I am a fairly new coach to HD with real world experience. I have alot to learn about how to play the game, but seem to enjoy it. I know the game has to have some aspects different than real life, but I have some thoughts that may or may not be of interst to Seble and other coaches. I know the major difference is DIII scholarships. I love that. How else what the game be able to be successful.

My point of view will be slightly slanted. I am a multiple world DIII coach, who also has an interest in DII in the future. I do not have much interest in DI. I would appreciate any imput from other cooaches as well as seble, if possible. Well, here goes my list of topics.

In real life recruits have access to some information to help make their decisions that do not come into play here. Perhaps  they could be considered somehow in the recruiiting logic?

1. The recruting team's existing roster and depth chart. Does the player really want to be the 5th PG on this team or go to another team?

2. The number of scholarships currently offered by the team to what positions. Helps prevents overextending and stockpiling players exclusively for the reason of keeping players from other programs because of high prestige or tons of money. The money and Prestige are already a huge obstacle to overcome, if not impossible. Why give additional unfair advantages. They do not appear to be beneficial to the athlete or player retention in the game.

Transfer Rule. I know we have an additional level of scholarships in this game. Disregarding that, make the transfer rule the same. If you transfer, you must sit at the new school taking up a scholarship for one year at the level you transfer or be immediately eligible at a lower level.

Ineligibles. As they now stand it appears DI & DII schools recruit them almost exclusively to force them to go JC so they don;t drop down to schools where they can play in DIII. It's a ploy built into the game to keep players from being recruited by programs who need them.  If a kid can't qualify, he can't qualify, let him move on and make a decision on his own to go DIII scholly or JUCO. No kid pays his own way to go from California to  New York to some DII school to set for a year to maybe be eligible in the future some time.

Seble aand coaches, thanks in advance for looking at this when you have time. At least it may be thought provoking if nothing else.

1.  I agree with that idea.  Makes a TON of sense.  Mayhaps it's hard to program, but if there is a returning starter at PG, etc. then the new recruit should factor that in when considering things. 

2.  Not sure this matters as much, since in HD often teams go 10-11 deep.  so even the 11th player is seeing 10+ min in many cases.  I don't think any coach feels like they are 'stock-piling' talent to keep them from other schools.  Now that I re-read your post, I am thinking you mean during recruiting... and in that sense I do agree - it's annoying when a coach offers starts to 20+ players and has all of them considering him - yet he obviously only has at most 5-8 spots open.  That said, I think smart coaches see that and watch closely if the school is going after a player want.  It's usually easy to out effort those schools in recruiting.  Keep in mind, I know D2 and D3 recruiting... D1 sounds like a whole different animal.

3.  Transfer rule - interesting idea.  But keep in mind, I think the number of HD players that transfer due to their own decision is very, very low (I've never seen it happen personally).  Whereas in RL it's quite often that a player moves on due to lack of playing time, etc.  Granted, I am sure many coaches are often telling the player they have no chance, so they should transfer if they ever want to see the court in real life.  Personally, I have often thought that players with out PT should be more likely to transfer than they do currently (especially with broken promises).  In HD, I would guess 90%+ of the transfer are players that are cut when the coach sees a better option or corrects a bad decision.  Also, my understanding is that in RL scholarships are 1 year 'contracts' technically... 

4.  Ineligibles:  I have only gone as far as D2... but I can tell you that I don't think any coach views ineligibles like you state.  If I go for one of these guys, it's because i hope he signs with my team and helps me down the road.  It's a way to balance classes.  it's a way to take a chance with a real high potential or good player but requires a season to wait -- meaning I can get him on the cheap - because some other coach needs help now, etc.  In RL, I don't think any D1 player would ever play D3 - he'd go JUCO.  I'm not sure about D2 -- but I think it would be unfair or bad if a top level D2 talent ever considered D3 school just because he's ineligible...since study hall is about the only thing these guys can do, my guess is 99% of them are eligible the next year.

1. I agree with this

2. I wouldn't want to have this be too large a factor because position in HD means nothing. I recruit SG's to play PF or the other way around because of their cores. Now I would like to be able to tell the player where you plan on playing them, then I think it would be ok. I don't want a PG I am going to play at SF not consider me because I am stacked at PG.

3. I like the idea of more transfers and having them sit out a year.

To point #4.... Here is my 5th year senior who I signed as an ineligible. I did it because I thought he would be a heck of a player and he was worth the wait. http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=13096&pid=2056476

 In HD, I would guess 90%+ of the transfer are players that are cut when the coach sees a better option or corrects a bad decision.

Your guess is not accurate whatsoever...I'd say it's closer to 60/40 coach's decision/player's decision.

Your ineligibles point is just ridiculous.  Are you arguing that, the way you see it, D2 coaches are signing ineligibles just so they can't go play in D3?  Why the hell would a D2 coach care if a D3 school got the player?  Seriously?  They literally NEVER have the opportunity to compete with one another in meaningful games (could play an exhibition).  Why would any D2 coach who understood the game AT ALL ever waste money on that?  It's totally illogical.  People sign ineligibles in the hope that they will sign.  Nobody ever tries to stockpile players to defend against schools in a different division.  There's no reason to do it.

