I would like to see changes to FSS in the future, but thats for future discussions, the changes being made now are good, and necessary. The bigger stuff will take much more time, I would presume.

I think FSS should be, as mentioned above, available to everyone, and the decision should be who should i recruit rather than, should I scout New York or PA?

Am I wrong to look at these and think that these enable the rich to get richer?

1. Look into the draft early entry process to make it more fair and more predictable
2. Improve the logic for players complaining about playing time

As explained in the developer chat you won't lose more than five guys total. So if your team does well and you had four SR's, you're going to lose a max of one guy to EE. Meaning teams that are stacked are going to bringing back more 900+ players that would otherwise go EE.

I also wonder if, because of less EE from the top schools, that you see more mid-majors with EE. Which would be terrible.

Second issue goes to depth as well. Most stud high school players aren't going to like riding the pine for anyone, even if it's Duke.

stine, I agree with you on #1, I don't think this is a good change.

I suggested that, rather than have a hard line at five, you just make it more difficult for teams to lose a ton of players. (St. John's a few years ago lost seven, and I've seen others recently lose 4-5 while other comparable teams lost none.) I also suggested that it be harder for non-BCS teams to lose players early (like maybe they'd have to be a first rounder).

This change addresses an issue, but not in the best way, and imho exacerbates another issue. It was not well done.

On #2, I agree in general, but it's such a rare thing anyway that I don't think this change will be impactful at all.

Posted by cornfused on 11/29/2011 7:44:00 PM (view original):
These answers seem to imply to me that seble doesn't really understand recruiting at all.  Having FSS only twice a day?  It's an important limit on information, and that's not automatically bad.  Not realistic or fun?  It's, for me, the highlight of the year.


And I'm a little worried about seble's desire to take us away from the real-world RPI formula.

Maybe I just didn't see it, but where is he taking away RPI?

Posted by salag on 11/29/2011 9:58:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see changes to FSS in the future, but thats for future discussions, the changes being made now are good, and necessary. The bigger stuff will take much more time, I would presume.

I think FSS should be, as mentioned above, available to everyone, and the decision should be who should i recruit rather than, should I scout New York or PA?

salag, I actually disagree with this. I see your point. But in DI, I think having open FSS would allow better teams to spot non-local "diamonds in the rough" and steal them away from lesser local teams, and I think that's a bad thing that outweighs any positives. (And I do like the decision making of deciding who much you want to spend on FSS, too.)

Posted by cornfused on 11/29/2011 7:44:00 PM (view original):
These answers seem to imply to me that seble doesn't really understand recruiting at all.  Having FSS only twice a day?  It's an important limit on information, and that's not automatically bad.  Not realistic or fun?  It's, for me, the highlight of the year.


And I'm a little worried about seble's desire to take us away from the real-world RPI formula.

corn, agreed on all of this. Recruiting isn't perfect, but for most of the guys I know, it's their favorite part of the game. I don't think he has a great read on recruiting issues, be it this, recruit generation, etc.

And I worry about moving away from RPI as well. Again, RPI isn't perfect (and is far from the only criteria used), but there is not a good history of subjective decision making applied to HD.

The nice thing is that seble does listen to what people have to say. The worrisome thing is that I don't think he necessarily listens to the right people. (Early entry is a good example; there were a few people in his ear about teams losing too many players, and he made a mistake with this EE change.)

Posted by reinsel on 11/29/2011 9:13:00 PM (view original):
They aren't there in d1.

Sure they are.

Oh, corn meant take us away from using RPI for seeding?

I think that's a great idea if done properly.  Whether it will be is an entirely different issue...

Posted by pjbrankin on 11/29/2011 7:57:00 PM (view original):
I'm wondering if anyone agreed with my complaints about redshirting or whether I'm being dramatic? For some reason I haven't had any success at all trying to redshirt a player unless I used the option during recruiting(which sometimes I forget). It just seems silly that a zero star recruit would pitch a fit about being redshirted IMO

How many Red Shirts do you see in real life now?

I know Kentucky is not a Good example, but they have not had a Red Shirt in all of Calipari's 3 seasons.

I understand that having a Red Shirt is good for the team, but in Basketball it is not something that every team does now.  And you "forget" to use the option that the game created so you can do it if you want to?  Isn't that like complaining  that you got bad players because you "forgot" to recruit?

Posted by isack24 on 11/29/2011 10:42:00 PM (view original):
Oh, corn meant take us away from using RPI for seeding?

I think that's a great idea if done properly.  Whether it will be is an entirely different issue...

