Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

#6 I like, having a player with 10 SH mins and a 45 WE and a 2.7 HS GPA pull at 1.4 at midterms sucks. 

#4 I like too.  I lost a 740 rated redshirt junior PF that was a zero star recruit once.  While every season 900 overall players stay. 

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

We absolutely do not need any more randomness in EEs. That is the most absurd thing I have heard.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/17/2011 7:45:00 PM (view original):
more recruiting $

We don't need more recruiting money. If you don't feel you have enough it likely means you haven't found a good way to recruit.

Posted by dacj501 on 10/17/2011 9:33:00 PM (view original):
it is also against the rules according to WiS...

Indeed.  Besides.  I want to win any game I play.  Be annoying to purposely drop one, whatever the reason or supposed benefits..

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

While I would say giving walkons a BIT more variance would possibly be good:  I e, at least allow them to have ONE skill that gives them a reason to have even belonged on a basketball court in high school. . . I can't agree with the rest of your points.

#2:  Why is this bad?

#4:  Why is more random early entry 'fun'?

#6: Why is having your study hall minutes be essentially a crapshoot fun?  

 

 

they need to make it a seperate play-by-play screen for OT...that way you cant tell what the outcome of the game is before you get to the end of the scroll

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

#2 - I am hoping this means showing whether a skill is a high-high or a low-high. Also it might mean showing how close a player is to maxing out eg. far from it, somewhere in the middle, just about there. There is nothing random about that.

#4 - Some teams lose 3-4 players while others with the same quality of player don't lose any. This is the not fair part. As for the predictibility, I would like to see it based more on the skill ratings and less on how far a team advances in the NT. There will always be some randomness involved because of the nature of humans. Some 900+ kids will stay in school because they promised their Momma they would. Other kids have no interest in academics other than staying eligible and will bolt as soon as they can.

#6 - I have no problem making SH minutes more meaningful. Recently, there was a thread about a coach putting 90 SH minutes into a kid who had something like a 1.8 GPA at mid-term and the kid finished with around a 1.2 GPA. That is just flat out wrong. On the other hand, there are coaches who claim to not put any SH minutes into players and they still pass. That is not right either. The lower the starting GPA, the more minutes that should be needed to keep them eligible. It doesn't have to be completely linear but there should be some type of correlation. Obviously, there needs to be some randomness here just like there is in real life but the current range is way too broad - on both ends.  

Posted by Weena on 10/18/2011 1:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

#2 - I am hoping this means showing whether a skill is a high-high or a low-high. Also it might mean showing how close a player is to maxing out eg. far from it, somewhere in the middle, just about there. There is nothing random about that.

#4 - Some teams lose 3-4 players while others with the same quality of player don't lose any. This is the not fair part. As for the predictibility, I would like to see it based more on the skill ratings and less on how far a team advances in the NT. There will always be some randomness involved because of the nature of humans. Some 900+ kids will stay in school because they promised their Momma they would. Other kids have no interest in academics other than staying eligible and will bolt as soon as they can.

#6 - I have no problem making SH minutes more meaningful. Recently, there was a thread about a coach putting 90 SH minutes into a kid who had something like a 1.8 GPA at mid-term and the kid finished with around a 1.2 GPA. That is just flat out wrong. On the other hand, there are coaches who claim to not put any SH minutes into players and they still pass. That is not right either. The lower the starting GPA, the more minutes that should be needed to keep them eligible. It doesn't have to be completely linear but there should be some type of correlation. Obviously, there needs to be some randomness here just like there is in real life but the current range is way too broad - on both ends.  

+1 to Weena's remarks.

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

Ease up on him guys.  SOMEONE has to make up the other 5% of the HD coaches population.

