Posted by tdiddy3 on 4/28/2018 1:34:00 AM (view original):
And here I stand where I have not won a single recruiting battle, whether the underdog or the leading contender. Yes, I’m very bitter about that!

I won as a 37-63 underdog a few days ago.

I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

Posted by poncho0091 on 4/27/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):
shoe thinks he is the marketplace. You have 20 people telling him he's wrong, but he'll tell you most of the coaches love it. Nevermind the fact that 30% of the user population left and will not be replaced.

It's great that DI is better than before, but you killed 2 other divisions to do it. Even worse, you killed off the 2 divisions that a new user needs to enjoy before ever getting to DI. Your thought process is completely backward, because you don't want to lose DI as it currently is.

Put caps on the division. It will have no effect on DI. If a DI team is worried about a lower division school stealing a player, then that DI team wasn't going to be that good anyways. Without caps, you have the same users camping out taking DI players and running off new users. Under 2.0, I made sweet 16 as a newbie within 4 seasons. It took me 2 seasons to get a strong grasp of recruiting. Under 3.0, assuming the populations were the same, I'd be lucky if make it out of the first round. In the current population scenario, a new user won't even know where to start with a seasoned vet. On my current DIII team I help new guys out and without that assistance I know they wouldn't have a clue how to be stay competitive for awhile.

Lol, poncho strikes again. You sure told me.

I don’t know how “most” users feel, and neither do you. Every lost user can be replaced, saying they won’t be replaced is dumb. Everyone knew there would be attrition. It will take some marketing and a few structural changes would help, but caps are not among them.

Make D3 free, and remove credit incentive to park. Parked vets like you are a much bigger impediment to new players being able to advance in a national tournament than the fact that they have the ability to nab higher projected players who have been passed over by higher level teams. It’s great that you help new players, keep doing that. The game has always been complex, and with a high learning curve. The game doesn’t need to be made dumber, but it would help if the learning curve didn’t require such a steep investment in both time and money.

Let paying users start at D2, and move up to low D1 after a season if they want. Forcing them to spend money and a dozen seasons with teams they have no reason to care about is easily the biggest reason the people who should like this game say “nah”. That’s the constant refrain with everyone I’ve tried to get to play the game.

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

Yeah exactly. Getting rid of the promises removes one of the preferences too. Which I thought people liked...

Definitely agree that not upholding promises should have a stronger negative effect. They should also count through postseason.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/28/2018 9:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 4/27/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):
shoe thinks he is the marketplace. You have 20 people telling him he's wrong, but he'll tell you most of the coaches love it. Nevermind the fact that 30% of the user population left and will not be replaced.

It's great that DI is better than before, but you killed 2 other divisions to do it. Even worse, you killed off the 2 divisions that a new user needs to enjoy before ever getting to DI. Your thought process is completely backward, because you don't want to lose DI as it currently is.

Put caps on the division. It will have no effect on DI. If a DI team is worried about a lower division school stealing a player, then that DI team wasn't going to be that good anyways. Without caps, you have the same users camping out taking DI players and running off new users. Under 2.0, I made sweet 16 as a newbie within 4 seasons. It took me 2 seasons to get a strong grasp of recruiting. Under 3.0, assuming the populations were the same, I'd be lucky if make it out of the first round. In the current population scenario, a new user won't even know where to start with a seasoned vet. On my current DIII team I help new guys out and without that assistance I know they wouldn't have a clue how to be stay competitive for awhile.

Lol, poncho strikes again. You sure told me.

I don’t know how “most” users feel, and neither do you. Every lost user can be replaced, saying they won’t be replaced is dumb. Everyone knew there would be attrition. It will take some marketing and a few structural changes would help, but caps are not among them.

Make D3 free, and remove credit incentive to park. Parked vets like you are a much bigger impediment to new players being able to advance in a national tournament than the fact that they have the ability to nab higher projected players who have been passed over by higher level teams. It’s great that you help new players, keep doing that. The game has always been complex, and with a high learning curve. The game doesn’t need to be made dumber, but it would help if the learning curve didn’t require such a steep investment in both time and money.

