Sorry for the barrage but another thing is the way seeding is done, I think sos is weighted too much, I'd like team rating to take into account a bit as well for the real life "eye factor"

Like looking at this past season irl you had:

RK	TEAM	RPI	D1 W-L	SOS	NCRP	NCSS	CFRP	CFSS	1-25	26-50	51-100	L12	LRPI	OFFQ	DEFQ	ASM
1(1 seed)	Kentucky	.6731	34-0	45	5	21	1	93	6-0	5-0	11-0	12-0	2	9.1	14.1	23.2
2(1)	Wisconsin	.6630	31-3	16	10	11	4	66	4-2	5-0	10-0	11-1	8	6.4	12.5	19.0
2(2)	Kansas	.6630	26-8	1	8	2	7	10	9-5	3-2	6-1	7-5	5	8.0	4.2	12.2
4(1)	Villanova	.6613	32-2	52	2	71	5	73	5-1	8-0	5-1	12-0	6	9.9	7.3	17.2
5(1)	Duke	.6585	29-4	11	1	40	3	19	7-2	4-1	6-1	11-1	1	15.1	3.4	18.5
6(2)	Arizona	.6563	31-3	38	3	94	2	55	3-0	6-0	9-0	11-1	7	10.1	9.6	19.7
7(2)	Virginia	.6533	29-3	25	9	38	6	61	5-3	3-0	6-0	10-2	3	-0.3	17.4	17.1
8(2)	Gonzaga	.6349	31-2	84	19	20	21	143	1-1	5-1	3-0	11-1	9	11.3	6.9	18.3
9(3)	Iowa State	.6288	25-8	13	7	105	10	8	7-5	6-0	3-2	9-3	11	13.6	-1.2	12.4
10(3)	Baylor	.6258	23-9	3	11	19	15	6	6-4	2-3	4-2	8-4	14	4.5	8.7	13.2
RK	TEAM	RPI	D1 W-L	SOS	NCRP	NCSS	CFRP	CFSS	1-25	26-50	51-100	L12	LRPI	OFFQ	DEFQ	ASM
11(4)	North Carolina	.6234	24-11	2	15	5	22	2	3-7	4-3	4-1	7-5	18	14.1	1.1	15.2
12(4)	Maryland	.6227	27-6	55	22	82	9	69	4-2	1-2	5-2	9-3	10	3.6	5.6	9.2
13(6)	SMU	.6201	26-6	42	41	7	20	105	0-2	5-2	8-2	10-2	19	4.9	6.4	11.3
14(7)	VCU	.6163	26-9	9	32	1	55	98	1-2	5-3	8-3	8-4	23	8.0	2.2	10.2
15(5)	Northern Iowa	.6153	30-3	142	23	126	27	165	1-2	2-0	5-0	11-1	22	1.1	10.2	11.3
16(3)	Notre Dame	.6118	29-5	94	4	327	8	26	6-3	1-0	4-2	9-3	4	12.6	1.7	14.3

Where as in HD I bet Kansas is the #1 seed overall and Iowa St. Baylor, UNC all move up to all 2/3 seeds if not a 1 seed out of that group as Zaga drops and sorry ND enjoy your 6 seed and Northern Iowa gets ****** by a 12 seed.

seble: I won't rip you at all. I will tell you that I was getting very close to quitting WIS for the complete lack of updates and the seeming indifference to your
customers that pay your salary.  I figured it was Fox Sports just not letting you work on the game and using you on other endeavors. If anything needs fixed---the lack of firing of coaches at the D1 level, and especially in the power 6 conferences, would be a huge improvement. In one world in the ACC a coach has been to the NT once in the last 33 seasons. He hasn't been to the PI in the last 7 seasons. He was 0-27 last season. He is 2-46 in the ACC in the last 3 seasons. Meanwhile in this 2 games a day world many good coaches of mid-major teams cannot get a power 6 conference job because few ever open up. I don't think you should make the firings too harsh but as the above example shows--your system is broken. The formula should not be the same for all schools. Duke and Nebraska should not be under the same firing guidelines.
Looking forward to the changes and thank you for the being the only person at WIS that does seem to listen to the customers.

happeningsoftheharperhousehold.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/hawaii-beach.jpg

Seble doesn't have a comment, but he sent this postcard.

"I also have a long list of smaller suggestions that we've accumulated over the years, so we may be able to sneak in a few of those as well."

LOL!

Making team rating a factor in seeding? Awful idea. Some ratings don't matter in gameplay such as WE and DUR. Many teams have walk-ons, and all-in-all in will probably increase the already ridiculous gap between the Big 6 schools and everyone else.

