Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2017 11:24:00 PM (view original):
That's not an answer. I learned something about recruiting, in my second season, because I was actually allowed to recruit.

Now, do you think you can learn gameplanning with players you recruit?

1. You miss my point, or avoid it.
2. Not as well, probably, at the start.

1. My point is that recruiting while knowing nothing about the game is likely to be a poor job. Some people say "Yeah, but it is MY poor job." Fine, they are entitled to their opinion. For me, doing a poor job because I didn't understand at all what I was trying to accomplish during recruiting would be a bad experience.
2. Learning to game plan with the existing players would be better if the bums I recruited didn't contribute, as would be likely. I might learn to game plan just as well, but certainly not better.

So, there is no up side to me to recruiting in the dark.

Have you ever played a sport? I'm not being a jerk but making a point. Say it's basketball. You read books and books on all the fine points of basketball. You watch video after video. But, until you get on the court, you're not applying what you read/saw.

I feel that way about HD(or pretty much any game, real or sim).

I do like the variability of the recruit's decision. It's frustrating when it doesn't make sense to the A+ prestige school, but it's awesome for the mid-major that catches a break. The issue may be instead that it occurs to frequently to be realistic - and that's probably true. But it wouldn't be worth playing if all outcomes could be predicted in advance.

I like the second recruiting season. I think it plays into strategy now that we can see the recruit's preferences - instead of interpreting their preferences from calling coaches, their girlfriends, etc. I agree with most of what others have written here. The second period could be more impactful if some recruits were unknown until this period - like internationals or JUCOs, etc. Coaches that prefer transfers or internationals may target the second period to spend their recruiting budget. Idiots like me can still pour everything on the first cycle in HS players.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Have you ever played a sport? I'm not being a jerk but making a point. Say it's basketball. You read books and books on all the fine points of basketball. You watch video after video. But, until you get on the court, you're not applying what you read/saw.

I feel that way about HD(or pretty much any game, real or sim).

I think you are make my point almost as well as I did. Without all that preparation, you don't do as well in your first experience and it is not as much fun as it is when you are somewhat prepared.

Also, yes, I played a lot of sports, from pick-up games to semi-pro, but this is not real life I am talking about, it is Hoops Dynasty.

Prep is nice but it's not experience. But I'm not changing your mind. I'll leave it at this: My first recruiting class, in my 2nd season, was almost a failure. My 2nd recruiting class, in my 3rd season, ended in a Final Four appearance. I'd have certainly enjoyed starting my journey thru the tourney a season earlier.

Final four in your 3rd season? You peaked real early.

No. It was when my 2nd recruiting class were seniors.

96	MikeT23	26-8	9-3	11-3	6-2	11-5	5	11	5	A+	NT At-large Bid NT (Final Four)
95	MikeT23	22-9	7-3	12-4	3-2	13-3	25	22	13	A-	NT At-large Bid NT (2nd Round)
94	MikeT23	27-4	8-0	15-3	4-1	14-2	15	22	84	B	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (2nd Round)
93	MikeT23	13-14	11-7	2-6	0-1	7-9		190	81	C-
92	MikeT23	12-16	9-6	2-9	1-1	6-10		320	381	C-
91	MikeT23	7-21	2-11	4-9	1-1	5-11		263	97	C-

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 7:01:00 PM (view original):
No. It was when my 2nd recruiting class were seniors.

What about your third recruiting class?

Contributors in 95-96. I really f'd up the next two trying to find a new PG. As I recall, lost 3 battles and had 1 D2/2 D1 humans go really low late and take my targets. Played 97 with a SF at PG. The result was not good(9-18 with some "giveaways" in there). But I'm ranked 20th in the pre-season this year!!! Also got a PG who'll start for 4 years.

I'd rather talk about my 17-0, #2 ranked D2 team for now though.

But that might further my point. Some of us, even after finding success, can screw up recruiting. So let us do it in our first season.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 1:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/3/2017 12:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

In real life, Duke and UNC plan intelligently and line up realistic targets early on, so they don't have to demean themselves by lifting recruits from Western New Mexico and Rollins College at the last minute.

HD's upper tier coaches like chapelhillne don't want to have to plan intelligently. They think they should both be able to maximize their first-round odds AND get charity help at other coaches' expense when their initial gambles fail. Fortunately, HD is no longer designed solely for the enjoyment of the elite, long-established few at the top of the chain.

Viva 3.0!

No, but they do sometimes lift players from baseline B- level teams like Purdue or Arizona State or the like, because that's where the second tier of players should be going. In 3.0, they go to DII schools, which is insane.

This isn't real life. It's a simgame.

When that D1 takes a player from a D2 user, it could wreck his off-season just as much, if not more, as if the D1 user didn't get the player. So, in short, somebody(a paying customer) is disappointed. You tell me which one it should be:

1. User who dumped 75% of his resources into a player beginning with the first cycle in RS1.
2. User who used 3% of his resources on a player late in RS2.