Let paying users start at D2, and move up to low D1 after a season if they want. Forcing them to spend money and a dozen seasons with teams they have no reason to care about is easily the biggest reason the people who should like this game say “nah”. That’s the constant refrain with everyone I’ve tried to get to play the game.

Respectfully shoe3--I would wager a lot of money that more people agree with poncho0091 on this than with you. A lot more.

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

When everyone has to use the promise to compete for a prospect then its no longer a tool for recruiting.

Posted by bofreedom on 4/28/2018 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/28/2018 9:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 4/27/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):
shoe thinks he is the marketplace. You have 20 people telling him he's wrong, but he'll tell you most of the coaches love it. Nevermind the fact that 30% of the user population left and will not be replaced.

It's great that DI is better than before, but you killed 2 other divisions to do it. Even worse, you killed off the 2 divisions that a new user needs to enjoy before ever getting to DI. Your thought process is completely backward, because you don't want to lose DI as it currently is.

Put caps on the division. It will have no effect on DI. If a DI team is worried about a lower division school stealing a player, then that DI team wasn't going to be that good anyways. Without caps, you have the same users camping out taking DI players and running off new users. Under 2.0, I made sweet 16 as a newbie within 4 seasons. It took me 2 seasons to get a strong grasp of recruiting. Under 3.0, assuming the populations were the same, I'd be lucky if make it out of the first round. In the current population scenario, a new user won't even know where to start with a seasoned vet. On my current DIII team I help new guys out and without that assistance I know they wouldn't have a clue how to be stay competitive for awhile.

Lol, poncho strikes again. You sure told me.

I don’t know how “most” users feel, and neither do you. Every lost user can be replaced, saying they won’t be replaced is dumb. Everyone knew there would be attrition. It will take some marketing and a few structural changes would help, but caps are not among them.

Make D3 free, and remove credit incentive to park. Parked vets like you are a much bigger impediment to new players being able to advance in a national tournament than the fact that they have the ability to nab higher projected players who have been passed over by higher level teams. It’s great that you help new players, keep doing that. The game has always been complex, and with a high learning curve. The game doesn’t need to be made dumber, but it would help if the learning curve didn’t require such a steep investment in both time and money.

Let paying users start at D2, and move up to low D1 after a season if they want. Forcing them to spend money and a dozen seasons with teams they have no reason to care about is easily the biggest reason the people who should like this game say “nah”. That’s the constant refrain with everyone I’ve tried to get to play the game.

Respectfully shoe3--I would wager a lot of money that more people agree with poncho0091 on this than with you. A lot more.

Pretty much agree with BO.

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

When everyone has to use the promise to compete for a prospect then its no longer a tool for recruiting.

For the top stars maybe.. but what about the rest?

Posted by Benis on 4/28/2018 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Plague-

I haven't seen anyone say recently they want to go back to the old system of A+ teams getting players without any fight. I think we can put that one to rest.

Some things you've said are contradictory and don't make sense to me. Help me understand what you're saying.

You think having to offer promises to top level recruits creates an unrealistic result of having to start freshmen over more experienced (and better players). However, you don't think it's unrealistic of having Duke battle Georgia Southern for recruits? Or worst yet - Duke battling D2 Rockhurst? So, do you want realism or not?

And why would going to 10 HVs be a more fun game?? This is one suggestion that continues to blow my mind. You basically want to dumb down the system instead of forcing the user to make some strategic choices and decisions on who they should actually pursue. Instead you want to just send out max effort to 6 players when you only need to sign 3 so you can cover your bases when you lose a battle? How is this a more strategic system? You're just buying more lottery tickets, that's it.

I don't believe the game has to be 100 percent realistic. A big difference between this game and real life is people are paying to play, in real life coaches are being paid to coach. You have to take that into consideration when setting whats realistic. You handcuff coaches too much and their desire to pay to lose will be hampered.

