Honestly, I think that I'm with Dac & Mil above: the easiest fix would simply be raising the upper caps on Freshman IQ. That doesn't seem like it'd be a difficult fix at all.

Yup.  Should not require fundamental change in the engine or anything.

Anyone see any problem with allowing say 10% of FR to have B IQ and 1% to have an A when they arrive? or some percentage like that?

But how will the work? Do you want 10% of FR to have a B IQ for all 4 offenses of all 3 defenses?

I would imagine it as the same in that regard as now - recruits have IQ in one offense and one or two defenses.  I see no reason to change that.

this would mean that finding a guy who is a B in both your offense and defense and good enuf skills to contribute immediately would be hard - but at least it would not be effectively impossible

Posted by milwood on 2/24/2014 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Fwiw, I don't think iq is implemented perfectly. There should be more freshman coming into college with a b range iq. It is true that these freshman are not always very useful but, outside of high DI, the players ratings usually aren't that ueful and will be better by junior year both because their ratings have improved and their IQs have improved.

Freshman can absolutely have an impact on a team. Can five freshman in a starting lineup be effective, probably not. Does iq perfectly reflect real life basketball, almost certainly not. Is it better for game play (although it is a simulation it still involves game play) I think so. Just because a player is familiar with the offense or defense does not mean they will never be. In the wrong place. I think iq does a decent job of reflecting this.

Every year there is a team of mostly upperclassmen in the NT (real life) that does well against a much more talented but younger team. Isn't this attributed to iq?

Coaches have the ability to assign minutes to team offense and defense practice. If this is your priority put more time into it. Seeing a player come in as an F sucks but it shouldn't be looked at as 0 knowledge of the system. And also that F grade lasts literally one exhibition game, two if the guy is a complete moron.

Sure iq could be improved, but I think the best improvement would be for some freshman entering college with higher starting IQs, not implementing a system to increase the rate of improvement

I agree with Millwood.  I think IQ is good as is with one exception.

However I take a little slanted approach to what it stands for.  I vew IQ as the player's ability to properly read and react on the floor to the opponent within the concept of his team's offense or defense.   i.e. - anticipating how his teammates will react and reacting accordingly.   A team filled with "A" IQs know instictually how each other will move and can anticipate their actions.   The instinctive nature makes up for natural speed/athleticism.

The exception is in real life some kid's IQs grow fater than others.   Some "never" get it.   I think IQ's should also have low/medium/high potentials just like the ratings.    So as a coach do you choose a player with high rating potentials knowing he may cap out at a "B" IQ?

PS - I posted that before reading gill's post.

there are a lot of really good ideas to improve how IQ works in the SIM.  I hold little hope of such major changes.

I still think the simpler change in the distro of IQ levels in recruits would make the SIM better - but a lot of the other ideas would be worth consideration

60 mins each would be a really bad idea for most teams

please refrain from comments about other users in this thread - lets stick to discussion of ideas and analysis - nothing directed toward any person

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/25/2014 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 2/24/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MyGeneration on 2/24/2014 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I think IQ reflects the reality of the knowledge curve in basketball. Just because players are drafted after one year in college does not mean they have better basketball IQ's than the average freshman. Instead, what we see in real life, and in HD, is players with chart-topping athleticism & potential that get drafted. I think IQ is something something that could easily have been left out when designing the game and I think the game is better for it being incorporated.

Yea, but the only way to be really productive in this game is to have a decent IQ. A guy who comes in with a F IQ isn't going to perform up to his ratings. While freshman are often drafted based on potential, there is also production mixed in there. Nobody should be leaving after 1 season with the way freshman produce in this game, and that is due to the low IQs.

I've always thought IQ was implemented incorrectly in this game. Basketball offenses and defenses aren't that complex, if you have a high basketball IQ you will learn them quickly. Because of that I would have made IQ an player attribute like all the rest of the ratings.

this post most closely reflects my views - however, i would consider splitting offensive and defensive IQs. i think my favorite approach is an intelligence attribute (scrapping incoming GPA as the "intelligence" attribute) that has more impact on IQ growth than gpa does today - low intelligence player may cap out at a B, instead of an A, high intelligence players could hit A or A+ as juniors. then, offensive and defensive IQ would come in at a certain level (including freshman who start higher), and set-specific IQs would be sort of hidden (exposed through manual expansion of the IQ area) as they would only be smaller impact items used to stop coaches from switching offenses day to day (unless minutes were allocated). all players could come in with the same level of IQ in specific offenses, and you would simply observe their intelligence and level of IQ (which could be linked in recruit generation, but not too tightly, as some players can start late etc). practicing any offense/defense would grow the off/def IQ but only the specific offense or defense being practiced. i would imagine the two simply combining into one IQ within the engine, where the off/def was somewhere in the 1/2 to 3/4ths range of the weighting. i wanted to get away from set based IQ altogether, but i think there has to be something to stop coaches from playing whatever they want whenever they want, its not realistic and having the option at no cost would sort of force coaches to do so or be disadvantaged - which i think is too involved from a game planning standpoint. i think coaches should be able choose to practice 2 defenses (or offenses but i presume that would be less valuable) and then have some man and zone mixing, but it has to be at some cost.

I think this can be addressed simply be making it so you pick an offense and a defense at the beginning of the season and you have to stick with it. Teams don't switch systems during the season in real life, because it's not possible to do so and not have a major impact. Teams may tweak things but completely changing just does not happen.  

The highest incoming fresh IQ I've seen is B- I believe but I've really only seen this once or twice in my HD career. I favor an IQ adjustment based on some intelligence factor but I'm not so sure I like the cap on IQ for a player considered to be "stupid" because somehow I think this would hurt lower level teams. I think it would be cool to cap some of the high end recruits who should be EE's. Sometimes these guys don't leave early for whatever reason and we have seasons of super teams where coaches end up with 5 or 6 900 + rated guys who should have left early but can get to A or A- and are pretty much unstoppable. Not too much fun when you already know who's gonna be the NC before the season is even underway.

Posted by colonels19 on 2/25/2014 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/24/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 2/24/2014 3:16:00 PM (view original):
I think IQ is a good concept as well. But I'm with the OP on this. In the real world, some Freshmen come in ready to be superstars right away. And it's not JUST the 1-and-doners either. Look at a guy like K-State's Marcus Foster. He's already KSU's best player, and would probably be the equivalent of a "B" IQ in Bruce Weber's motion offense.

Most FR would be a B at this point in the season if they've been playing significant minutes.

It's just not that hard to learn most systems in basketball. In part, that's by design -- it doesn't do a coach any good to have a system he can't teach to players such that he can get the best use out of the most resources.

Set your off and def practice times to about 60 mins each, and you should be able to achieve what you're looking for...

I know this was a facetious suggestion, but I might actually attempt an experiment where I set the offense/defense practice times super high (60+) for the exhibition games, and maybe the first 2-3 non-cons, and see how it affects IQ.