I know seble said that development would be slowed with the new engine, but how much? The regular season is now over, and the repercussions I am seeing this year is a 40 WE freshman with high potential in several categories (from asst coach, not FSS) improved only 4-5 points in some categories.
The player is SF Timothy Brown, with high potential in speed, defense, perimeter, stamina & durability. He received between 10-14 minutes in both footwork and perimeter all season depending on study hall time.
www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

any opinions on the matter? Was development slowed too much, or does a 4-5 point improvement for high potential seem normal for more experienced coaches?

Previously, a SF with high potential in speed would improve by 17-25 points over his career in speed and perimeter.   Since WIS now wants players to max out later,  4-5 points per year isn't too bad.   I'd like a little more, though

All things being equal, development is slower in the new engine, which is a good thing. It was actually slower than this during beta, a bunch of people said it was too slow, and seble quickened it to a level that imho is really appropriate.

However, based on my experience so far, four points for a guy with decent WE who is playing 15 mpg seems slower than I'd expect.

My guess would be if he only improved four points, you weren't practicing that category much.

yeah, say 12 minutes of perimeter practice isn't exactly that much.  If you put in 18 points and got 7?  points of improvement that would be great.

My Allen team is almost done.  First year improvements in high potential categories for my freshmen (WE 39-45):

10, 9, 7,7,7,7,7,6,6,6,6,5,5  (ave 6.76)

Average Potential:  5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2  (ave 3)

That seems pretty reasonable to me. 

The question is, if improvement is slowed down that much what will happen with the guys that have the potential to improve 40 or more points in an are. If they are only going to improve 5 per season how will you max out their improvement unless their WE is really high? 

You might have to make choices as to what areas a player reaches their full potential in.  Not neccesarily a bad thing.  And it makes WE valuable.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/25/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
You might have to make choices as to what areas a player reaches their full potential in.  Not neccesarily a bad thing.  And it makes WE valuable.

Definitely think WE is much more important to look for now.  On recruit searches, I'm doing a lot of "sort by WE" now instead of just setting a minimum value.

this really hurts coaches now who want to run combo defenses. I gave that up this season because I really didn't see any advantages to running the half-court press, but really benefited from the extra practice minutes it gave me.

Also, it makes redshirting perhaps more valuable.

Posted by ryanderson on 6/26/2010 5:20:00 PM (view original):
this really hurts coaches now who want to run combo defenses. I gave that up this season because I really didn't see any advantages to running the half-court press, but really benefited from the extra practice minutes it gave me.

It's not that much slower. I've had numerous guys improve by double digits in various in the new engine.

It's much slower Dan.... very few play with the caliber of recruit that you do. To those recruiting a lesser animal... maybe watching a nice wall of fresh paint dry would bring a little more excitement into their day.

Honestly, I don't think it's about the caliber of the recruit. Maybe I'm recruiting a guy with a 50 rating and high potential and someone else is recruiting a guy with a rating of 40 and high potential -- but if it's high potential, it still should be going up at a good pace.

The original poster reporting a 4-5 pt gain over the course of a season with a guy playing regular mins and a decent we doesn't compute ... unless he's not giving many practice mins in that area, in which case it would make perfect sense and he doesn't really have a legitimate gripe.

The other factor is that guys were simply improving too quickly before and maxing out, which everyone was rightfully annoyed with and complained about. It was bad for the game and generally just sort of absurd. There are a handful of issues that still really need improvement, but personally I think they've done a great job on this one -- balancing the need for improvement with not wanting players to max out so early like they were before.

(Just randomly looked at one of my conferences ... every team had at least one rating that went up 9 pts over the course of the season, and over half the teams had double digit ratings increases. That definitely doesn't sound like "watching paint dry". So if you have a high potential guy and actually give him some practice mins, there will be real improvement.)

actually I'm not complaining, (altho the whole paint drying thing would appear like it), LOL. I am just saying I think it has been slowed 30-40%. Guys maxing out as sophs. were truely annoying. But I glanced across Crums top 20 DI teams... and with 2 games left no-one had any core with double digits that I saw. If everyone improves in high potential areas by 6, 7, or 8... and these are the best of the best? Won't 3-4 seasons in the rich be vastly richer and the poor... well u get it.
Just an observation / question.

WHat is the largest full-season improvement for a player someone has had under the new engine?  I had a 66 and a 59.