Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

Yeah Shoe I have no idea what you’re saying to rebut the simple fact that any single recruit is a better get for a lower team than a higher team so this means that there’s a lot of cases the lower team can offer a start but the higher team has to save it for a more elite guy

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

Agree with this, I also feel its an advantage for top teams to promise recruits and then bail on the promises after the ~22 game mark and after the complaint/ happy emails. Forcing them to fulfill the promise all 4 years would deter them from offering these to mid level recruits thus helping the mid level schools for sure.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

Yeah Shoe I have no idea what you’re saying to rebut the simple fact that any single recruit is a better get for a lower team than a higher team so this means that there’s a lot of cases the lower team can offer a start but the higher team has to save it for a more elite guy

I don’t have to rebut anything. But I would still love to hear how you think a new coach at Sacred Heart will close the gap against me at UConn if they’re limited to 5 starts on a roster. Because a good coach can recruit a team full of good potential, good-in-the-right-spots tier-2/3 players and move a team like C- Sacred Heart up to competitiveness, but losing that start carrot would hurt a ton. Currently, they can offer starts all over the place, and basically feel no qualms about it. Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle. Limiting promises is essentially a call for limited competitiveness. It’s just bad for the game.

I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk. It’s not move-countermove-checkmate. A lot of good coaches do it many different ways, that’s how the game was designed, that’s how it works. If you’re finding it isn’t working for you, well as mlitney even acknowledged in his first post, you can try other things.

The “higher” team doesn’t “have” to do anything. I offer promises to a wide array of players. Like I said, some of them are players who don’t get other (or many) resources from me. There are lots of ways to recruit. But again, my UConn and MSU teams will benefit much more than UMass from 4 year promises. There is absolutely no doubt. I’ll continue to promise the elites (when needed) and in spots 6-12 my prestige will more than make up for a B- start in a battle (if they battle), assuming I don’t feel like rolling the dice on an EE or a lost battle elsewhere.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2022 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

Yeah Shoe I have no idea what you’re saying to rebut the simple fact that any single recruit is a better get for a lower team than a higher team so this means that there’s a lot of cases the lower team can offer a start but the higher team has to save it for a more elite guy

I don’t have to rebut anything. But I would still love to hear how you think a new coach at Sacred Heart will close the gap against me at UConn if they’re limited to 5 starts on a roster. Because a good coach can recruit a team full of good potential, good-in-the-right-spots tier-2/3 players and move a team like C- Sacred Heart up to competitiveness, but losing that start carrot would hurt a ton. Currently, they can offer starts all over the place, and basically feel no qualms about it. Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle. Limiting promises is essentially a call for limited competitiveness. It’s just bad for the game.

I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk. It’s not move-countermove-checkmate. A lot of good coaches do it many different ways, that’s how the game was designed, that’s how it works. If you’re finding it isn’t working for you, well as mlitney even acknowledged in his first post, you can try other things.

The “higher” team doesn’t “have” to do anything. I offer promises to a wide array of players. Like I said, some of them are players who don’t get other (or many) resources from me. There are lots of ways to recruit. But again, my UConn and MSU teams will benefit much more than UMass from 4 year promises. There is absolutely no doubt. I’ll continue to promise the elites (when needed) and in spots 6-12 my prestige will more than make up for a B- start in a battle (if they battle), assuming I don’t feel like rolling the dice on an EE or a lost battle elsewhere.

"Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle."

No that's wrong. Abusing starts as an A+ program doesn't hurt at all. Oh no! I've dropped from 7 to 14 on the PR because I put a vastly inferior team out on the floor that went 23-5 instead of 25-3... whatever will I do now that my NT draw is *marginally* worse.

Versus Sacred Heart is fighting to make the NT and have to start 3 freshmen so they drop from 45 to 75 because they take 2 non-con losses to sims while their guys all have D- IQ.

"I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk."

If we can try "other things" then why has every coach gravitated towards the taking hella rolls and take hella walk-ons strategy naturally in the last 3-12 months?

Except you to be fair. You definitely have a unique strategy at D1 for high prestige teams with varying levels of success. I'm guessing you are thinking you'll start to see an uptick in success in the next few months, which I don't think is necessarily incorrect. You might have to reach even lower than normal (not in Minnesota) to fill your ships though.

FWIW another impact I haven't mentioned of the increased competitiveness is I feel locations like Utah/Colorado/Minnesota/LSU/Wisconsin got a SERIOUS ******* bump.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2022 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

Yeah Shoe I have no idea what you’re saying to rebut the simple fact that any single recruit is a better get for a lower team than a higher team so this means that there’s a lot of cases the lower team can offer a start but the higher team has to save it for a more elite guy

I don’t have to rebut anything. But I would still love to hear how you think a new coach at Sacred Heart will close the gap against me at UConn if they’re limited to 5 starts on a roster. Because a good coach can recruit a team full of good potential, good-in-the-right-spots tier-2/3 players and move a team like C- Sacred Heart up to competitiveness, but losing that start carrot would hurt a ton. Currently, they can offer starts all over the place, and basically feel no qualms about it. Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle. Limiting promises is essentially a call for limited competitiveness. It’s just bad for the game.

