An interesting post. Some things I agree with, some things I dont. I do definitely worry that not making the NT consistently will cause people to quit the game all togeither although we haven't really seen that happen yet. I see alot more job turnover but also alot of the mid-tier jobs are staying more consistently full even if the coaches are changing more often.

On your list of effects, I think 2, 3 and 5 are a good thing not a bad thing. I never liked that the highest prestige teams could camp on non-elite, but quality D1 starters to fill their benches. The smart B prestige coaches are now getting a roster full of them (without chasing the NBA players) which allows them to pull into the A prestige easier. I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions.

As for your proposed solution, I'm indifferent on 1 and 2. I dont really think 1 more world will make a whole lot of change to these issues other than the fun of seeing coaches try to race to the top (and then it will look the same).

I really like solution 3 as I've always disliked consistent 9-man teams which always feels slightly unfair. Those always seem to be the same coaches that rage quit when they go all in every period and catch a few unlucky rolls. You could also increase injuries to a more normal level, which I would strongly deter the use of short rotations.

Solution 4 should have been implemented at the start of 3.0 and, if not, fixed a long time ago. So long post to say, not sure I see this as much of a "problem" as you do, but am for most of your suggestions.

Part 1

I love that its harder.

I have a bunch of low to mid level teams that I am running Fastbreak/press or man. some still a work in progress. I did this to see if I could recruit C/B- recruits and with two good(not great) classes back to back, could I maybe be competitive with 9 man B+/A teams. maybe maybe not to early to tell. Boise St in Crum is farthest along in the exp. Just beat the #5 team actually. Miss st in Smith has some promise I think 9 So/Fr currently. Wyoming in Knight is the one I am most excited about though. went 4-23 this year, but returning 10 so/fr with 5 players over 700 and 5 over 597. Maybe these all fail but I am loving the ride.

Part 2

"Not enough Solid recruits"

I disagree. There are they same amount They are just not as easy for the top human teams to hoard.

I only take walkons as a last resort, and that’s at my non FB/P teams, too. I also kind of routinely drop plenty of visits on 2nd/3rd tier guys, it all depends on what I am looking for and what is developing. “meta” is overstated, and the mass effects are primarily the results of groupthink. Creativity and thinking outside the box are actually rewarded quite a bit. I encourage them.

All that said, I am not opposed to opening new D1 only worlds. I still don’t see the point of D3, except maybe as a sandbox (maybe) tbh.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/7/2022 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Part 2

"Not enough Solid recruits"

I disagree. There are they same amount They are just not as easy for the top human teams to hoard.

Also, objective standards are kind of nonsense. Recruit quality is relative. It’s not like your D1 pg will fall over and die if he doesn’t reach 80 speed and defense by his senior season or something.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/7/2022 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Part 2

"Not enough Solid recruits"

I disagree. There are they same amount They are just not as easy for the top human teams to hoard.

With this part, I am much more focusing on lower prestige teams. With more D/C teams populated, it means there are less guys to go around.

There is the same ratio of elite recruits to high prestige users since these high prestige teams have always been 100% populated.

But now that D- to C+ teams have moved from 45/240 to 80/240 user population, there are twice as many coaches trying to build NT teams with the same amount of solid players.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/7/2022 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Part 1

I love that its harder.

I have a bunch of low to mid level teams that I am running Fastbreak/press or man. some still a work in progress. I did this to see if I could recruit C/B- recruits and with two good(not great) classes back to back, could I maybe be competitive with 9 man B+/A teams. maybe maybe not to early to tell. Boise St in Crum is farthest along in the exp. Just beat the #5 team actually. Miss st in Smith has some promise I think 9 So/Fr currently. Wyoming in Knight is the one I am most excited about though. went 4-23 this year, but returning 10 so/fr with 5 players over 700 and 5 over 597. Maybe these all fail but I am loving the ride.

Thanks for the response. I'm very interested to see how this goes for you. I'm kind of trying to do the same thing with my D2-only experiment in Tark. Basically taking a lot of vastly inferior talent players compared to what the slowdown man uber-walkon reaching battle people get, but filling my ships every year so we are deeper than the competition. So far we can't get over the Top 60 hump, but we'll see how it goes. I do have some hope, since press can be pretty powerful if you build it well and are deep.

Looks like you have a few real players on Wyoming talent-wise and I agree you have a solid chance to at *least* make the NT there. I'd take Greathouse, Thompson, and Rutledge even if I was running man at the D+ prestige you recruited them from.

Posted by texashick on 6/7/2022 4:02:00 PM (view original):
An interesting post. Some things I agree with, some things I dont. I do definitely worry that not making the NT consistently will cause people to quit the game all togeither although we haven't really seen that happen yet. I see alot more job turnover but also alot of the mid-tier jobs are staying more consistently full even if the coaches are changing more often.

On your list of effects, I think 2, 3 and 5 are a good thing not a bad thing. I never liked that the highest prestige teams could camp on non-elite, but quality D1 starters to fill their benches. The smart B prestige coaches are now getting a roster full of them (without chasing the NBA players) which allows them to pull into the A prestige easier. I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions.

