I agree completely.  I think that a team willing to make a player a starter earlier in their career should be rewarded with some WE growth.  I think that a full season of starting should improve WE by 6-9 points for everyone, regardless of their WE.  Those studies that TJ did on low WE showed that a player with a WE of 1 will only have that grow by one point after an entire season of starting.

I agree with weena

I was with you until you stated "In real life". I feel if you want things here to be like "real life" you'd have to take all the issues that happen in real life. Frequent injuries, players quitting during the season, players going early entry even though there's no chance they get drafted, players transferring after being your leading scorer, players getting suspended by your university for having sex with their girlfriend which violates the Honor Code, among a whole host of other issues.

Because if you wouldn't support all that as well, you're just cherry picking when "In real life" has merit for whatever you're advocating.

Posted by alblack56 on 6/1/2014 5:29:00 AM (view original):
I agree with weena

I agree with al

There used to be more frequent injuries but coaches got upset because their star player went down during the NT. So WIS modified injuries. There used to be Dilemmas but coaches hated them so WIS eliminated them. In those situations coaches did not want "real life". There are other examples too, such as all the misaligned conferences, the schools that have changed divisions or dropped basketball altogether, and the fact that DIII and Ivy League schools don't offer scholarships. HD ignores "real life" in those instances as well. You could call that cherry picking too I suppose.

However, there are many coaches here that scream for "real life". Look at the number of coaches who call for defensive matchups options or complain that Full Court Press and Fast Break are not full time sets. Why? Because it's not "real life". This game has numerous compromises both for and against "real life". There are some aspects of "real life" that don't translate into a gaming scenario. There are others that are simply easier to ignore. But are just as many situations where "real life" is appropriate. Just because you can't incorporate 100% of "real life" into this game does not mean we cannot have any. If someone wants to label that cherry picking then so be it. In my opinion, that is not a negative term when applied here.

the best situation would be if there were differences among players - and you could figure it out with evals

so, one guy with a WE of say 5 might increase only very slowly even if given plenty of minutes

another guy with a WE of 5 might improve at a much faster pace

eval might signal potential to improve WE and the rate of improvement - "this kid has been unmotivated, but talking with him and his parents, I think with the right coaching he could really turn that around".......

Posted by oldave on 6/1/2014 6:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 6/1/2014 5:29:00 AM (view original):
I agree with weena

I agree with al

I agree with dave

I don't think that WE growth rates should be changed, but I would be in favor of putting a freshman floor on WE of 8 or 9.  That is a similar fix to the one applied to prevent recruit generation with "high" potential in a category, but single digit initial rating.  

I think that would go a long way to improving low-D1 recruit generation and is easy.  Those players that are blue like a smurf, but with a 1 WE would be worth a look at a 10 WE (if you had a D- Prestige rebuild and could just stick them in the lineup and wait for the WE improvement to happen).   At a 1 WE, those players just get ignored.

I agree with Weena, al & dave :)

I'm curious as to why some people voted no.  I don't really understand the rationale Weena provided.  It seems that the people voting no are the ones who do not like change.  This was a glitch in the system in the first place.  There is absolutely no reason why a Work Ethic that starts at 5 should improve at a slower rate than a Work Ethic that starts at 40.  The argument that fixing the problem will make it irrelevant like Durability is false.  Work Ethic will stay play a big factor in improvement across the board.  You will still only be able to increase a player's work ethic by at most 9 or so per season, so it's not like guys with 1 work ethics will end at 80.  If a guy starts at 1 WE, then by the end of his senior season his WE will only get to at most 37. 

Posted by fd343ny on 6/1/2014 6:56:00 AM (view original):
the best situation would be if there were differences among players - and you could figure it out with evals

so, one guy with a WE of say 5 might increase only very slowly even if given plenty of minutes

another guy with a WE of 5 might improve at a much faster pace

eval might signal potential to improve WE and the rate of improvement - "this kid has been unmotivated, but talking with him and his parents, I think with the right coaching he could really turn that around".......

This would be cool.

Posted by utahjazz88 on 6/1/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
I'm curious as to why some people voted no.  I don't really understand the rationale Weena provided.  It seems that the people voting no are the ones who do not like change.  This was a glitch in the system in the first place.  There is absolutely no reason why a Work Ethic that starts at 5 should improve at a slower rate than a Work Ethic that starts at 40.  The argument that fixing the problem will make it irrelevant like Durability is false.  Work Ethic will stay play a big factor in improvement across the board.  You will still only be able to increase a player's work ethic by at most 9 or so per season, so it's not like guys with 1 work ethics will end at 80.  If a guy starts at 1 WE, then by the end of his senior season his WE will only get to at most 37. 

its not a glitch, not that I'm aware of. Everything improves on a curve - the closer you get to 0 or 100 (or max, whatever) the slower the improvement rate. Why should it be different for WE, arguably the stat most likely to be affected by a poor WE...