Posted by bullet004 on 6/20/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the_old_bear on 6/19/2012 6:52:00 PM (view original):
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.

There isn't one. Only 1 of the last 4 recruits I tried to redshirt took it the first time I tried. The other 3 I tried over and over and over and they never took it. I think that was a thing of the past. Makes me wonder why it needs fixed when it's already fixed.

My issue is prestige.

This is simplifying it a bit. When I think Sweet 16, I think A+. When I think NT I think A. When I think Conf Champ I think B+. When I think PI I think B. When I think no post season I think C. When I think sucktard, I think D.

So imagine my chagrin when after 3 PIs and 1 NT in last 5 years I'm still stuck at the same damn C+.

Then look across at one of the teams I'm recruiting against who last played in a post season 16 seasons ago and has a C. Don't make no damn sense.

The other problem with prestige is when a coach leaves a A or better D1 program. If no one fills it immediately, it just sits there. I guarantee you someone out there wanted that job but couldn't get it because prestige. I couldn't based on my last 5 seasons posted above. So now that job will rot until it drops in prestige to its eventual baseline.

It obviously needed to be fixed ... it is BS that you can just take away and apply a RS until it finally takes.

If you tell a guy he is going to RS and he refuses it, he should NEVER then later accept it.  That is just a BS gaming of the system that allows people to keep doing it with no penalty.

If they wanted to create something where you do it ... he says no, you take it off and everything returns to normal ... THEN ... if you do it again, there is a drop of 10% (non recoverable) WE for further attempts, then maybe.

But I like it just as well if they don't ever allow it to change from the original try.

If you want to RS someone for sure, then tell him during recruiting and pay for the privilege ... if you don't then you get one chance that he might do it.  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/20/2012 12:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 10:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 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. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Are you talking about the same afterthought UCLA that brought in the No.1 rated recruiting class in the country this year? Just sayin'. 

History always matters. 

I realize that but there is that possibility in HD as well. Plus this game isn't supposed to nor should it mirror RL 100%.

Right and I conceded that in my other post. I suppose baseline prestige would be HD's way of accounting for a team's history though. 

I guess then the only thing seble could do would be to add in dynamic baseline where a team's prestige is slightly tugged towards the average prestige of the past 15-20 seasons rather than a number that was appropriate years ago when HD was created. 

I hate how baseline is currently a set value. We have 50 seasons of data for HD and we are still relying on how good a team was in the 90s for their baseline?

i agree completely, zhawks. if people want to keep things somewhat real lifeish, allow starting baseline prestige to diminish from 100% of the current baseline, to 50%, over like 25 or 50 seasons or whatever. maybe after 10-15 seasons, when people have time to take over top end d1 schools, let each season count for 2% of baseline, until each of the last 25 seasons after season 10-15 are counted. im sure a UK or Duke would not drop too far, considering usually top coaches get them, but they could drop to an A or A- if they are really crappy. it would take some pretty terrible coaching to *ever* get them to a b+, as you'd need c+ prestige quality performance to drag down those A+s. on the other hand, someone could take a beloved C prestige school, and get them up to a b- or b, which would allow an a range prestige to be maintained with good performance.

really there are a million ways to do it... i suspect a compromise, keeping some of the starting baseline so UNC and kansas and kentucky are always good jobs, if not great ones, while also allowing people to take any school to a new level, would be the way to go. i think it really hits hard at the "what if" concept that supposedly is core to this game, that you cannot affect baseline, even after 60 seasons in a world.

my biggest concern is how it impacts current coaches - you'd have to start it now, or else maybe take into account the last 5 seasons. but if poof, you just put it in action, it seems like a lot of coaches would wrongly get shafted or bumped up.

Seble-Please reply

I apprecitate the changes and I like them.  But how could the hiring logic not have been adressed?  It's honestly ridiculous.  If somebody has a perrenial powerhouse at D1 and they forget to sign-up, there's a good chance they won't be qualified for their OWN job!  PLEASE change this!

I think that boosters and boosters gifts should STAY. Keeps things interesting.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/20/2012 10:40:00 AM (view original):
i agree completely, zhawks. if people want to keep things somewhat real lifeish, allow starting baseline prestige to diminish from 100% of the current baseline, to 50%, over like 25 or 50 seasons or whatever. maybe after 10-15 seasons, when people have time to take over top end d1 schools, let each season count for 2% of baseline, until each of the last 25 seasons after season 10-15 are counted. im sure a UK or Duke would not drop too far, considering usually top coaches get them, but they could drop to an A or A- if they are really crappy. it would take some pretty terrible coaching to *ever* get them to a b+, as you'd need c+ prestige quality performance to drag down those A+s. on the other hand, someone could take a beloved C prestige school, and get them up to a b- or b, which would allow an a range prestige to be maintained with good performance.

really there are a million ways to do it... i suspect a compromise, keeping some of the starting baseline so UNC and kansas and kentucky are always good jobs, if not great ones, while also allowing people to take any school to a new level, would be the way to go. i think it really hits hard at the "what if" concept that supposedly is core to this game, that you cannot affect baseline, even after 60 seasons in a world.

my biggest concern is how it impacts current coaches - you'd have to start it now, or else maybe take into account the last 5 seasons. but if poof, you just put it in action, it seems like a lot of coaches would wrongly get shafted or bumped up.

