I actually don't believe WIS took into consideration how playable 3.0 would be if DI was mostly full. Personally, I think it would be an imbalanced disaster.