I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk. It’s not move-countermove-checkmate. A lot of good coaches do it many different ways, that’s how the game was designed, that’s how it works. If you’re finding it isn’t working for you, well as mlitney even acknowledged in his first post, you can try other things.

The “higher” team doesn’t “have” to do anything. I offer promises to a wide array of players. Like I said, some of them are players who don’t get other (or many) resources from me. There are lots of ways to recruit. But again, my UConn and MSU teams will benefit much more than UMass from 4 year promises. There is absolutely no doubt. I’ll continue to promise the elites (when needed) and in spots 6-12 my prestige will more than make up for a B- start in a battle (if they battle), assuming I don’t feel like rolling the dice on an EE or a lost battle elsewhere.

"Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle."

No that's wrong. Abusing starts as an A+ program doesn't hurt at all. Oh no! I've dropped from 7 to 14 on the PR because I put a vastly inferior team out on the floor that went 23-5 instead of 25-3... whatever will I do now that my NT draw is *marginally* worse.

Versus Sacred Heart is fighting to make the NT and have to start 3 freshmen so they drop from 45 to 75 because they take 2 non-con losses to sims while their guys all have D- IQ.

"I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk."

If we can try "other things" then why has every coach gravitated towards the taking hella rolls and take hella walk-ons strategy naturally in the last 3-12 months?

Except you to be fair. You definitely have a unique strategy at D1 for high prestige teams with varying levels of success. I'm guessing you are thinking you'll start to see an uptick in success in the next few months, which I don't think is necessarily incorrect. You might have to reach even lower than normal (not in Minnesota) to fill your ships though.

FWIW another impact I haven't mentioned of the increased competitiveness is I feel locations like Utah/Colorado/Minnesota/LSU/Wisconsin got a SERIOUS ******* bump.

It depends on where the starts are and how the schedule shakes out, but multiple starts is almost always more than 7 spots on the PR. And it’s often much worse. And the difference between a 2 seed and a 4 seed has so much more impact than the difference between a 10 seed and a 15 seed for most coaches, I would think. But in reality, a C- Sacred Heart who is throwing around promises isn’t looking at a tourney shot anyway next year, in all likelihood, and that’s the real issue. They’re already playing for 2-3 years down the road, and will be next year, as well. And they can keep doing that *as long as promises aren’t limited* and that’s what allows the upward mobility in the long term.

UK is the only spot where I’ve had to reach down more than I’d really like. The A10 is eating everyone’s lunch in Smith, and Kentucky produces garbage for recruits (which is entirely absurd) so it is what it is. I take some filler in my other FB/P squads, but not more than I would expect. And UConn/Minny, where I’m still playing Flex/combo, I’m redshirting rather than taking walkons most seasons. Sometimes I’m looking to cut a guy, but I rarely do. When you ask why “every” (we’ll grant many) coach has gravitated toward the max rolls + walkons recently, my answer goes back to the common perception - I think it’s fundamentally flawed - that the resources gained from those walkons are worth more than the value they actually bring. I see guys complain about losing rolls, but then they turn around and willingly take multiple walkons to gather up scholarship resources, when each scholarship is really just a share of a ticket to get in on a roll for a player when you play that way. Makes no sense to me.

As for success, I’ve jumped around a bit in the past couple years. Other than UConn, which has had a number of high quality near-misses (including this last season’s S16 screw job lol) my other programs are all 12 season or under and I always do an overhaul (this season at Lincoln is the exception, I’m actually trying something new sticking with the team I inherited, haha), so I’m just starting to get them humming. UK is the weakest for sure, but even there reaching down for a handful of guys I’m confident you’d agree most power conference coaches wouldn’t touch, we’re going to make the tournament, and we’ll be a tough out even with 3 upperclassmen. Am I unique? Fine. But I’m not special or super awesome or anything. And I promise I’m not working harder than anyone else, probably the opposite.

Posted by gillispie on 6/8/2022 12:29:00 PM (view original):
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.

I've been saying this since the implementation of 3.0. Can't stand the time sink currently that goes into recruiting.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 6:56:00 PM (view original):

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.

I'll be happy when you end this experiment. It's a pain navigating around your DI team for those DII recruits.

Man how have I not read into this thread! I need to read and catch up once I get awake and settled in at work. But I will say that I basically agree with all of the OP. Good stuff here

Posted by rugburn on 6/9/2022 3:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 6:56:00 PM (view original):

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.

I'll be happy when you end this experiment. It's a pain navigating around your DI team for those DII recruits.

I'm probably going to end my D2 recruits only experiment in Tark after this season. I'm right on the cusp of making the NT this season and I feel like that's good enough. Too lazy to put any more effort in to it.

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.

Posted by rugburn on 6/9/2022 3:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 6/8/2022 12:29:00 PM (view original):
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.

