A guy with great WE might continue to practice and improve while redshirted, but that doesn't mean he isn't going to transfer...

Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2012 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

Couldn't this be solved to a certain degree by starting out the top tier recruits with better IQs? So let's say the recruit generation takes into account where a player ranks in his class. The top 10-20 players start with C+ IQs across the board. Next 10-20 are C. Next 10-20 are C-, and so on and so forth until you reach F. Players would still have one offense and defense where they are smarter, but recruits could have baseline IQs that start out higher based on their rank in their class. That way their IQs for stud recruits are good enough by tourney time of season 1 that they aren't hurting their teams too much with their low IQs. Thoughts?

Posted by mduncanhogs on 6/23/2012 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2012 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

Couldn't this be solved to a certain degree by starting out the top tier recruits with better IQs? So let's say the recruit generation takes into account where a player ranks in his class. The top 10-20 players start with C+ IQs across the board. Next 10-20 are C. Next 10-20 are C-, and so on and so forth until you reach F. Players would still have one offense and defense where they are smarter, but recruits could have baseline IQs that start out higher based on their rank in their class. That way their IQs for stud recruits are good enough by tourney time of season 1 that they aren't hurting their teams too much with their low IQs. Thoughts?

I really don't like that idea. That means every player recruited for mid-major/small conf. D1 team, every DII, Every DII teams ends up having an IQ of F. That's unfair and unrealistic.  But all of the top 5 players (picture John Wall, Anthony Davis, Austin Rivers, Harrison Barnes, and Kyrie Irving) start with A- IQ's across the board.  Just these super-recruits (this idea has been suggested before) who can come in and be the best/one best players on their team initially (as it is in real life).

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2012 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

I think this is realistic. I think this will create a cyclical nature to the game that doesn't really exist now. This will make it much more difficult for big programs to stay at the top. Right now, everything is easier for teams that are more successful...leading to the domination by certain teams season after season. This will make it more impressive to see teams stay at the top. Just as in the real world, a dynasty is a rare accomplishment. Allow more accomplished coaches a chance to have success.

Posted by thatbt on 6/23/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2012 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

I think this is realistic. I think this will create a cyclical nature to the game that doesn't really exist now. This will make it much more difficult for big programs to stay at the top. Right now, everything is easier for teams that are more successful...leading to the domination by certain teams season after season. This will make it more impressive to see teams stay at the top. Just as in the real world, a dynasty is a rare accomplishment. Allow more accomplished coaches a chance to have success.

It's not realistic because of the role IQ plays in HD.  In real life, teams composed of freshman and sophomores can have big time success, but not in HD.  What it WILL do is essentially make the top tier recruits less valuable.

Posted by mduncanhogs on 6/23/2012 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2012 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

Couldn't this be solved to a certain degree by starting out the top tier recruits with better IQs? So let's say the recruit generation takes into account where a player ranks in his class. The top 10-20 players start with C+ IQs across the board. Next 10-20 are C. Next 10-20 are C-, and so on and so forth until you reach F. Players would still have one offense and defense where they are smarter, but recruits could have baseline IQs that start out higher based on their rank in their class. That way their IQs for stud recruits are good enough by tourney time of season 1 that they aren't hurting their teams too much with their low IQs. Thoughts?

I think simply having SOME players that start with higher IQ's(b's and b+'s); and it could be randomized, not just for top tier players, would be a much better solution. 

Posted by mlatsko1 on 6/19/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Boosters gone... easy mode recruit grading page for searches... the simplification of the game continues.  Seems more boring by the update.

More simply put, I have 2 very good sophomores on my team right now.  If they both go pro and it leaves me with 7 open scholarships when I had only 2 seniors and no juniors, I'll probably go back to D-II or D-III.

If you're recruiting top tier players, there is a legit chance they're going to leave early. I'm stunned that anyone would think that doesn't make sense/isn't realistic/fair/etc.

(Though I don't believe you feel that way, it's just more about you wanting to protect your own self interests.)

Sorry, but the game is highly stacked towards the BCS teams.

Posted by girt25 on 6/23/2012 11:23:00 PM (view original):
If you're recruiting top tier players, there is a legit chance they're going to leave early. I'm stunned that anyone would think that doesn't make sense/isn't realistic/fair/etc.

(Though I don't believe you feel that way, it's just more about you wanting to protect your own self interests.)

Sorry, but the game is highly stacked towards the BCS teams.

I spent a lot of time at a mid major before I went to a BCS school, so I can see it from both sides.