Yeah, that last note you made is probably the only problem holding this idea back. What could be done is run two baseline prestige systems at the same time—dynamic (average of past 15-20 seasons or so) and the original.

You begin with a 90-10 split where original baseline is favorably weighted at 90%. Every season that goes by, original baseline would transfer 10% over to dynamic. For example, after the next season, it would be a 80-20 split, then 70-30, and so on and so forth until dynamic baseline has complete president over prestige (once it inevitably reaches 0-100 obviously). 

This would work out well in my opinion and would really ease the transition into a new prestige system by spreading the transition out over 10 seasons. 

I'll use my NC State team in Crum as the example for how this might work. (Numeric values will replace the letter grading scale). 

Note: We'll assume that NC State's prestige remains at B+ for the sake of this example. 

Season                    Original Baseline                         Dynamic Baseline                         Overall Baseline
54                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.71 (B-)                                           (.9*O + .1*D) = 3.57 (A-)
55                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.75 (B-)                                           (.8*O + .2*D) = 3.48 (B+)
56                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.82 (B-)                                           (.7*O + .3*D) = 3.41 (B+)
57                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.89 (B)                                             (.6*O + .4*D) = 3.36 (B+)
58                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.93 (B)                                             (.5*O + .5*D) = 3.3 (B+)
59                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.96 (B)                                             (.4*O + .6*D) = 3.24 (B+)
60                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.98 (B)                                             (.3*O + .7*D) = 3.18 (B+)
61                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.02 (B)                                             (.2*O + .8*D) = 3.15 (B)
62                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.07 (B)                                             (.1*O + .9*D) = 3.13 (B)
63                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.13 (B)                                             (1.0*D)           = 3.13 (B)
Now completely reliant on dynamic prestige.
64                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.2 (B)                                               (1.0*D)           = 3.2 (B+)

As you can see, it makes for a pretty easy transition and as long as you do a solid job coaching, you can use your original prestige to fight a lower dynamic prestige or vise versa. 

the car crazy phase out makes sense to me - but I think you would pick some minimum % that baseline should continue to contribute.  That reflects my bias that I think Duke and Carolina and UCLA should be powers - and that the game is aided by that.  Maybe a sliding percentage from 100% down to 50% (see gillespie posting) ...maybe down to 30%.......

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/20/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/20/2012 10:40:00 AM (view original):
i agree completely, zhawks. if people want to keep things somewhat real lifeish, allow starting baseline prestige to diminish from 100% of the current baseline, to 50%, over like 25 or 50 seasons or whatever. maybe after 10-15 seasons, when people have time to take over top end d1 schools, let each season count for 2% of baseline, until each of the last 25 seasons after season 10-15 are counted. im sure a UK or Duke would not drop too far, considering usually top coaches get them, but they could drop to an A or A- if they are really crappy. it would take some pretty terrible coaching to *ever* get them to a b+, as you'd need c+ prestige quality performance to drag down those A+s. on the other hand, someone could take a beloved C prestige school, and get them up to a b- or b, which would allow an a range prestige to be maintained with good performance.

really there are a million ways to do it... i suspect a compromise, keeping some of the starting baseline so UNC and kansas and kentucky are always good jobs, if not great ones, while also allowing people to take any school to a new level, would be the way to go. i think it really hits hard at the "what if" concept that supposedly is core to this game, that you cannot affect baseline, even after 60 seasons in a world.

my biggest concern is how it impacts current coaches - you'd have to start it now, or else maybe take into account the last 5 seasons. but if poof, you just put it in action, it seems like a lot of coaches would wrongly get shafted or bumped up.

Yeah, that last note you made is probably the only problem holding this idea back. What could be done is run two baseline prestige systems at the same time—dynamic (average of past 15-20 seasons or so) and the original.

You begin with a 90-10 split where original baseline is favorably weighted at 90%. Every season that goes by, original baseline would transfer 10% over to dynamic. For example, after the next season, it would be a 80-20 split, then 70-30, and so on and so forth until dynamic baseline has complete president over prestige (once it inevitably reaches 0-100 obviously). 

This would work out well in my opinion and would really ease the transition into a new prestige system by spreading the transition out over 10 seasons. 

I'll use my NC State team in Crum as the example for how this might work. (Numeric values will replace the letter grading scale). 

Note: We'll assume that NC State's prestige remains at B+ for the sake of this example. 

