Always wonder in posts that complain about "small conference" schools winning players and in the postseason why those people are so troubled by a non "Big 6" school winning?

Are you guys losing regularly and blame "the little guy" for your lack of postseason success? Was your favorite school denied title runs by UNLV, Memphis, Butler, or some other "little guy" school IRL?

What was it that caused this trauma in your life?

I am here to help. For a free season of HD given to me for each sitemail you send me I will help you deal with your trauma. I am a licensed therapist after all....

I keep rereading this thread because it is long, but is anyone making any sense.?

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 9/24/2017 9:01:00 PM (view original):
Always wonder in posts that complain about "small conference" schools winning players and in the postseason why those people are so troubled by a non "Big 6" school winning?

Are you guys losing regularly and blame "the little guy" for your lack of postseason success? Was your favorite school denied title runs by UNLV, Memphis, Butler, or some other "little guy" school IRL?

What was it that caused this trauma in your life?

I am here to help. For a free season of HD given to me for each sitemail you send me I will help you deal with your trauma. I am a licensed therapist after all....

Huh? Who is complaining about that?

Posted by Benis on 9/24/2017 6:19:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if I'm making a case for anything. I think all B6s would be full. Mid majors with decent prestiges will be near full. Then all the scrub schools will have people at them for 1-3 seasons and stop playing because they can't move up and they can't get past the 1st round of the NT. It's just not sustainable.

Losers would be fired(which, as I said, is a bad idea). That would provide the "scrub school" coaches a new, better spot. After all, all B6 aren't going to the NT in 250ish human D1. Nor are mid-majors.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/24/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/24/2017 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/23/2017 4:42:00 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.

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.

No, dummy, I quit because it wasn't a level playing field. At least be accurate.

You complain about a non-level playing field but yet there were multiple non-B6 schools in the 4 seasons your at Virginia Tech (BIG SIX SCHOOL) making E8/f4/nc games? At least be accurate.

Clearly schools like Rice, Western Illinois, and Buffalo were given unfair advantages in Iba?

Oh ****, looks like Loyola Chicago were 2-time runners-up. And in Season 21? Northern Iowa wins the NT! Wow! I see what you mean Mike, small schools had a big advantage.

So are you saying 1.0 created a level playing field? Because, if you are, you know you're the only one, right?

I think D2/D3 is a level playing field. In 3.0. Just need to cap so you don't let niche location get better recruits that are contested in other areas where there are more D1 teams.

The more D1 teams in a world, the tougher it gets for starting programs. Especially badly located ones. I am building Alabama in a full sec with UAB being a B and Southern Illinois being a B- and I am contested on all near recruits. Out of state recruiting is suicide because it's not $ well spent, internationals, except low stars one is also a bad strat since it needs too much ap and make you strategy one directional. Make at a distance recruiting cheaper by 50 % and want to play far a real kicker that gives a way better advantage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/25/2017 7:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/24/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/24/2017 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/23/2017 4:42:00 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.

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.

No, dummy, I quit because it wasn't a level playing field. At least be accurate.

You complain about a non-level playing field but yet there were multiple non-B6 schools in the 4 seasons your at Virginia Tech (BIG SIX SCHOOL) making E8/f4/nc games? At least be accurate.

Clearly schools like Rice, Western Illinois, and Buffalo were given unfair advantages in Iba?

Oh ****, looks like Loyola Chicago were 2-time runners-up. And in Season 21? Northern Iowa wins the NT! Wow! I see what you mean Mike, small schools had a big advantage.

So are you saying 1.0 created a level playing field? Because, if you are, you know you're the only one, right?

You could be creative with how you built your rosters and therefore had many ways to make a good team. It wasn't level but it was closer than you're portraying.

I didn't find it to be level at all. I could have a recruit in my backyard and, if/when UNC/Duke/KY came calling, that was that. I didn't find that fun. I'd have been fine losing the guy in the current recruit mode simply because I have a chance.

Posted by zorzii on 9/25/2017 7:39:00 AM (view original):
I think D2/D3 is a level playing field. In 3.0. Just need to cap so you don't let niche location get better recruits that are contested in other areas where there are more D1 teams.

The more D1 teams in a world, the tougher it gets for starting programs. Especially badly located ones. I am building Alabama in a full sec with UAB being a B and Southern Illinois being a B- and I am contested on all near recruits. Out of state recruiting is suicide because it's not $ well spent, internationals, except low stars one is also a bad strat since it needs too much ap and make you strategy one directional. Make at a distance recruiting cheaper by 50 % and want to play far a real kicker that gives a way better advantage.

The "problem" with capping D2/D3 at this point is the next 3-4 seasons. You'll have these low level D1 players finishing their careers and dominating the FR/SO/JR classes from D3 only.

You essentially kill D2/D3 for three seasons. People quit and don't come back.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/25/2017 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 9/25/2017 7:39:00 AM (view original):
I think D2/D3 is a level playing field. In 3.0. Just need to cap so you don't let niche location get better recruits that are contested in other areas where there are more D1 teams.

