Once the recruiting session is over (tommorrow?), I could see the plug being pulled, as seble turns his attention to releasing the beta to the real worlds.

I know the beta is not ready, nor does it feel so, to most of you. But I also think the beta testing here has hit a point of diminishing returns, since the beta testers actually still testing (who haven't quit) are a very small number of individuals who are far more dedicated than avg, and have more time than most.

I see why it is time to release the beta, but I also see the release as being crazy. I think I'm going to try to stay off the forums for the first 3-6 months, assuming I can figure out a way to stick with playing the game.

I see where seble to mention in his letter than once things settle down, that the game will be marketed to new players.

I wonder what the poll results would look like for the bottoming out number of coach seasons playing? No change only increasing would be one answer, I suppose the worst case might be a 50% loss, with a most likely? I kind of am afraid to say.

I fear that a lot of veteran high level DI coaches will leave. The changes offer very little to that group of individuals, many of which have played the game for 10 plus years. Nerfed prestige, elimination of postseason cash, odd preferences, and no real solution to recruiting early entries will probably be too much for many to take.

Posted by grecianfox on 8/10/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):
I fear that a lot of veteran high level DI coaches will leave. The changes offer very little to that group of individuals, many of which have played the game for 10 plus years. Nerfed prestige, elimination of postseason cash, odd preferences, and no real solution to recruiting early entries will probably be too much for many to take.

Fear confirmed. I don't plan to spend another cent on HD. Debating whether or not to even play out existing credit I have.

I plan on moving up from D2 to D1 and possibly adding another team. I'm apparently in the minority but I like the changes. I like the new scouting system, added strategy regarding preferences and I actually like all of the elimination and nerfing of those items listed in the posts above. As I'm sure some will point out, I haven't played D1 so I don't have the benefit of the perspective of a D1 coach. True. But this seems like a way of leveling the playing field rather than helping those at the top stay at the top. If that's the case, I think it's a good thing. Guess I'll be finding out soon enough.

I added a team in Naismith D2 today. To me, part of the allure of this is a new challenge, and I believe that it might be possible for a mid major to dominate in this game, and that has me intrigued as well. Granted, this is a beta test, with limited participation, but I was able to sign two 5 star players with 3 open scholarships with a B prestige Dartmouth team, by choosing the recruits carefully, and using the best strategy I could come up with for my AP. I do wish there had been one more season, but hopefully Seble will continue to tweak it, and will come up with a solution to the EE problem. I have not experienced that yet, in Beta, but that will be a frequent thing to deal with in the real game for me. It may be that I don't always go for the best players, but try to build teams that won't have a lot of EEs.

The Big East is in shambles, were the recruits you got wanting a rebuild or just like your offense/defense? That's just good recruit gen really, seems extremely hard to win if the preferences don't line up for you

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/10/2016 10:24:00 PM (view original):
I added a team in Naismith D2 today. To me, part of the allure of this is a new challenge, and I believe that it might be possible for a mid major to dominate in this game, and that has me intrigued as well. Granted, this is a beta test, with limited participation, but I was able to sign two 5 star players with 3 open scholarships with a B prestige Dartmouth team, by choosing the recruits carefully, and using the best strategy I could come up with for my AP. I do wish there had been one more season, but hopefully Seble will continue to tweak it, and will come up with a solution to the EE problem. I have not experienced that yet, in Beta, but that will be a frequent thing to deal with in the real game for me. It may be that I don't always go for the best players, but try to build teams that won't have a lot of EEs.

Mid-majors used to be able to compete nationally - in an Allen world with full BCS conferences, Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern were able to win national championships over a 12 season period. During the same period, Morris Brown, Weber State, Utah and UNLV lost in championship games, and Montana went to the Sweet 16 or better for 6 consecutive seasons. That was before recruit generation was adjusted and potential was introduced. So now we need a huge update to return to where the game was in 2008?

I mean, think of your last sentence. You're basically saying that this update will make it more advantageous to build a weaker team. That isn't necessarily a great recommendation for this update.

chapel are you excited because you think the game is better or do you just think its more of a challenge, I think there is a difference

Posted by acn24 on 8/10/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/10/2016 10:24:00 PM (view original):
I added a team in Naismith D2 today. To me, part of the allure of this is a new challenge, and I believe that it might be possible for a mid major to dominate in this game, and that has me intrigued as well. Granted, this is a beta test, with limited participation, but I was able to sign two 5 star players with 3 open scholarships with a B prestige Dartmouth team, by choosing the recruits carefully, and using the best strategy I could come up with for my AP. I do wish there had been one more season, but hopefully Seble will continue to tweak it, and will come up with a solution to the EE problem. I have not experienced that yet, in Beta, but that will be a frequent thing to deal with in the real game for me. It may be that I don't always go for the best players, but try to build teams that won't have a lot of EEs.