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/26/2015 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Honestly my bigges thing for recruit generation would be getting rid of the absolutely unrealistic players with 1 speed or 6 athleticism or 7 def.  These guys aren't collegiate athletes, or even real athletes.  The rating system should be clearly defined such us the rating system is rating off collegiate play, so a 98 LP is very rare and elite, but in the nba it would maybe be a 86 or something but for D1 collegiate play its some of the best offense.  LIkewise while their should be bad players there should be very few sub 10 ath/def players I can see the occasional 12 ath 80 speed guys, as I have friends I play basketball with that fit that stereotype, they can sure as hell run striaght line speed, but are otherwise pretty uncordinated.  I'd also like to see ath/def not as correlated, i think it is some of the 2 ratings that do correlate a lot in real life, but I think there should be more exceptions where you can have high ath players without being great defenders, or high def ratings but low on ath.

Going back to recruit generation and under the assumption the in game engine is not changed, I really want the players through D1-3 more "real" the guy who won't hit 30 def or 40 ath should not be going D1 even with 99 per/99 bh/99pas I'd still be lead to believe they will not be able to be successful at high end D1 and should not be ranked as the #76 PG or something like that, I could see unranked and then sign with a high D2 or really bad D1.  Same with the big man of 25 ath 30 def but 99 reb/sb/lp I do not believe under the current game engine that player is really ranked as the #49 C.  Yes rankings should not be 100% accurate, as they are not in real life, but they should be believable.

Some other big things I want to hit on, if a major recruiting change is in store I'd like to bring to the attention that in real life any sane person does not gain 40 ******* athleticism points in 4 years unless they are doing some major doping even then.  Your telling me the majority of collegiate athletes are doping to a level their athleticism is going from 30 to 75.  If a major recruiting change is in place I'd like to see more realistic changes, this would honestly be the biggest change as ath should really never get much better unless we are talking strength.  I could still believe massive defensive increases as that makes sense, as well as speed.  Another big thing is IQ, IQ should be more like how ratings work, the should have a starting letter grade and a potential similar to FT rating is done.  I think their should be a slight correlation to HS GPA as well, but barely noticeable maybe something like 2 players 1 with 3.8 GPA and the other is 2.2 and they both start C- blue IQ then maybe the 3.8 GPA ends with A compared to the 2.2 guy with a B/B+.  As well as I think IQ should be able to be higher for incoming freshmen I think it makes the game value upperclassmen too much which is a reverse trend of where at least upper D1 basketball is going.  I think placing too much value on IQ/upperclassmen makes class structure a big thing when it really isn't, the only time I can think of it being a factor at least in big D1 is when florida had a bunch of seniors 2 seasons ago, but teams don't really go through cycles of elite play and non elite play based off class stucture, yes it does make a factor for a lot of teams, like I know OSU had a down year after their NC run in 07(i believe 08 was NIT) and florida struggled in 13.  But it should not be as rigid as HD where if you have no upper classmen you cannot compete even if your players are going to be very good.  I still think superclasses should be better than a more balanced class, but i dont think the super classes should have a supreme advantage as well as not also totally sucking when they are only underclassmen especially if they are talented.

You have very optimistic changes, but honestly if they implemented the changes you are suggesting i probably wouldnt play anymore. I think you're focusing too much on making the game too hand in hand with real life. From what i get from your suggestions, athleticism and speed wouldnt grow at all? And perimeter, low post would barely grow because in actuality, players in real life dont get drastically better though 4 years? Sounds like the making for a boring game with a "what you recruit, is what you get" philosophy.

Posted by kevodaphenom on 8/26/2015 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/26/2015 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Honestly my bigges thing for recruit generation would be getting rid of the absolutely unrealistic players with 1 speed or 6 athleticism or 7 def.  These guys aren't collegiate athletes, or even real athletes.  The rating system should be clearly defined such us the rating system is rating off collegiate play, so a 98 LP is very rare and elite, but in the nba it would maybe be a 86 or something but for D1 collegiate play its some of the best offense.  LIkewise while their should be bad players there should be very few sub 10 ath/def players I can see the occasional 12 ath 80 speed guys, as I have friends I play basketball with that fit that stereotype, they can sure as hell run striaght line speed, but are otherwise pretty uncordinated.  I'd also like to see ath/def not as correlated, i think it is some of the 2 ratings that do correlate a lot in real life, but I think there should be more exceptions where you can have high ath players without being great defenders, or high def ratings but low on ath.

