Posted by jtt8355 on 5/22/2014 6:19:00 PM (view original):
when you put it in the context of using player roles (more?) efficiently, it becomes more than a cosmetic change and would make the player roles feature useable for coaches like yours truly who won't bother with it until i can redesignate the positions. (though, i'd rather no limit on changing the positions because with season improvements, i want the ability to gauge who is the best available player at each position from time to time.)

This is absolutely true .. player roles, when utilized with the ability to switch positions, can be used to greatly help people who want to use this approach.

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/22/2014 6:19:00 PM (view original):
when you put it in the context of using player roles (more?) efficiently, it becomes more than a cosmetic change and would make the player roles feature useable for coaches like yours truly who won't bother with it until i can redesignate the positions. (though, i'd rather no limit on changing the positions because with season improvements, i want the ability to gauge who is the best available player at each position from time to time.)

This is the exact point that I was going to bring up before I read it. As of right now, I also don't use the player role ratings in place of the old overall rating. Allowing position changes would make player roles much more useful and it would make scouting other teams much more time efficient. 

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2014 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jaymc2007 on 5/22/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I just don't like the idea of some coaches being able to list their entire lineup to one position, as Davis said.  It will just make game planning against teams like this more of a burden.

Well, first off, seble said that players would not likely be qualified for all 5 positions, and most would qualify for no more than 3 positions.

So, they would likely have to use the SF position to get the most players listed at one position.

Not only that, but it is dead simple to see where people play ... all it takes is opening up one game, then looking at the boxscore for the starters.  They are listed as C,PF,SF,SG,PG order.  Since guys currently can play out of position with no penalty, you likely need to do this anyway if you care who plays where.

That is true, the three positions will help.  I can see somebody putting 10 or 11 players as a SF though.  I am not saying I don't open up box scores too game plan, I do every game (though my record may not show it )  I guess more than anything I think I can just see people being obnoxious with it.

Let people list all 12 players as SFs.  I once had Johnson State with all 12 players having the last name of Johnson (true story.)   Somehow, my opponents figured out how to gameplan against me.

Posted by seble on 5/22/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 5/22/2014 1:30:00 PM (view original):
I don't see huge value in this, and I think it's very possible for people to game for unintended consequences.  Since there is no longer (I believe) a penalty for playing a player "out of position", why re-position him?  I played a guy in the NT that had 12 PF's, and he made the sweet sixteen plus, what's the benefit of changing a listed position?

This is mainly to make it easier for a coach to keep track of where you have guys slotted.  For example, maybe you end up with 5 PGs, but you actually play 2 of them strictly at SG.  It's nicer to see those players listed correctly at SG. 

If coaches used this feature honestly, then it would actually improve the awards process, as it would compare players at the correct position.

that's exactly what I tried to explain once in the forum before someone made a big fuss about it.

I'm for the addition of coaches being able to change player positions.

Posted by seble on 5/22/2014 3:05:00 PM (view original):
The drawback to basing on playing time is that you'd theoretically have to wait quite a while for a player to become eligible.  I like the idea of being able to adjust positions immediately upon recruits showing up.  The one idea that makes sense to me is limiting it to a window of time, possibly up until the regular season starts.  That way, a player is set for that season at least.

so, we will have until the end of the second exhibition game to make the final player position change?

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/22/2014 5:31:00 PM (view original):
As far as the concern about game planning goes, any coach that doesn't actually check the line-ups of his or her opponents previous games, and only looks at player positions and stats, probably doesn't take game planning on a individual basis very seriously...and should only be upset with themselves if and when that strategy backfires.

+1

Posted by vamrbball on 5/22/2014 8:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 5/22/2014 3:05:00 PM (view original):
The drawback to basing on playing time is that you'd theoretically have to wait quite a while for a player to become eligible.  I like the idea of being able to adjust positions immediately upon recruits showing up.  The one idea that makes sense to me is limiting it to a window of time, possibly up until the regular season starts.  That way, a player is set for that season at least.

so, we will have until the end of the second exhibition game to make the final player position change?

I don't think you have to wait until the end of the exhibition games, you have between the time a player shows up on your roster TO the time the exhibition games end.

Posted by seble on 5/22/2014 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/22/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 5/22/2014 3:05:00 PM (view original):
The drawback to basing on playing time is that you'd theoretically have to wait quite a while for a player to become eligible.  I like the idea of being able to adjust positions immediately upon recruits showing up.  The one idea that makes sense to me is limiting it to a window of time, possibly up until the regular season starts.  That way, a player is set for that season at least.

the amount of time between recruiting ending and the season starting is small. i know i am not alone amongst coaches who are highly active during recruiting, then dying to set their team up... but the waiting 2 more days kills the momentum and then its a struggle just to get the team ready by the first regular season game. its normal to have micro periods of high and low interest alternate, but its unfortunate you can't set the team up right away, to get that important job done during a peak, instead of a valley of interest... anyway, adding one more thing that *has* to be done that early would really suck for folks like me. i basically had to give up on redshirts, after so many seasons paying for it in recruiting, then forgetting to put it on until after the 1st or 2nd game...

i like this change but i think limiting to the 1.5-2 day window immediately following the dead zone that is the end of recruiting, is the worst of all possibilities. i think the abuse potential is over stated here. what about until non conference is over? or 5 days into the season even? that would give ample time, while avoiding the pre-conference award shuffle problems.

