Posted by stinenavy on 10/18/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Can we please stop the, "I've never played in D1, but here's my input" commentary.

Why? Isn't it possible for someone who hasn't played d1 to nonetheless have an insight on it? Sometimes good insight come from an outsider looking in without preconceptions that being involved brings.

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.

All great ideas/suggestions.

Yes, I agree with the study hall issue.  Do not mess with that please.  We do not need problems such as increased frequency in ineligibility. 

Posted by ryandaniel on 10/18/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 10/18/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Can we please stop the, "I've never played in D1, but here's my input" commentary.

Why? Isn't it possible for someone who hasn't played d1 to nonetheless have an insight on it? Sometimes good insight come from an outsider looking in without preconceptions that being involved brings.

no

anyone paying to play this game is welcome (by most) to comment on whatever they chose.

ee is to me the biggest issue facing some of the worlds.  crum acc is maybe the most dominate conference I've ever seen - and over a number of seasons it's been interesting to see that ee not only affects the acc teams, but more importantly it hampers mid-level teams' ability to recruit quality players because the A+ folks always have 4-6 open schollies.  In RL the main way coaches recruit against higher prestige schools is by offering immediate playing time - that recruiting advantage is completely ruined if the big guys can offer it as well.  that combined with a recruit generation that still drops off a cliff once you get to the lower end of 4 and 3 star guys, it's just a bad combo.  the acc guys in crum have done an amazing job and they deserve to be dominating that world - but to me the game operates best - especially in DI - when there are cycles of highs and lows for each conference.  if it were up to me, ee's would be minimal and/or transfers would rise - to reflect the fact that a 4 star kid is not going to stomach not starting by his soph year.  that would start to put more pressure on the higher end teams to keep those players happy and offer up alternatives to mid-level schools in terms of recruiting.  just my 2 cents.   

I think a good fix to recruiting would be making playing time much more important. That way, if a team is at a big prestige disadvantage and they offer a start and 20 mpg, they can beat a higher prestige that dumps more money onto a guy if they don't offer, say, more than 10 mpg. 

Posted by girt25 on 10/18/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):

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.

All great ideas/suggestions.

This is great stuff.  If My stud SG could tell me at the begninning of his junior year he is:

A)  Leaving for the NBA after this year for sure
B) Staying to graduate because he loves college hoops and wants his degree.
C) Is about 50/50 right now, if he can be a 1st rounder he'll leave.

That would really help with planning and recruiting.  What NEEDs to change regarding EEs is that it must be more based on ratings than team results.  Mid level guys leaving teams that get to the sweet 16 while no one leaves a PT team.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 10/17/2011 11:39:00 PM (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)

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?  

 

 

because if there is no random chance involved it's essentially a chess game where the better coach wins every single time.  that's not realistic.  nobody in real life knows exactly how far a HS recruit is going to progress, or whether a guy is going to get injured or have academic problems. why should we?  why isn't it preferable to have a rough idea instead? to have recruits sometimes surprise everyone and either choke or exceed expectations?  the best coach still wins in the long run, but in the short run anything can happen. it throws an element of gambling into the game at the expense of cold calculation.

the EE part is the least important to me.  i could be convinced that there is more variance in HD right now than in real life, although i don't think there's an outrageous difference.  the others are not close.  HD has WAY WAY less variance, and we want to make it even less?

Posted by shqipta on 10/18/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
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.

Wow I should have read a few posts up, but this is pretty much exactly my idea.  Would really add a good level of strategy to D1 recruiting.  Take the 4 year guy that is solid, or the superstar Kevin Durant that might only play 1-2 years, and will leave after 3 for sure.

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/18/2011 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 10/17/2011 11:39:00 PM (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)

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?  

 

 

because if there is no random chance involved it's essentially a chess game where the better coach wins every single time.  that's not realistic.  nobody in real life knows exactly how far a HS recruit is going to progress, or whether a guy is going to get injured or have academic problems. why should we?  why isn't it preferable to have a rough idea instead? to have recruits sometimes surprise everyone and either choke or exceed expectations?  the best coach still wins in the long run, but in the short run anything can happen. it throws an element of gambling into the game at the expense of cold calculation.

the EE part is the least important to me.  i could be convinced that there is more variance in HD right now than in real life, although i don't think there's an outrageous difference.  the others are not close.  HD has WAY WAY less variance, and we want to make it even less?

I don't think a single person here is arguing there should be NO randomness,  but that the effect of the randomness shouldn't be LARGER than the effect of the planning or strategy;  study hall minutes, for example.

"I don't think a single person here is arguing there should be NO randomness,  but that the effect of the randomness shouldn't be LARGER than the effect of the planning or strategy;  study hall minutes, for example."

1.  It isn't larger.  Study hall clearly has a very large effect.  That there are situations where players have been below 2.0 despite high study hall minutes doesn't refute that.  It's just variance.  In fact, as long as there is ANY variance, there will be such players.  Do you see why?

2. For academics, randomness probably should have a larger effect than anything the coach does.  We've all been to school - what do you think has a bigger impact on grades- what the coach does, or what the player does?

Nothing changes with recruit generation, huh?

Posted by stinenavy on 10/18/2011 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryandaniel on 10/18/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 10/18/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Can we please stop the, "I've never played in D1, but here's my input" commentary.

Why? Isn't it possible for someone who hasn't played d1 to nonetheless have an insight on it? Sometimes good insight come from an outsider looking in without preconceptions that being involved brings.

no

If you read my own comments, I simply repeated what a lot of D1 coaches here have said and asked that fixing D1 doesn't break D2 and D3.

I also pointed out that until/unless I hear more positive comments on D1 play I'm not going to move up.  Given that some of the servers have been steadily losing D1 coaches and some of the conferences are becoming ghost towns, I would think you would want that too.

Or not.  You may be sick of the "never played D1" comments, but I get sick of the "you aren't qualified to comment" BS.  It's not going to stop me and it makes you look like an arrogant jerk.

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/18/2011 5:28:00 PM (view original):

"I don't think a single person here is arguing there should be NO randomness,  but that the effect of the randomness shouldn't be LARGER than the effect of the planning or strategy;  study hall minutes, for example."

1.  It isn't larger.  Study hall clearly has a very large effect.  That there are situations where players have been below 2.0 despite high study hall minutes doesn't refute that.  It's just variance.  In fact, as long as there is ANY variance, there will be such players.  Do you see why?

2. For academics, randomness probably should have a larger effect than anything the coach does.  We've all been to school - what do you think has a bigger impact on grades- what the coach does, or what the player does?

Very few people here want to have to worry about study hall. Most would probably not bat an eyelash (and perhaps rejoice) if they got rid of it.

To have random factors for an inane part of the game making players ineligible. It's a negative.

There are plenty of random factors throughout HD -- in every game every night -- and this is one area where we don't need more of it.

(And your point #2 is silly ... we are essentially controlling what the player does, i.e. how much he studies.)