All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > long overdue...User Polls
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
5/4/2014 1:50 PM (edited)
Posted by kbc167 on 5/4/2014 1:14:00 AM (view original):
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. 
Yes 3-3-3-3
5/4/2014 5:44 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/4/2014 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 6:48:00 PM (view original):
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.

Well I didn't say there shouldn't be variance, but doesn't mean you should necessarily know it from subscribing to a scouting service.

But in general it does follow that the players that are good shooters in high school are the ones that are great shooters in college. I disagree that the current way is more strategic. What's strategic about 'recruit the guys with a lot of blue'? 

You want the way you understand. For you enjoyability =/ realism because you don't know that much realism. So much that you don't even understand what I was suggesting. 

Never mind, have it the same crappy way you have it now. I mean that's why people are beating down the doors to get in and all the spots are full, right? That's why you all are setting up facebook pages to try to drum up interest? Because everything's so great right now? 

You have even less understanding of how not having a scholarship to offer affects decision making on D3 schools. I'm not even going to attempt to straighten you out on that because like you said, you don't care about realism anyway. It's pretty surprising though considering you're considered a demigod here and you went to a D-III school IRL, and still you don't seem to get it at all.
It's sort of amusing that you continue to insult Gillispie's knowledge base.
5/4/2014 7:03 PM
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.
If peaking at the #49 RPI and some first round NT exits is a supportive example of your method, you may have some reevaluating to do.
I think the general opinion is that maybe I am not putting much thought into recruiting, because I don't use the service.
I'm sure you're putting a lot of thought into it, but it's really inefficient.  If you want to be a winning coach you're going to have to use all the information you can get your hands on.  FSS is VITAL if you want to have any real success.  Two guys with identical starting numbers will often look wildly different from each other with FSS information.  You're a sacrificing huge huge huge amount by foregoing it.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
5/4/2014 9:55 PM
#0-27
5/4/2014 10:18 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/4/2014 9:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/4/2014 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/4/2014 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 6:48:00 PM (view original):
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.

Well I didn't say there shouldn't be variance, but doesn't mean you should necessarily know it from subscribing to a scouting service.

But in general it does follow that the players that are good shooters in high school are the ones that are great shooters in college. I disagree that the current way is more strategic. What's strategic about 'recruit the guys with a lot of blue'? 

You want the way you understand. For you enjoyability =/ realism because you don't know that much realism. So much that you don't even understand what I was suggesting. 

Never mind, have it the same crappy way you have it now. I mean that's why people are beating down the doors to get in and all the spots are full, right? That's why you all are setting up facebook pages to try to drum up interest? Because everything's so great right now? 

You have even less understanding of how not having a scholarship to offer affects decision making on D3 schools. I'm not even going to attempt to straighten you out on that because like you said, you don't care about realism anyway. It's pretty surprising though considering you're considered a demigod here and you went to a D-III school IRL, and still you don't seem to get it at all.
It's sort of amusing that you continue to insult Gillispie's knowledge base.
You missed the point. That's ok, so did he and he's the god of HD.
Seems like everyone "misses the point" with you. That, or you're just not very good at making your points. Either way.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
5/4/2014 11:43 PM
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/4/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's why I've gotten paid essentially to communicate in basically every job I've had since graduation. Because I'm not very good at it.

Funny how it doesn't seem to be much of a problem outside HD. Maybe you all are just especially stupid, or maybe the egghead mentality that seems to be attracted to this game doesn't function very well when asked to think in a more abstract fashion.
I don't think personal insults are really necessary. But I guess that's message boards in 2014. Not just here but everywhere.

In any event, as someone learning the game anew, I tend to agree that change can be a good thing but I also think consistency at each level theoretically makes sense. What attracted me to the game was the level of detail and other coaches who've told me to try it. I had no idea about the scholarship differences between d3 and d2. It seems like reasonable people can disagree about prioritization of changes. If the debate is about usage and getting more coaches, I think WIS could do a much better job marketing it. If it wasn't for word of mouth I wouldn't have known about it. I could be one of the stupid people though (not smart enough to be an egghead).
5/5/2014 8:03 AM
Just ignore etta, when no one responds to his ridiculous BS he gives up after awhile.
5/5/2014 9:30 AM
Posted by dar2724 on 5/4/2014 11:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/4/2014 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's why I've gotten paid essentially to communicate in basically every job I've had since graduation. Because I'm not very good at it.

Funny how it doesn't seem to be much of a problem outside HD. Maybe you all are just especially stupid, or maybe the egghead mentality that seems to be attracted to this game doesn't function very well when asked to think in a more abstract fashion.
I don't think personal insults are really necessary. But I guess that's message boards in 2014. Not just here but everywhere.

In any event, as someone learning the game anew, I tend to agree that change can be a good thing but I also think consistency at each level theoretically makes sense. What attracted me to the game was the level of detail and other coaches who've told me to try it. I had no idea about the scholarship differences between d3 and d2. It seems like reasonable people can disagree about prioritization of changes. If the debate is about usage and getting more coaches, I think WIS could do a much better job marketing it. If it wasn't for word of mouth I wouldn't have known about it. I could be one of the stupid people though (not smart enough to be an egghead).
Yeah well I find it insulting that some jagoff tries to say I don't know how to communicate just because *he* missed something, and if he intends to project that to the message board community, in the absence of anyone protesting that their view is not represented by that statement, well then that conclusion must be extended to the community.

I agree that the marketing is poor, but that's not the only problem. Whatever. I wasn't really trying to make this into another thread about me, but someone always seems to make it personal when they have a problem with something I say, but no one gets upset until I respond...not realizing apparently that I'm not the one that went there. 

Whatever. 
5/5/2014 9:33 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 5/4/2014 9:55:00 PM (view original):
#0-27
Suck it, colonel.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=10667009

5/5/2014 11:01 AM

Once again, please refrain for engaging etta in any negative conversations or thumbs downing any of his comments.

P.S. I'm working on a big update to this thread, it should be out relatively soon.


5/5/2014 11:22 AM
because I don't want the update
5/5/2014 11:22 AM
to be at the bottom of this page.
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.