4/18/2013 12:26 PM
Somebody brough this up in another post, but it wasn't on this topic.  Does anybody think that FSS is just way too accurate?  I mean what are the odds that scouts will be spot on in all of their evaluations?  Wouldn't it make sense to have some "randomness" built into player progression?  I have brought this up in the past, but thought it might be a good time to revisit the idea.  Not a huge percentage of players, but each year there should at least be a few that improve way more than expected and a few that improve way less than expected.  Real life examples would include Tony Mitchell of N TX, Damian Lillard of Weber St, Kylo O'Quinn of Norfolk St and CJ McCollum of Lehigh.  Recruiting isn't an exact science, but in WIS it is pretty darn close.
4/18/2013 12:30 PM
Posted by uwrjl93 on 4/18/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Somebody brough this up in another post, but it wasn't on this topic.  Does anybody think that FSS is just way too accurate?  I mean what are the odds that scouts will be spot on in all of their evaluations?  Wouldn't it make sense to have some "randomness" built into player progression?  I have brought this up in the past, but thought it might be a good time to revisit the idea.  Not a huge percentage of players, but each year there should at least be a few that improve way more than expected and a few that improve way less than expected.  Real life examples would include Tony Mitchell of N TX, Damian Lillard of Weber St, Kylo O'Quinn of Norfolk St and CJ McCollum of Lehigh.  Recruiting isn't an exact science, but in WIS it is pretty darn close.
+++++++1

the problem is that now the information is out there, it would be a HUGE pain taking the data away
4/18/2013 12:31 PM
heck, i don't think you should be able to "see" all of a player's ratings until you've coached the extensively or scouted them super-extensively. at the same time, we only have a play-by-play and box score to go by for filling in the blanks if there were 'invisible' ratings, so probably not worth it.
4/18/2013 12:37 PM
This is what high-high potential is for.  I've been a huge proponent of recruiting for high-high potential.  Some of the guys I've had drafted: #200 Center, #105 PG, no-star international center, #80 SF, #70 SF, #89 SG, #52 C, #90 PF.  I just had a completely unranked center lead the nation in scoring and become first team all-american for a big 6 school.  

Also, of your examples: Tony Mitchell was the #12 player in the country (rivals), so probably not the best example, the others are good examples.  I guess what I'm trying to say, recruiting in WIS is definitely not an exact science and just like in real life, you have to dig deep to find the gems.  
4/18/2013 12:45 PM
Posted by tkimble on 4/18/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
This is what high-high potential is for.  I've been a huge proponent of recruiting for high-high potential.  Some of the guys I've had drafted: #200 Center, #105 PG, no-star international center, #80 SF, #70 SF, #89 SG, #52 C, #90 PF.  I just had a completely unranked center lead the nation in scoring and become first team all-american for a big 6 school.  

Also, of your examples: Tony Mitchell was the #12 player in the country (rivals), so probably not the best example, the others are good examples.  I guess what I'm trying to say, recruiting in WIS is definitely not an exact science and just like in real life, you have to dig deep to find the gems.  
+1. The randomness is there in a positive way. I had a player improve by 60 points in perimeter, and I know I'm not the only one. Recently I even had a guy improve 40+ in bh and passing!

I would be ****** if I spent a large portion of my recruiting budget on a guy that is a complete bust. I would feel ripped off and since I am a customer, that would be a bad move for WiS.

I've also had guys get injured and, because I'm a bad coach, I've had players become ineligible. These are both negative aspects that can be seen as a player becoming a bust. I lost one player whom I promised a start as a freshman for all but five games his fish man year. Since, he came in with a low WE that first year of starting was crucial to his development. Player wasn't a bust but he sure could have been better.
4/18/2013 12:46 PM
Agree with OP.  I've made the suggestion before that there should either be wide ranges for initial attribute values for freshmen or something along this line to make player development less exact, esp. on the front-end of recruiting.  Maybe there's a 30-pt range for all kids initially.  If you use FSS (or whatever it may morph into), maybe this range narrows further.  If you do evals, it narrows even further.  And, importantly, the kid's exact starting figure wouldn't necessarily be in the middle of the range.  Just an example of what could be done.  Programming  something like this could be tedious and all, but a while back seble said they were thinking about a serious overhaul to recruiting anyway.

 
4/18/2013 12:52 PM
Another idea would be to steal the "Diamonds in the Rough" concept that WIS uses in HBD, except apply it in the offseason rather than midway through the season when it kicks in for HBD. It would make the rollover more exciting to log in to search for recruits and find an email from your assistant coach saying "Wow, we'd better drug test XXXX, because he really bulked up over the summer." or "XXXX must have lived in the gymnasium all summer, because his jump shot is worlds better than it was last winter."...bump the stat a few points and retain the original growth potential.

