All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Phelan: One Team, 6 EE's
6/25/2013 11:55 AM
Posted by plague on 6/25/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mmt0316 on 6/25/2013 6:14:00 AM (view original):
You absolutely cannot penalize teams for taking walkons...while I always try to fill rosters at elite DIs, I absolutely intentionally take walk ons at non Elit schools, while Im an idiot and left the OVC...you should see the rosters I put together there and didnt just make the tournament but was able to compete. Penalizing schools for walkons would hurt lower level DI teams. Like I also said on the first page I had no problem with the 9 openings...just took exception to his gaming the system comment.
I had said it was not a personal attack. I have no problem with gaming the system. Unintended outcomes is a part of every game made and when anyone takes advantage of the unintended outcomes then they are gaming the system.  I doubt WIS original intention was for owners to incorporate a strategy to take walk ons so they can have 15k more scholarship money next season and that is why I said its gaming the system. If that was WIS intention then I am mistaken, but I doubt that was their original intention. Regardless if you use this strategy or not I see others that do use this strategy. . 



From the FAQ:
Q: What happens if I run out of cash and haven't signed any recruits?
A: There is no requirement to give out all of your available scholarships. Any roster spots not filled with scholarship players will automatically be filled with walk-on players as soon as the recruiting period ends. Scholarships will be available the following season. Walk-ons will only be available for a single season unless you offer them a scholarship at some point before the next season's recruiting period begins.

Looks like WIS indeed knew that players would do this strategy and I doubt they consider it gaming the system.  Collusion by owners would be an example of gaming the system.
6/25/2013 1:06 PM
No -- you're confusing gaming the system and cheating. They are not the same. Collusion is cheating. Gaming the system means exploiting some inherent weaknesses or shortcomings. It's not cheating.

Also, no one is suggesting that you are required to give out all of the available scholarships. No reason to post something from the FAQ (flawed as it is) that isn't being disputed at all. The debate here is whether there should perhaps be a stiffer drawback for having multiple open schollies. I think there should be, but certainly it's a two-sided issue.
6/25/2013 1:36 PM (edited)
Posted by buddhagamer on 6/25/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by plague on 6/25/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mmt0316 on 6/25/2013 6:14:00 AM (view original):
You absolutely cannot penalize teams for taking walkons...while I always try to fill rosters at elite DIs, I absolutely intentionally take walk ons at non Elit schools, while Im an idiot and left the OVC...you should see the rosters I put together there and didnt just make the tournament but was able to compete. Penalizing schools for walkons would hurt lower level DI teams. Like I also said on the first page I had no problem with the 9 openings...just took exception to his gaming the system comment.
I had said it was not a personal attack. I have no problem with gaming the system. Unintended outcomes is a part of every game made and when anyone takes advantage of the unintended outcomes then they are gaming the system.  I doubt WIS original intention was for owners to incorporate a strategy to take walk ons so they can have 15k more scholarship money next season and that is why I said its gaming the system. If that was WIS intention then I am mistaken, but I doubt that was their original intention. Regardless if you use this strategy or not I see others that do use this strategy. . 



From the FAQ:
Q: What happens if I run out of cash and haven't signed any recruits?
A: There is no requirement to give out all of your available scholarships. Any roster spots not filled with scholarship players will automatically be filled with walk-on players as soon as the recruiting period ends. Scholarships will be available the following season. Walk-ons will only be available for a single season unless you offer them a scholarship at some point before the next season's recruiting period begins.

Looks like WIS indeed knew that players would do this strategy and I doubt they consider it gaming the system.  Collusion by owners would be an example of gaming the system.
Collusion would be cheating and is clearly stated as against the rules. Gaming the system is not cheating. Gaming the system is taking advantage of a portion of a game in a way that was not originally intended by the developers.

I did not know that was in the FAQ but you posted the obvious.. Once a game is released the player base, which is usually thousands of people, will come up with ideas on how to win that the developers never considered or intended. My belief is that the original purpose was to not punish owners to a great degree by having mulitple walk ons for 4 seasons on a team that has a 12 man roster. I don't think the original intention was for teams to use walks on as a strategy to garner more recruiting money for next season. The FAQ above does not answer their originally intention, what it does is answer the situation after the fact....

