HD Release - Tuesday 6/26 Topic

zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
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. 
True, but that doesn't mean that the letter grade will change.

Personally I think to get to an A+ the school or coach should have to have won a National Title (or maybe make multiple final fours). We have plenty of season's in all worlds under our belt now. 
6/19/2012 4:35 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Posted by ryanderson on 6/19/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):
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 4th season is counted small enough that this won’t happen.

True, but regardless of anything else he is correct that the number behind the grade would likely go down but with enough success it would be a negligible effect.
6/19/2012 4:38 PM
coachvegas44
Posts: 310 (0)
Hall of Famer
85
Prospect
Appreciate your hard work and effort. My only problem with it is the timing of the announcement. We are just finishing up with job placements in Crum. As I understand it the new Prestige change will kill me on my new job.

If we had known this change would be implemented I would have never picked the rebuild I did, simply because of their record the last 4 years.   I would have taken into consideration the last 4 years and positively picked a different team. I think this change is going to severly deter coach's from taking over rebuilds of bad teams and only takeover teams that have been good in the recent past.This will keep the bad teams bad.

It appears those of us who took over rebuilds, will be punished because it will be much tougher and will take longer to turn those teams around, if it can be done at all. The bottom teams will stay on the bottom  and the top teams will stay on the top.  Please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong. Right now I am really regretting this job move.  
6/19/2012 4:42 PM
deer454
Posts: 4290 (1)
Hall of Famer
268 41 6 174 13 32
Rookie
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. 
great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.
6/19/2012 4:42 PM
jsajsa
Posts: 631 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 1 133 3
Rookie
Posted by ryanderson on 6/19/2012 4:32:00 PM (view original):

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…

If it closes a loophole of players being benched just so they will take a redshirt, I think that's a major step forewords.

However, I don't feel as positive about players being more willing to accept the redshirt based on where they are in overall rating on the 12 man team vs where they are on the team in terms of guys who play approximately the same position. Maybe in DI this is a step forwards, but on the lower levels I don't really like it. I think done correctly, the "player roles" concept could be used in redshirt logic, but as it is now as a recruiting tool it's completely worthless without being able to consider potential.

6/19/2012 4:54 PM (edited)
car_crazy_v2
Posts: 619 (0)
All Star
32 3
Rookie
Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ryanderson on 6/19/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):
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 4th season is counted small enough that this won’t happen.

True, but regardless of anything else he is correct that the number behind the grade would likely go down but with enough success it would be a negligible effect.
And I'm sure in some cases it will have a very noticeable effect. Seble said that more emphasis will be placed on the 4th season now and the emphasis on the most recent season will be reduced. This will create an abundant amount of cases similar to the one that I mentioned earlier. 

If a few more seasons were added, even if the weight was low on those seasons, this effect would become negligible. So I think it's the best course of action that seble could take. 
6/19/2012 4:47 PM
jsajsa
Posts: 631 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 1 133 3
Rookie
Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Appreciate your hard work and effort. My only problem with it is the timing of the announcement. We are just finishing up with job placements in Crum. As I understand it the new Prestige change will kill me on my new job.

If we had known this change would be implemented I would have never picked the rebuild I did, simply because of their record the last 4 years.   I would have taken into consideration the last 4 years and positively picked a different team. I think this change is going to severly deter coach's from taking over rebuilds of bad teams and only takeover teams that have been good in the recent past.This will keep the bad teams bad.

It appears those of us who took over rebuilds, will be punished because it will be much tougher and will take longer to turn those teams around, if it can be done at all. The bottom teams will stay on the bottom  and the top teams will stay on the top.  Please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong. Right now I am really regretting this job move.  
I don't think it matters much for you. Prestige at lower levels was way way way too fluid, and while it should be much more fluid than DI, something being done was appropriate. Besides, prestige is far from the end all be all at DII (where you are) and DIII. It wouldn't be that difficult to consistently run a NT quality program at those levels even with a constant C- prestige.
6/19/2012 4:49 PM
therewas47
Posts: 659 (0)
Hall of Famer
156 1
Prospect
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?
Am I the only one who disagrees with all of this? 
Here is an example of something similar to what I copy recruits into: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AofY46hEvCSGdEdWWWtEUTc1SFU5aGk5al9PTng5OXc#gid=0
You can copy recruits directly into it and I don't see how it would be much different than player roles would be if potential wasn't taken into account.  It doesn't include IQ's or FT rating but that's it and it took me 10 mins to make. 

