Posted by possumfiend on 8/6/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 8/6/2016 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/6/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):
"Part of the fun with the current HD is the challenge of taking a mediocre team and building a winner, through finding overlooked players and having a good handle on game-play. You have to EARN the ability to recruit top level players. "

Bingo

Exactly. There is a learning curve when it comes to the game. Took me many seasons (with lots of wrong turns along the way) to get the hang of things.

I don't disagree with this. The problem I have is that many of those who have "earned" that ability come on these message boards and act as if it's their given right to do so in perpetuity and the game in it's present format, more or less, provides for that. Mercy to anyone who suggests that if you've mastered the game you probably don't and/or shouldn't need the obscene advantages the current game gives you.

If people really think part of the fun of HD is the challenge of building a winner then I find it perplexing that so many who have achieved that success want to continue playing a game that, by and large, no longer provides that challenge. Beta seems to be doing a good job of moving the game in a direction where the challenge of sustaining success is no longer a foregone conclusion and needs to be earned every season. That's a positive that will appeal to a larger number of users in the long run.

I am trying to keep an open mind and not act as if I am entitled but I just don't think it is realistic that everyone can pretty much recruit anyone at DI. In season two of the beta, D+ Ball State landed the a top 25 player from the west coast over Oregon and Arizona. This season C+ Drake signed the number 2 PG (11 overall) in the first signing cycle. A large part of the appeal of the game for me anyway is maintaining some semblance of realism and I think that some of the recruiting barriers in the current game do that. I am trying to keep an open mind and have little doubt I will be able to adapt but I think that some of the changes and preferences don't make a lot sense. We appear to be going to a three lottery recruiting gen system. Before you were hoping to hit the local recruit gen lottery. Now you are hoping to hit the recruit gen + preference + signing cycle dice roll lottery. I think too many elements of randomness have been added plus the changes have made the game much more time consuming. I currently run four teams and I'm not sure that will be sustainable for myself in the long run.

Wait a minute. Aren't both Ball State and Drake D1? Are we now to the point where the upper D1's aren't satisfied with "the obscene advantages" already in place? The D2's and D3's are crushed, now it's the lower D1's turn to be shunted aside? Where does this all end?

I'd agree that it's unrealistic that top teams can recruit anyone they want at D1. My A+ Minnesota team can't realistically out recruit A+ UCLA on a guy that's 10 miles from the UCLA campus (probably can't do it on anyone under 360 miles for that matter unless everything broke right). I probably won't win a battle against the A+ Miami squad on a recruit under 360 miles from his campus either. But you're kidding yourself and everyone else if you're going to suggest that you don't essentially (not always) pick the guys you want season in and season out. It's not that challenging once you know what you're doing.

You say you want to strive for some semblance of realism and you don't like a low prestige school landing a top recruit, I respect that. But, I don't like playing a game where the top 25 teams in each world are loaded with 10 to 12, 4 and 5 star guys and have rosters up and down with 80 and 90 Ath, 80 and 90 Def, and 80 to 90 ratings in the core attributes for their position and they're that way every season. The reason I don't like that is because I too want a semblance of realism too. What I think is unrealistic is that IRL, the LONGEST streak of consecutive NCAA Tourney appearances is 27. It's been accomplished twice. Once by North Carolina, and Kansas currently has 27 consecutive appearances. The next longest tourney streak in history is 21 by Duke (this is also a current streak). No other team has ever had more than 20 consecutive appearances. The fifth longest streak in history is 18 by Gonzaga.

Now look at each and every world in HD and tell me how many teams in each world have streaks longer than 30 seasons, there are probably at least two in every world with active streaks of 30+ seasons. The number with 20+ seasons is probably close to five or 10 in every world. Not only do top teams RARELY miss the NT, but they are usually in the NT with a really high seed - rarely are these teams even on the bubble for NT consideration. My team is currently in the midst of 19 consecutive NT appearances. That would be good for the fourth longest streak in the history of the NCAA and I don't think I'm even in the top 5 of current consecutive streaks in my world. So argue, if you must, that you can't just recruit anyone you want, you're right. But the evidence of success from the top teams in each HD world strongly suggests that the elite team's ability to reload season after season is far too easy.