It is realistic to have top tier players leaving after their freshman and sophomore years.  However, in HD, where IQ is so valuable, it makes it unrealistic because it essentially creates a game where top tier players are less valuable than guys who develop,  that's not realistic AT ALL.

It's a good change, ONLY if they make freshman and sophomores come in with some higher IQ's(B's, B+'s, etc) like they also can in real life.

If you're going to make it more realistic, you can't make just the leaving early more realistic, without having freshman and sophmores being capable of playing at a very high level, or it actually makes things considerably worse.

The reason it's stacked towards BCS teams is because of the lack of mid level recruits that develop into top guys by their senior seasons, it's a recruit generation issue and a recruiting money issue.  If you're trying to balance out BCS/non-BCS schools or high prestige/mid prestige, having more players from top teams leave early is the wrong way to go about doing that because it's not the problem.

Posted by grantduck on 6/23/2012 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Largest concern is still the Early Entry changes.  If more players from the top tier teams are going to leave early, it could really cripple those programs because their top level recruits will never be juniors and seniors, and never have the IQ's necessary to succeed in HD.  It would basically mean that top schools should start recruiting lesser players, just so they won't leave early.  That's nonsensical.

I actually like the idea of having to mix EE's with "4-year program guys" that may never play in the NBA.  If they didn't do something about the 5 player cap on EE's you get the super A+ programs that have come into existence and are perennial Final Four programs.  Sorry i don't feel sorry for those programs (caveat:  i've coached at one prior although it was Clemson and i didn't have the built in prestige).  The game needed to change something about the super-conferences and more importantly, the super-teams and i believe this is a step in the right direction. 

Have to wait and see how it plays out.

Posted by girt25 on 6/23/2012 11:23:00 PM (view original):
If you're recruiting top tier players, there is a legit chance they're going to leave early. I'm stunned that anyone would think that doesn't make sense/isn't realistic/fair/etc.

(Though I don't believe you feel that way, it's just more about you wanting to protect your own self interests.)

Sorry, but the game is highly stacked towards the BCS teams.

+1

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?

Terrell Owens has a ton of work ethic. I don't typically think of the words "team player" when he comes to mind though...

grant, I will say that I agree with you on one count, which is that freshmen shouldn't leave early in HD. I've told seble this. There are no impact freshmen like in the real life NCAA, and it's silly to have frosh leave in HD because of that. Other than that, it's a good (and more important, very necessary) change.

Posted by dacj501 on 6/19/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 6/19/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Requesting clarification on No. 7 -- will it now be required to notify recruits of a redshirt in order for them to accept it without penalty or is there still a chance a player low enough on the hierarchy will accept one without work-ethic penalty?  Also, is a player's perception of "how he ranks on the team" based solely on his rating value or does he take his listed position into account? (if I have a roster of 4 SG's and 1 SF and I recruit a player at SF that I plan to redshirt and play at a different position, is he going to see a lack of payers labeled SF on my roster and be less likely to take the redshirt?)

from the other development thread:
This wasn't part of the original announcement, but I've been reviewing the logic for determining how a player will react to a redshirt and I've made some changes.  The new logic will be fairly simple. 

- If you told a recruit that he would be redshirted during recruiting, then he will react well 100% of the time. 

- If you told him him he would not be redshirted, then he will react well 0% of the time.

- If you promised start or minutes, then he will react well 0% of the time

In all other cases, the odds of reacting well are determined based on:

1. The player's class (less likely to react well the older the player)

2. Games the player is designated to miss due to injury (the more games means higher chance he'll react well)

3. Number of times you've attempted to redshirt him already (the more times, the less chance he'll react well)

4. Where the player rates out talent-wise on his team.  So a player who is the 11th best guy on your team will be much more likely to react well than the 4th best guy on your team.

and later:

After reading feedback on the changes to the redshirt decision logic, I've made a few tweaks.  I've reinstated the factor that makes ranked recruits less likely to accept a redshirt. 

I've also made it so that no matter how many times you attempt to redshirt a player, his reaction will always be the same.  So if he reacted well the first time, he will react well each time and vice versa.  However, I'm going to reset that each season.  Say for example you tried to redshirt player A as a freshman.  Then you removed the redshirt and let him play that season.  If you then try to redshirt him as a sophomore, the first time you do so, he will look at the various factors and react based on that, regardless of how he reacted to that redshirt attempt as a freshman. 

I've had numerous instances where a player didn't like being redshirted during the preseason and dropped in WE.  I didn't play him because he couldn't crack the lineup.  After 15 games or so, he sees that he isn't going to be a part of rotation and is more open to a redshirt rather than losing the whole season.  Are you saying this is no longer possible and that first reaction will always be the reaction I get?