9/19/2012 1:08 PM (edited)
Posted by dahsdebater on 9/18/2012 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robotdevil on 9/18/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I will not be addressing posts that aren't related to the study. If anyone feels the need to guess my identity please start a new thread. Let's keep this one on topic.
You don't own the thread.  You started it, but it's a public forum, and anyone can post anything they want.

I maintain that the fact you are consciously and aggressively hiding your identity clearly implies that something about it would seem likely to invalidate your study in the eyes of the general forum public.  That's enough to invalidate it to me.

Of course, gillispie's other suggestion - that maybe you're hiding the fact that you're violating the Fair Play Guidelines - really isn't a superior alternative in my mind.  Frankly, if that's what's going on I hope CS catches you using IP addresses and bans all of your accounts.  But I still think you just think you have something to hide.
im not sure why you feel the need to be so aggressive.. its really unwarranted, the OP has done nothing wrong. your assertion that he is aggressively hiding his ID is ridiculous... after tolerating about 20 posts on the subject, he politely asked people to just drop it and focus on the point of the thread. nothing wrong with that.

i suggested the 1000 miles or 2 team in 1 world thing (which is NOT violating fair play guidelines) as a reasonable excuse, i wasn't implying he was using those teams to collude or anything even close to that. if someone was going to do that, the LAST thing they would do is start this thread. the 1000 mile rule is retarded for teams in different divisions, and ive never seen it enforced that way... and nor has that been an issue for the last 5 years until just recently, maybe. the writing of the rule does not say division, but those rules are all pretty poorly written, so im not sure what CS means (and really, id prefer not to know and just assume they are talking about same division like it always was). so i was suggesting MAYBE that was his concern. this thought came out of an earlier post, where he said he assumed that having bad IQ was allowed, not a violation of fair play guidelines, under the no throwing games part. it could be as simple is he is only 95% sure you are even allowed to keep such bad IQ and isn't willing risking anything to his main account (if it is fair play guidelines related, which is very possibly/probably not the case. now i feel bad for even making the suggestion, although all of my suggestions were along the harmless lines...)
9/19/2012 1:39 PM
Obviously this is off-topic, but I don't see why the 1000-mile rule SHOULDN'T (not arguing whether it does) apply across divisions.  If you have a D2 and a D3 team, you're going to look at the D2 pool with both teams.  Once you're doing that you will, at least subconsciously, wind up applying what you learn about recruits in the area for one team to your other team, even if it's only on the level of "well, I know there is a shortage of quality PGs around, so I better be careful to lock my guy up."  And that's assuming you do your absolute best to actively avoid helping one team with the other.
9/19/2012 2:11 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 9/19/2012 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Obviously this is off-topic, but I don't see why the 1000-mile rule SHOULDN'T (not arguing whether it does) apply across divisions.  If you have a D2 and a D3 team, you're going to look at the D2 pool with both teams.  Once you're doing that you will, at least subconsciously, wind up applying what you learn about recruits in the area for one team to your other team, even if it's only on the level of "well, I know there is a shortage of quality PGs around, so I better be careful to lock my guy up."  And that's assuming you do your absolute best to actively avoid helping one team with the other.
i havent had d2/d3 teams that close from my own experience. i have had d1/d3 teams about 50 miles apart, and that obviously had no interaction. and ive also had d1/d2, about 200 miles apart, and the d1 school (due to a very strong acc and big east) recruited very much in the direction of my d2 school, so they had very very similar FSS states every year. i never saw an issue with it - i guess because both teams were high end for their division - if the d1 school was like a major rebuild d prestige, there would be more overlap. but with a+ uk, if i was ever looking at players my d2 school could recruit, it was the very quick eye scan for a total standout in 30 seconds type of thing. there were definitely a couple times i would see a guy and go hmm, nah, but still pretty good. and then in d2 i would be going through and see the same guy and go man hes good! wait, havent i seen him before? but i dont see the harm in that, the states were scouted on both schools independently, and if i saw a guy in a 30 second scan of a page of recruits, id definitely notice him in d2. i never went "oh hes good, i better scout state X" (helps state doesnt show on the ratings view maybe, but even before i knew it existed, i never saw an issue, either). and i definitely never got enough info to be meaningful, about the d1 landscape when i searched d1 with my d2 school and scrolled down to where i had a chance, in those 2 seconds while i scrolled down, nor about the d2 landscape in the 30 seconds i spent scanning the low end d1 recruits.

