new recruiting / scouting mechanics Topic

the0nlyis
Posts: 2686 (0)
Hall of Famer
295 6
Prospect
grimance
Reply to that just didn't want to start a long quote chain.

But the biggest thing that needs to be adressed is that you should not have to build a prestige higher than the job you want.  Jobs should be moving upwards so you should be able to grab A- Miami from a B/B- school from a low baseline(ie go from George Mason built to B/B- to A- Miami)  Jobs shouldn't just be the A+ schools switching when they get bored and then the leftovers have to dwindle to C+/B- before they can be taken.  The job requirements are too high.  Thats the absolute biggest thing wrong with jobs.

Coach Loyalty is total crap, yes we should punish guys switching every season or ever other season.  But you should be able to have loyalty high enough to move after 3 seasons.  A lot of top coaches seem to stay around 3-6 seasons before their major coaching job.  As well as seeing success generally their second season and major success around season 4.
9/21/2015 3:11 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by grimacedance on 9/21/2015 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that preferences to play should be like promises. I believe that they should be recruiting factors that give extra boost to schools that offer promises (and possibly schools that have light depth charts at the position--not sure how hard that'd be to code, but it'd be awesome to see recruits look at the current depth chart regarding their preferences), and this boost should be significant, but it should be possible to overcome without offering promises. Difficult, but possible. 

Also, I do agree with the option of career-long promises, and I think penalties for broken promises could be ramped up (although penalties for not playing a guy because he was injured are stupid and should be toned down bigtime). 
I don't think the preferences should be like promises either.  Maybe we should think of it as promises to play/start become more powerful for certain players.

Player A is a guy who wants to play at least 20 minutes a game and start.  Offering a promise to start has a lot of power on him -- enough that it can overcome prestige hurdles (a B- team offering a start might be more attractive than a A- team that doesn't offer, all else being equal).  It might even be enough to make him dropdown/pulldown (he's rather be a stud starter on a D3 team than a bench guy on a D2 team).

Player B is a guy who doesn't care about minutes/starts right away.  Offering him a promise to start is nice, but doesn't move the needle that much. He'd rather be a cog for a good D2 team than a stud for a bad D2/great D3 team.
agreed
9/21/2015 3:12 PM
tarvolon
Posts: 1173 (0)
Hall of Famer
299
Rookie
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that preferences to play should be like promises. I believe that they should be recruiting factors that give extra boost to schools that offer promises (and possibly schools that have light depth charts at the position--not sure how hard that'd be to code, but it'd be awesome to see recruits look at the current depth chart regarding their preferences), and this boost should be significant, but it should be possible to overcome without offering promises. Difficult, but possible. 

Also, I do agree with the option of career-long promises, and I think penalties for broken promises could be ramped up (although penalties for not playing a guy because he was injured are stupid and should be toned down bigtime). 
i think we were saying they should be based off promises. if you don't promise, and still sign, the preference doesn't mean jack. only the promise(s) made.
I was intending to respond to Benis, who I think was saying something different. 
9/21/2015 3:12 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
theonlysis - re prestige team problems - i agree, but i want to just keep this thread about stuff seble is actually looking at, we know it does not include that.
grimace - agree on the jobs stuff as well too - but same deal, we know seble isnt touching it this time around.

there are a million things we want and could talk about that he isn't working on, and we do, in plenty of other threads. just trying to dig deeper on his proposals here, to 1) enhance my own understanding, 2) raise good questions, 3) raise good suggestions / words of caution

edit: this has mostly revolved around the first couple points i raised. im not trying to limit to that. trying to discuss ANYTHING seble is proposing - mechanically - in the recruiting/scouting/etc update. but there is SO MUCH just in that space, that i do want to keep anything outside of it out, because basically just what he is proposing is so massive, its hard to even keep up. i have continuously been corrected on what he is even proposing, and that has been very helpful, but i suspect that if i'm struggling to keep up, plenty of others are, as well.
9/21/2015 3:20 PM (edited)
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that preferences to play should be like promises. I believe that they should be recruiting factors that give extra boost to schools that offer promises (and possibly schools that have light depth charts at the position--not sure how hard that'd be to code, but it'd be awesome to see recruits look at the current depth chart regarding their preferences), and this boost should be significant, but it should be possible to overcome without offering promises. Difficult, but possible. 