Season                    Original Baseline                         Dynamic Baseline                         Overall Baseline
54                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.71 (B-)                                           (.9*O + .1*D) = 3.57 (A-)
55                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.75 (B-)                                           (.8*O + .2*D) = 3.48 (B+)
56                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.82 (B-)                                           (.7*O + .3*D) = 3.41 (B+)
57                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.89 (B)                                             (.6*O + .4*D) = 3.36 (B+)
58                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.93 (B)                                             (.5*O + .5*D) = 3.3 (B+)
59                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.96 (B)                                             (.4*O + .6*D) = 3.24 (B+)
60                              3.66 (A-)                                         2.98 (B)                                             (.3*O + .7*D) = 3.18 (B+)
61                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.02 (B)                                             (.2*O + .8*D) = 3.15 (B)
62                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.07 (B)                                             (.1*O + .9*D) = 3.13 (B)
63                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.13 (B)                                             (1.0*D)           = 3.13 (B)
Now completely reliant on dynamic prestige.
64                              3.66 (A-)                                         3.2 (B)                                               (1.0*D)           = 3.2 (B+)

As you can see, it makes for a pretty easy transition and as long as you do a solid job coaching, you can use your original prestige to fight a lower dynamic prestige or vise versa. 

Easy - I think you slowly take the current baseline from 100% (CB) + 0%(NB) and each season move 10% to NB or the other way. Obviously you'd need to test it throughly to make sure that it wasn't too drastic but yes you can make it happen.

I have written about my idea for the baseline which I believe is similar to what billy has written. Maybe I can find an older post to repost later... It's been a while since I pulled that one out and I think it is still relevant.

Posted by fd343ny on 6/20/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):
the car crazy phase out makes sense to me - but I think you would pick some minimum % that baseline should continue to contribute.  That reflects my bias that I think Duke and Carolina and UCLA should be powers - and that the game is aided by that.  Maybe a sliding percentage from 100% down to 50% (see gillespie posting) ...maybe down to 30%.......

I agree the current baseline numbers can be a factor in a new one as well. Just think we can use the history we have made instead of blindly following something arbitrary.

Yea, I'd be fine with stopping it at a certain percentage between the two. 

Definitely something we could test in a beta though. I forgot how quickly the beta ran last time, but this one could probably run quicker because this isn't about the engine, it would be more about seeing how content everyone is with a new system. 

i don't have a lot of experience in D1(just went into my first season this year there) but i like the idea of getting rid of baseline prestige. i think it would make it more fun and maybe create some more excitement from non Big-6 conferences. however, i still think the Big-6 would still be elite but it might make an opportunity for some small school upsets in the first round of the NT. I read somewhere in the forums that there was only 1 upset in a D1 World. i think if baseline prestige was taken away, we could see more excitement in the first round of the NT because those smaller schools would have the opportunity to get better recruits with a better prestige which may help them upset a Big-6 school. i would love to see this go into effect

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having the original baseline continue to play a role. Just so that there aren't a bunch of mid-majors that all of a sudden have A prestige's. 

Posted by fd343ny on 6/20/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):
the car crazy phase out makes sense to me - but I think you would pick some minimum % that baseline should continue to contribute.  That reflects my bias that I think Duke and Carolina and UCLA should be powers - and that the game is aided by that.  Maybe a sliding percentage from 100% down to 50% (see gillespie posting) ...maybe down to 30%.......

I don't care a bit about "maintaining traditional powers" or anything like that, but if you make the baselines too dynamic you wind up generating nearly uncoachable teams.  There are a few Big 6 teams out there that have recently gone a few seasons waiting for a coach.  If you have a slowly dynamic baseline system those teams start to lose baseline.  By the time somebody takes them over they could have a baseline far out of line with the rest of the conference and a very long road to bringing it back.  It's not like the B- baseline schools would have to drop terribly far before they would become horrendously challenging rebuilds for even the best coaches.  And just think of the long-term ramifications to the Hawaii program - starting at B- and being at an inherent geographical disadvantage, that school could wind up fighting for 1-2 conference wins in virtually every world in a hurry.

I think the real problem with NOT having baseline prestige in D1 is that each conference is set up so that the baselines are generally similar enough that any team CAN be made competitive in any conference.  Obviously it makes it harder for mid-majors to win titles, but in the long run I think the coachability of every program in a baseline-driven D1 is probably better than the coachability of some programs in a dynamic baseline D1.  Even if you cap the flexibility at 1 letter grade, for example, is a C- baseline Penn State with D current prestige really a challenge anybody sane would want to tackle?  Probably not so much.  And I don't think it's good for the game (particularly given the population tendencies in D1 right now, i.e. low to nonexistant mid-major and low-major populations) to have virtually uncoachable Big 6 teams.

Posted by smrzut on 6/21/2012 4:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/19/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 6/19/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
seble, regarding redshirts: Are you using OVR to determine the talent ratings which the player will use to factor into his decision? If so, would a modified value of say OVR - DUR - WE or some such be a better indicator of actual value?

I'm using a new formula that weights each rating based on position.  There is no weight on durability and only small weight on work ethic and stamina.

Why only a small weight on work ethic? Wouldn't a players we have a large bearing on whether or not they would be a 'team player' and accept the redshirt?

No I don't think you can inherently say that because a kid has a good WE he is therefore more likely to take a RS. You can be a very talented player with a great or a poor WE (in RL) and want nothing to do with a RS and that wouldn't make you have a poor WE.