And, just like HBD, sometimes the improvements would randomly assign themselves to categories that don't do you a lick of good, so you could ***** and moan about the center whose perimeter game just improved or your point guard who now has a better instinct for blocking shots...

4/18/2013 1:15 PM (edited)
Posted by tkimble on 4/18/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
This is what high-high potential is for.  I've been a huge proponent of recruiting for high-high potential.  Some of the guys I've had drafted: #200 Center, #105 PG, no-star international center, #80 SF, #70 SF, #89 SG, #52 C, #90 PF.  I just had a completely unranked center lead the nation in scoring and become first team all-american for a big 6 school.  

Also, of your examples: Tony Mitchell was the #12 player in the country (rivals), so probably not the best example, the others are good examples.  I guess what I'm trying to say, recruiting in WIS is definitely not an exact science and just like in real life, you have to dig deep to find the gems.  
I have a guy with a chance to be a 2 time D2 All American due to a high-high low post potential.  I think he was around 20 or 30 when I recruited him, and he would have ended as a 99 if I didn't redshirt him his senior year.  Thats where you get your hidden gems.
4/18/2013 1:52 PM
Posted by clouseb on 4/18/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 4/18/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
This is what high-high potential is for.  I've been a huge proponent of recruiting for high-high potential.  Some of the guys I've had drafted: #200 Center, #105 PG, no-star international center, #80 SF, #70 SF, #89 SG, #52 C, #90 PF.  I just had a completely unranked center lead the nation in scoring and become first team all-american for a big 6 school.  

Also, of your examples: Tony Mitchell was the #12 player in the country (rivals), so probably not the best example, the others are good examples.  I guess what I'm trying to say, recruiting in WIS is definitely not an exact science and just like in real life, you have to dig deep to find the gems.  
I have a guy with a chance to be a 2 time D2 All American due to a high-high low post potential.  I think he was around 20 or 30 when I recruited him, and he would have ended as a 99 if I didn't redshirt him his senior year.  Thats where you get your hidden gems.
That's probably one of the weirder redshirts I've seen.. I understand why you're doing it, but you'll still be competitive next year without him.
4/18/2013 1:53 PM
Posted by tkimble on 4/18/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
This is what high-high potential is for.  I've been a huge proponent of recruiting for high-high potential.  Some of the guys I've had drafted: #200 Center, #105 PG, no-star international center, #80 SF, #70 SF, #89 SG, #52 C, #90 PF.  I just had a completely unranked center lead the nation in scoring and become first team all-american for a big 6 school.  

Also, of your examples: Tony Mitchell was the #12 player in the country (rivals), so probably not the best example, the others are good examples.  I guess what I'm trying to say, recruiting in WIS is definitely not an exact science and just like in real life, you have to dig deep to find the gems.  
Indeed so regarding Tony Mitchell. He originally signed with Mizzou, but was academically ineligible.
4/18/2013 3:20 PM
I think people have the impression  that FSS gives you complete information. Because, hey, it's all there, right? The truth is that there are many hidden things going on with players.

Before you jump on the "FSS gives you too much info" bandwagon, you'd be better advised to take a closer look at your players and ask yourself if they developed or performed in a manner consistent with what FSS led you to believe they would.  FSS isn't perfect and potential is far from perfect, but I think there are good things about both. Also, let's not forget that BOTH of these things were implemented to prevent coaches from being able to straight linear project where a recruit would develop and what kind of player he'd be. As things stand now, pick any 2 identical players and they will not develop or play the same. They may be quite similar, but they will not ever be the same.

Even under the pre potential system this was true. I would argue that this is one of the best things about WIS in general and HD in particular.

4/18/2013 3:23 PM
I keep track of my players while I have them and FSS information has never been wrong.
4/18/2013 3:33 PM
I didn't argue that it is wrong, just that it's not all encompassing in the info you get. Most obviously in that you have to do many, many scouting trips to determine High/High or Low/High. It's a tool, but not an all knowing tool. If you don't do multiple scout trips, you often end up with players who go from Blue to Black in one or more ratings within the space of 4 or fewer practices.   This happened to me often, early in the FSS era, but over time, I'm learned through bitter experience that scout trips are a necessity if you are planning on having good potential players who actually develop as High potential players.
4/18/2013 3:37 PM
question, what does high-high mean???  i only see "high" next to the players name... whats the high-high mean?
4/18/2013 3:40 PM
Low/High would be, I think 19/20 points improvement or thereabouts overall, while High/High could be anything from 21 to 80. Knowing which is which obviously makes 1 recruit look much better than another similar recruit.
of 3

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.