All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > long overdue...User Polls
5/1/2014 12:21 PM
i was hoping the 5 depth chart spots might be on here, some people (myself included) really want that. it could go either way as to being totally trivial or a complete pain in the ***, but if the former, it would be great to have.
5/2/2014 2:41 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/1/2014 12:21:00 PM (view original):
i was hoping the 5 depth chart spots might be on here, some people (myself included) really want that. it could go either way as to being totally trivial or a complete pain in the ***, but if the former, it would be great to have.
...only you would 'really want' a change that resulted in either of those outcomes, haha, just playing yo.
5/2/2014 3:35 PM
I don't think I have ever posted on one of these forums. I am just surprised an issue I think needs to be addressed is not on the list for recruiting and jobs.

The cost of the scouting service. I think the service costs too much especially at the lower levels. I can't say I don't use the service, because I will AFTER I finish recruiting, if there is still money leftover. I look for a certain type of player with the desired current ratings first. I look for those ratings in ALL locations and I have had some success with that method.

And for jobs, give coaches who turn programs around the same respect as coaches who have immediate success. I have seen users sign up, take a team that has been good for a while benefit with "postseason credits" from a coach that built that program. That user will then jump around to other successful programs. I like turning programs around, coaches like myself should be rewarded with credits/job prospects after successful "turnarounds".
5/2/2014 3:39 PM
nick you are doing yourself two HUGE disservices if (1) you are not using FSS before recruiting to make sure that your players have the potential to develop into the ratings you need / want; and (2) using it after you recruit because you are only draining your admittedly low funds that could be left over and applied as carryover for the next season, only to discover information that will be given to you for free if you patiently wait until the end of recruiting. 
5/2/2014 6:25 PM
On a RARE occasion I DO have any leftover. (Any leftover funds the carryover is still minimal.) The service is way too expensive. I've had more success when I didn't use the service. 2 scenarios: 1) School is either in a smaller state that has to pull from multiple states because there are several competing schools in the same area. You either pull FSS multiple states or one state and then compete with more users in that state. One ends up spending about twice as much on recruiting then necessary. 2) School is in a larger state and 500+ miles is still too far. The FSS covers more recruits but is also more expensive because of the distance. With the cost of the service and the added distance, it is the same scenario as the first one.

I have reached the D1 level following this model. I am not against the service, I would use it if it was more affordable. I understand there is risks with my approach.
5/2/2014 6:32 PM
nickguy, why do you still have this guy on your team? You don't play him (which is prob a good thing coz he is not good), why keep him around?
5/2/2014 6:44 PM
Nick, it's more than just risky. 

You do realize that just about everyone else uses FSS, right? If they're fighting over the recruits with very high potentials, you will be scooping up players with decent original ratings but most likely poor potentials...because there will already be battles for the good players.

In DIII, I would still find a way to scout at least 1 or 2 states.  
5/2/2014 8:40 PM
Roster filler at this point. (Had I cut his scholarship at any point...well you know the effects) I had a $3,000 budget to recruit one player this past season. Had I spent money on 1 state, that budget would have been cut in half. Ernest McGowan (sorry I am mobile right now and to tedious to put his profile on here), was from SD AND I am in TX, ended up being a good pickup. Not always, but most times a good work ethic indicates higher level of potential. The senior class I have does reflect that.

My conference is not strong, but as a 16 seed last year, I did only lose by 10 to the number 1 seed. I am sure that user did use the service.

Ernest McGowan was an honorable mention All-American last year as well.
5/3/2014 2:06 PM
It would've been better to roll with a walk on one season and have the extra cash in recruiting the next cycle than to keep that dead weight on your roster, IMO.
5/3/2014 5:48 PM
Posted by nickguy08 on 5/2/2014 8:40:00 PM (view original):
Roster filler at this point. (Had I cut his scholarship at any point...well you know the effects) I had a $3,000 budget to recruit one player this past season. Had I spent money on 1 state, that budget would have been cut in half. Ernest McGowan (sorry I am mobile right now and to tedious to put his profile on here), was from SD AND I am in TX, ended up being a good pickup. Not always, but most times a good work ethic indicates higher level of potential. The senior class I have does reflect that.

My conference is not strong, but as a 16 seed last year, I did only lose by 10 to the number 1 seed. I am sure that user did use the service.

Ernest McGowan was an honorable mention All-American last year as well.
I don't think there is any correlation to work ethic and overall potential based on players I've recruited.
5/3/2014 6:05 PM
I actually think FSS (and scouting) gives you too much information, and free information is too plentiful. I got a guy taken from me last cycle that was 20 miles from campus, no one had done anything with him until right before signings, and then USC-Upstate of all places (my team is in michigan) comes in on him.

It's even worse in D3. Most of the time IRL, D3s recruit locally and regionally, or they use a standout academic reputation to attract players. Of course, that's another issue with D3 on this game (that you can offer scholarships, which is not accurate). Most D3s IRL wouldn't have any clue what players were on the other side of the country. 

I knew a coach IRL that recruited a lot like nick -- basically he relied on a network of people he trusted to provide contacts, and then did a lot of calling and mailing and tried to get them to visit campus. If he got to that point, he usually got a commitment from the player. It's not as common these days but worked well for that hall of fame coach.

