Posted by gillispie on 6/9/2022 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bpielcmc on 6/9/2022 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/9/2022 8:29:00 AM (view original):
Actually, thinking about D2 players at D1 some more...

Cub and I tried this experiment in a difficult conference with some good teams and good coaches. The Big Sky in Tark is #4 in RPI (get it together ACC!)

Looking at some of these other conferences that are mostly empty, I think you could really build a team with D2 players that could win those conferences every season. Or even getting a D2 player here or there could help your team. I think I'm going to encourage new D1 coaches who are rebuilding to go for D2 players. They are without a doubt much less talented but with so much competition for D1 players, its a viable solution to at least cover your bum after some misses. You won't win titles but you can be somewhat competitive.

A D2 pool player: https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=4733453. Pretty sure he'd be able to help out a D1 team.

the thing about these players is they are signed caps unknown. on average, this guy is garbage for any d1 team. should d1 schools occasionally take fliers and pray to their respective gods for an outcome like this? surely - but you can't do it all the time, and its pretty hard to take such a flier when the guy in question is, with average growth, so unplayable. smart coaches would sign a guy like this, then cut him end of freshman year if his potential was less than stellar, but a lot of folks don't think like that.

the idea that d1 schools are, as a matter of course, recruiting from d2, is nuts to me. the idea that this is a reasonable course for someone with a clue, is even more nuts. shoe coming out and saying that, fine, he has an extreme approach to rebuilding with guys like this, and he probably would say this back when we had 120 coaches per world. but for this to even be a discussion among the rest of us, more or less shows how out of whack things are. its definitely too competitive for low end d1 players. i agree with whoever said d1 should not be able to drop to d2 - i've always agreed with that - its just basically always been moot, because d1 schools with any regularity looking for d2 players, was unthinkable.

this all goes back to the disaster that was the last recruit gen change, that cost us a third of total d1 population, but which has not been addressed. it all worked fine when we had 100, maybe 120 coaches in a d1 world (after we lost the third). but d1 recruit generation does not gracefully support 150, 180 coaches, and it has not since that horrible change.

I'm at Portland in Rupp. With the WCC hoarding lots of good recruits. The pac 10 is great obviously. Each year there's like 10 recruits in Oregon. 10 in Washington. With 30 elite coaches on the west coast. It's a cheap FSS away to check out to see if D2 Oregon pool generated a great back player for a D1 team. FSS, maybe level up the only guy or three that has a ranking.

I think I've signed a D2 pool player on every team i have right now, Portland, Texas, Arizona, UConn. And as I'm writing, I haven't signed one on Kansas before. Sometimes it just works out

1. Don't say that "people have to change up their strategy." If you say that you're really missing the point. My point is that people HAVE changed their strategy and everyone is finding the most effective one, which is to take a lot of walkons, get in a lot of battles for actually good players, and pray you win rolls, fill your backups with free lower-tier recruits, and run slowdown.

This is the part that is amusing to me. My recruiting strategy changes from season to season, and from team to team. I try new things, and I adjust, often in the middle of a recruiting session. In some worlds I end up recruiting against good DII teams to fill my roster. These constant adjustments are absolutely necessary if you want to remain competitive. I find that the challenge is what keeps me renewing.

Me as a D1 coach: "Of course it's a good idea to sign Proj D2 guys, there is no other good way to ensure you'll find a cheap surefire target."

Me as a D2 coach when I see a B Prestige D1 team on my prized Proj D2 JUCO: "**** this guy, hope he has fun in the PI."

Posted by cbriese on 6/10/2022 7:17:00 PM (view original):
1. Don't say that "people have to change up their strategy." If you say that you're really missing the point. My point is that people HAVE changed their strategy and everyone is finding the most effective one, which is to take a lot of walkons, get in a lot of battles for actually good players, and pray you win rolls, fill your backups with free lower-tier recruits, and run slowdown.

This is the part that is amusing to me. My recruiting strategy changes from season to season, and from team to team. I try new things, and I adjust, often in the middle of a recruiting session. In some worlds I end up recruiting against good DII teams to fill my roster. These constant adjustments are absolutely necessary if you want to remain competitive. I find that the challenge is what keeps me renewing.

My point is more that it is the "general population" has changed their strategy, and you can only control yourself.

As someone has also likes to dip low to fill the roster when it is needed (The two backup bigs on my #2 Louisville team, one of which is Proj D2 and one of which I poached from a poor D3 team—to be fair they kind of are extremely mediocre at best and could very well prevent a long NT run but on the other hand I've gotten a lot of milage out of them).

