What I can’t understand…

If D1 is no longer an enjoyable game, why not move down to the other divisions?

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

If People quit the issue will be fixed. I just lost a roll and was ****** for about a minute. And than I remembered some rolls I won. This is what make the game better than just firing up a game counsel and running dynasty mode against a computer.

I agree. recruiting actions have consequences. and we have to be willing to live with the results. Its not like we don't know what the possible outcomes are.

I still dont see the need to give A/A+ teams an out when they don't get their way.

Love the idea of replacing Exhibition games.

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

"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."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

Posted by craigaltonw on 6/8/2022 11:39:00 AM (view original):
What I can’t understand…

If D1 is no longer an enjoyable game, why not move down to the other divisions?

I'm actually really enjoying D2 right now. It is a bit of a ghost town though. 3.0 isn't really designed for 45 user or 150 user divisions, kind of in between.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

If People quit the issue will be fixed. I just lost a roll and was ****** for about a minute. And than I remembered some rolls I won. This is what make the game better than just firing up a game counsel and running dynasty mode against a computer.

I agree. recruiting actions have consequences. and we have to be willing to live with the results. Its not like we don't know what the possible outcomes are.

I still dont see the need to give A/A+ teams an out when they don't get their way.

Love the idea of replacing Exhibition games.

Are you really taking the stance:

"We just emptied out D2 and D3 to fill D1, which isn't functioning as well as it once was. Because of that people will get frustrated in D1 and quit, and THEN we can fix the issue."

Given this community had been fighting about ~5 years to keep the population up hoping the devs will give us some much-needed updates to 3.0 this seems like a brutal line to take.

For what it is worth, even if people are disagreeing with my fundemendantal analysis of "too much competition, too many rolls, too many walk-ons, too much slowdown, too much hardship caused by EEs, too much promise manipulation, too much EE player growth manipulation" I can't imagine anyone disagrees with my common-sense fixes of (a) penalizing the third walk-on (b) overhaul EEs and (c) cut out promise manipulation.

But I think these three fixes only go halfway and would make the game more enjoyable to play at a higher population. What we really need is to cut the population so people don't get frustrated missing the NT and quit.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

"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."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

Yeah, I lost 3 rolls at GT last season while being the leader on all 3. It sucks, but I know that I'll come out on top in the long run because I put more effort into recruiting than most other coaches. I mean, I keep track of any battles that an opposing coach might be in, calculate how much they'll need to spend based on distance, and then see if they'll have enough funds left to match me.

I also noticed that you signed a really good ineligible (Eatman) without any a roll so things can't be that bad, huh?

i agree with the lack of flexibility in a lot of folks' d1 approach. but here's the thing. how many people are really looking for those grueling, 20 hours of effort, watch every cycle, recruiting sessions? its just a bit much. d1 recruiting was always more competitive that d2/d3, but it wasn't this intensive.

i always thought that the idea was for d2 to be the casual version of d1, but with d2/d3 having to watch the cycles and spend all of RS1 prepping for RS2, i just don't know where you go for like, a 'modest' 3 hour recruiting effort type situation, without half assing it. on some level, for this game to succeed in 2022, you need a mobile phone workable game, that less than diehard fans will play. it sounds like some of you do do mobile - i have no idea how - every time i use HD on my phone, i have to murder six goats afterwards, just to keep my sanity. and a baby. maybe recruiting is just more time consuming for me than it should be, how much time do you guys on mobile put into your recruitings? or really anyone, for that matter.

not really sure where i'm going, but recruiting used to be insane for a day, and then it simmered down for the remainder. trying to actually pay enough attention to be flexible over days, or even across RS1/RS2, it just feels like its a over-amped right now. if there was an extra world or two, and d1 pop was a bit lower, it would be a little easier to phone it in for a recruiting session here and there, without it absolutely destroying your program for months to come. today's game just feels like a bit too much of a commitment. i can barely swing one team, although i suppose, i have never understood how folks do 5+ teams. even when i had 5 teams i had to designate 3 as teams i don't care about, and 1-2 as teams i did care about, because this game was always a crap ton of effort, to play it right. so i probably am a terrible point of reference, and i get that... but i think that like, fantasy sports, all that stuff, there's TONS of fans of that, who could be interested in HD if it wasn't such a freaking commitment.