So beta takes away conference cash and lower's the effects of prestige, and yet it has still been argued on these boards by other elite coaches that the good coaches will still rise to the top. That's probably true, but it just won't be as easy. Good coaches will face more adversity in this game, that's not a bad thing. Just because Ball State lands a top recruit in beta doesn't mean it will happen when it goes live and even if it does who cares? It adds more interest to the game for more people if the low level school gets an occasional strong recruit. If this game is going to be successful in the long run it has to appeal to as many people as possible and it's not going to do that if we continue to argue that only those at the top have "earned" the right to have the top players on our teams.

Posted by possumfiend on 8/6/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 8/6/2016 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/6/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):
"Part of the fun with the current HD is the challenge of taking a mediocre team and building a winner, through finding overlooked players and having a good handle on game-play. You have to EARN the ability to recruit top level players. "

Bingo

Exactly. There is a learning curve when it comes to the game. Took me many seasons (with lots of wrong turns along the way) to get the hang of things.

I don't disagree with this. The problem I have is that many of those who have "earned" that ability come on these message boards and act as if it's their given right to do so in perpetuity and the game in it's present format, more or less, provides for that. Mercy to anyone who suggests that if you've mastered the game you probably don't and/or shouldn't need the obscene advantages the current game gives you.

If people really think part of the fun of HD is the challenge of building a winner then I find it perplexing that so many who have achieved that success want to continue playing a game that, by and large, no longer provides that challenge. Beta seems to be doing a good job of moving the game in a direction where the challenge of sustaining success is no longer a foregone conclusion and needs to be earned every season. That's a positive that will appeal to a larger number of users in the long run.

Look at my resume. I don't have an A+ team. I want the challenge of building a non-elite BCS program to an A+. But I don't want to be given parity without the challenge. Personally I wonder why so many coaches stay in Div 3 and 2...where is the fantasy factor of running a div 2 team? These changes go too far in taking away the advantages of elite programs.

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/6/2016 10:53:00 PM (view original):
Wait a minute. Aren't both Ball State and Drake D1? Are we now to the point where the upper D1's aren't satisfied with "the obscene advantages" already in place? The D2's and D3's are crushed, now it's the lower D1's turn to be shunted aside? Where does this all end?

In Beta, where we just picked a team and started coaching, there is no achievement connected to having a high prestige team. But in established worlds that is not the case. I don't mind having SOME leveling of the playing field. But C schools should not be signing 5 star players based on the player's desire to play at a crappy school (or as the game calls it wants a rebuild). You find an example of that in reality...not gonna happen. It is not that it can't ever happen, sometimes a 5 star player does not get offers from strong programs for whatever reason. But it should not be a flip of the coin. Perhaps these out of line signings (and whether you like it or not, a low end Div 1 team does not sign 5 star recruits in reality) will not happen in the established world where coaches know what they are doing...I hope so.

Leveling the playing field should come in areas like the hiring logic and the altering of the prestige logic for the elite programs (where North Carolina stays A+ whether or not the coach dominates)

I'm assuming some of the major posters in these forums have an alternate user ID. Otherwise, I'm wondering why someone who, for example, has only played 6 seasons and none of them at D1, could possibly have such strong opinions on D1 recruiting issues?

I think some people may be missing the point bc I may not have been clear. Having a great prestige in the beta does not equate to a sense of entitlement. Personally, I took a team that started off as an A- to mimic the prestige my HD teams tend to gravitate towards. Both of those teams were sub-par non-contending bottom feeders in the B1G that I worked into A level teams.

