Posted by jbasnight on 10/18/2011 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Nothing changes with recruit generation, huh?

Ehhh... at this point, the changes that need to be made are how the recruits select a school. The current factors make it impossible for a Butler or George Mason to make a wild run to the Final Four simply because in WIS, it's nearly impossible to win over recruits if a BCS school butts in. 

Each recruit needs a different set of values. If their plan is to start for four years at a mid-major, and a BCS school does not offer them a starting position, then it shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a two or three star recruit says, "Hell, I'm going to George Mason even if UNC has sent me more visits", because UNC won't offer any playing time. 

If a recruit wants to play for a contender, higher prestige will be a huge factor. If they want to get national recognition, conference prestige will play a big factor. If they want money, they should lay it out to you that their family is struggling and his mom needs a new car. Think about what Calipari did at UMASS. That needs to be possible and it shouldn't be impossible to give away anything other than a freakin hat without getting busted. 

Progression needs fixing as well. Slower progression and all-around higher ceilings for ratings need to be put into place. There's no way a player should have no room for improvement in rebounding or low post or any category besides maybe speed. Players also shouldn't be able to increase their speed from 50 to 99 by their senior season. It's physically impossible. 

By giving coaches more flexibility to pick and chose what ratings they want to see increases in, we will see the return of the mid-major because 4th year seniors will have the advantage over the highly coveted freshman and sophomores at BCS schools. 

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 10/18/2011 8:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jbasnight on 10/18/2011 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Nothing changes with recruit generation, huh?

Ehhh... at this point, the changes that need to be made are how the recruits select a school. The current factors make it impossible for a Butler or George Mason to make a wild run to the Final Four simply because in WIS, it's nearly impossible to win over recruits if a BCS school butts in. 

Each recruit needs a different set of values. If their plan is to start for four years at a mid-major, and a BCS school does not offer them a starting position, then it shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a two or three star recruit says, "Hell, I'm going to George Mason even if UNC has sent me more visits", because UNC won't offer any playing time. 

If a recruit wants to play for a contender, higher prestige will be a huge factor. If they want to get national recognition, conference prestige will play a big factor. If they want money, they should lay it out to you that their family is struggling and his mom needs a new car. Think about what Calipari did at UMASS. That needs to be possible and it shouldn't be impossible to give away anything other than a freakin hat without getting busted. 

Progression needs fixing as well. Slower progression and all-around higher ceilings for ratings need to be put into place. There's no way a player should have no room for improvement in rebounding or low post or any category besides maybe speed. Players also shouldn't be able to increase their speed from 50 to 99 by their senior season. It's physically impossible. 

By giving coaches more flexibility to pick and chose what ratings they want to see increases in, we will see the return of the mid-major because 4th year seniors will have the advantage over the highly coveted freshman and sophomores at BCS schools. 

Doesn't that depend on what the speed number actually represents?  Its not as if its a unit representing a physical measurement.

I'll say it again, SH and bracketology is meaningless compared to fixing the prestige system and recruit generation. Absolute waste of good time that could be spent radically improving HD with something that will actually draw coachs back to D1.

posted by car_crazy_v2

Ehhh... at this point, the changes that need to be made are how the recruits select a school. The current factors make it impossible for a Butler or George Mason to make a wild run to the Final Four simply because in WIS, it's nearly impossible to win over recruits if a BCS school butts in. 
Totally disagreed. At no point have smaller schools been able to take recruits away from big time schools. Yet despite this, non-BCS schools were wildly successful in HD -- far more successful than their real-life counterparts. The difference now is recruit generation. The best of the rest are too far behind what the big boys are getting.

Each recruit needs a different set of values. If their plan is to start for four years at a mid-major, and a BCS school does not offer them a starting position, then it shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a two or three star recruit says, "Hell, I'm going to George Mason even if UNC has sent me more visits", because UNC won't offer any playing time. 
In what realm is this possible? Someone might go to, say, Tennessee, over UNC under such a scenario. But I don't know if there is a recruit alive who would opt for a Colonial league team over a legit schollie offer from UNC. Instead of trying to genetically engineer differences that are preposterous, let's focus on the problem. (By the way, I do think think that having a more textured set of priorities for recruits is a good idea -- in DI only -- but more as a complement. The example you gave is just crazy.)