My point isn't that my strategy is inflexible, but that this meta has taken over the game. And there is a reason it has taken over the game too! The majority of the time, it is much much better to take a 3rd walkon and run slowdown than a scrub. People have figures this out so this is why they do it!

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/10/2022 7:18:00 PM (view original):
Me as a D1 coach: "Of course it's a good idea to sign Proj D2 guys, there is no good way to ensure you'll find a cheap surefire target."

Me as a D2 coach when I see a B Prestige D1 team on my prized Proj D2 JUCO: "**** this guy, hope he has fun in the PI."

Haha. Deadly accurate!

"I'm curious why one of [the] proposed solutions isn't to slightly increase the number of recruits generated each season"

Because that wouldn't matter. It would affect each and every team and its opponents equally. As would the other "solutions" mentioned at various points in the thread. Even the [perceived] increase in human coaches affects not only any particular team but also its opponents equally. Consider the possibility (probability) that none of the "problems" that affect everyone equally are actually the problems the posters think they are.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/10/2022 9:21:00 PM (view original):
Me as a D1 coach: "Of course it's a good idea to sign Proj D2 guys, there is no other good way to ensure you'll find a cheap surefire target."

Me as a D2 coach when I see a B Prestige D1 team on my prized Proj D2 JUCO: "**** this guy, hope he has fun in the PI."

This

I think this version of D1 HD, with this current population, is the most challenging, frustrating, and fun version of this game over the course of 17 years. You're right - it's near impossible to recruit a team of all 3-stars and above. It should be. And yes, some folks are willing to take big swings and take three walk-ons. However, this is going to force coaches to eventually change their recruiting strategy to recruit role players, and *gasp* come up with team-building strategies and actual game plans. This is really what makes it fun, and leads to a leveling of the playing field.

I do, BTW, support the idea of reduced practice effectiveness for teams with less than 10 scholarship players. That career backup guy that only does one or two things well

I'm just a D2 coach so this is an outsiders perspective, but from what I can tell changes to recruit generation, EE logic, etc won't change the math involved.

It seems unrealistic that 150 D1 coaches can all be consistently competitive for 64 NT spots. If you assume that half of those spots are reserved by the perennial powerhouse programs, that leaves 32 spots for the remaining 120 coaches to fight for. Evenly distributed that means each coach should expect to make the NT once every 4 seasons! Of course no coach here is signing up for evenly distributed NT berths, and existing attempts at introducing variability of outcomes (i.e. coin flips) are already maligned by the favorites.

Luckily the keys to HD equilibrium are already in our hands. If the 30 unhappiest D1 coaches in each world ventured back to D2 then wouldn't that make everyone's lives easier? D1 coaches need no longer fret that bountiful backup options aren't at their disposal (more politely, could fill their rosters with "D1 quality recruits") and D2/D3 coaches would get a reprieve from competing against malignant D1 programs for the remaining scraps. I'll concede that firing would have to be ramped up so that more coaches could rotate through the desirable D1 programs. Anyways that's enough from me for today..

We got use to a world where D1 was less than half full.

WIS made recruit generation with the idea that the world would be fully populated with humans, with over 50% sim teams, humans were able to recruit above and beyond what was expected. Now that the worlds are closer to full human owned teams, we have to adjust to how the game was intended.

Posted by StillWaters on 6/10/2022 8:36:00 PM (view original):
"I'm curious why one of [the] proposed solutions isn't to slightly increase the number of recruits generated each season"

Because that wouldn't matter. It would affect each and every team and its opponents equally. As would the other "solutions" mentioned at various points in the thread. Even the [perceived] increase in human coaches affects not only any particular team but also its opponents equally. Consider the possibility (probability) that none of the "problems" that affect everyone equally are actually the problems the posters think they are.

Wouldn’t it? More decent recruits mean more options, fewer battles, and a better ability to find those 10th, 11th and 12th scholarship players. We’ve got a thread full of D1 coaches talking about how they routinely drop down to D2 to find recruits they don’t need to spend/battle for. Upping the pool of recruits feels like an obvious solution to that.