But back to FSS and potential. I think it would be much more effective to have potential be a function of current ability, work ethic, IQ (which needs ot be completely overhauled in its own right), maybe more ratings than that but you get the idea. 
5/3/2014 6:48 PM (edited)
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/3/2014 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I actually think FSS (and scouting) gives you too much information, and free information is too plentiful. I got a guy taken from me last cycle that was 20 miles from campus, no one had done anything with him until right before signings, and then USC-Upstate of all places (my team is in michigan) comes in on him.

It's even worse in D3. Most of the time IRL, D3s recruit locally and regionally, or they use a standout academic reputation to attract players. Of course, that's another issue with D3 on this game (that you can offer scholarships, which is not accurate). Most D3s IRL wouldn't have any clue what players were on the other side of the country. 

I knew a coach IRL that recruited a lot like nick -- basically he relied on a network of people he trusted to provide contacts, and then did a lot of calling and mailing and tried to get them to visit campus. If he got to that point, he usually got a commitment from the player. It's not as common these days but worked well for that hall of fame coach.

But back to FSS and potential. I think it would be much more effective to have potential be a function of current ability, work ethic, IQ (which needs ot be completely overhauled in its own right), maybe more ratings than that but you get the idea. 
thats how it used to work, where there was no potential for each rating. growth ran off practice plans, work ethic, and playing time. this allowed you to basically mold players however you wanted. every 60 per player with decent work ethic could graduate with 90 per. every big man could go up about 30 passing unless he started god awful, every guard could gain 30 lp unless he started god awful (or had bad work ethic).

in general, we feel its more realistic to have variance in the growth curves of a given player, for different ratings. it was totally unrealistic the way it was before, not every player can go up 10% from the line, not every player can greatly improve their jump shot, not every player can greatly improve their defense, or athleticism, or speed. not to say the current model couldn't be improved upon, but what you suggest has no difference for a given player, on their growth curve, for any rating. to me, that is grossly unrealistic. but really, i don't care all that much about realism, but strategy and enjoyability, and the current method has way more strategy in terms of team planning and all, than the old method or your suggestion. the combination of strategy, enjoyability, and realism, is why we have the method today, instead of the old method, which is much like what you are suggesting.

in this game, d3 is a training ground for d2 and d1, its like a place to practice. its important, for that reason, that d3 has similar mechanics to d2. you could change "offer scholarship" to "offer spot", but that is basically nitpicking semantics, isn't it? we all know you can't give athletic scholarships in real life, but if you did that in HD, it still makes no difference on the levelness of the playing field for d3 schools. i'd have no problem if they just reworded it to "offer spot" but i also couldn't care less if they don't.

5/3/2014 7:32 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/3/2014 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I actually think FSS (and scouting) gives you too much information, and free information is too plentiful. I got a guy taken from me last cycle that was 20 miles from campus, no one had done anything with him until right before signings, and then USC-Upstate of all places (my team is in michigan) comes in on him.

It's even worse in D3. Most of the time IRL, D3s recruit locally and regionally, or they use a standout academic reputation to attract players. Of course, that's another issue with D3 on this game (that you can offer scholarships, which is not accurate). Most D3s IRL wouldn't have any clue what players were on the other side of the country. 

I knew a coach IRL that recruited a lot like nick -- basically he relied on a network of people he trusted to provide contacts, and then did a lot of calling and mailing and tried to get them to visit campus. If he got to that point, he usually got a commitment from the player. It's not as common these days but worked well for that hall of fame coach.

But back to FSS and potential. I think it would be much more effective to have potential be a function of current ability, work ethic, IQ (which needs ot be completely overhauled in its own right), maybe more ratings than that but you get the idea. 
FSS is the network of people to trust in this game. I'm assuming the coach did that because he trusted the opinions of the people he was asking and getting good information, the same is true of FSS, and wouldn't sign a player that didn't come recommended from one of his sources. 
Also the average cost of a scouting report is probably about $300 for an averaged size state, meaning after 3 of those you've probably spent as much as you would to FSS the entire state and get more info on more players.
5/3/2014 9:54 PM
That is the problem with the service. Coaches shouldn't be using the FSS as that "network". The FSS needs to be wrong. Human error is going to happen. IRL coaches will use these services as a guide, but they need to see the players in person. I trust what my "assistants" have to say about the player too.

I know my method of recruiting is not the popular method, but it has worked. I think Nyack in the Knight world is probably the best example of my method. (I believe I started my current method season 38 at Greensboro. I have a spreadsheet on my switch over somewhere, it is saved on a flash drive, but I can't find it anywhere.) It took me a couple of years at Nyack to get the scholarship numbers right. (Ideally I like to have 4-4-4-4)

I think the general opinion is that maybe I am not putting much thought into recruiting, because I don't use the service. I look into so many factors, so there is a method to my madness. The only major mistake I made was the player posted on here. He was not among my top choices at that position. I knew I needed a roster filler at that point.
5/4/2014 1:14 AM
I assume you mean 3-3-3-3 ? There are many ways to approach recruiting. Everyone seems to have their own way and that's the way it should be. I say the proof is in the pudding. If you're a successful coach, then your methods work. Seems pretty easy to me. 
of 18
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > long overdue...User Polls

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.