.It's my opinion(Idon't know it to be fact) because I think its obvious. In GD they have a 50 man roster so they can punish a team more easily that takes on a few sim recruited players. In HD they have a 12 man roster and 2 sim recruited players for 4 seasons would be a heavy penalty.

6/25/2013 1:55 PM (edited)
Posted by plague on 6/25/2013 11:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 6/25/2013 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Wouldn't having these types of penalties just penalize teams that aren't in the BCS conferences?  Even with 6 openings how can you possibly risk ruining your program by going all in on a local recruit when a big program comes along with loads of playoff cash?  Its bad enough that you lose a big battle for a player but on top of that you don't even get replacement cash the following season?  What incentive is there for battles again?
The question I would ask is...... if your going to lose when you go all in, why go all in? If your going to lose anyway then you might as well save cash for a backup player.

Why is the incentive to battle gone? Just because you spent all your cash instead of saving 2-5k for backups the incentive to battle is gone? That does not make sense to me.

Recruiting is about decisions, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you decide to go all in and lose then you have to deal with that outcome. In my own opinion there should be no shelter for a coach who follows this strategy and loses when there is other options on the board. If there was no other options then I would understand.  When your money is dwindling and decisions need to be made that is when coaching comes into play.


What kind of backup can you really get for $2-5K, though? That's what's not computing with me. It's probably a player that's not worth having on your roster. It becomes a defacto walk-on anyway.

If I have 5 openings, and suddenly find myself in 3 battles at the signing deadline, the last thing I'm going to spend money on is a crappy backup that isn't going to help my team. I'm going to pick and choose which of those 3 battles I think I have a shot at winning, maximize my dollars there, and cut my losses on the other(s).
6/25/2013 2:02 PM
Posted by plague on 6/25/2013 12:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by professor17 on 6/24/2013 11:43:00 PM (view original):
Assessing penalties presumes that the walkons are being taken intentionally. But sometimes a team will take on multiple walk-ons unintentionally because they have a disastrous recruiting season, and lose a bunch of battles. We've all seen it happen, where some coach just gets wiped out in recruiting. They're already in a big  hole, and now they have scholly cash penalties to contend with on top of that.  That'd be a real double-whammy to try to recover from.
Does it matter if its intentional or not intentional? When you get low on cash stop recruiting and save the money for backups or spend the money and risk taking walk ons. At some point in recruiting you have to realize if you spend more money in a recruiting battle that if you lose the battle you will probably take walk ons.



I thought the intent of the proposed rule was to discourage people from gaming the system. My only point is that's not the only reason people end up with walk-ons, so you'd also be punishing people who weren't gaming the system, but just had a bad recruiting season, and making it even harder for them to recover from what was already a disaster to begin with.
6/25/2013 2:08 PM (edited)
Its hard and unfair to distinguish between intent and non intent. The system currently favors people who take on walks ons. The reward is greater than the punishment.  I don't think the answer is too take away the current punishments and in return you make the rewards even greater.
6/25/2013 2:05 PM
Posted by professor17 on 6/25/2013 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by plague on 6/25/2013 11:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 6/25/2013 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Wouldn't having these types of penalties just penalize teams that aren't in the BCS conferences?  Even with 6 openings how can you possibly risk ruining your program by going all in on a local recruit when a big program comes along with loads of playoff cash?  Its bad enough that you lose a big battle for a player but on top of that you don't even get replacement cash the following season?  What incentive is there for battles again?
The question I would ask is...... if your going to lose when you go all in, why go all in? If your going to lose anyway then you might as well save cash for a backup player.

Why is the incentive to battle gone? Just because you spent all your cash instead of saving 2-5k for backups the incentive to battle is gone? That does not make sense to me.

Recruiting is about decisions, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you decide to go all in and lose then you have to deal with that outcome. In my own opinion there should be no shelter for a coach who follows this strategy and loses when there is other options on the board. If there was no other options then I would understand.  When your money is dwindling and decisions need to be made that is when coaching comes into play.


What kind of backup can you really get for $2-5K, though? That's what's not computing with me. It's probably a player that's not worth having on your roster. It becomes a defacto walk-on anyway.

If I have 5 openings, and suddenly find myself in 3 battles at the signing deadline, the last thing I'm going to spend money on is a crappy backup that isn't going to help my team. I'm going to pick and choose which of those 3 battles I think I have a shot at winning, maximize my dollars there, and cut my losses on the other(s).

