Posted by dahsdebater on 8/25/2011 9:35:00 PM (view original):
I would say that the current potential system is definitely "something less than dead spot-on" ...  It's never wrong, but the numbers are fuzzy.

I disagree. Or, perhaps to be more precise, I would argue the degree of fuzz is so small as to be virtually irrelevant. The only potential that's truly "fuzzy" is high-high, which could mean pretty much anything from 27 up to I think 90 is the top gain boasted on the forum to date. Everything else is clustered in a fairly tight packet around the midpoint for the respective level.

If we agree low means 0-6...take the midpoint of 3...does a +/- of 3 make a significant difference when that gain is spaced out over the course of four seasons? 

Average...7-20...midpoint of 13.5...now we're talking +/- of 6.5...I'll round up to 7 just for argument's sake. Now I'll grant that seven points is large enough to have some effect on player performance, but at most it's a minor impact to player ability and performance. It might make the difference between an average and a slightly above-average rebounder or something, but it definitely isn't the dividing line between bust and All-American, so it's not like the situation is so fuzzy that a coach can't look at that FSS average potential combined with the existing rating and not have an idea of how the player is likely to perform by senior year. 

High..21-26...midpoint 23.5...here's where I really have the problem...we've increased the magnitude of stat change more than threefold over what it was at low potential, but have reduced the margin of error to a mere +/- 2.5. To me, that seems a tad counterintuitive. 

All that leaves is high-high...which at least has the advantage of needing scouting trip(s) to obtain. That said, it's still 100 percent accurate once you've received the message indicating such. I doubt very many coaches are going to not take a player because he might gain "only" 27 points as opposed to 45 or something, so, while fuzzy, it hardly impacts recruiting decisions or the game other than some folks who think they're signing a good player suddenly discover they have a great player instead.

My only problem with that is that its a one-directional process that is always going to result in a better player than the coach thought they were signing. I just think there should be a counterbalance to that by which a person who thinks they're signing a good player occasionally gets smacked up side the head by cold hard reality and wakes up one morning in the junior or senior year to realize that Joe Schmoe is an average player, is always going to be an average player, and is never going to come close to those lofty expectations you had for him out of high school. 

I just fail to see what people stand to gain by making improvements more random or unpredictable.  You think it's going to help low-majors compete?  Red just pointed out the most important point that completely nullifies that argument - it's already possible for players to wind up better than you anticipate, but harder for them to wind up much worse.  The biggest advantage of the high-end programs is that they can recruit the guys with elite starting ratings.  Any ability that lower-level teams have to compete lies in recruiting high-potential players in large classes and trying to get a solid group of well-developed upperclassmen together.  Make it possible for those guys to flop and all you do is make competing with a mid-major require not only great coaching but great coaching plus avoiding any bad luck.  Low- and mid-majors are much more reliant on potential to succeed than elite programs.

On the last page somebody said that making FSS data less accurate would weed out the weaker coaches.  The truth is the exact opposite.  Any time you add additional unpredictability to the game you give a leg up to lesser coaches.  When the game is mostly predictable - outside of GPA and individual game RNG results - the only real differentiator between programs is the skill of their coaches.  Obviously things like the geography of recruit generation have some impact, but for the most part the best coaches win most of the time.  If you add randomness you have to be both lucky and good to win.  That's not to say that the cream won't rise to the top, but it will be harder, not easier.  You could make an argument that this would help retain new coaches if they happen to get lucky and succeed beyond their skill level early in their careers.  But don't try to tell me it helps the better coaches.  The opposite is true.  And I will never be in favor of adding additional randomness into the game and taking any control over a team's talent level out of the coaches' hands.

sorry - I have to agree 100% with dahs.  

posted by rednu

"I just think there should be a counterbalance to that by which a person who thinks they're signing a good player occasionally gets smacked up side the head by cold hard reality and wakes up one morning in the junior or senior year to realize that Joe Schmoe is an average player, is always going to be an average player, and is never going to come close to those lofty expectations you had for him out of high school."

Would that be more faithful to certain real-life scenarios? Yes. Good for HD. Hell no.

Honestly, what kind of update do you guys want?  I love the game as is...if it ain't broke don't break it

Posted by girt25 on 8/26/2011 6:50:00 AM (view original):
posted by rednu

"I just think there should be a counterbalance to that by which a person who thinks they're signing a good player occasionally gets smacked up side the head by cold hard reality and wakes up one morning in the junior or senior year to realize that Joe Schmoe is an average player, is always going to be an average player, and is never going to come close to those lofty expectations you had for him out of high school."

Would that be more faithful to certain real-life scenarios? Yes. Good for HD. Hell no.

I don't want players to all of a sudden suck after being recruited, heck dalt you know I've been against injuries for a long time as well! Real Life, yes good for HD, no. 

I just think it would be an improvement to have a chance, where those players with good work ethics, over achieve in the offseason and improve a bit more. If that already is potentially the case I'll eat all my comments here.

But heck I have been away from the game for a while now... Maybe I'll feel differently once I go through a few seasons ...

Btw is potential still hard capped? (I assume) or has it been soft capped as was talked about a lot in the past?

It's hard capped. What seble said about the soft cap was BS. I have had players improve by 15 PTA in a category one season and then not at all the next.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/26/2011 10:13:00 AM (view original):
It's hard capped. What seble said about the soft cap was BS. I have had players improve by 15 PTA in a category one season and then not at all the next.

Even if you put like 25 minutes into it right? so it is hard capped... sigh

Posted by zhawks on 8/26/2011 10:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/26/2011 10:13:00 AM (view original):
It's hard capped. What seble said about the soft cap was BS. I have had players improve by 15 PTA in a category one season and then not at all the next.

Even if you put like 25 minutes into it right? so it is hard capped... sigh

Yep, I have a couple high work ethic guys who reached their caps by the end of their sophomore seasons. And then in a category where they had high potential, they improved no more with 20+ mins. 

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/26/2011 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 8/26/2011 10:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/26/2011 10:13:00 AM (view original):
It's hard capped. What seble said about the soft cap was BS. I have had players improve by 15 PTA in a category one season and then not at all the next.

Even if you put like 25 minutes into it right? so it is hard capped... sigh

Yep, I have a couple high work ethic guys who reached their caps by the end of their sophomore seasons. And then in a category where they had high potential, they improved no more with 20+ mins. 

That was the part I liked about the old potential system that was lost with FSS, coaches were able to develop their players much more after recruiting, now you have to recruit the players you can develop. I wish there was a bit more of a middle ground. I am not totally against FSS, I just wish once you hit that 'cap' you could still get a couple points a year with 20 mins practice.

Soft cap sounds like a much better idea than a random element to the offseason...  You could argue either way on its realism, but it would make it less of a bummer when you have a really great player essentially cap out early in his junior year.

on the plus side, you get a really great player who maximized his potential with over a season of eligibility to flex his muscle...

Posted by dacj501 on 8/26/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
on the plus side, you get a really great player who maximized his potential with over a season of eligibility to flex his muscle...

true but if you could pump out an extra point or two it would be nice...

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/26/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Soft cap sounds like a much better idea than a random element to the offseason...  You could argue either way on its realism, but it would make it less of a bummer when you have a really great player essentially cap out early in his junior year.

It would be far more realistic, because the way it is now, players have reached their potential by the time they reach the NBA. That's very unrealistic. Player's can always improve every skill besides speed, which is more of an attribute. I sounded like a major nerd right there, haha.