Also, I do agree with the option of career-long promises, and I think penalties for broken promises could be ramped up (although penalties for not playing a guy because he was injured are stupid and should be toned down bigtime). 
i think we were saying they should be based off promises. if you don't promise, and still sign, the preference doesn't mean jack. only the promise(s) made.
I was intending to respond to Benis, who I think was saying something different. 
ohhh. gotcha. i didn't take that sentence so literally, i thought he was saying preferences should just run off promises. i totally agree - recruiting preferences should have no impact on in-season play or player management. there should be a bit of a wall between them. once you sign a guy, hes yours, and all you are stuck with is the promises you made.
9/21/2015 3:16 PM
the0nlyis
Posts: 2686 (0)
Hall of Famer
295 6
Prospect
Personally I agree with the decision to get rid of pulldowns, yes its a major factor in HD, but its unrealstic noone is like oh that ****** school is here a lot i guess i'll go there now.

Just increase dropdown rates and how soon they do it.  Guys should drop down within 3/4 cycles of recruiting if you aren't getting recruited by then you aren't good enough to be any schools 1/2nd choice at the level you want.

But I'm not really sure how to keep that high risk/rewad factor in for what goes on with spending money on scouting trips right now.
9/21/2015 3:22 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by the0nlyis on 9/21/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Personally I agree with the decision to get rid of pulldowns, yes its a major factor in HD, but its unrealstic noone is like oh that ****** school is here a lot i guess i'll go there now.

Just increase dropdown rates and how soon they do it.  Guys should drop down within 3/4 cycles of recruiting if you aren't getting recruited by then you aren't good enough to be any schools 1/2nd choice at the level you want.

But I'm not really sure how to keep that high risk/rewad factor in for what goes on with spending money on scouting trips right now.
good point. im not really opposed to removing pulldowns, as much as i am to the high risk/reward proposition they offered. it adds a lot of texture to recruiting. its kind of like the tradeoff between battling and scouting right now. both offer variety in the money management side of recruiting, when there inherently is not much of that to go around. other than that, you have like 5 guys like metsmax who shotgun like 25 recruits up front... and... thats about it :) i definitely would hate to lose those strategic highlights... but if there was something to replace them, i suppose i would be more ok with that (although i'd prefer to see more strategy in that vein, than treading water). 
9/21/2015 3:26 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that preferences to play should be like promises. I believe that they should be recruiting factors that give extra boost to schools that offer promises (and possibly schools that have light depth charts at the position--not sure how hard that'd be to code, but it'd be awesome to see recruits look at the current depth chart regarding their preferences), and this boost should be significant, but it should be possible to overcome without offering promises. Difficult, but possible. 

Also, I do agree with the option of career-long promises, and I think penalties for broken promises could be ramped up (although penalties for not playing a guy because he was injured are stupid and should be toned down bigtime). 
i think we were saying they should be based off promises. if you don't promise, and still sign, the preference doesn't mean jack. only the promise(s) made.
I was intending to respond to Benis, who I think was saying something different. 
ohhh. gotcha. i didn't take that sentence so literally, i thought he was saying preferences should just run off promises. i totally agree - recruiting preferences should have no impact on in-season play or player management. there should be a bit of a wall between them. once you sign a guy, hes yours, and all you are stuck with is the promises you made.
No, I was saying what Tarvolon thought I was saying. That high level recruits inherently come with expectations. I think it's already a little like that when you have upperclassmen who are barely playing, they'll tell you they're mad and threaten to transfer. 

I thought that was talked about before. How a high D1 team can get a 5 star and sit him on the bench for 2 seasons?

My logic was that when looking at where to sign, a recruit has a strong preference to play right away and to start. Even if it's not promised to him, does he suddenly no longer care about that strong preference right after he signs?

9/21/2015 4:03 PM
tarvolon
Posts: 1173 (0)
Hall of Famer
299
Rookie
My point is that it should be overcomeable with effort. Most kids don't want to be redshirted and tell you as much when you offer a redshirt. But enough effort and they'll change their minds. Now on a 5-star, that needs to be a TON more effort for a guy to be okay playing 5 minutes a game when another school is promising a start. But it should be doable, with enough. 
9/21/2015 4:08 PM
gillispie1
Posts: 5030 (0)
Hall of Famer
95
Veteran
Posted by Benis on 9/21/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that preferences to play should be like promises. I believe that they should be recruiting factors that give extra boost to schools that offer promises (and possibly schools that have light depth charts at the position--not sure how hard that'd be to code, but it'd be awesome to see recruits look at the current depth chart regarding their preferences), and this boost should be significant, but it should be possible to overcome without offering promises. Difficult, but possible. 

