And to add to my recent post, from what I hear, the griping comes from the more successful coaches. Wouldn't it be more fulfilling for them to stay around and fight for that next title? Rather than winning the last 5 NT out of 10. This is competition, and that's a big, fun part of this game. If i were those coaches, I'd try harder. To prove I'm the best competitior out there, no matter what changes are made to the game. You gotta find a way to win.

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 not about being successful.

I'm pretty good at D3 but I simply find it less fun now in 3.0 than in 2.0. In my opinion, the update REALLY changed the game there and made it worse. Could I park there and continue to rack up wins, sure. Will I have tons of fun doing it? Meh. It's not like I hate it or something but it just isn't as fun. That's why I'm down to just 1 D3 team. It was my first so I have a hard time letting go.

People just aren't going to play a game they don't find fun and entertaining regardless if they are 'good' at it or not.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 7:03:00 PM (view original):

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 not about being successful.

I'm pretty good at D3 but I simply find it less fun now in 3.0 than in 2.0. In my opinion, the update REALLY changed the game there and made it worse. Could I park there and continue to rack up wins, sure. Will I have tons of fun doing it? Meh. It's not like I hate it or something but it just isn't as fun. That's why I'm down to just 1 D3 team. It was my first so I have a hard time letting go.

People just aren't going to play a game they don't find fun and entertaining regardless if they are 'good' at it or not.

Help me understand what's less fun. I wasn't here before 3.0. Isn't the competitive balance better now across the board? And if that's what you don't like as much, do you prefer like a D1 real life style for all divisions? Meaning like having 6 dominant conferences and the rest fight for those 15 and 16 seeds. Or is it really about strictly the dice roll issues?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

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%.

It's this.

I was gone for 10 years because A) I didn't find it fun at the highest level and wasn't willing to "bide my time" at VaTech B) It was the early stages(I played the first 20 seasons) and no one was leaving the better programs.

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/29/2017 7:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 7:03:00 PM (view original):

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 not about being successful.

I'm pretty good at D3 but I simply find it less fun now in 3.0 than in 2.0. In my opinion, the update REALLY changed the game there and made it worse. Could I park there and continue to rack up wins, sure. Will I have tons of fun doing it? Meh. It's not like I hate it or something but it just isn't as fun. That's why I'm down to just 1 D3 team. It was my first so I have a hard time letting go.

People just aren't going to play a game they don't find fun and entertaining regardless if they are 'good' at it or not.

Help me understand what's less fun. I wasn't here before 3.0. Isn't the competitive balance better now across the board? And if that's what you don't like as much, do you prefer like a D1 real life style for all divisions? Meaning like having 6 dominant conferences and the rest fight for those 15 and 16 seeds. Or is it really about strictly the dice roll issues?

Talking D3 specifically here.

D3 used to be about finding guys who had specific skill sets but some very obvious flaws. You could put together a collection of very flawed players and make a good D3 team. Sure, you sometimes get a guy who is a stud but for the most part they're a bunch of role player guys (a shooter who sucks on Def, a rebounder who can't score, etc).

The teams that you can create now, are just so much better than before. Now every player is a stud instead of a having one guy in a blue moon who dominates. You can get guys who are good defenders, good scorers, good rebounders, good passers, all in one. It ruined what I thought as one of the most fun aspects of the D3 game - combining flawed players to create a good team.

As far as recruiting goes-

I don't mind the dice rolls. I've had good breaks and I've had bad ones. It's fine.

But once you play D1, you see how recruiting should actually work. D3 (and even D2) is mostly a sit and wait game. Yeah, you can do some strategic moves with APs and whatnot but for the most part, you're just chilling the entire 1st session since you can't sign any D1/D2 guys until the 2nd. Snoozefest.

Additionally, since the redlight allows you to know EXACTLY what a player will sign (very 1st cycle of the 2nd session if they're Early or EoP1), you can just sit there and poach. Doing the HV love bomb on the 1st cycle of 2nd session is a pretty common strategy. Not much back and forth battling going on here.