I've been saying this since the implementation of 3.0. Can't stand the time sink currently that goes into recruiting.

There is so much QOL upgrades that can be put in the website regarding UX.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2022 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 6:34:00 PM (view original):
The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

Yeah Shoe I have no idea what you’re saying to rebut the simple fact that any single recruit is a better get for a lower team than a higher team so this means that there’s a lot of cases the lower team can offer a start but the higher team has to save it for a more elite guy

I don’t have to rebut anything. But I would still love to hear how you think a new coach at Sacred Heart will close the gap against me at UConn if they’re limited to 5 starts on a roster. Because a good coach can recruit a team full of good potential, good-in-the-right-spots tier-2/3 players and move a team like C- Sacred Heart up to competitiveness, but losing that start carrot would hurt a ton. Currently, they can offer starts all over the place, and basically feel no qualms about it. Starting freshmen always fundamentally hurts elite teams more than lower programs anyway. So limiting or chilling it helps out the elites on both ends. It limits the competition overall, and it reduces the instances where there will be a call for it in their own battle. Limiting promises is essentially a call for limited competitiveness. It’s just bad for the game.

I think the disconnect is that a lot of you folks treat this stuff like it’s chess with all your “meta” talk. It’s not move-countermove-checkmate. A lot of good coaches do it many different ways, that’s how the game was designed, that’s how it works. If you’re finding it isn’t working for you, well as mlitney even acknowledged in his first post, you can try other things.

The “higher” team doesn’t “have” to do anything. I offer promises to a wide array of players. Like I said, some of them are players who don’t get other (or many) resources from me. There are lots of ways to recruit. But again, my UConn and MSU teams will benefit much more than UMass from 4 year promises. There is absolutely no doubt. I’ll continue to promise the elites (when needed) and in spots 6-12 my prestige will more than make up for a B- start in a battle (if they battle), assuming I don’t feel like rolling the dice on an EE or a lost battle elsewhere.

so basically, you are saying making promises stronger - lasting longer - and making them weaker - taking them away - both of those will hurt the small schools? not saying that is a contradiction, the status quo could definitely be an inflection point. mostly just clarifying.

Posted by rugburn on 6/9/2022 3:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 6:56:00 PM (view original):

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.

I'll be happy when you end this experiment. It's a pain navigating around your DI team for those DII recruits.

I’m not a huge fan of D1 schools being allowed to recruit kids in the D2 player pool. In 2.0, the higher prestige D1 schools’ AD wouldn’t let you sign a D2 kid…not sure if that was removed with the upgrade or not.

But, if D1 is taking D2 talent, logically this means D2’s will dip into the D3 player pool. What is D3 supposed to recruit from? Are they relegated to the leftover scraps? That’s not ideal from a gameplay standpoint.

Don’t get me wrong, I know D1’s recruiting D2 players is allowed…I just don’t think it should be.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 6/9/2022 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rugburn on 6/9/2022 3:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/7/2022 6:56:00 PM (view original):

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.

I'll be happy when you end this experiment. It's a pain navigating around your DI team for those DII recruits.

I’m not a huge fan of D1 schools being allowed to recruit kids in the D2 player pool. In 2.0, the higher prestige D1 schools’ AD wouldn’t let you sign a D2 kid…not sure if that was removed with the upgrade or not.

But, if D1 is taking D2 talent, logically this means D2’s will dip into the D3 player pool. What is D3 supposed to recruit from? Are they relegated to the leftover scraps? That’s not ideal from a gameplay standpoint.

Don’t get me wrong, I know D1’s recruiting D2 players is allowed…I just don’t think it should be.

I'm all for restricting recruit pools to your division only. We've talked that topic ad nauseam around here but I still think that's the best way to do it.

But as long as d2 and d3 teams can sign players from the d1 pool, I think it makes sense for the d1 teams to dip into the d2 and d3 pools - if they choose to do so.

If you have 150 d1 teams plus another 100ish d2/d3 teams all trying to recruit from the same d1 player pool, there simply isn't enough viable talent to go around. Which often results in teams taking several walkons. It's just not a great design IMO.

“so basically, you are saying making promises stronger - lasting longer - and making them weaker - taking them away - both of those will hurt the small schools? not saying that is a contradiction, the status quo could definitely be an inflection point. mostly just clarifying.”

I’m saying chilling them - any policy change with a “chilling effect”, that would make them less commonly used, whether by forcing a 4-year commitment, or by removing the carrot altogether - will repress competitiveness (by explicit design, if you pay attention to what cub and others are saying), thereby hurting lower prestige schools.

One thing folks should keep in mind - these small schools don’t just climb by rolling against you for 5 stars. It may seem that way, if that’s all you’re rolling for, and then that’s the tonnage you’re exposed to. But taking away half their promise capacity means they often can’t fight you for those guys and still fill their rosters with players wrestled from sims. It’s that latter crew where they would really feel this kind of policy change.