Posted by topdogggbm on 11/29/2017 5:50:00 PM (view original):
I have NO dog in this fight. So this is completely a question. So please, no one attack me for my dumb thought or my ridiculous idea or whatever.

But are any people here in favor of some type of cap for how long you can coach ONE particular team in a world?

i mention this because for all the players that haven't been playing for the last 5 years, i would assume most/all the Big 6 teams that people want, have been filled by a dominant coach. And that coach has no room to go "UP" any longer. Locking down a UNC/UK/UCLA for the next 100 season's. If a limit was in place, that would create movement, openings for possibly other deserving humans, and also force that coach that was pushed out due to a limit, to start over somewhere and reignite a flame again in the rebuild process.

Personally i avoid D1 cuz I'm not good enough yet to get a big name school (which is why i say that i have no dog in this fight). I don't wanna coach at Toledo or somewhere and get pounded every year by Big 6 teams, all while knowing that none of those coaches will leave anytime soon for me to have a shot at them schools. I'd rather stay at D2 and compete at a higher level. Just an example.

Once again, this is a question to the forum.... Not something I'm pushing for

An alternative solution to putting an arbitrary limit on # of seasons is to ramp up firing based upon success. It's been a complaint for a long time that you can sit at Duke and not make the NT for 10 straight seasons and not be fired.

The flip side is that this person is a paying customer and if they're fired then they may quit the game altogether (something that this game doesn't really need).

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/29/2017 5:50:00 PM (view original):
I have NO dog in this fight. So this is completely a question. So please, no one attack me for my dumb thought or my ridiculous idea or whatever.

But are any people here in favor of some type of cap for how long you can coach ONE particular team in a world?

i mention this because for all the players that haven't been playing for the last 5 years, i would assume most/all the Big 6 teams that people want, have been filled by a dominant coach. And that coach has no room to go "UP" any longer. Locking down a UNC/UK/UCLA for the next 100 season's. If a limit was in place, that would create movement, openings for possibly other deserving humans, and also force that coach that was pushed out due to a limit, to start over somewhere and reignite a flame again in the rebuild process.

Personally i avoid D1 cuz I'm not good enough yet to get a big name school (which is why i say that i have no dog in this fight). I don't wanna coach at Toledo or somewhere and get pounded every year by Big 6 teams, all while knowing that none of those coaches will leave anytime soon for me to have a shot at them schools. I'd rather stay at D2 and compete at a higher level. Just an example.

Once again, this is a question to the forum.... Not something I'm pushing for

Maybe valid a few years ago.
But with so many long time DI coaches leaving their schools lately, there are plenty of good schools open.

Duke and Kentucky were just open a few seasons ago in Smith. And Maryland and Kentucky are still open.

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Solution:

Close some worlds. Give advanced notice. Give credits, equivalent of two-three seasons. People will either stay or go. It takes three seasons at the most to be competitive at any level. D1 will fill up fast and then things get solved. They opened too many worlds and now things are skewed.

I'm really opposed to this idea. The game proved previously that it could sustain 350+ coaches in a world. Why not anymore?

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Solution:

Close some worlds. Give advanced notice. Give credits, equivalent of two-three seasons. People will either stay or go. It takes three seasons at the most to be competitive at any level. D1 will fill up fast and then things get solved. They opened too many worlds and now things are skewed.

I'm really opposed to this idea. The game proved previously that it could sustain 350+ coaches in a world. Why not anymore?

You’re correct in a sense; but I don’t think they can even sustain 200 per D2/D3. That’s a huge issue and it does skew competitiveness. Which hey; maybe it wouldn’t be good; nobody likes to lose battles aha.

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Solution:

Close some worlds. Give advanced notice. Give credits, equivalent of two-three seasons. People will either stay or go. It takes three seasons at the most to be competitive at any level. D1 will fill up fast and then things get solved. They opened too many worlds and now things are skewed.

I'm really opposed to this idea. The game proved previously that it could sustain 350+ coaches in a world. Why not anymore?

You’re correct in a sense; but I don’t think they can even sustain 200 per D2/D3. That’s a huge issue and it does skew competitiveness. Which hey; maybe it wouldn’t be good; nobody likes to lose battles aha.

Why not just fix the issues that are causing people to leave?

I mean, if this were my business, I'd want it to GROW not shrink or even be stagnant. Closing worlds without any other changes isn't going to make the game grow and more financially successful.

Posted by mullycj on 11/29/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2017 3:43:00 PM (view original):
You're talking about a very vocal minority. Recruiting may or may not be a reason anyone is leaving. Personally, I think the long trudge to D1 is a big turn-off. But the "PAY YOUR DUES!!!!" very vocal minority damn sure won't fight that.

Then you aren't paying attention to the coaches corners in your world. Every season I read about ~5 coaches leaving the game because they cant stand the new recruiting system.

Doesn't take a scholar to see that it creates frustration which leads to SIM coached schools. Top coach in DI Smith left a couple of seasons ago for that very reason.

