I want to restart the blog idea that I used during development of the May release. It's a good way for me to let you guys know what I'm working on relative to HD. I've been lacking in the communication area the last few weeks for several reasons, but it's time to get back on track. As before, this thread will be locked to keep it clean, but feel free to start new ones to discuss things that are posted here.


Right now I have a couple of things in progress:


- I'm putting together a survey for all current HD coaches to get a more comprehensive view of some important issues in the game. That should be available soon.


- I'm working on some changes to allow recruiting responses to run at the top of the hour for each cycle. Then the new controller would run games, and finally the old controller would run everything else besides recruiting responses.


- I'm working on some changes to the top 25 rankings to factor in postseason results.


Thank you for your continued patience as I work to improve the game.

Of the things he is looking into, recruit generation is NOT one of them.  I think, at this point, that is the biggest issue in the game.  There needs to be more players with High (Green) and less with Low (Red).  I know OR and a few other coaches have discussed this issue, mainly on the Big East CC in Tark but on the forums as well.  I hope this will get addressed.

Seble, I'm hugely appreciative of you taking the time to do this and keep us in the loop. I think it's great and very valuable. I also think the HD poll is a great idea.

That said, the couple items that you mentioned that you're currently working on ... those are low priority items. There are significant issues in the new sim engine (fouls, etc.) and with recruit generation (to name two) that really demand your attention much more than something like tinkering with the top 25.

Great to know that you're working diligently and fantastic to receive these updates ... but hopefully we can get the list of priorities in order?

Seble thanks for getting yourself back into the loop, so to speak. The 2 I've noticed this season (43)  with recruiting are: 

1. With me, the PGs/SGs seem to have great ratings across the board and than have a WE of like 10/11/12. I was able to find guys without that curve ball, but it took a lot of time doing it.

and

2. I've seen a lot of my conference mates, as well as other big name schools that are going after big guys (PFs/Cs) with great stats across the board and than with a speed of 10/12/15.

For me, tweaking the Recruiting Class generation would be a nice fix and something you could look into when you have the time.

I agree, the top 25 is a low priority.

The big issues I see with the engine are : 

1) excessive fouling and/or  big disparity in fouls between 2 teams

2) rebounding doesn't seem to follow the rating logic....i.e.  supposedly 'bad' rebounders have better stats than better players

There is one, quick fix that the Top 25 needs and then i think it is ok. When it was fixed to address teams falling drastically on off days that change seems to have carried over into the post season. Teams need to be credited for a loss more then not playing in the post season. If Top 25 rankings are going to have an effect on ANYTHING (and we all know they do) then they should be good otherwise do the right thing - make them window dressing.

Agreed recruits need to be 'greener'

lol@ people saying theres problems with the recruits.

I like the recruits. I feel like no one else feels the same way but you cant just get perfect guys anymore. For instance, at MSU I just recruited a stud defensive rebounding center but he has 50 LP average. Now next season I have to recruit a low post scorer. I never had that dilemma in the old engine. 

Posted by tmacfan12 on 7/12/2010 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I like the recruits. I feel like no one else feels the same way but you cant just get perfect guys anymore. For instance, at MSU I just recruited a stud defensive rebounding center but he has 50 LP average. Now next season I have to recruit a low post scorer. I never had that dilemma in the old engine. 

tmac, you're missing the bigger picture here. No one is suggesting that we should keep everyone at 90+ like they did before.

The point is that under the current set-up, the low and mid DI teams just don't have a chance to compete. The decline from the top tier of recruits to the next tiers is so precipitous (and most potentials are so low), that it is guaranteed to result in a gross competitive imbalance.

If seble (1) increased potential and (2) made a more significant group of players that fell in between the studs and the dregs, the issue would be easily addressed. And you could still keep this great variety and ensure that the we weren't stuck with all teams having 90+ players.

Posted by daalter on 7/12/2010 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I'm hugely appreciative of you taking the time to do this and keep us in the loop. I think it's great and very valuable. I also think the HD poll is a great idea.

That said, the couple items that you mentioned that you're currently working on ... those are low priority items. There are significant issues in the new sim engine (fouls, etc.) and with recruit generation (to name two) that really demand your attention much more than something like tinkering with the top 25.