As for your proposed solution, I'm indifferent on 1 and 2. I dont really think 1 more world will make a whole lot of change to these issues other than the fun of seeing coaches try to race to the top (and then it will look the same).

I really like solution 3 as I've always disliked consistent 9-man teams which always feels slightly unfair. Those always seem to be the same coaches that rage quit when they go all in every period and catch a few unlucky rolls. You could also increase injuries to a more normal level, which I would strongly deter the use of short rotations.

Solution 4 should have been implemented at the start of 3.0 and, if not, fixed a long time ago. So long post to say, not sure I see this as much of a "problem" as you do, but am for most of your suggestions.

Thanks for the response, I'm happy you like the solutions at least.

"I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions."

I agree with this to some extent. More competition means it is harder for Illlinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke to build the ridiculous teams with 11 5-stars since they face no competition for 5-stars. But what is there to do at high prestige if you can't get quality D1 starters for free anymore other than spam the much better guys with 20hv cv start minutes? I agree it wasn't great that A/A+ prestige teams could commit hard to a decent player and scare everyone else off, but at least there was some creative team-building there rather than 5-stars and 3 walkons.

My final solution is to enforce start/minute promises for all four years. This will really tilt the tables against the "5-star and walkon strategy."

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by texashick on 6/7/2022 4:02:00 PM (view original):
An interesting post. Some things I agree with, some things I dont. I do definitely worry that not making the NT consistently will cause people to quit the game all togeither although we haven't really seen that happen yet. I see alot more job turnover but also alot of the mid-tier jobs are staying more consistently full even if the coaches are changing more often.

On your list of effects, I think 2, 3 and 5 are a good thing not a bad thing. I never liked that the highest prestige teams could camp on non-elite, but quality D1 starters to fill their benches. The smart B prestige coaches are now getting a roster full of them (without chasing the NBA players) which allows them to pull into the A prestige easier. I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions.

As for your proposed solution, I'm indifferent on 1 and 2. I dont really think 1 more world will make a whole lot of change to these issues other than the fun of seeing coaches try to race to the top (and then it will look the same).

I really like solution 3 as I've always disliked consistent 9-man teams which always feels slightly unfair. Those always seem to be the same coaches that rage quit when they go all in every period and catch a few unlucky rolls. You could also increase injuries to a more normal level, which I would strongly deter the use of short rotations.

Solution 4 should have been implemented at the start of 3.0 and, if not, fixed a long time ago. So long post to say, not sure I see this as much of a "problem" as you do, but am for most of your suggestions.

Thanks for the response, I'm happy you like the solutions at least.

"I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions."

I agree with this to some extent. More competition means it is harder for Illlinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke to build the ridiculous teams with 11 5-stars since they face no competition for 5-stars. But what is there to do at high prestige if you can't get quality D1 starters for free anymore other than spam the much better guys with 20hv cv start minutes? I agree it wasn't great that A/A+ prestige teams could commit hard to a decent player and scare everyone else off, but at least there was some creative team-building there rather than 5-stars and 3 walkons.

My final solution is to enforce start/minute promises for all four years. This will really tilt the tables against the "5-star and walkon strategy."

I would love to see promises have to be kept for all 4 years.

And I am joining any new worlds that are opened up.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/7/2022 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by texashick on 6/7/2022 4:02:00 PM (view original):
An interesting post. Some things I agree with, some things I dont. I do definitely worry that not making the NT consistently will cause people to quit the game all togeither although we haven't really seen that happen yet. I see alot more job turnover but also alot of the mid-tier jobs are staying more consistently full even if the coaches are changing more often.

On your list of effects, I think 2, 3 and 5 are a good thing not a bad thing. I never liked that the highest prestige teams could camp on non-elite, but quality D1 starters to fill their benches. The smart B prestige coaches are now getting a roster full of them (without chasing the NBA players) which allows them to pull into the A prestige easier. I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions.

As for your proposed solution, I'm indifferent on 1 and 2. I dont really think 1 more world will make a whole lot of change to these issues other than the fun of seeing coaches try to race to the top (and then it will look the same).

I really like solution 3 as I've always disliked consistent 9-man teams which always feels slightly unfair. Those always seem to be the same coaches that rage quit when they go all in every period and catch a few unlucky rolls. You could also increase injuries to a more normal level, which I would strongly deter the use of short rotations.

Solution 4 should have been implemented at the start of 3.0 and, if not, fixed a long time ago. So long post to say, not sure I see this as much of a "problem" as you do, but am for most of your suggestions.

Thanks for the response, I'm happy you like the solutions at least.

"I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions."

I agree with this to some extent. More competition means it is harder for Illlinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke to build the ridiculous teams with 11 5-stars since they face no competition for 5-stars. But what is there to do at high prestige if you can't get quality D1 starters for free anymore other than spam the much better guys with 20hv cv start minutes? I agree it wasn't great that A/A+ prestige teams could commit hard to a decent player and scare everyone else off, but at least there was some creative team-building there rather than 5-stars and 3 walkons.

My final solution is to enforce start/minute promises for all four years. This will really tilt the tables against the "5-star and walkon strategy."

I would love to see promises have to be kept for all 4 years.