Ok- I’ll throw in my two cents. First, I’m not in D1. So I can’t speak to D1 really.

First of all, there is no penalty for walk ons and it’s crazy. I mean, I’ve noticed I can’t get more than 10 to play steadily. I’m not playing FB. So two walk ons don’t hurt me at all. In fact, if I did it, I can target enough to have two walk ons, and I have more attention points and dollars to spend on everyone else. I think 1 walk on no penalty, 2nd walk on you get 1/2 the resources, no resources for 3rd walk on makes sense.

Also, I must be wired different than most, because I didn’t want to race to D1. I mean- I won’t get one of my favorite big time schools. Why go there to coach (for example) Montana State? That’s no better than what I’m doing at D3. I do have a favorite “low major” who I used to cover a bit back in the day. I could be talked into moving up to them. Plus, I want to know I’m good enough before I go D1. So I want an Elite 8 at least before I get there.

As for using mobile, I use mobile for everything but the intense scouting sessions. I have a spreadsheet I use to help recruit, but I go into RS1 and with that spreadsheet. After two cycles, I don’t need anything but the phone to adjust AP. I do still go in and look at stuff afterwards and may wind up on the computer again. But the phone works easily for everything else.

EE revamp is a no brainer.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:56:00 AM (view original):
For what it is worth, even if people are disagreeing with my fundemendantal analysis of "too much competition, too many rolls, too many walk-ons, too much slowdown, too much hardship caused by EEs, too much promise manipulation, too much EE player growth manipulation" I can't imagine anyone disagrees with my common-sense fixes of (a) penalizing the third walk-on (b) overhaul EEs and (c) cut out promise manipulation.

But I think these three fixes only go halfway and would make the game more enjoyable to play at a higher population. What we really need is to cut the population so people don't get frustrated missing the NT and quit.

I’m just really confused by the conclusion that they need to cut population to keep folks from quitting. Like… what? You know how I feel about slowdown and walkons, but the game incentivizes those things - so the logical move is just, you know, remove those incentives. Lose the slowdown crutch, balance the tempo options, and as with real world economics, when you remove the subsidization of a bad practice, the practice will become less common.

I can think of some ways to make EEs more intelligent, but there should still be an important element of player development choice for coaches to make regarding how fast to develop those recruits, and in what areas. The best new way to address it is through preferences. Programs that produce a lot of early entries, and the ones that emphasize fast development (for lower levels) should have a preference boost area in recruiting. But apart from that, and maybe just having the fake NBA draft slightly more on potential rather than actual attributes, I wouldn’t change much, because that’s an important coaching choice area, it’s a risk/reward with big implications.

Big no on 4 year promises. Terrible idea. It will benefit the top programs the most. My UConn and MSU programs will benefit much more from 4 year promises than UMass or lower level programs. Chilling promises, and ensuring that every program has fewer to use, means less upward mobility, by like a *lot*. That is a very clear advantage for A+ programs, especially the ones who are just offering the promises and churning out the EEs anyway.

Players used to actually leave as upperclassmen when their playing time decreased, regardless of promises. I don’t know why that was axed, but that could certainly come back as far as I’m concerned. That doesn’t chill promises the way making them 4-years, hard and fast would.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

"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."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

"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."

how would anyone know this is true? this at best is a guess. unless I am missing the forum thread where people are posting their recruiting history and AP spend history. serious questions I see a lot of comments like this and have no idea how they can be made.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

If People quit the issue will be fixed. I just lost a roll and was ****** for about a minute. And than I remembered some rolls I won. This is what make the game better than just firing up a game counsel and running dynasty mode against a computer.

I agree. recruiting actions have consequences. and we have to be willing to live with the results. Its not like we don't know what the possible outcomes are.

I still dont see the need to give A/A+ teams an out when they don't get their way.

Love the idea of replacing Exhibition games.

Are you really taking the stance:

"We just emptied out D2 and D3 to fill D1, which isn't functioning as well as it once was. Because of that people will get frustrated in D1 and quit, and THEN we can fix the issue."

Given this community had been fighting about ~5 years to keep the population up hoping the devs will give us some much-needed updates to 3.0 this seems like a brutal line to take.