Mid-majors used to be able to compete nationally - in an Allen world with full BCS conferences, Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern were able to win national championships over a 12 season period. During the same period, Morris Brown, Weber State, Utah and UNLV lost in championship games, and Montana went to the Sweet 16 or better for 6 consecutive seasons. That was before recruit generation was adjusted and potential was introduced. So now we need a huge update to return to where the game was in 2008?

I mean, think of your last sentence. You're basically saying that this update will make it more advantageous to build a weaker team. That isn't necessarily a great recommendation for this update.

Well you do that in real life too. Look at Wisconsin and MSU basketball teams. Izzo and Bo recruited 3 to 4 year players who weren't amazing recruits but grew, grew and grew! Kaminsky (4 years), Traevon Jackson (4 years), Sam Dekker (3 years), Nigel Hayes (3 years), Bryn Forbes (4 years), Denzel Valentine (4 years), Matt Costello (4 years), Draymond Green (4 years). And these teams turned out to be good! Connecticut got Napier and Boatright to stay 4 years, that worked out well for them!

Duke and Kentucky get top 10 recruits but teams can be successful without top recruits.

Posted by acn24 on 8/10/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/10/2016 10:24:00 PM (view original):
I added a team in Naismith D2 today. To me, part of the allure of this is a new challenge, and I believe that it might be possible for a mid major to dominate in this game, and that has me intrigued as well. Granted, this is a beta test, with limited participation, but I was able to sign two 5 star players with 3 open scholarships with a B prestige Dartmouth team, by choosing the recruits carefully, and using the best strategy I could come up with for my AP. I do wish there had been one more season, but hopefully Seble will continue to tweak it, and will come up with a solution to the EE problem. I have not experienced that yet, in Beta, but that will be a frequent thing to deal with in the real game for me. It may be that I don't always go for the best players, but try to build teams that won't have a lot of EEs.

Mid-majors used to be able to compete nationally - in an Allen world with full BCS conferences, Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern were able to win national championships over a 12 season period. During the same period, Morris Brown, Weber State, Utah and UNLV lost in championship games, and Montana went to the Sweet 16 or better for 6 consecutive seasons. That was before recruit generation was adjusted and potential was introduced. So now we need a huge update to return to where the game was in 2008?

I mean, think of your last sentence. You're basically saying that this update will make it more advantageous to build a weaker team. That isn't necessarily a great recommendation for this update.

Fixed recruit generation and returning more to the game as it was pre-potential would make it much more competitive across the board. Agree that there was no need for this big of an overhaul.

Posted by cubcub113 on 8/10/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 8/10/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/10/2016 10:24:00 PM (view original):
I added a team in Naismith D2 today. To me, part of the allure of this is a new challenge, and I believe that it might be possible for a mid major to dominate in this game, and that has me intrigued as well. Granted, this is a beta test, with limited participation, but I was able to sign two 5 star players with 3 open scholarships with a B prestige Dartmouth team, by choosing the recruits carefully, and using the best strategy I could come up with for my AP. I do wish there had been one more season, but hopefully Seble will continue to tweak it, and will come up with a solution to the EE problem. I have not experienced that yet, in Beta, but that will be a frequent thing to deal with in the real game for me. It may be that I don't always go for the best players, but try to build teams that won't have a lot of EEs.

Mid-majors used to be able to compete nationally - in an Allen world with full BCS conferences, Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern were able to win national championships over a 12 season period. During the same period, Morris Brown, Weber State, Utah and UNLV lost in championship games, and Montana went to the Sweet 16 or better for 6 consecutive seasons. That was before recruit generation was adjusted and potential was introduced. So now we need a huge update to return to where the game was in 2008?

I mean, think of your last sentence. You're basically saying that this update will make it more advantageous to build a weaker team. That isn't necessarily a great recommendation for this update.

Well you do that in real life too. Look at Wisconsin and MSU basketball teams. Izzo and Bo recruited 3 to 4 year players who weren't amazing recruits but grew, grew and grew! Kaminsky (4 years), Traevon Jackson (4 years), Sam Dekker (3 years), Nigel Hayes (3 years), Bryn Forbes (4 years), Denzel Valentine (4 years), Matt Costello (4 years), Draymond Green (4 years). And these teams turned out to be good! Connecticut got Napier and Boatright to stay 4 years, that worked out well for them!