Also, I do agree with the option of career-long promises, and I think penalties for broken promises could be ramped up (although penalties for not playing a guy because he was injured are stupid and should be toned down bigtime). 
i think we were saying they should be based off promises. if you don't promise, and still sign, the preference doesn't mean jack. only the promise(s) made.
I was intending to respond to Benis, who I think was saying something different. 
ohhh. gotcha. i didn't take that sentence so literally, i thought he was saying preferences should just run off promises. i totally agree - recruiting preferences should have no impact on in-season play or player management. there should be a bit of a wall between them. once you sign a guy, hes yours, and all you are stuck with is the promises you made.
No, I was saying what Tarvolon thought I was saying. That high level recruits inherently come with expectations. I think it's already a little like that when you have upperclassmen who are barely playing, they'll tell you they're mad and threaten to transfer. 

I thought that was talked about before. How a high D1 team can get a 5 star and sit him on the bench for 2 seasons?

My logic was that when looking at where to sign, a recruit has a strong preference to play right away and to start. Even if it's not promised to him, does he suddenly no longer care about that strong preference right after he signs?

i agree with that sentiment - that its not normally ok to bench a 5 star sophmore year. i think its best to make the freshman promises, baseline expectations for the rest of his career. i guess alternatively, you could display the recruit's original preferences and star level, if those are the factors you are using to figure playing time and starts. but, generally, i think the playing time requirements should be transparent and easy to predict. for that reason, i definitely favor the promises carrying forward route, over having some more complex equation for what is ok for future years.

besides, if you look at kentucky, they have some NBA players not starting as sophmores. its possible. i suspect that was discussed in the recruiting process - earn it - or sit. it applies to everyone, regardless of star rating. but if you tell the guy otherwise... thats where the real problem should be! i understand that if you tell some kids, hey, you have to earn it, and they dont, and they don't start - they still might be whiny and quit - but i prefer not to have the emotions of hormonal teenagers simulated in this game :) besides, true 5 stars, they are playing meaningful roles (if not starting) on top teams in HD, almost universally. i don't think thats a problem as much as the situation where you promise a freshman, then bench him as a sophmore like, completely, to play a freshman you want to promise something, for the recruiting perks. i guess neither approach is perfect, but i think the promises carrying forward is more straight forward.

to answer you final question - i would say yes, he no longer has that preference after he signs. i look at not promising a guy who expects it, as a negative - because most folks are going to promise it. i suspect that is like in real life, a guy who expects to start, most schools are offering that start - its only the cream of the crop who may not. in those cases, they have to get the recruit to buy in to their system. if he buys in, if the school overcomes that preference - i think the recruit should stay bought in.
9/21/2015 4:25 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Yeah I hear what you guys are saying and you're probably right, this is the better and easier way to go. I'm making it more complicated than it needs to be probably. 
9/21/2015 4:31 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 573 3
Pro
Might seem like a silly minor thing, but transferring seniors - anything in here that might discourage them from just being snapped up by a higher team that wants to avoid a walkon, then stuffed at the end of the bench would be nice.

Perhaps you could have 'acquired expectations' - if a guy left because he wasn't getting enough minutes, then promises of minutes and starts should be a REALLY strong attractor for that player and carry extra weight. And also there needs to be a stronger hit for violating those promises, perhaps your promises have a less strong effect based on your reputation for keeping them.

'Yeah, that's what you said to Jim bob, I see how that worked out."

That effect should be there, and significant enough to discourage promising a tapped out senior the world in minutes and starts, then stuffing him at the end of the bench.

Positional requirements 'I only want to play point guard'

Not sure how it could be implemented, but some sort of distro promise, 'I'll make you a major cog of our offense' vs 'you are expected to fit in and play in the dean smith method' would be a nice factor.
9/22/2015 7:16 AM (edited)
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
I think the idea for transfers would be that they'd have to sit out a year before playing much like it is in real life. I think that'd eliminate the issue that you're talking about, right?
9/22/2015 7:18 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 573 3
Pro
Posted by Benis on 9/22/2015 7:18:00 AM (view original):
I think the idea for transfers would be that they'd have to sit out a year before playing much like it is in real life. I think that'd eliminate the issue that you're talking about, right?
I wouldnt think so - they would still be attractive one year slot fillers, even if delayed a year.
9/22/2015 7:35 AM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Yeah but it'd be like they're Junior transfers in today's system.
9/22/2015 7:56 AM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
new recruiting / scouting mechanics Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.