My stance is, I don't mind or care how many people are in DI. I play in a 20 team fantasy football league because I like that it is harder and makes me think more and prepare more. I still like 10 and 12 team leagues. But I am also ok and like the idea of a challenge. I see a lot of talk about the % of people making the NT. I get it. Everyone wants to make the NT. But I also think that people who take D+ teams arent expecting to make deep runs in the NT. they know (or should) that its an up hill battle and gonna take time.

I also take the stance that I have 0 sympathy for any complaints from A/A+ prestige teams when it come to EE or roll losses. I currently have no A/A+ prestige teams but I still loss rolls that I am ahead on. Just lost one yesterday at SD St. However I also win some of those. I loved when I had a guy go early at SD St each of the last few season. did I try to slow them down. maybe. I also started preparing for that a season earlier. Unfortunately I havent won a roll at SD st in a few years. Annoyed yes. but love the wrinkle it threw in my plans and looking forward to see what I can do with that team in the future.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

If People quit the issue will be fixed. I just lost a roll and was ****** for about a minute. And than I remembered some rolls I won. This is what make the game better than just firing up a game counsel and running dynasty mode against a computer.

I agree. recruiting actions have consequences. and we have to be willing to live with the results. Its not like we don't know what the possible outcomes are.

I still dont see the need to give A/A+ teams an out when they don't get their way.

Love the idea of replacing Exhibition games.

Are you really taking the stance:

"We just emptied out D2 and D3 to fill D1, which isn't functioning as well as it once was. Because of that people will get frustrated in D1 and quit, and THEN we can fix the issue."

Given this community had been fighting about ~5 years to keep the population up hoping the devs will give us some much-needed updates to 3.0 this seems like a brutal line to take.

My stance is, I don't mind or care how many people are in DI. I play in a 20 team fantasy football league because I like that it is harder and makes me think more and prepare more. I still like 10 and 12 team leagues. But I am also ok and like the idea of a challenge. I see a lot of talk about the % of people making the NT. I get it. Everyone wants to make the NT. But I also think that people who take D+ teams arent expecting to make deep runs in the NT. they know (or should) that its an up hill battle and gonna take time.

I also take the stance that I have 0 sympathy for any complaints from A/A+ prestige teams when it come to EE or roll losses. I currently have no A/A+ prestige teams but I still loss rolls that I am ahead on. Just lost one yesterday at SD St. However I also win some of those. I loved when I had a guy go early at SD St each of the last few season. did I try to slow them down. maybe. I also started preparing for that a season earlier. Unfortunately I havent won a roll at SD st in a few years. Annoyed yes. but love the wrinkle it threw in my plans and looking forward to see what I can do with that team in the future.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:56:00 AM (view original):
For what it is worth, even if people are disagreeing with my fundemendantal analysis of "too much competition, too many rolls, too many walk-ons, too much slowdown, too much hardship caused by EEs, too much promise manipulation, too much EE player growth manipulation" I can't imagine anyone disagrees with my common-sense fixes of (a) penalizing the third walk-on (b) overhaul EEs and (c) cut out promise manipulation.

But I think these three fixes only go halfway and would make the game more enjoyable to play at a higher population. What we really need is to cut the population so people don't get frustrated missing the NT and quit.

my opinion is probably flawed and I know that better than anyone.

I agree with you on A and C but not B.

I already mentioned this but I don't think people quit because they miss the NT. If all they wanted to do was make the NT they would stay in DII. They quit because it is really hard to get a High Prestige team(by job app or building it) and it seems the system make it really easy to keep a high prestige team once you land one. I am not saying that belief is a good one or even true but that its a common perception.

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
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.

"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."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

Yeah, I lost 3 rolls at GT last season while being the leader on all 3. It sucks, but I know that I'll come out on top in the long run because I put more effort into recruiting than most other coaches. I mean, I keep track of any battles that an opposing coach might be in, calculate how much they'll need to spend based on distance, and then see if they'll have enough funds left to match me.

I also noticed that you signed a really good ineligible (Eatman) without any a roll so things can't be that bad, huh?

Eatman is crazy. Hopefully I can get ANY bigs to pair with him.

But this kind of strengthens by point… I’ve somehow been able to land a Top 3 PG in the country for free but I can’t even get any of the 5 ~70 ath/de project guards on my list for free at A prestige, even when I prioritize them early in the cycle. Why use ANY resources on this second tier guys when I can focus all of my resources onto top tier guys, especially when I literally have MORE success avoiding battle. And at worst, I might as well roll for elite players instead of good ones.