Progression needs fixing as well. Slower progression and all-around higher ceilings for ratings need to be put into place. There's no way a player should have no room for improvement in rebounding or low post or any category besides maybe speed. Players also shouldn't be able to increase their speed from 50 to 99 by their senior season. It's physically impossible. 
This would be hugely unpopular. People enjoy seeing their players improve. And I don't understand how you can pick-and-choose here -- it's totally unreasonable for a guy to get much faster ... but let's put in a system where a guy turns down UNC for the Colonial for some playing time as a freshman. Either you are trying to match up with real life, or you're not.

By giving coaches more flexibility to pick and chose what ratings they want to see increases in, we will see the return of the mid-major because 4th year seniors will have the advantage over the highly coveted freshman and sophomores at BCS schools.
Again, you're contradicting yourself. Slower progression of ratings would be terrible for non-BCS schools, as they depend on ratings growth to close the talent gap between themselves and the big boys.

"Either you are trying to match up with real life, or you're not."

I don't disagree with you substantive analysis, but I don't see the hyprocrisy.  Some real-life aspects makes sense to incorporate, some don't.

Posted by isack24 on 10/18/2011 11:45:00 PM (view original):
"Either you are trying to match up with real life, or you're not."

I don't disagree with you substantive analysis, but I don't see the hyprocrisy.  Some real-life aspects makes sense to incorporate, some don't.

Sure. Some things from real life have a place in HD, and some things don't. But that's not really what we're talking about here.

Imho, it's all about the litmus test you're applying.

He's calling something out (growth in sp) because it wouldn't happen in real life. And I think if that is the litmus test you're applying -- does this happen in real life? -- then you need to be consistent with it. And it's quite hypocritical to, in your next breath, call for a change that also completely runs counter to real life.

Posted by girt25 on 10/18/2011 7:54:00 PM (view original):

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.) 

point #2 is not silly, because you can't control it (in real life, anyway.) that's the whole point.  you can give him more study hall time, and on average that will help, but sometimes he'll just slack off and fail anyway. it's not something a coach could ever have total control over.

but i understand the hate for the SH system and, personally, i have no real attachment to it.  my whole thing is just : quit reducing randomness. add some more, please.

i actually think that one of the best possible updates to the game would be to introduce some randomness into recruiting.  it'd at least give the lower-tier teams a puncher's chance.  which would, in turn, reduce the dominance of top teams because more teams would challenge them and they wouldn't have such a firm grasp of where they stood, which would prevent them from doing what they do now, which is just calculate exactly what it takes to lock up the maximum amount of top talent.

Posted by jwilli7122 on 10/19/2011 3:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 10/18/2011 7:54:00 PM (view original):

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.) 

point #2 is not silly, because you can't control it (in real life, anyway.) that's the whole point.  you can give him more study hall time, and on average that will help, but sometimes he'll just slack off and fail anyway. it's not something a coach could ever have total control over.

but i understand the hate for the SH system and, personally, i have no real attachment to it.  my whole thing is just : quit reducing randomness. add some more, please.

i actually think that one of the best possible updates to the game would be to introduce some randomness into recruiting.  it'd at least give the lower-tier teams a puncher's chance.  which would, in turn, reduce the dominance of top teams because more teams would challenge them and they wouldn't have such a firm grasp of where they stood, which would prevent them from doing what they do now, which is just calculate exactly what it takes to lock up the maximum amount of top talent.

How often does a player actually need to miss time in real life due to failing grades during a semester? 

I wouldn't necessarily add more randomness to recruiting, I think adding additional layers can help increase the balance:

• Increasing the weight for favorite school/distance
• Additional recruit preferences
• Add a 'coach trustworthyness factor' (which represents how well recruits trust you) and increase the impact of promises (and significantly penalize coaches for breaking them)

I also wonder if Seble's suggestion on adjusting playing time expectations might be a way to kind of even the playing field at DI.  Currently if you sign the #1 Overall player, you could leave them off your depth chart and give them 0 minutes through their Freshman season and they would be fine with that.  Even though my Duke and UCLA teams could stand to lose on this, I think it would make a lot of sense to add PT expectations for all elite recruits and having them being tied to prestige (so the #1 player might expect 10 minutes from my A+ UCLA team, but would want a start + 20 minutes at B prestige USC). 

I know an issue with that would be IQs, but I think this could be addressed by increasing the starting rating for all IQs to the D+/C- range, but slowing growth, so players still don't hit the A/A+ range until their senior seasons.  It seems strange to me that players develop a little IQ in college by practing to play against the other sets, but don't in HS, as well as the idea that just because a player played man-to-man defense in high school, he would have the same knowledge of how to play zone as somebody who had never played at all.