Also, you don't HAVE to get in dice rolls at D3 to field a really good team. At D1, it's pretty much mandatory if you want to get past the 1st round.

To me, it just feels very blah.

Your problems are my "features". And vice versa. That's why they can't "fix" anything. Cap recruiting levels, I'm done with D3. Change recruiting to resemble 2.0, I'm done with HD. I doubt I'm alone.

FWIW I left this team to take over a ****** D2 rebuild because I was bored.

I think the problem Mike is obvious, most of us liked what Benis liked in 2.0 and find 3.0 boring.

Of course you think what you like is better. Why wouldn't you?

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

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.

UNC, Duke and Kansas are all open in Iba.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):
As far as recruiting goes-

I don't mind the dice rolls. I've had good breaks and I've had bad ones. It's fine.

But once you play D1, you see how recruiting should actually work. D3 (and even D2) is mostly a sit and wait game. Yeah, you can do some strategic moves with APs and whatnot but for the most part, you're just chilling the entire 1st session since you can't sign any D1/D2 guys until the 2nd. Snoozefest.

Additionally, since the redlight allows you to know EXACTLY what a player will sign (very 1st cycle of the 2nd session if they're Early or EoP1), you can just sit there and poach. Doing the HV love bomb on the 1st cycle of 2nd session is a pretty common strategy. Not much back and forth battling going on here.

Also, you don't HAVE to get in dice rolls at D3 to field a really good team. At D1, it's pretty much mandatory if you want to get past the 1st round.

To me, it just feels very blah.

I understand that. If i was in your position, i could see myself feeling that way. I'm not that successful yet. So that's speaking a foreign language to me. The D3 part about flawed players makes perfect sense. Maybe the D2 rebuild is what you need to make it fun again. Because of the real life time needed to put in to this game, it's clear the perspectives are so different for me compared to long term guys. I hope to be bored with this game one day! That's when i know I've made it!

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/29/2017 7:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 7:03:00 PM (view original):

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 not about being successful.

I'm pretty good at D3 but I simply find it less fun now in 3.0 than in 2.0. In my opinion, the update REALLY changed the game there and made it worse. Could I park there and continue to rack up wins, sure. Will I have tons of fun doing it? Meh. It's not like I hate it or something but it just isn't as fun. That's why I'm down to just 1 D3 team. It was my first so I have a hard time letting go.

People just aren't going to play a game they don't find fun and entertaining regardless if they are 'good' at it or not.

Help me understand what's less fun. I wasn't here before 3.0. Isn't the competitive balance better now across the board? And if that's what you don't like as much, do you prefer like a D1 real life style for all divisions? Meaning like having 6 dominant conferences and the rest fight for those 15 and 16 seeds. Or is it really about strictly the dice roll issues?

Commenting on DI only: I'm not sure the competitive balance is better -- it's different. In 2.0, the pool of potential sweet 16 teams was smaller, but the pool of potential champions was bigger; in 3.0, the pool of potential sweet 16 teams is bigger, but the pool of potential champions is smaller. I've found it's pretty easy at the outset of the season to pick the 4 or 5 teams that will be there at the end -- they're the teams that won all their dice rolls/didn't get hit by EEs. To say it another way, I had an LSU Knight team in season 105 that I knew its floor was Final 4 -- we went 34-1 as NT champs, and the only game we lost was when I started my 5 worst players to see what would happen. That never happened in 2.0 - there was more top-end competitive balance.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2017 7:33:00 PM (view original):
FWIW I left this team to take over a ****** D2 rebuild because I was bored.

"This team" sucks but cubcub113 is a stellar coach.

I don't want to hijack the thread, because it's obviously about the pros and cons of the new recruiting system. Essentially, some will like it, some won't. I'm okay with that. I like it, personally.

My biggest issue with WIS in its present state is the lack of marketing, the lack of desire, it seems to me, to bring in new users. Maybe you can't, as Mike said, "fix" recruiting. But you can try to bring in new users. At least they might like the new system.

And not a peep from Seble for months.