Posted by StillWaters on 6/10/2022 8:36:00 PM (view original):
"I'm curious why one of [the] proposed solutions isn't to slightly increase the number of recruits generated each season"

Because that wouldn't matter. It would affect each and every team and its opponents equally. As would the other "solutions" mentioned at various points in the thread. Even the [perceived] increase in human coaches affects not only any particular team but also its opponents equally. Consider the possibility (probability) that none of the "problems" that affect everyone equally are actually the problems the posters think they are.

of course it would make a difference! the concern folks have here has nothing to do with the artificial d1/d2 boundaries or any version of me-vs-them (going back to your prior post). the concern folks have here relates to the sheer competitiveness for d1 recruits. at least me, and i think, cub / OP - perhaps not the rest.

the biggest concern to me is that it feels like we've been here before. we had today's d1 population levels with the exact same recruit generation that is in place today - and it failed miserably. a full third of d1 population was lost when today's recruit gen first came into place, and it basically never recovered an inch - until the jobs requirements were completely flattened to make way for the recent d2/d3 to d1 surge.

there's a couple differences today - one, top recruits are spread more equitably through higher end teams. certainly, the ceiling of the best d1 teams today is much lower as a result, which raises the bottom end of the spectrum of viable d1 recruits. however, you also have d2 and d3 teams taking lower but not bottom end recruits, in ways that were simply mechanically impossible, before 3.0. its not clear to me how these two effects balance out - its fairly clear one raises the d1-viable recruit count, while the other takes some away due to d2/d3 competition. on balance? i don't know. but i SERIOUSLY doubt that balance is enough to make 180 pop d1s viable again.

i would agree with you guys saying its all perception, people need to just adjust, if 1) i hadn't seen this movie before, along with the catastrophic ending (easily the biggest disaster of seble's decade in charge), and 2) if i didn't feel the raw competitiveness for mediocre d1 recruits made this game too competitive for the not-quite-diehard crowd. of course, that's an opinion as well, but i'm just trying to point out that the the way you are taking us (how one d1 coach fairs against another), at least in my case, is just completely different than the actual concern (overall competitiveness).

Posted by cbriese on 6/11/2022 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I think this version of D1 HD, with this current population, is the most challenging, frustrating, and fun version of this game over the course of 17 years. You're right - it's near impossible to recruit a team of all 3-stars and above. It should be. And yes, some folks are willing to take big swings and take three walk-ons. However, this is going to force coaches to eventually change their recruiting strategy to recruit role players, and *gasp* come up with team-building strategies and actual game plans. This is really what makes it fun, and leads to a leveling of the playing field.

I do, BTW, support the idea of reduced practice effectiveness for teams with less than 10 scholarship players. That career backup guy that only does one or two things well

You're a very good coach I have so so much respect for, but I am having a very different experience at A prestige so far. I feel it is much much harder to recruit role players now in the current version since the competition for them is suddenly so intense. Competition for 3+ Stars has always been extremely intense. I'm really not motivated to take anything but elites and Proj D2 guys right now.

Posted by dw172300 on 6/11/2022 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 6/10/2022 8:36:00 PM (view original):
"I'm curious why one of [the] proposed solutions isn't to slightly increase the number of recruits generated each season"

Because that wouldn't matter. It would affect each and every team and its opponents equally. As would the other "solutions" mentioned at various points in the thread. Even the [perceived] increase in human coaches affects not only any particular team but also its opponents equally. Consider the possibility (probability) that none of the "problems" that affect everyone equally are actually the problems the posters think they are.

Wouldn’t it? More decent recruits mean more options, fewer battles, and a better ability to find those 10th, 11th and 12th scholarship players. We’ve got a thread full of D1 coaches talking about how they routinely drop down to D2 to find recruits they don’t need to spend/battle for. Upping the pool of recruits feels like an obvious solution to that.

Ever hear the phrase, "A rising tide floats all ships?"

Generating more recruits and/or better recruits is a rising tide. It affects all teams equally. It affects your opponents in exactly the same way it affects you. Nothing changes for one team relative to any other team.

This thread has some people arguing for more and better candy in the candy store. They don't realize that that means more and better candy for their opponents as well. Nothing changes for one team relative to any other team.

"More decent recruits mean more options, fewer battles, and a better ability to find those 10th, 11th and 12th scholarship players." No, if the human coach population remains the same, it just means the same frequency of battles but battling over a higher caliber of player. If anything, given the whining you see in the forums over losing a "dice roll" [spoiler alert: there are actually no dice in this game], losing a higher level recruit can be expected to generate even more anguish. If your 10th, 11th and 12th players are better but the same is true for your opponents, your team made no progress relative to any other team.

Plague's post above is recommended reading.

By the way, I read this with interest: "i'm just trying to point out that the the way you are taking us (how one d1 coach fares against another), at least in my case, is just completely different than the actual concern (overall competitiveness)."

Overall competitiveness, indeed. Isn't the main measure of "how one coach fares against another" their W's and L's? Isn't a won-loss record a measure of competitive success? Is there a better measure of overall competitiveness than SCOREBOARD? "How one coach fares against another" IS the definition of competitive success.