now, based on that experience, i would guess d2/d3 are similarly not really an issue, assuming you are generally having higher end recruiting views or lower end views with both schools. say you have an a+ school in both, close to each other. for starters, noticing "man not many pg options" for my d2 school has **** all to do with d3, you could have a ton of pg options for d3, but they are useless to d2. if you are the kind of coach who mostly looks up a division (like me), then you really are mostly looking at d1 with your d2 school, and quickly checking d2 for any standouts - certainly not surveying the scene adequately to make all these judgments about the general d3 situation. and if you happen to notice a good d2 player, but not good enough, and you aren't taking the effort to write them down or anything, or where they are from, then either 1) they fall into the same state as your d3 school is scouting regardless, and it doesnt matter you saw them, or 2) they dont fall into the same state as your d3 school, and you arent going to scout that state just because you glanced at that player for 2 seconds.

on the other hand, you could be the kind of guy who recruits heavily out of your own division. but you are probably that way for both schools then? (this might be a leap, having not coached d3 in a while). if thats the case, the d2 school is heavily looking at the d2 pool, but the d3 school is not. so any judgements you make about things like, gee, not many rebounding type bigs, they really dont apply. and also, if you happen to notice a player who is good but not good enough, and you arent specifically trying to note them or anything, i think it would again not really be an issue.

now, the biggest issue i see is this. the way i recruit, i really dont see an issue. but what about the way someone else recruits? it seems to me the normal ways i can think about really aren't a problem. but maybe different people are different. what kind of recruiting strategy do you see it really being a problem for? or what problems do you see in the strategies i suggested?

i honestly dont even have a problem with <insert very well respected and accomplished coach> having two d2 schools in the same conference very close to each other. maybe he still doesn't, and part of it is because i know hes an honest guy. i wouldnt think WIS should really allow the 2 teams in a conference thing for people not grandfathered in, but even in the two d2 schools in the same state situation (which is about as bad as it can get, no?), i dont think its that big of a deal. actually 2 d1 schools is probably worse. but those two d2 schools, they are probably not benefiting from each other's scouting, for the same reasons outlined above. the only real issue is they won't compete with each other, but i have conference mates all around me that i never or maybe once in 50 seasons have competed with. so i think its better NOT to have 2 schools in the same state, but for a coach who is not intentionally abusing it (if they are, doesnt matter where the schools are), i dont really think its that big of a deal, and people should be grandfathered in. the travesty of ruining their fun is a lot bigger crime, in my book.

the only case i really struggle with is d1, two schools in the same area, same prestige range (within a grade, or 4 partial grades maybe). i dont think that should be allowed, at least if those schools have overlapping 200 miles. you just might learn too much about what other schools are doing. and it is a slight unfair advantage to not compete with that other school ever, where you might sometimes. in d1, competition is MUCH higher, so those slight advantages have to be taken more seriously. but still, if there was a coach in my world with 2 a range prestige schools within 400 miles, i still wouldnt complain if they were grandfathered in, if they seemed to be doing things above board. however, i wouldnt allow it going forward.

IMO the rule should be, you cannot have schools with overlapping 360 miles regions (720 miles) in the same division. if i made a sim, i would only allow 1 team per division, but i would let you skip ahead in worlds (like, skip d3 if youve succeeded in d2 somewhere else, and skip d2 if youve succeeded in d1 somewhere else), and have multiple worlds on the same schedule. they would be like "sister worlds" to allow people to recruit on 1 schedule or maybe 3 schedules instead of 9 (with 9 teams). also, i WOULD allow the taking over of previous teams in divisions, but id do pulldowns/drop downs differently, with no overlap between divisions, that is just sloppy and without benefit, IMO. plus, id only have you scout your division players, if i had an FSS-like concept at all. so there would be absolutely no overlap between divisions like there is in HD. however, given the way HD is today, in the interest of not ruining peoples' fun, i would just make the rule, no 2 schools within 720 miles in the same division. and that is very possibly overly restrictive in highly competitive areas, there are lots of schools 4, 5, 6 hundred miles away i NEVER compete with on the east coast. but still, i dont think its worth the additional complexity to make different rules for different regions.
9/19/2012 2:22 PM
I agree that 720 miles would be a much less arbitrary number.  But I will say this:

When I recruit for my D3 teams, assuming I'm not really busy at the time, I look at virtually all the recruits in the D2 and D3 pools.  For D2 I look at the entire D2 pool and the potential D1 dropdowns.  There really is significant overlap there, even if the teams might not be looking for exactly the same guys I'd still be taking a fairly close look at a lot of the same guys.  As I said earlier, it doesn't even have to impact what states you scout, which would obviously be unethical.  Just having a more in-depth understanding of the overall landscape of available recruits as a result of having 2 teams' worth of FSS data provides at least a small advantage.  I know I absolutely put extra effort into players if I think that the regional recruiting pool makes them more desirable than they might ordinarily be.  I think it would be impossible for me to totally tune out that information (IE with respect to the overall pool of available players in the area) if I had two schools within a few hundred miles of each other in D2/D3.  I think D1 and D3 is obviously much closer to fine.  You could cheat very easily and cover it up fairly well, but at least assuming you don't want to cheat it's very easy to avoid.  And D2 and D1 is pretty safe as well, at least assuming a decent Big 6 D1 team.  I guess it's only D2/D3 or D2/low D1 I see pitfalls to.
9/19/2012 2:31 PM
i can appreciate that viewpoint, dahs. i guess i have never looked closely enough at the d2 pool with my d2 teams to feel i glean anything about the landscape of the recruits. especially now that i use yatzr's recruiting tool (shameless plug warning - i recommend it to everyone, even though i didn't write it and don't benefit from doing so - but its great! try it), and basically only look at what is programatically determined to be the top 10 or 20 recruits at a position. but really, that was always the case. i can see how someone who spends more time can have that overlap. i used to spend like 10 hours a recruiting session *just looking for recruits before recruiting started*, but that was before potential and before i knew the "ratings" drop down existed. but still, having done that, i can appreciate how someone might spend an hour say, looking at d2 recruits in d2, or even 15 minutes. and by then you'd probably have a decent idea what the situation was. although in that case, those sort of sentiments really decrease in importance when you have a school even a few hundred miles away, as the overlapping region quickly becomes the minority of the other schools' region. by 500 miles those sentiments are totally useless, i think, and probably sooner. but still, you make a valid point.
9/19/2012 10:25 PM (edited)
I may have overreacted. Many have sitemailed and would like information on this. It is much easier for me to provide that on these forums than it is through sitemail. Tonight when the new recruits are added to the team I will update this thread with the starting IQs. From there the IQs will be pasted in here every 7 games so that we can see the effect that playing time and starts has on them. If I'm forgetting anything or if there is any other data that someone feels is relevant let me know so that we can have it included in the study from the get go.

Not sure if i've said on here or not yet, the team will be running motion/man2man.

*I have no problem even including a print screen of FSS every season to include this one, if it helps put some at ease that there is no wrong doing taking place here. If someone knows a good site, maybe img bucket will do that i can link this to. 
  
9/19/2012 10:39 PM
Thank you for keeping it in the forums to make it easier for all. It is an interesting project and personally I feel you could just ignore those who question your motives. (I've got my forum settings to ignore posts with low star ratings so it blocks them out to avoid the clutter and allows me to open them for viewing if i choose. I could recommend the same for others who wish to avoid the clutter.
9/19/2012 11:34 PM
On topic, the players look decent at DIII. I don't know if I would call them sweet 16 yet, as I've just recently gotten back into DIII myself, but I'm leaning on no right now for sweet 16. I think it will dpend a lot on your second class. You really need some legitimate scorers and rebounding imo. (I'm reading based on your projected ratings which I expect to be a little better than shown).

Here is my DIII team which I think could be sweet 16 or better, but I'm lacking a bit on ahtleticism, defense and rebounding imo. (I'm sure I'm not the most qualified coach to comment, but I think you might need better players to achieve sweet 16. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12441
9/20/2012 11:33 AM
Since you will be using no team practice minutes, individual player ratings will max out faster.  Consequently, your players will be less different from one another in individual ratings (more will be close to their max).  Having lots of players of similar skill level basically means having more depth, which would tend to favor playing a press and (relatively) disfavor playing a zone.  

However, I bet that terrible IQs are worst in the press of all the defenses, since press teams are always on the precipice of an unacceptable number of fouls, and often fall off this precipice against good teams.  Having F IQ's will amplify these foul problems.  In contrast, increased foul problems in a zone isn't that big of a deal, starting from such a small number of fouls.  

You're playing a man, so you're in the middle on both counts.  It would be interesting to see if one of these factors leads you to switch to another defense.  Conventional wisdom is that a motion offense requires the most balanced distro, which would be easier to pull off with a more balanced (i.e. more players maxed out) team.  


9/20/2012 11:44 AM (edited)
Here is a link to the team's starting IQs.

Starting IQs

Let me know if there are any issues viewing it.
9/20/2012 12:19 PM
Blocked at work, no biggie, but you might as well just do this since you're being transparent anyway: Starting IQs
9/20/2012 12:45 PM
True, that will work for now. I will be uploading after every 7 games to the image site, so we can have a documented history.
9/20/2012 1:24 PM
are you going to post updates on the attributes and growth every seven games as well? If so, please continue to color code for potential...
9/20/2012 9:35 PM
as a division foe, I'm not sure how I feel about you recruiting Bob Knight in Knight...

besides that, like I've all ready told you, I'm looking forward to seeing the results!
9/20/2012 9:40 PM
Did you say you were running motion? Those IQs are a good start ;) 
of 11

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.