That has been my number one suggestion for a long time. I’d really like to see everyone have to chose when to use those promises. As is, on my A+ teams, I just make the promise in the first year, bury them on the bench as a freshman in the tournament and then drop them to 12-15 minutes till the are a senior (besides replacing the freshman in CT/NT). It really perpetuates the problem. I do it even with the 2nd tier (sometimes 3rd tier) prospects. Frankly, it’s really dumb but it’s how the game works. Would love it if coaches really had to decide when they made that call and it mattered in recruiting ALOT.

i know the counter argument is those with EEs would get more bites at the apple but frankly I’m fine with that. Encourage people to play/develop their studs. I still think it helps the smart B prestige teams that choose very carefully were to make the offer.

Posted by texashick on 6/7/2022 8:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/7/2022 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by texashick on 6/7/2022 4:02:00 PM (view original):
An interesting post. Some things I agree with, some things I dont. I do definitely worry that not making the NT consistently will cause people to quit the game all togeither although we haven't really seen that happen yet. I see alot more job turnover but also alot of the mid-tier jobs are staying more consistently full even if the coaches are changing more often.

On your list of effects, I think 2, 3 and 5 are a good thing not a bad thing. I never liked that the highest prestige teams could camp on non-elite, but quality D1 starters to fill their benches. The smart B prestige coaches are now getting a roster full of them (without chasing the NBA players) which allows them to pull into the A prestige easier. I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions.

As for your proposed solution, I'm indifferent on 1 and 2. I dont really think 1 more world will make a whole lot of change to these issues other than the fun of seeing coaches try to race to the top (and then it will look the same).

I really like solution 3 as I've always disliked consistent 9-man teams which always feels slightly unfair. Those always seem to be the same coaches that rage quit when they go all in every period and catch a few unlucky rolls. You could also increase injuries to a more normal level, which I would strongly deter the use of short rotations.

Solution 4 should have been implemented at the start of 3.0 and, if not, fixed a long time ago. So long post to say, not sure I see this as much of a "problem" as you do, but am for most of your suggestions.

Thanks for the response, I'm happy you like the solutions at least.

"I like that the Illinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke teams cant have crushingly deep rosters all the time. I think that is a personal preference thing so I dont think debating it will change alot of opinions."

I agree with this to some extent. More competition means it is harder for Illlinois/Kansas/UCLA/Duke to build the ridiculous teams with 11 5-stars since they face no competition for 5-stars. But what is there to do at high prestige if you can't get quality D1 starters for free anymore other than spam the much better guys with 20hv cv start minutes? I agree it wasn't great that A/A+ prestige teams could commit hard to a decent player and scare everyone else off, but at least there was some creative team-building there rather than 5-stars and 3 walkons.

My final solution is to enforce start/minute promises for all four years. This will really tilt the tables against the "5-star and walkon strategy."

I would love to see promises have to be kept for all 4 years.

That has been my number one suggestion for a long time. I’d really like to see everyone have to chose when to use those promises. As is, on my A+ teams, I just make the promise in the first year, bury them on the bench as a freshman in the tournament and then drop them to 12-15 minutes till the are a senior (besides replacing the freshman in CT/NT). It really perpetuates the problem. I do it even with the 2nd tier (sometimes 3rd tier) prospects. Frankly, it’s really dumb but it’s how the game works. Would love it if coaches really had to decide when they made that call and it mattered in recruiting ALOT.

i know the counter argument is those with EEs would get more bites at the apple but frankly I’m fine with that. Encourage people to play/develop their studs. I still think it helps the smart B prestige teams that choose very carefully were to make the offer.

Yeah definitely change promises.

And fix EEs too

Not to toot my own horn, but I definitely saw this coming and argued long and hard about it. I also argued long and hard for the addition of 4-year promises. It feels like there is someone complaining about losing rolls in every conference chat these days. People are starting to quit.

To be honest, a lot of the complaining is due to bad recruiting practices. I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time.

With that said, there are definitely problems that aren't due to user error. Some really good coaches are struggling as well. I think a few more mid-tier recruits would go a long way to helping solve some of the current issues.

I think enforcing 4-year promises makes a ton of sense as it makes promises more scarce, meaningful, and strategic. It also creates more transfers which helps out with the EE dilemma. Although I think there would need to be a slightly larger penalty if you don't meet the promise and the player transfers. Otherwise a coach could gain an advantage by just offering the max promises to every player, even if a few of them end up leaving.

So these types of changes would improve the quality of teams, but 2/3 of D1 coaches would still miss the NT. Does it make sense to add another tournament beyond the NT and PIT? One that doesn't really boost your prestige, but at least you wouldn't be sitting around for 2 weeks fiddling your thumbs. Maybe have some preseason tournaments? Like teams are automatically entered into a 4-team bracket based off of last season's RPI. So teams with RPI 1, 2, 3, 4 would play each other. 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. These games would replace exhibition matches and the winner gets an additional $1,000 for recruiting that season? Just something to make the game more fun and interactive. Something to take the sting out of missing the NT.

d1 populations are high enough, i am fine with a new world. not sure if rewards are an issue there holding them back or what