RPI is not used for real seeding.  It is a tool, but it is NOT followed religiously in real life.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/30/2011 4:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 11/29/2011 10:42:00 PM (view original):
Oh, corn meant take us away from using RPI for seeding?

I think that's a great idea if done properly.  Whether it will be is an entirely different issue...

RPI is not used for real seeding.  It is a tool, but it is NOT followed religiously in real life.

True, it's not followed religiously. The difference is that the real life committee is able to make subjective judgments and decisions, and in HD that's not possible, which is why they lean more heavily on rpi.

And yeah, it'd be nice if done properly ... but considering their history and what I just mentioned above ... I'm skeptical.

Posted by girt25 on 11/29/2011 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cornfused on 11/29/2011 7:44:00 PM (view original):
These answers seem to imply to me that seble doesn't really understand recruiting at all.  Having FSS only twice a day?  It's an important limit on information, and that's not automatically bad.  Not realistic or fun?  It's, for me, the highlight of the year.


And I'm a little worried about seble's desire to take us away from the real-world RPI formula.

corn, agreed on all of this. Recruiting isn't perfect, but for most of the guys I know, it's their favorite part of the game. I don't think he has a great read on recruiting issues, be it this, recruit generation, etc.

And I worry about moving away from RPI as well. Again, RPI isn't perfect (and is far from the only criteria used), but there is not a good history of subjective decision making applied to HD.

The nice thing is that seble does listen to what people have to say. The worrisome thing is that I don't think he necessarily listens to the right people. (Early entry is a good example; there were a few people in his ear about teams losing too many players, and he made a mistake with this EE change.)

Girt - I agree about recruiting, it is more or less the game right now, a major change will really be hard to accept for the vets, even tweeks to recruits has not been popular, FSS led to a mass exodus from the game, stunting d1 mid level recruit quality has led to a slow leak in terms of interest, this is a very, very, very polarizing issue.

I also agree with the RPI thing, I interpreted that seble will change the formula, this is one case where duplicating real life probably makes sense, although if all he has planned is a minor tweek, like changing the road component from 1.4 to 1.35 to somewhat lessen the all road game strategy, that might make sense, maybe????

I once proposed that EE's be both limited in terms of qty, as well as in terms of the team's overall rating and RPI, so a 780 plus team is more likely to lose a 880 player, than a 680 team, and a 8 RPI team more likely to lose a player than a 80 RPI team.  I see the logic in the change seble is implementing, but I am afraid it is not fixing what the real issue is with EE's????

I've said this before, and posted in the suggestions thread and submitted as a ticket.  Maybe if others submit similar tickets they will gain more traction.  I think that the biggest problem with early entries is the randomness and surprise, as well as the similarity of so many players, not necessarily losing tons of kids (and that is coming from somebody who just lost 5 in one season).  They just need to make the process more transparent, and to that, I would suggest:



Regarding the RPI formula, If seble is addressing it to combat the all road game strategy, as OR suggests, I'd be fine with that.  If there was a big push to maintain the actual real world formula, and seble wanted to address the all road game strategy, then perhaps something can be brought up where not playing games at home can negatively impact your HCA.  This could add some strategy to scheduling as well.

Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 8:10:00 AM (view original):
I've said this before, and posted in the suggestions thread and submitted as a ticket.  Maybe if others submit similar tickets they will gain more traction.  I think that the biggest problem with early entries is the randomness and surprise, as well as the similarity of so many players, not necessarily losing tons of kids (and that is coming from somebody who just lost 5 in one season).  They just need to make the process more transparent, and to that, I would suggest:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I suggest reducing 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, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) 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.

Regarding the RPI formula, If seble is addressing it to combat the all road game strategy, as OR suggests, I'd be fine with that.  If there was a big push to maintain the actual real world formula, and seble wanted to address the all road game strategy, then perhaps something can be brought up where not playing games at home can negatively impact your HCA.  This could add some strategy to scheduling as well.

ACN - all great suggestions.  Usually many of us have very different views on this stuff, seems like you, Girt and I all are more or less on the same track (not identical, but at least in the same general reality) this time - I think Seble is too, but how does that old saying go - 'The devil is in the detail.'  Going to be interesting.

To clarify the RPI comments, there is no change to the RPI formula itself.  That will continue to mirror real life.  The change is to the logic that picks and seeds teams for postseason play.  That will no longer directly use RPI.  RPI is ok as a simple high-level measure of a team, but it is limited.  The new logic will score each game based on win/loss, margin, opponent RPI, opponent rank, and location.  There's also consideration given for last 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.  I forgot to mention those components in the chat.