How would it make recruiting too easy if it took into account potential?  I'm sure many coaches use a formula similar to the one I use.  I just add a certain amount of points to a recruits' attributes based on potential and see what rating they are likely to reach.  People are still going to do that if this doesn't take into account potential.  So, why shouldn't we implement something that does what people are going to do anyways?  It wouldn't be any less fuzzy than it is now because many coaches already take into account potential in their own formulas.

It wouldn't take the skill out of the game because:
A) As i've already stated, people already do this.
B) Coaches value different things to differing degrees.  For instance, I talk with another coach a lot and we value different things because we use different schemes and have differing approaches to the game.  So, a player that may have high potential in one category may be more important to you than it is to another coach.
C) We could put different values put into potential for each coach.  You may put avg in as 10 pts of improvement and I may use 15 pts of improvement.  Heck, i'd love it if I could put different estimated values in for high-low and high-high too, so, once i've scouted a player my formula shows a more accurate representation of that player. 

Really without taking into consideration potential, this tool would save many coaches little to no time.  I can get the same result by just copying and pasting recruits into an excel doc.  The only advantage is I believe this would save the values to the player, but that's not a terribly big deal because we have the ability to mark player priority now.  As is, this tool would probably save me 5 minutes in recruiting. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but that the real time saving part of this would come from taking into account potential. 

I believe the current system benefits coaches who have a lot of free time to plug 100 players into a formula and adjust for potential.  Without including potential into player roles that would remain the same.  If potential was added to player roles coaches would save tons of time and the coaches who did the best would be those who:
A) Had the best grasp on what to value ratings wise and
B) Were the best on designing a team that fit well together
6/19/2012 4:53 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 836 2
Pro
Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Appreciate your hard work and effort. My only problem with it is the timing of the announcement. We are just finishing up with job placements in Crum. As I understand it the new Prestige change will kill me on my new job.

If we had known this change would be implemented I would have never picked the rebuild I did, simply because of their record the last 4 years.   I would have taken into consideration the last 4 years and positively picked a different team. I think this change is going to severly deter coach's from taking over rebuilds of bad teams and only takeover teams that have been good in the recent past.This will keep the bad teams bad.

It appears those of us who took over rebuilds, will be punished because it will be much tougher and will take longer to turn those teams around, if it can be done at all. The bottom teams will stay on the bottom  and the top teams will stay on the top.  Please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong. Right now I am really regretting this job move.  
I dont think the 4 year window is new - I think the change is making the most recent year less of a factor, but I think - others can correct - that there has long been a focus on the last 4 years. 

I think that a year or two ago, there was a change to move from exclusively looking at 4 years to include some of prior history - like 10 seasons - but 4 years has been there for a long long time
6/19/2012 5:06 PM
elambz
Posts: 8 (0)
Hall of Famer
89
Prospect
Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
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)
Thank you zhawks for your prompt feedback!  much appreciated.

I guess I had higher expectations for the definition of prestige...similar to:
A - perennial powerhouse.   tourney every year.  top 20%
B - strong program.   consistently above .500 record.   conference powerhouse.  regular tourney appearances.
C - average program.   usually around .500 record.  above average conference.   occasional tourney appearances.
D - bottom feeders.   rarely even .500.   conference mops.   rare to never tourney appearance.

For a team that has a .663 overall and a .762 conference record along with making a tournament in 15 of 22 years equated at least B/B-.   
In fact I'm not a fan of the 4 year recalculation period, because if prestige = reputation, it takes far longer to make or break reputation.  
But again, just one opinion.
Thanks again.
6/19/2012 5:16 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
The forums still exist???

