Developer's chat - Page 5 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 880 (0)

Hall of Famer

24 44 35 306 121 185

Prospect

I understand the majority of coaches want to hurt the elite coaches as much as possible to even the playing field, but how many teams is this really going to affect? It's meant to curb the extreme, devastating loss of players. Most schools will be unaffected by this change. Remember it doesn't count walk-ons within the 5, so the team would have to already be losing 5 legit players before this would kick in.

11/30/2011 3:04 PM

stinenavy

Posts: 4004 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 330 1

All Star

If you make the early entry change it effects everyone. From the team that now isn't losing a 900 or 1000 rated player and to the mid-major that is at a further disadvantage.

You want to make it so there isn't a devastating loss of players:

A) Change recruit generation (as many like girt and oldresorter have suggested)
B) Make it so you don't have elite recruits be bench fodder for a season or two.

11/30/2011 3:13 PM

jslotman

Posts: 303 (0)

Hall of Famer

126 9

Prospect

Nobody wants to hurt "elite coaches." I think most people would just like the playing field to be a little more equal, and that starts with the gaping holes in prestige.

11/30/2011 3:14 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by seble on 11/30/2011 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand the majority of coaches want to hurt the elite coaches as much as possible to even the playing field, but how many teams is this really going to affect? It's meant to curb the extreme, devastating loss of players. Most schools will be unaffected by this change. Remember it doesn't count walk-ons within the 5, so the team would have to already be losing 5 legit players before this would kick in.

It effects DI in a significant way.

I think you know my feeling on this from a recent ticket exchange we had, and that is that I felt that capping it like this wasn't a good idea (for the reasons that have been laid out in this thread), and probably didn't address the bigger issue that I think more people had with EE's.

I do think it would be fine to curb the "extreme, devastating loss of players" ... but a stud team with five seniors who loses another EE doesn't qualify there. The extreme cases would be someone losing a bunch of EE's, and I think it would be fine (and even advisable) to curb that somewhat. It's silly when one BCS team loses four EE's and another, comparable team loses none.

I also think that you should make it extremely difficult for non-BCS teams to lose players early.

But seble, whether you think this is a major change or not, it's one that helps the BCS teams and hurts the others, and that in itself as bad. (And I say that as a member of the reviled Allen ACC -- your proposed change here would help us more than anyone.)

11/30/2011 3:22 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by stinenavy on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
If you make the early entry change it effects everyone. From the team that now isn't losing a 900 or 1000 rated player and to the mid-major that is at a further disadvantage.

You want to make it so there isn't a devastating loss of players:

A) Change recruit generation (as many like girt and oldresorter have suggested)
B) Make it so you don't have elite recruits be bench fodder for a season or two.

I think we're on the same page on most things, but don't really agree with B. In real life, stud HS players come off the bench all the time for their first couple seasons at top programs. It's not uncommon at all.

More to the point, I think we can fix things without touching that.

As I like to point out, the reality is that we had the exact same system before when mid-majors used to kick butt at a rate that hugely exceeded real life -- same prestige, same postseason cash, same everything. The only thing that changed was recruit generation, and that completely threw off the balance.

All we need to do is fix recruit generation, and find the proper balance between the old system (everyone with 90+ ratings everywhere) and the current system (too enormous a drop off between top recruits and everyone else). Just create some additional recruits in that 2nd/3rd/4th tier that will develop into better players down the line, and that is the single most reasonable and impactful thing you can do.

(I'm also very much in favor of lessening the impact of baseline prestige. but even that wouldn't be necessary -- but still very welcome and smart -- if recruit generation was on point.)

11/30/2011 3:30 PM

jslotman

Posts: 303 (0)

Hall of Famer

126 9

Prospect

The one thing I'd say to the folks who think this EE change might actually even out the playing field is that while it may be true that Duke will have more upperclassmen, that isn't necessarily a guarantee that the five star Duke might otherwise have been recruiting ends up at <insert mid-major here>.

