Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 6/19/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Will booster gifts ever be re-implemented after fixing them, or are they gone for good?

Not likely to ever come back.

I really think that they should be looked at and fixed. They could be a very fun part of recruiting if programmed correctly.

Posted by caesari on 6/19/2012 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 6/19/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Will booster gifts ever be re-implemented after fixing them, or are they gone for good?

Not likely to ever come back.

I really think that they should be looked at and fixed. They could be a very fun part of recruiting if programmed correctly.

I won't miss them.

Posted by metsmax on 6/19/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 6/19/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
seble, does #4 take potential into account, otherwise I don't see how it is valuable for recruiting...

No, it does not.  There's really no way to do that I can think of.

You can't add 'potential' into the mix with a formula, if you did that it would make recruiting too easy. If all you have to do is look at a column that is sorted for 'number of high potentials', etc. you have basically taken recruiting and instead of actually having to find good players made it a robotic function. I'd hate to see recruiting become more of this than it already is with potentials being on the ratings view during searches.

you could do it - but it would be awful - you could rank the players based on their current points PLUS their potential

i'd prefer MORE uncertainty rather than less, more fuzzy knowledge,.,....but I digress

I agree, but do realize it is a fine line. I think formula's off of current ratings are good. What about IQ though? Seble is that included? Personally that means a lot to me whenever I look at a Juco. I'm assuming this isn't included in formula's based upon how we get the IQ information second hand from the coach and not through FSS, but I really wish they were available once the coach had told you or the eval had been done, somewhere on the FSS page.

thoughts seble?

Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by point_piper on 6/19/2012 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I like the changes; especially intrigued to try the custom search in recruiting.

Regarding the red shirt changes, I understand that if you RS a kid and he doesn't like it, that's not going to change.  But if his WE drops 15 (or whatever) and you decide that's too high a price, will you still get that WE back if you remove the red shirt?

Yes.

Thanks for the response.

Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/19/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
No complaints about any of the changes except #2, which dissapoints me somewhat.  I guess I was under the impression that the number of past seasons to determine prestige was going to be increased beyond 4. 

The downside to incorporating more seasons is that it would take longer to turn around a poor program.   It could also allow a good program to coast for longer before they really dropped.

I was hoping for the same as well - however I will withhold judgement until I see how the new formula works. My biggest question is does this mean that team's current prestige's will change? I assume not? (Edit: I now see the response to this portion. "Prestige will still change at the normal time, at the end of each world's next season after the release.")

Seble how will this affect job hiring and firing? Are the teams that have a minimum of B- prestige still going to be held there at a minimum or could Duke/UNC/Kentucky/etc. fall below that now?

Not a fan of #7 and #8.

The redshirt logic is fine as is except one thing. There are recruits where if you repeatedly try reapply the redshirt, he never takes it. In fact, I'm trying to remember the last recruit where I tried the repeated reapply strategy and it worked. The logic should take into account if it's 18 games or so into the season and the player has yet to log one minute and you try to reapply the redshirt that he has a higher chance of accepting it.

Remove the booster logic? Are you serious? That's a cool option in the game. And as far as I know, one that's never been exploited. And while it's high risk / high reward... It's a cool option to use in recruiting against the big boys to tip the hat in your favor.

Posted by hackerhog on 6/19/2012 3:33:00 PM (view original):
Not a fan of #7 and #8.

The redshirt logic is fine as is except one thing. There are recruits where if you repeatedly try reapply the redshirt, he never takes it. In fact, I'm trying to remember the last recruit where I tried the repeated reapply strategy and it worked. The logic should take into account if it's 18 games or so into the season and the player has yet to log one minute and you try to reapply the redshirt that he has a higher chance of accepting it.

Remove the booster logic? Are you serious? That's a cool option in the game. And as far as I know, one that's never been exploited. And while it's high risk / high reward... It's a cool option to use in recruiting against the big boys to tip the hat in your favor.

I disagree, how many games it is into the season shouldn't matter as it opens up a loophole to allow a coach to 'sit' a player in hopes of getting him to redshirt. It is the same thing seble is trying to get rid of with this change.

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/19/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 6/19/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
seble, does #4 take potential into account, otherwise I don't see how it is valuable for recruiting...

No, it does not.  There's really no way to do that I can think of.

You can't add 'potential' into the mix with a formula, if you did that it would make recruiting too easy. If all you have to do is look at a column that is sorted for 'number of high potentials', etc. you have basically taken recruiting and instead of actually having to find good players made it a robotic function. I'd hate to see recruiting become more of this than it already is with potentials being on the ratings view during searches.

you could do it - but it would be awful - you could rank the players based on their current points PLUS their potential

i'd prefer MORE uncertainty rather than less, more fuzzy knowledge,.,....but I digress

I agree, but do realize it is a fine line. I think formula's off of current ratings are good. What about IQ though? Seble is that included? Personally that means a lot to me whenever I look at a Juco. I'm assuming this isn't included in formula's based upon how we get the IQ information second hand from the coach and not through FSS, but I really wish they were available once the coach had told you or the eval had been done, somewhere on the FSS page.

thoughts seble?

agree - and I still dont understand why some calls to a coach and some evals dont get you at leastwhat offense AND defense the kid knows

@BillyG...I understand that the formula presented looks like a great one...but fact is that there are just aren't enough SR transfers every year.  I think in Knight this past year, there were only 2 d-1 SR transfers.

Thank you Seble!

honestly prestige is mystic to me.....I've coached NIU/Wooden for 22 seasons and only had 2 sub .500 seasons.   Otherwise averaging 19 wins a season.  I can't get my prestige beyond C+.   and that is even a stretch, normally just sits at C......
other updates mentioned are welcomed.   thanks for all your hard work keeping this game going.

Posted by elambz on 6/19/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):
honestly prestige is mystic to me.....I've coached NIU/Wooden for 22 seasons and only had 2 sub .500 seasons.   Otherwise averaging 19 wins a season.  I can't get my prestige beyond C+.   and that is even a stretch, normally just sits at C......
other updates mentioned are welcomed.   thanks for all your hard work keeping this game going.

With missing the tournament in S57 and never having won an NT game I think a C+ is very fair given your record of 2 NT , 1 PI and 1 no-show every 4 years. 

Season	Coach	Overall W-L	Home W-L	Road W-L	Neutral W-L	Conf W-L	Rank	RPI	Prestige	Notes
59	elambz	13-9	6-5	7-4	0-0	9-3		113	-
58	elambz	20-10	10-4	8-5	2-1	12-4		77	C	PI (1st Round)
57	elambz	17-11	10-3	6-7	1-1	11-5		114	C
56	elambz	18-13	8-5	6-7	4-1	11-5		113	C+	CT Champion NT (1st Round)
55	elambz	26-4	10-2	13-1	3-1	14-2		63	C+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (1st Round)
54	elambz	23-7	12-3	10-3	1-1	15-1		64	C	Conf Champion PI (2nd Round)

What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

If a guy does not accept a redshirt, then you leave him off your depth chart and he does not see any playing time for the exhibition games (or into the regular season), will he still reject the redshirt? In the current system, a player (freshman typically) will be more likely to accept a redshirt once he sees that he will not be receiving much/any playing time that season.
Is this going to change? If so I think that is a major step backwards…

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

That is assuming you are weighing all seasons equally. I can only assume it is some sort of stepping down, where the 4^th season is counted small enough that this won’t happen.