Duke and Kentucky get top 10 recruits but teams can be successful without top recruits.

Your example isn't quite exact. None of those guys were elite, 5-star recruits like chapel is talking about. Dekker was a relatively highly touted recruit, but not the rest of them - they grew and developed while in college. And even with Dekker - he signed with a Big-10 school coming off a 26-10 season and their second straight Sweet-16. It isn't like he signed with an Ivy league school. If you want realism, then we need to get rid of this update, top 50 recruits almost never sign with schools that aren't BCS.

Ultimately my point is, that we need to try and rewrite recruiting, because previous changes to recruiting eliminated paths to success that didn't start with signing classes filled with elite recruits. With potential determining exactly what every player can be, seble eliminated that opportunity. The Maine NT referenced above was mine, before I moved to Duke in Allen. I did get lucky and signed 1 elite player, but the core of that team came from signing 11 who had decent core ratings and work ethics in the 70s or higher. They saw bigger ratings growth, in the areas I wanted them to improve so they could fill the roles I wanted them to fill, and IQ growth than elite recruits. 5 kids off my national title team were drafted, and the following season 4 of the 5 preseason all-americans were from Maine. Recruit generation and potential killed that as a path to success.

Posted by acn24 on 8/10/2016 11:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 8/10/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 8/10/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/10/2016 10:24:00 PM (view original):
I added a team in Naismith D2 today. To me, part of the allure of this is a new challenge, and I believe that it might be possible for a mid major to dominate in this game, and that has me intrigued as well. Granted, this is a beta test, with limited participation, but I was able to sign two 5 star players with 3 open scholarships with a B prestige Dartmouth team, by choosing the recruits carefully, and using the best strategy I could come up with for my AP. I do wish there had been one more season, but hopefully Seble will continue to tweak it, and will come up with a solution to the EE problem. I have not experienced that yet, in Beta, but that will be a frequent thing to deal with in the real game for me. It may be that I don't always go for the best players, but try to build teams that won't have a lot of EEs.

Mid-majors used to be able to compete nationally - in an Allen world with full BCS conferences, Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern were able to win national championships over a 12 season period. During the same period, Morris Brown, Weber State, Utah and UNLV lost in championship games, and Montana went to the Sweet 16 or better for 6 consecutive seasons. That was before recruit generation was adjusted and potential was introduced. So now we need a huge update to return to where the game was in 2008?

I mean, think of your last sentence. You're basically saying that this update will make it more advantageous to build a weaker team. That isn't necessarily a great recommendation for this update.

Well you do that in real life too. Look at Wisconsin and MSU basketball teams. Izzo and Bo recruited 3 to 4 year players who weren't amazing recruits but grew, grew and grew! Kaminsky (4 years), Traevon Jackson (4 years), Sam Dekker (3 years), Nigel Hayes (3 years), Bryn Forbes (4 years), Denzel Valentine (4 years), Matt Costello (4 years), Draymond Green (4 years). And these teams turned out to be good! Connecticut got Napier and Boatright to stay 4 years, that worked out well for them!

Duke and Kentucky get top 10 recruits but teams can be successful without top recruits.

Your example isn't quite exact. None of those guys were elite, 5-star recruits like chapel is talking about. Dekker was a relatively highly touted recruit, but not the rest of them - they grew and developed while in college. And even with Dekker - he signed with a Big-10 school coming off a 26-10 season and their second straight Sweet-16. It isn't like he signed with an Ivy league school. If you want realism, then we need to get rid of this update, top 50 recruits almost never sign with schools that aren't BCS.

Ultimately my point is, that we need to try and rewrite recruiting, because previous changes to recruiting eliminated paths to success that didn't start with signing classes filled with elite recruits. With potential determining exactly what every player can be, seble eliminated that opportunity. The Maine NT referenced above was mine, before I moved to Duke in Allen. I did get lucky and signed 1 elite player, but the core of that team came from signing 11 who had decent core ratings and work ethics in the 70s or higher. They saw bigger ratings growth, in the areas I wanted them to improve so they could fill the roles I wanted them to fill, and IQ growth than elite recruits. 5 kids off my national title team were drafted, and the following season 4 of the 5 preseason all-americans were from Maine. Recruit generation and potential killed that as a path to success.

I couldn't agree more, acn24. I used to recruit utterly bizarre players as compared to today's standard but, because I could control development, they would end up being very effective upperclassmen. The pre-potential era was a time for roster creativity when there were literally a dozen different ways to build a winning team. I miss it very much.