Posted by skinzfan36 on 10/18/2011 12:53:00 AM (view original):
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

Here's what I do to get around that problem.  I grab the pbp screen when I first open it and move it to the far right of my screen such that the scroll bar is totally hidden but I can still read the right column fully.  By doing it in the 1H, when you click to the 2H pbp description, you can't see how big or small the actual scroll slider is compared to the vertical distance of the scroll height, so you'll have no idea if there was OT or not.

Posted by girt25 on 10/18/2011 11:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 10/18/2011 11:45:00 PM (view original):
"Either you are trying to match up with real life, or you're not."

I don't disagree with you substantive analysis, but I don't see the hyprocrisy.  Some real-life aspects makes sense to incorporate, some don't.

Sure. Some things from real life have a place in HD, and some things don't. But that's not really what we're talking about here.

Imho, it's all about the litmus test you're applying.

He's calling something out (growth in sp) because it wouldn't happen in real life. And I think if that is the litmus test you're applying -- does this happen in real life? -- then you need to be consistent with it. And it's quite hypocritical to, in your next breath, call for a change that also completely runs counter to real life.

Fair enough.  I disagree to some extent that he was applying an all-encompassing test, but I see your point.

Seble's post from the Developement Blog this morning:

 

Posted by jdno on 10/19/2011 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 10/18/2011 12:53:00 AM (view original):
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

Here's what I do to get around that problem.  I grab the pbp screen when I first open it and move it to the far right of my screen such that the scroll bar is totally hidden but I can still read the right column fully.  By doing it in the 1H, when you click to the 2H pbp description, you can't see how big or small the actual scroll slider is compared to the vertical distance of the scroll height, so you'll have no idea if there was OT or not.

Was just about to post this exact solution.   This is a quick and easy thing to do that doesnt spoil the ending.  I also click on a previous games PbP, of which I already know the results, and drag the bottom of the window up to just below the starting lineups.  Then I click to the current game and I see none of the scoring plays and can start reading from the beginning while dragging the window down again to expose more of the PbP.  Then simply arrow down to read the rest.

Posted by acn24 on 10/19/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Seble's post from the Developement Blog this morning:

 

I'm working now on improving the calculation of success in a coach's resume and wanted to provide some more detail on the direction I'm heading.  Basically, the old system looked at only the past 4 seasons, with about half of the total weight placed on the most recent season. 

What I'm working on now is a system that will incorporate the coach's entire history in that world.  There will still be more weight placed on recent seasons, but it will be much more evenly distributed across the entire resume.  This should be a fairer system and will require more long-term success instead of just stringing together a few good seasons. 

I may need to tweak the school minimum requirements to go along with this change, but I'm not sure of that yet.
 

On first glance, this seems like a better way to do it however, my concern is that coaches will be less likely to take over rebuilds if there is a long term effect. I would like to see more credit built in for turning around a losing team and less credit for taking over a traditional winner. One way to incoroprate this would be to mimimize the impact of the W-L record for the first 3-4 seasons after a coach takes over a new team. The effect of not giving full credit until a coach is playing with a team of his own building would be a more fair way to recognize true coaching ability. It would also encourage coaches to fill the slew of open teams without concern once the other new improvements are implemented. 

Weena, that's a very valid point and I would express that to seble directly.

Posted by Weena on 10/19/2011 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 10/19/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Seble's post from the Developement Blog this morning:

 

I'm working now on improving the calculation of success in a coach's resume and wanted to provide some more detail on the direction I'm heading.  Basically, the old system looked at only the past 4 seasons, with about half of the total weight placed on the most recent season. 

What I'm working on now is a system that will incorporate the coach's entire history in that world.  There will still be more weight placed on recent seasons, but it will be much more evenly distributed across the entire resume.  This should be a fairer system and will require more long-term success instead of just stringing together a few good seasons. 

I may need to tweak the school minimum requirements to go along with this change, but I'm not sure of that yet.
 

On first glance, this seems like a better way to do it however, my concern is that coaches will be less likely to take over rebuilds if there is a long term effect. I would like to see more credit built in for turning around a losing team and less credit for taking over a traditional winner. One way to incoroprate this would be to mimimize the impact of the W-L record for the first 3-4 seasons after a coach takes over a new team. The effect of not giving full credit until a coach is playing with a team of his own building would be a more fair way to recognize true coaching ability. It would also encourage coaches to fill the slew of open teams without concern once the other new improvements are implemented. 

+1, pls ticket this!