Perhaps I need to clarify my comments on ineligibles. In RL DI & DII can not scholarship ineligibles. If they want to go, they must pay their own way to school.  In this game you can scholly an ineligible at DI & DII, but he can not play or practice. A huge difference.

2.  I sometimes have 6 or 7 guards, or 3 or 4 PFs,  on my team, not because I'm stockpiling or preventing other coaches signing them.  I sometimes use guards or PF's  at the SF position.

3.  Requiring transfers to sit out is  a problem due to coaching turnover.  A coach, if so motivated, could sign a bunch of lousy transfers, then leave.

4. I agree with dahsbater. I sign JUCOs because they'll help my team. There's no reason for a D2 coach to block a D3 school.

I am not trying to upset any DI or DII coaches on the ineligible issue. I'm just trying to make a point for consideration. If a player does not neet the eligibility rules for playing, should he be allowed to be eligible for a scholarship?

I don't like #1.  If you look at the roster, that means you're going to look at PG's as PG's, SG's as SG's and not handle for me putting a SG at SF or a PF at C or things like that.  Then if you say they'll just look at the depth chart - great, then I'm going to empty out my depth chart so that my targets all think they're going to be starting, or at worst be 2nd string.  Too easy to manipulate, which people in this game are very good at doing.  You could tell them to look deeper at past starting depth charts or games started or whatever, but it'd get really complicated really fast.

Just replace the word scholarship with "roster spot" in your head if it makes you more comfortable.  Same deal as with D3 - IRL there are no scholarships.  And no level allows 12 scholarships.  It just so happens that 12 is the number of active roster spots a team gets.  Is it a perfect system?  Obviously not, but it's relatively easy to program compared with the way things work in the real world.  I mean, how would you want it to work?  Only D3 schools can give scholarships (IE roster spots, or really even the opportunity to attend school in this case) to ineligible players?  Do you think that would somehow be BETTER than what we have now?  It would be ridiculous to force top 25 players at their positions to choose between D3 or nothing....  In the current programming of the game, which would be very time consuming to change on this point, you can only bring a player to your school by offering a scholarship.  Thus, it has to be possible for D1 and D2 schools to offer schollys to inels; the alternative scenario is just asinine.

Just to reiterate, programming anything into the game that allowed you to recruit players without offering them scholarships would be incredibly expensive in terms of programmer time.  There are MANY other fixes that are much more important and much less time intensive that are ridiculously higher on the priority list.  This is really just a semantics problem that, frankly, shouldn't be that hard to get over.

Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/7/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
I am not trying to upset any DI or DII coaches on the ineligible issue. I'm just trying to make a point for consideration. If a player does not neet the eligibility rules for playing, should he be allowed to be eligible for a scholarship?

Yes.  Point closed.

#2 My concern to discuss is more the situation of a school having for example 4 scholarships but on his considering screen he has 7 players, I saw this kind of situation 3 different times in the last recruiting year. Isn't this information that a recruit should be able to have available to him? Wouldn't he like to know the current situation to make the best decision for himself?

Personally I prefer to keep all possible recruiting strategies available.  It might be less realistic, but I think it makes the game more fun.  I also think it is absolutely the case that the top schools of the world - Duke, UNC, Kansas, on down through the level of Xavier, Gonzaga, Georgia Tech, etc. absolutely have more guys "considering" them than they have available roster spots.  This tends to be less true in lower D1 and most of D2, but again more true in D3 - anybody who was half-decent in high school is going to gauge the interest level of local D3 schools in his services, and many end up with far more candidates than available roster spots.

Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/7/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):
#2 My concern to discuss is more the situation of a school having for example 4 scholarships but on his considering screen he has 7 players, I saw this kind of situation 3 different times in the last recruiting year. Isn't this information that a recruit should be able to have available to him? Wouldn't he like to know the current situation to make the best decision for himself?

I actually like it when a coach has too many considerations, especially if some of them are considering another team.  I know that he's stretched himself too thin and I can take away one of the recruits.
 So, in a way, you get the same result.  There are too many recruits and some of them go elsewhere as a result

I like number 1. It will require tweaking the system a bit though. Maybe if a SG plays a year at PG then his position switches. Or if a PF splits time at center, he will be adjusted as a PF/C. This way, if you are like my team, when you have 5 PG you are gonna be screwed. Of these 5 PG listed there, 3 play PG, 2 SG, and 2 SF. One of my bench players is very versatile so he bounces around a lot. In the system above he would probably be listed as UTILITY or something idk. 

Or have an option where u let the recruit know what position you have in mind for him. That way he can see where he fits in. I can see coaches abusing this though if they take a PG by telling him to look at the SG position to keep him from other players.