Posted by oldave on 5/25/2014 8:29:00 AM (view original):
i think i saw seble say somewhere a few pages back that position does not affect redshirt?   is that right?  i always thought it did.  i thought a kid was more likely to accpet rs if he was 3rd or 4th on depth chart at his position according to overall rating, as opposed to being highest rated at his position or the only one at his position.

where did i get that idea?  i dont think i just made it up.  but maybe i did

If you made it up, you stuck it into my head also. Or else maybe just repeated it in the forums and that's where *I* got the idea from.

Again, as other mention, not by "depth chart" but by OVR rating.

So, for example, the lowest ranked "PG" by OVR, even if his cores make him a better player than the higher OVR DUR/WE stud.

Posted by oldave on 5/25/2014 8:29:00 AM (view original):
i think i saw seble say somewhere a few pages back that position does not affect redshirt?   is that right?  i always thought it did.  i thought a kid was more likely to accpet rs if he was 3rd or 4th on depth chart at his position according to overall rating, as opposed to being highest rated at his position or the only one at his position.

where did i get that idea?  i dont think i just made it up.  but maybe i did

im thinking the reason he said that is because he changed it a couple years ago. prior to that change, im pretty sure listed position played into it. at the very least, who else you had playing that position in general (maybe going by something other than listed) mattered, and i sort of think it still does, its just not that listed matters anymore. could be wrong though.

as for reference to depth chart... i didnt mean the actual game setting depth chart.... meant a fictional depth chart that would list players by position in terms of OVR.    good to know i didnt totally imagine it.

I've been thinking about this some more, and I've decided to add a team restriction to prevent the 12 SF issue.  I'm thinking of something along the lines of a minimum of 1 player listed at each position, and no more than 4 at any single position.

I like the admin-initiated effort, but this is a whole lot of discussion for something so strictly cosmetic.  And already there is a roadblock for an attempted "gaming" of this change is in the works.  Frustrating to see when there are so many other needed tweaks before this one. 

Add a 5th line to the depth chart please.

Posted by jdno on 5/27/2014 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I like the admin-initiated effort, but this is a whole lot of discussion for something so strictly cosmetic.  And already there is a roadblock for an attempted "gaming" of this change is in the works.  Frustrating to see when there are so many other needed tweaks before this one. 

Add a 5th line to the depth chart please.

Adding to the depth chart is not as easy as it seems.  There are some logic assumptions made in the engine based on 4 slots.

whoa nellie, sometin wrong with having lots of SFs?

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	OVR
Rickie Day	So.	PG	73	89	29	91	8	7	55	88	93	78	79	88	B-	778
Eugene Jones	So.	PG	75	88	14	88	15	1	60	79	64	55	75	52	B	666
Jason Green	Fr.	PG	88	89	23	80	19	46	85	67	85	26	71	57	C	736
Frank Holmes	Fr.	SG	91	74	29	82	18	58	79	59	79	45	69	63	B	746
Glenn Lyles	Sr.	SF	98	64	74	99	71	78	80	71	61	51	66	80	C+	893
Erick Tyler	Sr.	SF	67	68	97	80	75	44	94	76	73	79	72	70	B-	895
Joseph Wilcox	Sr.	SF	99	71	72	95	76	75	88	57	76	97	97	81	C	984
Douglas Callahan	Fr.	SF	87	70	59	93	43	59	42	62	71	45	72	60	C	763
Jeffrey Casey	Fr.	SF	82	31	43	76	36	16	44	34	36	40	67	65	C	570
Stephen Mastin	So.	PF	84	47	73	93	79	92	56	46	54	84	78	88	C	874
Larry Powell	So.	PF	88	46	82	95	75	84	37	52	73	48	76	22	C	778
Bert Drye	Fr.	C	89	52	92	95	84	41	16	33	46	71	69	65	D+	753

Posted by seble on 5/27/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I've been thinking about this some more, and I've decided to add a team restriction to prevent the 12 SF issue.  I'm thinking of something along the lines of a minimum of 1 player listed at each position, and no more than 4 at any single position.

Um... I'm running 5 PGs, 2 SFs, and 5 Cs right now at Gallaudet (Naismith).  Would such a team restriction restrict recruiting?  Because if so, then the downsides are way, way worse than the upsides are good.

I am mostly kidding, but I sure hope that any restriction will limit only user changes to position designations and not keep us from recruiting any player we think can add value.  On the above roster, those SFs play in many many slots

Posted by seble on 5/27/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 5/27/2014 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I like the admin-initiated effort, but this is a whole lot of discussion for something so strictly cosmetic.  And already there is a roadblock for an attempted "gaming" of this change is in the works.  Frustrating to see when there are so many other needed tweaks before this one. 

Add a 5th line to the depth chart please.

Adding to the depth chart is not as easy as it seems.  There are some logic assumptions made in the engine based on 4 slots.

hmm, well, ok.  I think it would be very helpful in situations where you want to skip a slot to prioritize a kid at a backup position, but then one runs out of room on the depth chart b/c of this "wasted" space. 

But thanks for the reply seble, hopefully in the future this can be added.

Posted by seble on 5/27/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I've been thinking about this some more, and I've decided to add a team restriction to prevent the 12 SF issue.  I'm thinking of something along the lines of a minimum of 1 player listed at each position, and no more than 4 at any single position.

I love it. Based on depth chart restrictions, a coach couldn't have any less than 1 or more than 4 players at a position anyway. 

I get that some teams have unbalanced rosters now, but the point is that you can change the position to how you're actually using them.  So dedelman, you're obviously playing some of those guys at SG and PF.  If you want to leave the positions as they are, that's fine, but if you change anything, then these restrictions would come into play.  I could be convinced to loosen the max from 4 to 5 for a position.

Posted by mamxet on 5/27/2014 10:27:00 AM (view original):
I am mostly kidding, but I sure hope that any restriction will limit only user changes to position designations and not keep us from recruiting any player we think can add value.  On the above roster, those SFs play in many many slots

It looks like some of those guys you could easily designate as PFs, but I see your concern. I'm sure seble will handle any bug with recruiting a fifth player at a position though so that the coach has time to switch the positions of the players already on their roster to accommodate the newcomer. 

Posted by seble on 5/27/2014 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I get that some teams have unbalanced rosters now, but the point is that you can change the position to how you're actually using them.  So dedelman, you're obviously playing some of those guys at SG and PF.  If you want to leave the positions as they are, that's fine, but if you change anything, then these restrictions would come into play.  I could be convinced to loosen the max from 4 to 5 for a position.

4 sounds perfect to me.  There are only 4 slots on each position depth chart.  

As I understand it, the following have been confirmed to be not affected by listed position: early entry, redshirt acceptance, and it would not prevent a coach from recruiting a 5th, 6th or 12th SF, but only from changing a 5th or 6th player from something else to SF (or SG, etc.).  Also, the position changes would be locked once the 1st regular season game is run.  If that is all true, then I say let rip!

Any of these restrictions would only come into play when changing positions, so it wouldn't cause any problems with recruiting.  Which means you could theoretically still get to 12 SFs by recruiting only SFs, but at that point you're not even trying to win.