Posted by courtmagic on 10/18/2011 2:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Weena on 10/18/2011 1:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/17/2011 11:14:00 PM (view original):

I dislike the following:

2.  Determine a better method of showing a player's ratings potential beyond the current "Player Thoughts" inbox message.
4.  Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
6.  Adjust GPA logic to place more weight on study hall minutes and reduce randomness

We need more variance, not less.  In real life, from a coach's perspective, random chance has a huge effect on all of these things.  Why eliminate it?  It's fun.  I wish they'd bring back injuries too. 

Oh, and put more variance into walk-on quality (that is, make some of them playable)

#2 - I am hoping this means showing whether a skill is a high-high or a low-high. Also it might mean showing how close a player is to maxing out eg. far from it, somewhere in the middle, just about there. There is nothing random about that.

#4 - Some teams lose 3-4 players while others with the same quality of player don't lose any. This is the not fair part. As for the predictibility, I would like to see it based more on the skill ratings and less on how far a team advances in the NT. There will always be some randomness involved because of the nature of humans. Some 900+ kids will stay in school because they promised their Momma they would. Other kids have no interest in academics other than staying eligible and will bolt as soon as they can.

#6 - I have no problem making SH minutes more meaningful. Recently, there was a thread about a coach putting 90 SH minutes into a kid who had something like a 1.8 GPA at mid-term and the kid finished with around a 1.2 GPA. That is just flat out wrong. On the other hand, there are coaches who claim to not put any SH minutes into players and they still pass. That is not right either. The lower the starting GPA, the more minutes that should be needed to keep them eligible. It doesn't have to be completely linear but there should be some type of correlation. Obviously, there needs to be some randomness here just like there is in real life but the current range is way too broad - on both ends.  

+1 to Weena's remarks.

Make that +2

I'd just as soon eliminate study hall entirely.  I don't think it adds anything to the game at all, it is bothersome and annoying for coaches and it doesn't add any realism to the game.  I mean, 2 minutes of study a day really helps my PG pull a 3.6 at Duke?  Just reduce the practice minutes to 125 and remove grades and study hall from the game completely.

I've made these suggestions for EEs earlier, but I think they bear repeating - currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I say they reduce that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, they can use current logic to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

I don't think it's any secret that D1 is incredibly unbalanced right now.  I don't play D1 and have no plans to ever do so - based largely on how broken you guys have said it is.  So making it more balanced might actually attract more coaches to D1.

Tweaks are needed at all levels.  My personal wish is that, in the process of fixing D1 they don't break D2 and D3.

Posted by acn24 on 10/18/2011 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I'd just as soon eliminate study hall entirely.  I don't think it adds anything to the game at all, it is bothersome and annoying for coaches and it doesn't add any realism to the game.  I mean, 2 minutes of study a day really helps my PG pull a 3.6 at Duke?  Just reduce the practice minutes to 125 and remove grades and study hall from the game completely.

I've made these suggestions for EEs earlier, but I think they bear repeating - currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I say they reduce that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, they can use current logic to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

I'm not in D1, so I have no practical experience either way with points 2 and 3, but from what I read all the time, both 2 & 3 make sense.

Can we please stop the, "I've never played in D1, but here's my input" commentary.

Old Message for pretty much every top DI recruit: "Overall, I think he could play at the NBA level right now. He'll almost definitely leave for the NBA early if he does go to college."

New Messages: "Coach, I heard his mother tell him that if he came back from school without a 4 year degree, she'd personally serve his **** up on a platter. I think we can count on him for 4 years.

"Coach, after my evaluation of __________, I dropped by the bowling alley to try to improve my scores. Anyway, ______ was there with his posse of at least 20. (Can I say that his girlfriend was HOT!). I heard him promising to get them all set up once he's in the NBA. I've seen it before, he won't be hanging around for 4 years."
 
"________'s sister took me out for icecream after her brother's practice. (I couldn't say no, how would that look). Anyway she let me know that their father is really into the degree thing, but their mother has some medical bills, that they just can't pay. He's being pulled both directions, he might stay all 4 to please his dad, or he might go early to take care of his mom.