11/30/2011 3:32 PM

arssanguinus

Posts: 1120 (0)

Hall of Famer

283 1

Pro

BUt SOMEONE DUke would have recruited won't end up at Duke. And even if that player ends up at a lower end BCS, then someone THAT team woudl have recruited won't be recruited by them. . .

11/30/2011 3:33 PM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Nobody wants to hurt "elite coaches." I think most people would just like the playing field to be a little more equal, and that starts with the gaping holes in prestige.

It is worth pointing out that baseline prestige has been as it is forever, but the super conferences didn't start showing up until the change in recruit generation.

11/30/2011 3:42 PM

jslotman

Posts: 303 (0)

Hall of Famer

126 9

Prospect

Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Nobody wants to hurt "elite coaches." I think most people would just like the playing field to be a little more equal, and that starts with the gaping holes in prestige.
It is worth pointing out that baseline prestige has been as it is forever, but the super conferences didn't start showing up until the change in recruit generation.

Understood, but just because something has been around forever doesn't mean it is working. I actually think conference prestige and its effect on the prestige of an individual school is just as big an issue as recruit generation. If a school can miss out on the NT for a dozen straight seasons and never go below a B+, a problem exists that can't be corrected by fixing recruit generation.

Getting back to the early entry thing, how many non-NT winning teams are getting killed by losing five EE's these days anyway? Putting a cap on early entries seems to be a solution for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist (but should in more frequency, IMO).

11/30/2011 3:48 PM

reinsel

Posts: 927 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 130

Rookie

Its a combo. I didn't like the impact of baseline/conf prestige before the recruit change (they can exists, just reduce their impact) but I agree with Girt's comment here 100%:

All we need to do is fix recruit generation, and find the proper balance between the old system (everyone with 90+ ratings everywhere) and the current system (too enormous a drop off between top recruits and everyone else). Just create some additional recruits in that 2nd/3rd/4th tier that will develop into better players down the line, and that is the single most reasonable and impactful thing you can do.

The gap between the top 50 players (overall) and the next 250 is HUGE. Any of the top say 40 overall will be better than hand picked the best 5 101-300 overall players.

That reduces the thinking in recruiting because you just recruit 5 star guys and a 2 star never will be as good as them. Ever. 98 times out of 100 this should be true, but D1 recruits are routinely starting at 800 now. The average mid-major recruit starts at 600. You don't even need to consider potential as a big school to be better than a midmajor, and that's wrong.

11/30/2011 3:52 PM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

Posted by girt25 on 11/30/2011 3:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
If you make the early entry change it effects everyone. From the team that now isn't losing a 900 or 1000 rated player and to the mid-major that is at a further disadvantage.

You want to make it so there isn't a devastating loss of players:

A) Change recruit generation (as many like girt and oldresorter have suggested)
B) Make it so you don't have elite recruits be bench fodder for a season or two.
I think we're on the same page on most things, but don't really agree with B. In real life, stud HS players come off the bench all the time for their first couple seasons at top programs. It's not uncommon at all.

More to the point, I think we can fix things without touching that.

As I like to point out, the reality is that we had the exact same system before when mid-majors used to kick butt at a rate that hugely exceeded real life -- same prestige, same postseason cash, same everything. The only thing that changed was recruit generation, and that completely threw off the balance.

All we need to do is fix recruit generation, and find the proper balance between the old system (everyone with 90+ ratings everywhere) and the current system (too enormous a drop off between top recruits and everyone else). Just create some additional recruits in that 2nd/3rd/4th tier that will develop into better players down the line, and that is the single most reasonable and impactful thing you can do.

(I'm also very much in favor of lessening the impact of baseline prestige. but even that wouldn't be necessary -- but still very welcome and smart -- if recruit generation was on point.)