Great to know that you're working diligently and fantastic to receive these updates ... but hopefully we can get the list of priorities in order?

+1

Posted by alblack56 on 7/12/2010 9:48:00 AM (view original):
I agree, the top 25 is a low priority.

The big issues I see with the engine are : 

1) excessive fouling and/or  big disparity in fouls between 2 teams

2) rebounding doesn't seem to follow the rating logic....i.e.  supposedly 'bad' rebounders have better stats than better players

al - I am sure reb will get changed, really is too bad, I thought reb used to be a function of how good the player was not only at REEB, but also SP, ATH, STAM, some even thought WE was part of the formula, I found it to be very predictable and consistent .... I find the notion that great rebounding equals great REB to be a big step backwards in the game

Posted by girt25 on 7/12/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 7/12/2010 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I like the recruits. I feel like no one else feels the same way but you cant just get perfect guys anymore. For instance, at MSU I just recruited a stud defensive rebounding center but he has 50 LP average. Now next season I have to recruit a low post scorer. I never had that dilemma in the old engine. 

tmac, you're missing the bigger picture here. No one is suggesting that we should keep everyone at 90+ like they did before.

The point is that under the current set-up, the low and mid DI teams just don't have a chance to compete. The decline from the top tier of recruits to the next tiers is so precipitous (and most potentials are so low), that it is guaranteed to result in a gross competitive imbalance.

If seble (1) increased potential and (2) made a more significant group of players that fell in between the studs and the dregs, the issue would be easily addressed. And you could still keep this great variety and ensure that the we weren't stuck with all teams having 90+ players.

I think increased potential and early entries can do a lot to make the game better and more realistic.  Generally, the low/mid major teams that can compete and make deep runs, are based on groups of veteran players. 

Obviously in real life 'experience' can be a more significant factor than it is here, but if there was a deeper pool of recruits who could grow to ratings similar to those of the highly ranked FR (who should probably be leaving after a season or two) as they are juniors and seniors.  I think having mids fielding teams of players who aren't quite as good as the elites, but more experienced is a decent balance.

And there needs to be enough of a pool of these recruits to keep elites with 3-5 openings from figting for a stud or two, and then grabbing the high potential kids to stash for a season or two.

Posted by oldresorter on 7/12/2010 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 7/12/2010 9:48:00 AM (view original):
I agree, the top 25 is a low priority.

The big issues I see with the engine are : 

1) excessive fouling and/or  big disparity in fouls between 2 teams

2) rebounding doesn't seem to follow the rating logic....i.e.  supposedly 'bad' rebounders have better stats than better players

al - I am sure reb will get changed, really is too bad, I thought reb used to be a function of how good the player was not only at REEB, but also SP, ATH, STAM, some even thought WE was part of the formula, I found it to be very predictable and consistent .... I find the notion that great rebounding equals great REB to be a big step backwards in the game

I agree.  Do you think that, now, the rebounding stats are too closely related to the REB rating??   I saw a player pull down 8 rebounds with a '13'  rating recently.

Rebounding in the old engine was just about perfect.  I hope they can return to that formula.

Posted by girt25 on 7/12/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 7/12/2010 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I like the recruits. I feel like no one else feels the same way but you cant just get perfect guys anymore. For instance, at MSU I just recruited a stud defensive rebounding center but he has 50 LP average. Now next season I have to recruit a low post scorer. I never had that dilemma in the old engine. 

tmac, you're missing the bigger picture here. No one is suggesting that we should keep everyone at 90+ like they did before.

The point is that under the current set-up, the low and mid DI teams just don't have a chance to compete. The decline from the top tier of recruits to the next tiers is so precipitous (and most potentials are so low), that it is guaranteed to result in a gross competitive imbalance.

If seble (1) increased potential and (2) made a more significant group of players that fell in between the studs and the dregs, the issue would be easily addressed. And you could still keep this great variety and ensure that the we weren't stuck with all teams having 90+ players.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I had little difficulty finding a guy ranked in the 90s at his position, who was listed as low DI-quality, who had High/Average potential pretty much across the board and who should end up being a solid backup for me at worst. And he was undecided a few cycles into Smith recruiting - had there been any lower level schools on him when I saw him I likely wouldn't have battled, because I was specifically looking for someone I could get dirt cheap.