The more D1 teams in a world, the tougher it gets for starting programs. Especially badly located ones. I am building Alabama in a full sec with UAB being a B and Southern Illinois being a B- and I am contested on all near recruits. Out of state recruiting is suicide because it's not $ well spent, internationals, except low stars one is also a bad strat since it needs too much ap and make you strategy one directional. Make at a distance recruiting cheaper by 50 % and want to play far a real kicker that gives a way better advantage.

The "problem" with capping D2/D3 at this point is the next 3-4 seasons. You'll have these low level D1 players finishing their careers and dominating the FR/SO/JR classes from D3 only.

You essentially kill D2/D3 for three seasons. People quit and don't come back.

It was the same issue for D2/D3 when 3.0 rolled out, just reversed. You had D3 schools recruiting all these D1 kids that were steamrolling JRs/SRs as freshman. It'll work itself out.

People quit and didn't come back. Less people now.

Of all the things that require attention, I'm not sure where recruit capping lies on the list but it damn sure isn't top 20.

In and of itself, capping isn't a problem. But it will **** people off for several seasons. ******* people off doesn't seem like a good idea.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/25/2017 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 9/25/2017 7:39:00 AM (view original):
I think D2/D3 is a level playing field. In 3.0. Just need to cap so you don't let niche location get better recruits that are contested in other areas where there are more D1 teams.

The more D1 teams in a world, the tougher it gets for starting programs. Especially badly located ones. I am building Alabama in a full sec with UAB being a B and Southern Illinois being a B- and I am contested on all near recruits. Out of state recruiting is suicide because it's not $ well spent, internationals, except low stars one is also a bad strat since it needs too much ap and make you strategy one directional. Make at a distance recruiting cheaper by 50 % and want to play far a real kicker that gives a way better advantage.

The "problem" with capping D2/D3 at this point is the next 3-4 seasons. You'll have these low level D1 players finishing their careers and dominating the FR/SO/JR classes from D3 only.

You essentially kill D2/D3 for three seasons. People quit and don't come back.

But. Isn't that the same for everyone? It's a level playing field for all D3 users so what would they have to complain about.

Posted by Benis on 9/25/2017 8:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/25/2017 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 9/25/2017 7:39:00 AM (view original):
I think D2/D3 is a level playing field. In 3.0. Just need to cap so you don't let niche location get better recruits that are contested in other areas where there are more D1 teams.

The more D1 teams in a world, the tougher it gets for starting programs. Especially badly located ones. I am building Alabama in a full sec with UAB being a B and Southern Illinois being a B- and I am contested on all near recruits. Out of state recruiting is suicide because it's not $ well spent, internationals, except low stars one is also a bad strat since it needs too much ap and make you strategy one directional. Make at a distance recruiting cheaper by 50 % and want to play far a real kicker that gives a way better advantage.

The "problem" with capping D2/D3 at this point is the next 3-4 seasons. You'll have these low level D1 players finishing their careers and dominating the FR/SO/JR classes from D3 only.

You essentially kill D2/D3 for three seasons. People quit and don't come back.

But. Isn't that the same for everyone? It's a level playing field for all D3 users so what would they have to complain about.

And how is it different than what happened with the transition TO 3.0?

Or maybe that's why so many people quit?

Posted by Benis on 9/25/2017 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/25/2017 8:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/25/2017 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 9/25/2017 7:39:00 AM (view original):
I think D2/D3 is a level playing field. In 3.0. Just need to cap so you don't let niche location get better recruits that are contested in other areas where there are more D1 teams.

The more D1 teams in a world, the tougher it gets for starting programs. Especially badly located ones. I am building Alabama in a full sec with UAB being a B and Southern Illinois being a B- and I am contested on all near recruits. Out of state recruiting is suicide because it's not $ well spent, internationals, except low stars one is also a bad strat since it needs too much ap and make you strategy one directional. Make at a distance recruiting cheaper by 50 % and want to play far a real kicker that gives a way better advantage.

The "problem" with capping D2/D3 at this point is the next 3-4 seasons. You'll have these low level D1 players finishing their careers and dominating the FR/SO/JR classes from D3 only.

You essentially kill D2/D3 for three seasons. People quit and don't come back.

But. Isn't that the same for everyone? It's a level playing field for all D3 users so what would they have to complain about.

And how is it different than what happened with the transition TO 3.0?

Or maybe that's why so many people quit?

Of course it's not a level playing field for all D3 users. The guy who just signed 6 FR low level D1 has an advantage over the guy who signed 1 for the next four seasons.

So you're for doing something, again but reversed, that made people quit?

The "solution" to the non-problem would be to jack up D3 talent in the recruit pool. But now you're doing two fixes when none are required. And you're still putting n00bs into battles with 200+ season vets.