Going back to recruit generation and under the assumption the in game engine is not changed, I really want the players through D1-3 more "real" the guy who won't hit 30 def or 40 ath should not be going D1 even with 99 per/99 bh/99pas I'd still be lead to believe they will not be able to be successful at high end D1 and should not be ranked as the #76 PG or something like that, I could see unranked and then sign with a high D2 or really bad D1.  Same with the big man of 25 ath 30 def but 99 reb/sb/lp I do not believe under the current game engine that player is really ranked as the #49 C.  Yes rankings should not be 100% accurate, as they are not in real life, but they should be believable.

Some other big things I want to hit on, if a major recruiting change is in store I'd like to bring to the attention that in real life any sane person does not gain 40 ******* athleticism points in 4 years unless they are doing some major doping even then.  Your telling me the majority of collegiate athletes are doping to a level their athleticism is going from 30 to 75.  If a major recruiting change is in place I'd like to see more realistic changes, this would honestly be the biggest change as ath should really never get much better unless we are talking strength.  I could still believe massive defensive increases as that makes sense, as well as speed.  Another big thing is IQ, IQ should be more like how ratings work, the should have a starting letter grade and a potential similar to FT rating is done.  I think their should be a slight correlation to HS GPA as well, but barely noticeable maybe something like 2 players 1 with 3.8 GPA and the other is 2.2 and they both start C- blue IQ then maybe the 3.8 GPA ends with A compared to the 2.2 guy with a B/B+.  As well as I think IQ should be able to be higher for incoming freshmen I think it makes the game value upperclassmen too much which is a reverse trend of where at least upper D1 basketball is going.  I think placing too much value on IQ/upperclassmen makes class structure a big thing when it really isn't, the only time I can think of it being a factor at least in big D1 is when florida had a bunch of seniors 2 seasons ago, but teams don't really go through cycles of elite play and non elite play based off class stucture, yes it does make a factor for a lot of teams, like I know OSU had a down year after their NC run in 07(i believe 08 was NIT) and florida struggled in 13.  But it should not be as rigid as HD where if you have no upper classmen you cannot compete even if your players are going to be very good.  I still think superclasses should be better than a more balanced class, but i dont think the super classes should have a supreme advantage as well as not also totally sucking when they are only underclassmen especially if they are talented.

You have very optimistic changes, but honestly if they implemented the changes you are suggesting i probably wouldnt play anymore. I think you're focusing too much on making the game too hand in hand with real life. From what i get from your suggestions, athleticism and speed wouldnt grow at all? And perimeter, low post would barely grow because in actuality, players in real life dont get drastically better though 4 years? Sounds like the making for a boring game with a "what you recruit, is what you get" philosophy.

I'm not saying they shouldn't grow at all I just think they currently grow too much, we should rarely see massive ath growth.  I could see relatively high speed growth its completely realistic.  Low Post can grow a huge amount same with Per, however I think the 13->100 are absurd, the starting per should be much higher to compensate.  You see plenty of players add and improve their LP game as well as a lot of big men are able to add a stretch game as well.  I'm mainly only wanting ath/spd specifically ath toned down in the growth it gets, and bumping the starting ratings up instead so you recruit a 50 ath who grows to 60 instead of recruiting 20 ath and it grows to 55.  I still believe LP could keep the tremoundous growth you see and PER shooting to an extent as well.  It's really not an insane change as you make it out too be.

Posted by stinenavy on 8/26/2015 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Making team rating a factor in seeding? Awful idea. Some ratings don't matter in gameplay such as WE and DUR. Many teams have walk-ons, and all-in-all in will probably increase the already ridiculous gap between the Big 6 schools and everyone else.

I do not want to include ratings such as WE/DUR/STA  or Walkons(maybe just not take walkons into team averages at all anymore) into seedings, and I do not want ratings to take into account a large factor of how seeding works, but I think at most it could cause a team to move +/- 1/2 seeds at most.  I think it would help those top spots where you have a really dominant 2/3 seed who is really a 1 seed but gets passed by a 20-6 team but top 5 rpi/sos over the more talented team with top 10 rpi but maybe 30 sos.

You see it in real life, Kansas always manages to have an elite rpi/sos and while a majority of the time do have the talent backing it up they have been passed for a 2/3 seed(also for injuries), but this past season on paper they were a #1 seed the one thing that was bad for them was the 7-5 L10 record other wise they were #2 RPI #1 SOS, the most T25 wins, but got passed by Nova and Duke with lower rpi/sos (nova had easy conf) because you knew Duke was more talented than Kansas.

Same with Baylor this past season on paper they were better than Gonzaga for rpi/sos and feel as if HD would've put Baylor over Zaga

More of an injury type but VCU this past season as well on paper was a top 5 seed but got a 7 do to injuries and the talent dropping off(does HD account for injuries?

And Wichita St sure as hell wouldn't have been a 1 seed 2 years ago with a 6 rpi 3 sos wisky there and Duke would've been a 2 not a 3 with their rpi/sos

So I'm not saying make team ratings a major factor but a slight one to sort out the best of the best.