A lot of people are recruiting 2 to 3 players when they may need 4, 5, or even 6 players. If you by chance need to recruit 8 players like I had to last season you can forget that with the cap that is put on cash. Most of the top teams are going with the idea that they are going to take walk ons because they don't have enough money to go after the players they need to fill a full roster.
I
don't see how its dumbing down the game by lowering it to 10 HV. I assume if even 1 other coach challenges me that any 4 star recruit or higher I go after will require a Promise Start, Promise Minutes, Campus Visit, and 20 Head Coach Visits. I don't see where the skill is in recruiting when it comes to 20 Head Coach visits instead of 10 Head Coach visits, either way I am likely going to have to max out my Head Coach visits.

Posted by Benis on 4/28/2018 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

When everyone has to use the promise to compete for a prospect then its no longer a tool for recruiting.

For the top stars maybe.. but what about the rest?

You have a good point. I can't remember the last time I tried to recruit a 4 year player that wasn't 3 star or higher but I know many lower prestige teams do.

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/28/2018 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

When everyone has to use the promise to compete for a prospect then its no longer a tool for recruiting.

For the top stars maybe.. but what about the rest?

You have a good point. I can't remember the last time I tried to recruit a 4 year player that wasn't 3 star or higher but I know many lower prestige teams do.

Right exactly. Your opinions aren't wrong about the whole 10 HV thing but recruiting from an A+ D1 team is very different than what most people experience.

Posted by bofreedom on 4/28/2018 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/28/2018 9:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 4/27/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):
shoe thinks he is the marketplace. You have 20 people telling him he's wrong, but he'll tell you most of the coaches love it. Nevermind the fact that 30% of the user population left and will not be replaced.

It's great that DI is better than before, but you killed 2 other divisions to do it. Even worse, you killed off the 2 divisions that a new user needs to enjoy before ever getting to DI. Your thought process is completely backward, because you don't want to lose DI as it currently is.

Put caps on the division. It will have no effect on DI. If a DI team is worried about a lower division school stealing a player, then that DI team wasn't going to be that good anyways. Without caps, you have the same users camping out taking DI players and running off new users. Under 2.0, I made sweet 16 as a newbie within 4 seasons. It took me 2 seasons to get a strong grasp of recruiting. Under 3.0, assuming the populations were the same, I'd be lucky if make it out of the first round. In the current population scenario, a new user won't even know where to start with a seasoned vet. On my current DIII team I help new guys out and without that assistance I know they wouldn't have a clue how to be stay competitive for awhile.

Lol, poncho strikes again. You sure told me.

I don’t know how “most” users feel, and neither do you. Every lost user can be replaced, saying they won’t be replaced is dumb. Everyone knew there would be attrition. It will take some marketing and a few structural changes would help, but caps are not among them.

Make D3 free, and remove credit incentive to park. Parked vets like you are a much bigger impediment to new players being able to advance in a national tournament than the fact that they have the ability to nab higher projected players who have been passed over by higher level teams. It’s great that you help new players, keep doing that. The game has always been complex, and with a high learning curve. The game doesn’t need to be made dumber, but it would help if the learning curve didn’t require such a steep investment in both time and money.

Let paying users start at D2, and move up to low D1 after a season if they want. Forcing them to spend money and a dozen seasons with teams they have no reason to care about is easily the biggest reason the people who should like this game say “nah”. That’s the constant refrain with everyone I’ve tried to get to play the game.

Respectfully shoe3--I would wager a lot of money that more people agree with poncho0091 on this than with you. A lot more.

Agree about what, caps? Among people posting on forums, maybe. This is where people go to complain. Among the broad population of people who play this game, and games like it, I doubt most of them have a strong opinion. That’s why we discuss. Most people don’t think about the unintended consequences of caps. This isn’t a popularity contest. Although if you’re wagering that more new players *like* spending a lot of time and money on lower divisions before they get a shot at Big 6 D1 schools, I will gladly take your money.

One easy way to know for sure that poncho’s argument is not really about new players at all is to think about the previous version of the game. Recruiting was just as complex, and also featured drop downs and pull downs; and pulling it off required more detailed knowledge about the formulas determining those outcomes than they do now. Players on championship teams were literally unavailable to new players and lower prestige teams. They were locked out by vision. But D2 and D3 was more populated. Not because the game was easier for new players (retention has always sucked, which was a reason 3.0 was launched in the first place), but because more players were parked in D2 and D3. They were parked, because D1 was bad.