I like a lot of the changes in the beta. I think the ideas Seble has had are really fresh, and give recruiting a new dimension. I'm not unhappy that it is harder or more challenging. That's not the point. I'm unhappy that season in, season out, each recruiting session, there is virtually no difference between an A+ team and a C+ team. In a real game environment, the A+ will often be reflective of having strung together numerous great seasons. One of the problems I've had with the current HD is that it is virtually impossible to mimic a Gonzaga-type of phenomenon. The beta changes that and makes it possible. I applaud that. I don't like "built in" advantages where a baseline A+ can win a NT game every few seasons to maintain an A prestige, and the coach doesn't get fired. But look, getting to and building an A, and winning multiple national championships at Iowa wasn't a result of a sense of entitlement. It took long-term planning, signing numerous low level players who could fit the system, with a sprinkling of top tier talent. My beef with the beta is that well-intentioned changes have caused this to swing wildly from correcting the problem of entrenched users being able to dial it in, to turning the entire recruiting into a game of chance. When you can have a sub-par prestige team from across the country be neck in neck with the local A for a top 5 player, where C+'s regularly battle A+'s on equal footing, where only 40% of the time or so does even having a strong program give you an edge but 20% of the time it's actually a disadvantage, or where one team can out-recruit another team and still have to get lucky to land the recruit.

I don't fault the users who have the lower prestiges from going up against the teams that would currently walk all over them. That's the reason for the beta. To test this, see what's happening in these extremes. But there has to be some middle ground. Turning this whole thing into a big coin flip is not the answer. Because guess what, eventually even those coaches who have never played a season of D1 or won any NT games in their pre-beta careers will eventually be on the losing end of these coin flips, and simply walk away. When anyone who has any modicum of success starts becoming disillusioned with the product, that's when you have lost your sustainability for the product and it fails. I think all of us want to see this succeed, with the probable exception of my wife. And she will know I've been on here bc she'll look at my fit-bit readings. Damned technology.

For the record, I know your first comment about someone playing only 6 seasons of HD and none at D1 isn't a reference to me because if it is, it's flat out wrong. That being said:

"each recruiting session, there is virtually no difference between an A+ team and a C+ team."

This is false. This season in Beta I attempted to recruit a player in Wisconsin with my C .prestige Navy team (two openings). Wisconsin had an A- (three openings). I nearly maxed out my recruiting budget trying to land Patrick Avalos. He was the #6 PF and #26 overall. In the end I offered 20 minutes, a start, A CV, and 17 HVs (my budget wouldn't have allowed me to do 20 HVs on a guy less than 700 miles away). The only bad preference I had was "longtime coach" - Wisconsin may have had a small advantage there because jcfreder has been there one more season than I have at Navy. Here were my preferences:

Wants to Play: Very Good (20 promised minutes)
Distance: Far From Home Good (666 miles)
Success: Wants Success Good
Play Style: No Preference
Offense: Fast Break Neutral
Defense: No Preference
Conference Strength: No Preference
Coach Longevity: Wants Long-time Coach Bad

For the record, Wisconsin plays a Flex Offense so they gained no advantage for that category.
At one point I had been Very High and Wisconsin had been Very Low and I assume at that point he maxed out his HVs. because the next cycle I was dumped down from Very High to Moderate and he was back to Very High. I was able to climb back up to High but nothing more. He signed with Wisconsin. Aside from the fact that he may have put in more AP points, the only other real advantage Wisconsin could have carried was prestige.

I do think it is important for prestige to still be a big part of the equation. I'd like to see baseline prestige eliminated to made much less powerful. Because of the preferences, prestige is not as important anyway, even if it had the same weight as before, so it it possible for lower prestige teams to compete. But, I think the battles that Hawk is referring to are an example of where prestige may need to be more important that it is at this moment in time. I don't want to see it swing too much the other direction though because it is cool to see that a mid major can compete for top recruits if a coach focuses on a player that matches up with them really well. But a top recruit in Michigan going to a C+ school that is miles away over an A rated Michigan State should not happen, if Michigan State makes a strong effort to recruit the kid. If they were both close in prestige, then sure. I love the new system, but perhaps this area could be tweaked a little bit.