Off topic a bit but it would be cool if every year HD released the real life brackets using WIS logic.

2 problems with the seeding issue:
1) its pretty tough to evaluate the quality of a team just based off the ratings. if you go by just team ratings (even excluding a few categories) its going to be a crap evaluation. there is just too much impact from how the team is actually coached, and also its pretty damn hard to programmatically predict how good a team will be even if coached well. in-season success is just a better indicator of NT success.

2) from a fairness standpoint, i object to giving teams credit for how good we think they should be. it should be about results. the only sort of exception to this that i can think of is when teams have major injuries and stuff, and we have to make some adjustment knowing the in season results cannot possibly accurately capture the quality of the team. but in the general case, i strongly feel, if you outperform someone, you should reap the benefits of that. i think thats how the real NT is laid out and how the majority of fans expect it to be setup (duke bias exempted ;)

Sortable "records" tab on the individual school pages...all time school leaders, and my leaders (players I've coached and/or recruited only).
Top 50 on the "records" tab instead of top 25
Mass recruiting feature

Well I guess adding the team rating as a small factor is a bad idea...

We absolutely need the ability to save more than 1 depth chart.  There have been times when I ended up not making a gameplan adjustment for my next game simply because I was afraid I wouldn't have a chance to change it back before the following game.  An "apply for next game only" option for depth charts and player game plans would be percect!

Make a 99 DEF player much rarer, instead of just being a requirement for high D1.  I would tone down DEF across the board, so going up against a 99 DEF player actually meant something.

Once a player signs with you during recruiting, add them right to the roster.  This would give us something fun to do during the slow last day or 2 of recruiting.  I struggle to get my depth chart set up before the first exhibition game, and judging by the human teams I've played I am not alone.  Takes some of the value out of exhibitions when you/your opponent has players going all 40 minutes simply because the depth chart isn't updated.

Add a "Notes" page to players profiles.  This would be helpful to document things like when a player turned from blue to black.

Ability to preload recruiting actions for the first cycle.  It's been discussed to death, need I say more.

Update the recruiting class rankings formula.  D1 seems to be alright, but the D2 and D3 lists are terrible.  If utilized properly, this would be a fun feature for the lower levels, as well as a good teaching tool to younger players about the kind of recruits they should be going after.  When I first started playing I got the wrong idea about which players I should target, because I read too much into the class rankings.  The fact that the ranking formula hasn't been updated since the addition of potential says it all.

Speaking for the 99 def thing just mentioned I think I sort of touched on this in this thread and in other threads but we should have some more defined ranges:

and if we are going off just team averages I think it would be more realistic if high D1 teams reach maybe  low/mid 80's for a top of the year so like a starting lineup of all 80's maybe 1 90 or 1 high 70 guy is the best "defensive team(not including ath/spd/iq) and if you recruit a generational team maybe you can hit 90's  I think on average Big 6 teams competing for a nt bid is like 75-85 averages hitting 85-90 is elite and 90+ is in contention for best teams of all times whereas mid-majors are getting 65+.  I think D2 elite teams should be hitting low 60's and good/great teams are hitting mid-upper 50's while D3 are hitting low 50's and the upper 40's.

A thing I noticed is the lower the division the easier it is to get higher ath/spd/def guys but you sacrifice offensive ability(of course the elite teams have great ath/spd/def and offense)

Again I think currently the reason for the such high ratings is due to the # of coaches, but I think recruit generation should be based on the current lineup of coaches so their should maybe be less elite players but dont just get rid of them make them less talented so we have the same number of recruits, but less elite talent.  A elite team should be lucky to have a 95 ath guy, not have a whole lineup of 90+ ath guys or potential 90+ ath guys.

I think some skills should be easier to get "elite"  I think it should be very hard to get 90+ ath and almost impossible to get 97+.  I think something like Per it can and should be pretty easy to get 90-97, but very few 98+ guys.

another thing is if the conferences aren't going to be realigned then maybe swap Hawaii with a better West coast team, Hawaii is historically weak and clearly outmatched due to its location, putting them in a power conference makes it near impossible to be competitive.  I'd really think you should just easily swap Utah with Hawaii(sure Hawaii isnt really Mountain West, but they have the west part down)

Otherwise I'd look at swapping them with one of the following schools:

Gonzaga
San Diego St
New Mexico
UNLV
Boise St
Utah St.
Idaho
Nevada

With the better schools they get a better conference like Hawaii and Fresno st did as well as making it a bit easier for those schools to be more competitive like they are in real life.  The lower end ones are just west coast teams you could switch with.