I solely rely on booster gifts for recruiting, I'll have to find a new technique.
6/19/2012 5:33 PM
ll316
Posts: 202 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 1 184 5 1
Prospect
Posted by ethan66 on 6/19/2012 2:11:00 PM (view original):
I like some of the changes, but the redshirt changes concern me.  Am I to understand that if a player rejects his redshirt once, he will always reject it?

Do not want.

Really?  This is 1 of my favorite changes.  I hate how people gamed the system (me included) to just keep trying and failing every day until the RNG gave it a thumbs up.

6/19/2012 5:42 PM
grantduck
Posts: 290 (0)
Hall of Famer
73
Prospect
Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):
I've picked Tuesday 6/26 as the release date for the changes that I've been working on.  That's the next window where no worlds will be recruiting. 

The changes are:
  1. Changes to the logic that adjusts prestige after the season to reduce the impact of baseline prestige and conference strength, and increase the impact of actual team success.
  2. Changes to the logic for determining a team's recent success as applies to prestige change.  The weighting of the past 4 seasons will be spread out more evenly, placing less emphasis on the most recent season.
  3. Improved the logic that ranks players for the NBA draft to address the issue of big guys being overvalued and also to give more emphasis to players from successful, high prestige schools.
  4. Adding a new feature called "Player Roles".  This boils down to a page where you can define any number of custom formulas that produce an overall rating from 0-100.  These formulas can then be used on the recruit search page to order players based more on what you as a coach value instead of the standard overall rating.
  5. I've modified the logic that handles whether underclassmen will enter the NBA draft.  I've removed the very strong random factor involved, so now the odds will be based on the player's class along with where he's projected to be picked.
  6. Changed the rule that limits early entries once a team has lost 5 players.  The rule will only kick in if 6 players are lost.  Also, transfers who only played one season for the team will not count in that 6.
  7. I've modified the logic for how a player will react to a redshirt.  It will be based on the player's class, his recruiting position rank, and how he ranks on his team (so if he's one of the worst on the roster he's more likely to accept it).  Also, his reaction to it will always be the same as it was the first try for a given season. So there won't be any benefit to removing and applying it multiple times.
  8. I'm removing booster gifts, psych report, and personality test from the recruiting options.  The process to investigate booster gifts will still run normally to account for any actions done prior to this release.
  9. I'm adding functionality to view past seasons on all of the conference tourney, NT, and PIT brackets and seeds pages.
Biggest concerns by far are #3,  #5 and #6.  I voiced concern about them before as well.  If it leads to considerably more players declaring, it will absolutely ruin D-1.  

Why?  Because IQ is such an important game factor. 
6/19/2012 5:52 PM
milkamania
Posts: 295 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 201 1
Rookie
Posted by metsmax on 6/19/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Appreciate your hard work and effort. My only problem with it is the timing of the announcement. We are just finishing up with job placements in Crum. As I understand it the new Prestige change will kill me on my new job.

If we had known this change would be implemented I would have never picked the rebuild I did, simply because of their record the last 4 years.   I would have taken into consideration the last 4 years and positively picked a different team. I think this change is going to severly deter coach's from taking over rebuilds of bad teams and only takeover teams that have been good in the recent past.This will keep the bad teams bad.

It appears those of us who took over rebuilds, will be punished because it will be much tougher and will take longer to turn those teams around, if it can be done at all. The bottom teams will stay on the bottom  and the top teams will stay on the top.  Please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong. Right now I am really regretting this job move.  
I dont think the 4 year window is new - I think the change is making the most recent year less of a factor, but I think - others can correct - that there has long been a focus on the last 4 years. 

I think that a year or two ago, there was a change to move from exclusively looking at 4 years to include some of prior history - like 10 seasons - but 4 years has been there for a long long time
I thought that the change from a 4 year window to a 10 year window was for hiring logic only, while this is referring only to a team's prestige.  Someone correct me if I am wrong
6/19/2012 6:35 PM
the_old_bear
Posts: 15 (0)
Hall of Famer
42 17 14 78 48
Prospect
Wish I would have known about the flaw in the redshirt mechanics before now. LOL guess I should get out on the forums more often.
6/19/2012 6:52 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...9 Next ▸
HD Release - Tuesday 6/26 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.