You're saying that the two days between recruiting end and start of regular season is a low interest time?  I would've thought the opposite.  Don't you log on to set up depths/practice/etc. for the new recruits?  That seems like the optimal time for adjusting positions.

I'm not opposed to extending the window if necessary, just surprised that this wouldn't be the popular time frame to do it.

well... it is a popular time. the thing is, recruiting is SO intense... and you get all pumped, dreaming of what could be if everything goes the way you want, and all that, before reality has to set in. if after signings, i could set my team up, i'd be all over it, totally into it. but the problem is, then you have to wait the rest of the day, then 2 more full days, before players show up, and then you have only 12 hours before you miss the first practice. being so into recruiting, i always get a bit burnt out right after. so once you get down off the "high" of recruiting, i've always had a bit of a low interest period. unfortunately, setting up the team is something i usually love, but half the time i end up dreading it, because i have SO little time to do it (before being penalized with misses practices), plus im off the high from recruiting, so it almost turns into work. if you could set your team up right after you personally finished recruiting, it would definitely keep the high interest going a bit longer, but the dead period kind of kills it.

i am definitely an extreme case, i played too hard and really burnt myself out. but i have heard from many other coaches that they forgot to set their team up, on many occasions - usually because they got bored waiting and lost track of time, or got bored waiting and didn't feel like checking in, and didn't realize it was already the first real game, or whatever.

Not a fan of this, I don't see any positive impact.

I agree with jaymc and davis.  I don't want to make gameplanning any more of a burden than it is right now.  It will be more confusing to gameplan if your opponent has 11 SFs.  I don't see why any wise coach would not put as many players as possible at one position in order to confuse opponents.  If you want to fix awards, just base awards on majority games started in season.  A potential workaround for coaches setting 11 guys at 1 position is to allow opponents the option to view that team's original positions. (Just like you allow coaches to change the view from regular ratings to player roles) This way when gameplanning, it won't make it any harder for the opposition.  

prediction - this change will lead to some cute trick that someone discovers, that has nothing to do with its purpose

I'm thinking now to be ready, got some ideas to test....dont know if any will work.....

I like this change and I support limiting the timeframe for making adjustments to the beginning of the regular season. As we all know, the listed position for new recruits/transfers/JUCOs does not always reflect the position the coach intends to use the player at. Personally, I recruit Centers and PFs together with the only criteria being my team needs (rebounding, shooting, defense). Quite often I put Cs at the PF position on the depth chart and visa versa. It would be great to be able to change the listed position to reflect where I am actually using the player. At the DIII/DII levels, I often use PF/C at the SF position and again the ability to change the listed position would be a benefit. This would not only aid in setting the depth chart for the following season but it will actually help to prepare for recruiting. More than once, I have caught myself thinking I need to recruit a SF before remembering that I have a PF that I had planned on using there.

I appreciate that some coaches put little stock in awards, however, they are not just window dressing. At the DI level, awards can impact draft position which indirectly may prompt a change in team prestige. That is no small thing. This change should (if used properly) indicate appropriate award winners and therefore give credit where credit is due.

Also, an update will have to be made to the recently added Awards History page. A player may be a 3rd team C, a 2nd team PF, and a 1st team SF in his career. A column indicating what position the player won his award at will be necessary to avoid misleading entries.

i love this idea.

yes,  some method that lists them according to the position they played the most minutes at would be better,  but as proposed i think this is a good change.

im a little suprised that reviews have been mixed.  i realize there may be some unintended consequences and adjustments might have to be made,  but i like this.

all this business about 12 SFs?   really?   yeah, there may be a few jerks who decide to do that,  but i just cant see that being a widespread issue.   and even if people are screwing around with it,  i dont really see that affecting gameplanning.  i think if people screwed around with it, i guess conference awards might not impove as we would hope, but i doubt they would get worse except in extreme crazy cases.

i think setting those poitions prior to the season is best, to limit screwiness.  and , as for me,  i would probably list players at the spot i project them to play by the end of the season, even if they are a better fit at a different position a the start of the season.

anyways... oldavey likey!    and i love the color coded ratings page too if i didnt already say that.  thanks seble.

Posted by utahjazz88 on 5/22/2014 11:20:00 PM (view original):
I agree with jaymc and davis.  I don't want to make gameplanning any more of a burden than it is right now.  It will be more confusing to gameplan if your opponent has 11 SFs.  I don't see why any wise coach would not put as many players as possible at one position in order to confuse opponents.  If you want to fix awards, just base awards on majority games started in season.  A potential workaround for coaches setting 11 guys at 1 position is to allow opponents the option to view that team's original positions. (Just like you allow coaches to change the view from regular ratings to player roles) This way when gameplanning, it won't make it any harder for the opposition.  

Interesting possibility.  I will be saving the original position for players, so it wouldn't be too hard to allow a user setting specifying whether they want to see the original position or the current position.  I'll play around with this idea as it may be enough to mitigate the possibility of screwing up game planning.