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/7/2016 9:19:00 AM (view original):
I do think it is important for prestige to still be a big part of the equation. I'd like to see baseline prestige eliminated to made much less powerful. Because of the preferences, prestige is not as important anyway, even if it had the same weight as before, so it it possible for lower prestige teams to compete. But, I think the battles that Hawk is referring to are an example of where prestige may need to be more important that it is at this moment in time. I don't want to see it swing too much the other direction though because it is cool to see that a mid major can compete for top recruits if a coach focuses on a player that matches up with them really well. But a top recruit in Michigan going to a C+ school that is miles away over an A rated Michigan State should not happen, if Michigan State makes a strong effort to recruit the kid. If they were both close in prestige, then sure. I love the new system, but perhaps this area could be tweaked a little bit.

I agree with this. To be clear, I wasn't complaining I lost out on the recruit in Wisconsin either. I ran the experiment as a test to see how easily I could challenge a higher prestige program from distance. My larger point was that Wisconsin's advantage was prestige and their prestige allowed them to overcome (and it appears pretty easily) my distance advantage. I think that's fine, and I think it demonstrates that prestige still has value.

Here is my problem with the recruiting, to get to a school with A+ prestige it took me 30 or more seasons, I had to move up the ranks, as well as take a low mid major D1 school, and get poached, get recruits 5 minutes from campus taken by higher prestige team, because they had more money, and higher prestige. The beauty was finding the diamonds in the ruff, the guys with alot of potential but not highly recruited. Now that I am at an A+ school in one of the strongest conferences, all that I have worked for, in time and money is thrown out the window.
In beta so far, I have an A prestige team, I have been out recruited by d- schools for player 10 minutes from campus, and by a c- school for a player 100 miles away. Both of these teams were recruiting across the country. Now I understand the preference thing, and I really like it, but on both occasions I had 3 or more very great with them and lost. Is there a certain preference that carries more weight? What player in RL would want a rebuild? I can understand playing time, but not players who want to rebuild. I understand the level recruiting field thing, and I agree, sometimes it doesn't seem fair. But every coach has went through it and put in the time and money.

*would be nice to see all my recruits on the recruiting page & see how much $ I have spent on them individually, as it is, I have to look at each recruit & get a tally. Way too many clicks to do something that is in the current engine.
And even then, there isn't a total when you click on history.
If I have limited money & want to dump the rest of my recruiting budget into a kid, I'd like to know who I have already invested the most in without having to get out a calculator.

Were any suggestions ever even considered??? Doesn't seem like it, there was an agenda here of what they wanted to be done and that was it:

• Drag and Drop Targets Page
• Exclude walk-on ratings from team total rating and average ratings
• Be able to compare recruits from your target list
• Be able to change AP’s easier, similar to practice plan
• Reminder email to schedule non-conference games if you haven’t filled all spots
• On the recruiting page under roster only show the players on your team that are projected to return for next season Ex: “Ohio St. Projected Roster”
• If you offer an ineligible player start/minutes it should carryover to their first eligible season. This should also weigh in their decision to come to your school rather than go JUCO
• If keeping "Play Style" as a preference then "Slow-Tempo" as a player preference needs to be added to counter balance "Fast Tempo"

Add a "offer scholarship when unlocked" option to account for unlocking an offer on the last cycle. It does no good to unlock a scholarship on the last cycle if you can't offer. Not talking about same division.

Add NBA Draft to the World Schedule. make new players available right after the draft takes place, since recruiting is over.

I think it would also be cool to have a section on your manage roster, below the current roster, for incoming players, so you can see who you have already signed for next year.

Baseline prestige are total baloney, good riddance to them. But prestige itself...EARNED PRESTIGE should not be too severely minimized. It is my feeling that right now the beta does not credit prestige enough. I think a small increase in the impact of prestige would help the game.