If they're leaving now because of the "new" recruiting system, I assume it's because they're losing battles. I've yet to see anyone complain about the "new" system or winning recruits even though they were 38%.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Solution:

Close some worlds. Give advanced notice. Give credits, equivalent of two-three seasons. People will either stay or go. It takes three seasons at the most to be competitive at any level. D1 will fill up fast and then things get solved. They opened too many worlds and now things are skewed.

I'm really opposed to this idea. The game proved previously that it could sustain 350+ coaches in a world. Why not anymore?

You’re correct in a sense; but I don’t think they can even sustain 200 per D2/D3. That’s a huge issue and it does skew competitiveness. Which hey; maybe it wouldn’t be good; nobody likes to lose battles aha.

Why not just fix the issues that are causing people to leave?

I mean, if this were my business, I'd want it to GROW not shrink or even be stagnant. Closing worlds without any other changes isn't going to make the game grow and more financially successful.

Because we don't know why people leave. A handful say "I hate recruiting!!!" and go. Or "PARTICIPATION TROPHIES!!" and leave. But the vast majority just leave.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2017 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 11/29/2017 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Solution:

Close some worlds. Give advanced notice. Give credits, equivalent of two-three seasons. People will either stay or go. It takes three seasons at the most to be competitive at any level. D1 will fill up fast and then things get solved. They opened too many worlds and now things are skewed.

I'm really opposed to this idea. The game proved previously that it could sustain 350+ coaches in a world. Why not anymore?

You’re correct in a sense; but I don’t think they can even sustain 200 per D2/D3. That’s a huge issue and it does skew competitiveness. Which hey; maybe it wouldn’t be good; nobody likes to lose battles aha.

Why not just fix the issues that are causing people to leave?

I mean, if this were my business, I'd want it to GROW not shrink or even be stagnant. Closing worlds without any other changes isn't going to make the game grow and more financially successful.

Because we don't know why people leave. A handful say "I hate recruiting!!!" and go. Or "PARTICIPATION TROPHIES!!" and leave. But the vast majority just leave.

LOL!

You seem to think the 24 people who post are the vast majority.

Personally, I think many got ****** because WifS changed the game they own without permission. And the crybabies aren't going to be happy regardless. So who really cares when they go? I know you pour a fake 40 on their fake graves but you're a bit of a dork. So, really, who cares?

People leaving out of seeing empty worlds is something to think about. Enthusiasm is going down. People are also leaving because of the recruiting system. Waiting on second session is boring, never fight for recruits too. Losing ees and being screwed or seeing three teams on the same players cause recruits gen weren't fixed and losing the flip coin while you made that recruit your top choice and are vh to h to h... and so on.

As the average coach that i am at this point, i have a hard time understanding the issues of why long term coaches are leaving. In my position.... Recruiting is tough. I don't get the guys that i aim for quite often. And when i don't, i just keep it moving, and keep playing the game. The star coaches are generally better recruiters than i am. So if they keep it moving when losing a recruit, they will STILL probably be more successful than someone in my position. I do not have a A+ prestige, and maybe my expectations aren't as high as the best coaches. But the mentality should still be the same i would think. Keep it moving. I reach out for help, but i don't get angry (anymore). If better coaches kept playing, over a few season span, things will average out and they will still be better than most. And will still sign a lot of recruits they DO target. I just don't get it. Also, it's the recruits choice. A recruit can pick a school that he's never even spoken to if desired (not that it would happen).

And getting rid of conf cash was a bad idea. It made people want to achieve statistical stuff.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):
You seem to think the 24 people who post are the vast majority.

Personally, I think many got ****** because WifS changed the game they own without permission. And the crybabies aren't going to be happy regardless. So who really cares when they go? I know you pour a fake 40 on their fake graves but you're a bit of a dork. So, really, who cares?

LOL!!

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/29/2017 6:54:00 PM (view original):
As the average coach that i am at this point, i have a hard time understanding the issues of why long term coaches are leaving. In my position.... Recruiting is tough. I don't get the guys that i aim for quite often. And when i don't, i just keep it moving, and keep playing the game. The star coaches are generally better recruiters than i am. So if they keep it moving when losing a recruit, they will STILL probably be more successful than someone in my position. I do not have a A+ prestige, and maybe my expectations aren't as high as the best coaches. But the mentality should still be the same i would think. Keep it moving. I reach out for help, but i don't get angry (anymore). If better coaches kept playing, over a few season span, things will average out and they will still be better than most. And will still sign a lot of recruits they DO target. I just don't get it. Also, it's the recruits choice. A recruit can pick a school that he's never even spoken to if desired (not that it would happen).

It's very simple. There was a system that allowed the elite coaches to almost always get the elite recruits. So, essentially, you and I got the leftovers while the guy at Kentucky for 70 seasons got his pick. The veterans users didn't like the fact that someone who had been in D1 for a few seasons might actually have a shot, no matter how tiny, at getting the guy they covet.

That's why. Personally, I think they'd still destroy me 98% of the time in recruiting but they preferred the 100%.