Well if you don't want to sign the crazy backup then you suffer the consequences of WALK ONS.

As far as what players can you get for 2-5k you can get some pretty good players for that price. I just had a player graduate  that I recruited at my former school who finished with a 840 overall rating and I got him in that price range. One of my best players was a player that finished over a 90 rating in defense, permiter, stamina, and passing and I got him in that price range.  The only player I ever had drafted (and he made 1st team all american) was undecided on the last 2 cycles before signings was over and I signed him for the minimum . You are not going to get a top 25 type recruit for the minimum, but I have recruited a lot of players in the 2-5k range that finished their career in the 780-820 overall ratings. I signed my backup plans this last season, 1 I paid 5.2k, and the other I paid 1.2k, and I expect them to both end their career 800+.
6/25/2013 2:34 PM (edited)
I understand your points and concerns, plague. I just think that implementing this rule would probably have unintended consequences that are worse than the current perceived problems. I think 3 immediate things would happen if you punished taking walkons by stripping away recruiting cash for the following season:

1. There would be fewer competitive battles among equals. If you're going to face punishment for losing a battle, that is going to discourage battling, unless you know for certain you can win.
 
2. Predatory type battles will increase. You'll see even more A prestige teams jumping on B prestige teams and on down the line as teams clamor to fill their spots with serviceable players to avoid the walk-on penalties.

3. One of the best ways for mid-majors or rebuilding major programs to build themselves up is to take a couple walk-ons and maximize their dollars per recruit. That strategy pretty much goes away with this rule change. I think I understand that to be your intent here, but I actually think it hurts the middling programs more than the elite ones. The elite ones have the prestige and conference bonus money to compete and bounce back no matter what. The middling teams don't, and need a way to get on more even footing, and that will have been all but eliminated.

In total, I think this proposed rule would be likely to hurt overall competition.
6/25/2013 2:37 PM
Posted by plague on 6/25/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mmt0316 on 6/25/2013 6:14:00 AM (view original):
You absolutely cannot penalize teams for taking walkons...while I always try to fill rosters at elite DIs, I absolutely intentionally take walk ons at non Elit schools, while Im an idiot and left the OVC...you should see the rosters I put together there and didnt just make the tournament but was able to compete. Penalizing schools for walkons would hurt lower level DI teams. Like I also said on the first page I had no problem with the 9 openings...just took exception to his gaming the system comment.
I had said it was not a personal attack. I have no problem with gaming the system. Unintended outcomes is a part of every game made and when anyone takes advantage of the unintended outcomes then they are gaming the system.  I doubt WIS original intention was for owners to incorporate a strategy to take walk ons so they can have 15k more scholarship money next season and that is why I said its gaming the system. If that was WIS intention then I am mistaken, but I doubt that was their original intention. Regardless if you use this strategy or not I see others that do use this strategy. . 



Yeah, I didnt really take it "personally" just wanted to explain my thoughts on the subject. No worries! :-)
6/25/2013 2:48 PM
Posted by professor17 on 6/25/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
I understand your points and concerns, plague. I just think that implementing this rule would probably have unintended consequences that are worse than the current perceived problems. I think 3 immediate things would happen if you punished taking walkons by stripping away recruiting cash for the following season:

1. There would be fewer competitive battles among equals. If you're going to face punishment for losing a battle, that is going to discourage battling, unless you know for certain you can win.
 
2. Predatory type battles will increase. You'll see even more A prestige teams jumping on B prestige teams and on down the line as teams clamor to fill their spots with serviceable players to avoid the walk-on penalties.

3. One of the best ways for mid-majors or rebuilding major programs to build themselves up is to take a couple walk-ons and maximize their dollars per recruit. That strategy pretty much goes away with this rule change. I think I understand that to be your intent here, but I actually think it hurts the middling programs more than the elite ones. The elite ones have the prestige and conference bonus money to compete and bounce back no matter what. The middling teams don't, and need a way to get on more even footing, and that will have been all but eliminated.