Regarding B - there certainly is a middle ground. I don't think anyone would say that elite recruits should expect starts/20+ minutes as a FR, but using examples from my Duke team - Boris Zipperer was a 4-star recruit who played 83 minutes total as a freshman, and John Wallen was a 5-star, top-30 overall recruit who probably won't even play that much this season.

I don't think that putting in an expectation for a Top-40 overall recruit expecting to be at least a rotation player as a FR/SO is unrealistic.

11/30/2011 3:53 PM

reinsel

Posts: 927 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 130

Rookie

Creating guys in that 20th-50th at their position that will develop into 800-900 level overall players would be so wonderful. Not all of them, but maybe a few. Now there probably isn't 5 SFs outside the top 20 that will ever see 850. (unless maybe they max 90 WE/Dur)

11/30/2011 3:54 PM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Nobody wants to hurt "elite coaches." I think most people would just like the playing field to be a little more equal, and that starts with the gaping holes in prestige.
It is worth pointing out that baseline prestige has been as it is forever, but the super conferences didn't start showing up until the change in recruit generation.
Understood, but just because something has been around forever doesn't mean it is working. I actually think conference prestige and its effect on the prestige of an individual school is just as big an issue as recruit generation. If a school can miss out on the NT for a dozen straight seasons and never go below a B+, a problem exists that can't be corrected by fixing recruit generation.

Getting back to the early entry thing, how many non-NT winning teams are getting killed by losing five EE's these days anyway? Putting a cap on early entries seems to be a solution for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist (but should in more frequency, IMO).

But that didn't happen until recruit generation created super conferences that have skewed results to where it is really surprising if a conference (let's say Allen ACC) has 4 or fewer teams in the Elite-8.

11/30/2011 3:58 PM

therewas47

Posts: 659 (0)

Hall of Famer

157 1

Prospect

I don't know much about D1 so this might be a stupid idea or it could already be in place, but could the top 200 players have different standards for playing time. Say 10% of the top 200 wants 15+ mins a game and 5% of that 10% wants at least 20 mins a game. Also, some players would be OK with not playing at all their first couple yrs. Coaches could get this information from conducting scouting trips. Maybe if a player signs with their favorite school they would accept a couple fewer mins a game than they would otherwise to make that more important. That could make it so maybe a top flight BCS program passes on a 5 star because he would require too many minutes and that recruit ends up at a mid to low level BCS school or a top mid-major. It could make it so that a 3 or 4 star gets passed over by some schools and goes to a smaller school we're he can get his minutes. Also, it would cause top programs to scout more players because they could take some lower ranked players that would be willing to bide their time.

11/30/2011 3:58 PM

jslotman

Posts: 303 (0)

Hall of Famer

126 9

Prospect

Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Nobody wants to hurt "elite coaches." I think most people would just like the playing field to be a little more equal, and that starts with the gaping holes in prestige.
It is worth pointing out that baseline prestige has been as it is forever, but the super conferences didn't start showing up until the change in recruit generation.
Understood, but just because something has been around forever doesn't mean it is working. I actually think conference prestige and its effect on the prestige of an individual school is just as big an issue as recruit generation. If a school can miss out on the NT for a dozen straight seasons and never go below a B+, a problem exists that can't be corrected by fixing recruit generation.

Getting back to the early entry thing, how many non-NT winning teams are getting killed by losing five EE's these days anyway? Putting a cap on early entries seems to be a solution for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist (but should in more frequency, IMO).
But that didn't happen until recruit generation created super conferences that have skewed results to where it is really surprising if a conference (let's say Allen ACC) has 4 or fewer teams in the Elite-8.

Honestly, I think it kind of comes down to a simple question: do you believe that a team should be able to go 0-27 and not drop precipitously in prestige? If teams were allowed to stand on their own merits and have cruddy prestiges if their results stink, I'm not positive inequitable distribution of recruits is as big of an issue.

11/30/2011 4:06 PM

Forums

Developer's chat Topic

Search Criteria