I know this is a sim game, and that often times things that aren't 100% realistic make for a better game than trying to emulate reality as closely as possible (for instance, moving further away from reality by moving recruiting to be all post-season is one of these times). However, when there are DII teams good enough to not only make, but win multiple games in the DI NT, while there are ACC schools with 9 walkons, it has veered so far off the path that it has become a farce.
My point is that a DI top tier team should never be in a situation where they would be even interested in the same players that a DII team has the opportunity to sign. Top DI fallback options should be players for which lower-middle prestige DI teams are currently the leaders. And if you had a decent Sim AI, then none of those top recruits would be falling to DII teams. Personally, I would love the challenge of Sim AI teams that had excellent AI, though I understand that making it too intelligent would be discouraging to players and bad for business. As such, a Duke team with run by Sim AI shouldn't produce one of the top recruiting classes in the country, but it should still be producing a top 50 or so class.

You used a lot of words to NOT answer the question. I'll ask again:

When that D1 takes a player from a D2 user, it could wreck his off-season just as much, if not more, as if the D1 user didn't get the player. So, in short, somebody(a paying customer) is disappointed. You tell me which one it should be:

1. User who dumped 75% of his resources into a player beginning with the first cycle in RS1.
2. User who used 3% of his resources on a player late in RS2.

Assuming a top level DII team: If it is an top 100 DI team, the DII team should be disappointed. 100-200 or so, I could see it going the DII way on occasion, but still think the DI should be favored. Not until you get into 200+ DI teams should it get to where the DII should perhaps come out on top. If it were balanced the way I think it should be, that DII player should know they are wasting resources if they try to go after a player that a top 100 DI team is very likely to be interested in, and such a waste should not be rewarded.

Posted by grimacedance on 10/4/2017 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/4/2017 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):
Sigh. I was one of those "few". I've already explained why I stuck around.

I'm obviously pulling from my HBD experience but virtually every new user to a world, n00b or vet, wants to "rebuild" or "put my stamp on the team" or "build it in my image". I know this because I've fielded thousands of questions about HBD since it originated. Since I believe the guy who likes HBD is some sort of blurry image of a guy who likes HD, or vice versa, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe the HD guy doesn't want to "rebuild", "put stamps" or "image build".

Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe HBD and HD are like comparing goats and apples. I just don't think so.

Your obligation to HD is to purchase a team or move along. But this is an open forum and I think MOST of us would like to see more people playing and a better game. You are not obligated to contribute to those discussions. But you do. Why?

Because I enjoy the game that exists. There are presumably hundreds of others that do as well, as I’m in a number of pretty full and competitive D1 conferences. Some irritating things that can and should be fixed, sure. But eliminating in-season recruiting is not among them. I participate in the discussion, because someone needs to, or people get the wrong idea about consensus and all that.

Our experience is different. The first team I signed up for, Martin Luther, I specifically chose a team with a lot of returning players and an empty conference. Not because I’m concerned about a pristine record, but because I (mistakenly) assumed success that first year might help me move up faster. But even still, a veteran team in a sim league is a great place to learn the mechanics of the game. It was 2.0, so there was some recruiting, which I totally botched, but being in an empty league with a veteran team, it didn’t matter much. I could have done without either of those recruits, because I never intended to stay at D3 longer than I had to.

"It was 2.0, so there was some recruiting, which I totally botched, but being in an empty league with a veteran team, it didn’t matter much."

Recruiting is why 2.0 was more fun for brand new coaches than 3.0. Everyone botched their first recruiting class, unless they were tutored by an existing, successful coach before joining. Every single coach learned recruiting through trial and error (plus reading the forums). But recruiting in HD ... even when it is botched, it is still fun (insert inevitable comparison to sex and/or pizza). The first players I recruited were crappy players, but I didn't know that and I was really excited when they signed with me. And I had an emotional investment in them throughout the season and their careers.

And 3.0 has made coaches wait a full season before they get to experience that.

I agree with this entirely. Of the 3 recruits I signed in my first season, only one ended up being better than an average SIM player, but those three guys were my guys and I was incredibly vested in how they progressed and developed. I originally had planned on jumping to DII as fast as possible, but I was so driven to follow those guys all the way through that I stuck arounf until the last one graduated. My second season of recruiting was drastically improved, and I managed to bring in a class that eventually resulted in a Sweet 16 run, despite my team being in the shadow of a super conference put together by Only. In many ways, I enjoyed that run and the results almost as much as the DII title runs I had, as I actually think it was much harder, and didn't rely on the fact that I got two lucky dice rolls... admittedly though, only almost as much.

Anyway, the primary point is that taking away a chance to recruit in your first season would have been a terrible disincentive for me to stick around. I might still have done it because I loved the actual game planning aspect, as well, but it would have taken a big part of that first season away. On the other hand, unless we go back to single session recruiting, I'm not sure it wouldn't be worst to only allow new coaches access to session 2. With so little time to get up to speed and so many good players having already been taken or going off the board before they even get a chance, it might be even more discouraging. Not sure though.

That's a crap product you're trying to sell. Basically "We don't give a damn about D2/D3 users. They need to know their place."

Good luck retaining users like that.

Did anyone mention that the 'new coach reduction' also sucks? I just changed jobs and the only recruits opened up for scholarships were maxed out in HV and CV, and the reduction knocks them from VH to VL! And now I'm completely prevented from putting in more effort on those players. What's the logic in this--to add to the punishment of changing jobs in HD3?

I look forward to other recruits all signing before I can open scholarships and put in effort, too.

Changing jobs and the second session is a much bigger problem than EE.