In total, I think this proposed rule would be likely to hurt overall competition.
I personally was not trying to change the rule as I understand the domino effect that will occur as you pointed out in your 2nd point.. I just did not want to change the 6 EE rule because someone had 3 walk ons leave, when you take walk ons thats the chance you take....
6/25/2013 8:18 PM
Well what happens if a school had roster of 4 JR, 4 SO, 4 FR and played in the NT NC game versus a 6 SR, 6 JR team and loses... but the 4 JR etc. team loses 6 guys to EEs and the other NC team loses none?  Is that still OK?

I'm of the opinion that losing 6 EEs is excessive and that the losing 6 SR is too protective (but I"m also of the opinion that if you lose an EE, they should at least be a 1st round pick or lottery pick if they go as a SO/FR).
6/26/2013 2:53 AM (edited)
Posted by buddhagamer on 6/25/2013 8:18:00 PM (view original):
Well what happens if a school had roster of 4 JR, 4 SO, 4 FR and played in the NT NC game versus a 6 SR, 6 JR team and loses... but the 4 JR etc. team loses 6 guys to EEs and the other NC team loses none?  Is that still OK?

I'm of the opinion that losing 6 EEs is excessive and that the losing 6 SR is too protective (but I"m also of the opinion that if you lose an EE, they should at least be a 1st round pick or lottery pick if they go as a SO/FR).
In my opinion its ok. This is not a game of chess where everything is set in stone. You program the percentages you want based on whatever criteria you desire and live with the outcome, if the averages do not work out the way you decide then you make adjustments.

6 EE is excessive, I don't know if that has ever happened in real life. Does it happen very often in HD? I am guessing some changes have been made to keep people from gaming the system?

In real college basketball there was 39 college players that declared for the NBA draft who are not seniors. Many of those players will be drafted in the 2nd round and many will not be drafted at all. Below is the 39 players and I am not including the 40th player who played at LA prep city.

Steven Adams Pitt Fr. F 7-0 250
C.J. Aiken St. Joseph's Jr. F 6-9 201
Anthony Bennett UNLV Fr. F 6-8 240
Vander Blue Marquette Jr. G 6-4 200
Lorenzo Brown N.C. State Jr. PG 6-5 186
Reggie Bullock North Carolina Jr. G 6-7 205
Trey Burke Michigan So. G 6-0 190
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope Georgia So. G 6-5 205
Michael Carter-Williams Syracuse So. G 6-6 185
Allen Crabbe Cal Jr. G 6-6 210
Dewayne Dedmon USC Jr. F 7-0 255
Gorgui Dieng Louisville Jr. C 6-11 245
Jamaal Franklin San Diego State Jr. SG 6-5 195
Archie Goodwin Kentucky Fr. SG 6-4 200
Tim Hardaway Jr. Michigan Fr. G 6-6 205
Grant Jerrett Arizona Fr. F 6-10 235
Myck Kabongo Texas So. PG 6-1 180
Shane Larkin Miami So. PG 5-11 176
Ricky Ledo Providence Fr. G 6-7 195
Alex Len Maryland So. C 7-1 225
C.J. Leslie N.C. State Jr. PF 6-9 200
Amath M'Baye Oklahoma Jr. F 6-9 208
Ray McCallum Detroit Jr. G 6-3 190
Ben McLemore Kansas Fr. G 6-5 195
Tony Mitchell North Texas So. F 6-8 235
Shabazz Muhammad UCLA Fr. SG 6-6 225
Nerlens Noel Kentucky Fr. F 6-10 228
Victor Oladipo Indiana Jr. G 6-5 214
Kelly Olynyk Gonzaga Jr. F 7-0 238
Norvel Pelle LA City Prep (Calif.) N/A. PF 6-10 210
Otto Porter Georgetown So. F 6-8 205
Marshawn Powell Arkansas RS Jr. F 6-7 240
Phil Pressey Missouri Jr. G 5-11 175
Andre Roberson Colorado Jr. PF 6-7 210
Trevis Simpson UNC-Greensboro Jr. G 6-4 185
Tony Snell New Mexico Jr. SG 6-7 200
Adonis Thomas Memphis Jr. G-F 6-7 240
DeShaun Thomas Ohio State Jr. F 6-7 215
B.J. Young Arkansas Jr. G 6-3 180
Cody Zeller Indiana So. F 7-0 240

6/26/2013 7:14 AM
The real life comparison if pretty null and void, for a multitude of reasons.
of 4
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Phelan: One Team, 6 EE's

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.