Posted by bofreedom on 4/28/2018 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/28/2018 9:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 4/27/2018 11:50:00 PM (view original):
shoe thinks he is the marketplace. You have 20 people telling him he's wrong, but he'll tell you most of the coaches love it. Nevermind the fact that 30% of the user population left and will not be replaced.

It's great that DI is better than before, but you killed 2 other divisions to do it. Even worse, you killed off the 2 divisions that a new user needs to enjoy before ever getting to DI. Your thought process is completely backward, because you don't want to lose DI as it currently is.

Put caps on the division. It will have no effect on DI. If a DI team is worried about a lower division school stealing a player, then that DI team wasn't going to be that good anyways. Without caps, you have the same users camping out taking DI players and running off new users. Under 2.0, I made sweet 16 as a newbie within 4 seasons. It took me 2 seasons to get a strong grasp of recruiting. Under 3.0, assuming the populations were the same, I'd be lucky if make it out of the first round. In the current population scenario, a new user won't even know where to start with a seasoned vet. On my current DIII team I help new guys out and without that assistance I know they wouldn't have a clue how to be stay competitive for awhile.

Lol, poncho strikes again. You sure told me.

I don’t know how “most” users feel, and neither do you. Every lost user can be replaced, saying they won’t be replaced is dumb. Everyone knew there would be attrition. It will take some marketing and a few structural changes would help, but caps are not among them.

Make D3 free, and remove credit incentive to park. Parked vets like you are a much bigger impediment to new players being able to advance in a national tournament than the fact that they have the ability to nab higher projected players who have been passed over by higher level teams. It’s great that you help new players, keep doing that. The game has always been complex, and with a high learning curve. The game doesn’t need to be made dumber, but it would help if the learning curve didn’t require such a steep investment in both time and money.

Let paying users start at D2, and move up to low D1 after a season if they want. Forcing them to spend money and a dozen seasons with teams they have no reason to care about is easily the biggest reason the people who should like this game say “nah”. That’s the constant refrain with everyone I’ve tried to get to play the game.

Respectfully shoe3--I would wager a lot of money that more people agree with poncho0091 on this than with you. A lot more.

This is the captain obvious statement of the day.

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/28/2018 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

When everyone has to use the promise to compete for a prospect then its no longer a tool for recruiting.

For the top stars maybe.. but what about the rest?

You have a good point. I can't remember the last time I tried to recruit a 4 year player that wasn't 3 star or higher but I know many lower prestige teams do.

I couldn't believe this when I read it, and immediately spotted a Jr SG on your Cincinnati team that was ranked in the 130s for SGs, so...yeah.

Side note, I wish "position competition" was a preference. If I'm recruiting a SG and currently have none on the roster I think it'd be cool to get a slight edge over teams that have 3 elite SGs if that's one of the player preferences.

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/28/2018 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 4/28/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/28/2018 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I understand the intent, but “promise start” is important for low D1 teams to have a shot at decent talent that B6 teams aren’t necessarily interested in playing right away.

If anything, I’d prefer they make it so a “promise start” lasted all 4 seasons rather than just the 1. If a guy doesn’t get started as a sophomore or junior there should be a chance he leaves. That might make people hesitate to use that option.

When everyone has to use the promise to compete for a prospect then its no longer a tool for recruiting.

For the top stars maybe.. but what about the rest?

You have a good point. I can't remember the last time I tried to recruit a 4 year player that wasn't 3 star or higher but I know many lower prestige teams do.

I couldn't believe this when I read it, and immediately spotted a Jr SG on your Cincinnati team that was ranked in the 130s for SGs, so...yeah.

Side note, I wish "position competition" was a preference. If I'm recruiting a SG and currently have none on the roster I think it'd be cool to get a slight edge over teams that have 3 elite SGs if that's one of the player preferences.

He is not a 4 year player.

I recruited 2 transfer players and a Juco player so I could get to 9 scholarships.

Under the new system I only recruit the top 100 players. I don't scout outside of the top 100 except in the 2nd round to find 1 or 2 year players to fill out my roster.