Here are mine for now.

Make the game more simple.  Scrap potential and the FSS process.  FSS is a critical necessity now.  It's FSS dynasty in a way.  But the way FSS is priced and how recruits are generated (based on geographic location of schools without regard to sims) makes zero sense--paying for all divisions, and by states, not distance, means that teams in states with more of one division than another and the number of sim teams in an area will either severely handicap or reward teams based on nothing but where they are located and the the number of sims around them.  The truest competition occurs in this game when worlds are 100% full--that's not happening so a system needs to be put in place when there are sims.

With potential, your system basically allows every coach to know exactly how every player is predetermined to end up.  And that's good for the game?
 
Make baseline prestige the same for all teams--meaning that prestige is earned on the court like it is in real life.  IRL, a Memphis or Cincinnati (when it wasn't in the BE) with the right coach can become a national power that rivals the traditional powers.  It doesn't make sense to call this game "what-if" with baseline.  Why don't you do that in DII for the real life DII traditional powerhouses (Winona State)?  Because it doesn't make sense.

Scrap the 100% carry-over for teams that didn't recruit.  It's not even in the rules page.  Doesn't make sense.  There was a thread with actual numbers to point out the huge advantage a team receives.

In general, if a game is great, it won't need too many updates or tweakings.  The fact that FSS was added to HD not too long ago, and the fact that the geographic component of recruit generation, and recruiting costs have changed at various points in HDs history suggests that the delicate balance that existed between those elements were randomly affected rather than strategically affected when those changes took place.

Get rid of those annoying emails that tell us what not to do.  Don't just say don't practice, FT, PE, LP, BH, PA, REB and conditioning.  Give us a suggestion.  Allow players to have a practice plan that matters (which is what I kind of was saying when I suggested scrapping potential).  What's the point?  Who cares? 

Make IQs universal for incoming players.  Guys that come in with a high IQ can easily transition from flex to motion.  Was John Wall great at Kentucky because he came in having run the same offense that he ran in HS?  Of course not.  Sets are basically the same and in today's game a 3 on 2 break is the same whether you run triangle or motion.  You spread the court and go to the hole.  The basic principles of offense and defense are the same no matter what set you run.

Make WE a gameday rating.

Not sure how to handle costs for recruiting efforts, they've changed twice since the original costs.  Part of me toys with the idea of CV/HV limits like rl and like phone calls (although did anyone see where limits for calls have been alterned irl) and having prestige, scouting trips, early recruitng credit, and a kid's preference (favorite school/close to home) play roles in his decision so it wouldn't be just about prestige if there were limits.

My 6 cents for now. 

Thanks for listening Seble.  Good luck.

Very well thought out, thanks.  I would agree with some of this and disagree with some, but I'd be interested to hear other responses.  You might be better served starting a thread for each item to keep the discussion from straying too much.

Get rid of potential woudl be a complete non starter for me and take away half of my interest in the Game.  Without potential you know exactly how each player will end up even more, you have COMPLETE control ovver it.  Take initial ratings.  Input work ethic.  Input practice plan>  There are your ratings.


Not for universal IQ's, but much less of the extreme lows on IQ.

Lessen the differences in prestige, but don't eliminate them>  Otherwise, fine.

I hate potential as it is now and FSS gives WAY more information about players than any coach would rightfully know. What's worse is that the information provided is 100 percent correct, and that's something you'd never, ever see in a real-world scenario. Nobody should know that Player A, who's an above average shot blocker right now, will be as good as O"Neal by his senior season. Or that Player B will be dishing out the dimes like Stockton by the time he graduates. You suspect and hope stuff like that in the real world..but with FSS, just look at the green numbers and you can pretty much "know" it...or look at the red numbers and you'll know it won't happen, so look elsewhere. You don't get that bust player that comes in with a mountain of expectations, but who never embraces the college game and shows little improvement. Those players might exist, but since darn near everyone gets FSS, everyone sees that its going to be the case and keeps hands off the kid in the recruiting cycle.

I haven't been here long enough to know what the "pre-potential" era that I hear spoken of was. I definitely know that seeing FSS scrapped for "something else" wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. Right now, all those other recruiting actions seem like little more than hollow check-boxes whose sole purpose is to ensure that I show enough love for a kid to get atop his list so he'll accept my scholly offer.

I really like the changes in recruiting such as limiting phone calls or visits. As it is now, in a recruiting battle the winning coach is the one who can visit the kid 40+ times and invite him to campus another 20 more. A player should have much more specific interests when looking for a school, as well as multiple preferences before recruiting even starts. I think it would be really neat if FSS could become more like Scout.com (also owned by Fox Media). A player could have an initial 4-12 'teams of interest', including interest level - and would change 1-2x daily when a player limits, expands or changes his preferences. WIS's version of 'Scout.com' could have simple evaluation notes that indicate several areas where a player could have potential, similar to Scouting Trips (purchasing a state could give more evaluation). However, to keep scouting trips necessary they could be more detailed and give the coach the ability to specify the areas to watch. I really think potential is key to the game, and in no way should be eliminated.

Also, I think in a battle other coaches should know what a school has offered or promised a recruit. For example, in RL if a kid was promised a start or offered a scholarship, other coaches recruiting him would know (this could be shown on the 'scout.com' or feedback from the recruit or recruit's coach).

Anyone feel free to expand or comment on any ideas

I definately agree with scrapping potential, there is no way in RL any coach would know how "good" or "bad" a recruit will be by the time he is a senior.

This is why I think if they implemented hiring scouts & assistant coaches, it would really be beneficial rather then just knowing.

You could have your scouts go out and give you detail reports on what the recruits are good, and not so good at.

Also with regards to assistant coaches, they could also help trying to give you information on what kids to look at, where to send your scouts, as well as giving you feedback on upcoming opponents, and what distro, and what kids you should be starting, sitting, etc.

As opposed to non potential, where a coach can precisely DETERMINE how good or bad a recruit will be by the time they are a senior?

|

baseline prestige needs to be reworked, or eliminated.  as rails pointed out, it should be earned on the court.  a four year run i had at a mid-major NC, s16, 2nd rd, e8) and that only got an A-.  part of the reason i no longer have any desire to play DI.

Rails - Couldn't agree with you more on static baseline prestige.  What do you think of a rolling baseline prestige model?  We kicked this around a while ago and it seemed to get some traction although we differed on the fine details.  The general idea would be that baseline prestige would exist but would be determined by the last, say, 10-15 years of the program's performance in that particular world.  That would allow for the rise of a Memphis or a Gonzaga over a period of consistent, sustained success.

Would be better.  Still even if they would equalize baseline, those teams would still be at a disadvantage because of conference money.  In HD it's a double wammy--money and prestige.  But no one can argue that Cincinnatti or Memphis couldn't recruit with anyone.  One could argue those teams would need to do things illegally to compete, but USC and OSU just proved to us that Big 6 teams do that as well so that argument loses all of its steam.

In regard to the potential, I just think that FSS is so critical.  Taking out the geography of where recruits are generated, I just don't think the economics of having Team A spend 50% less to FSS 50 "usable" recruits than Team B is a good setup in any system. 

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/30/2010 8:51:00 AM (view original):

As opposed to non potential, where a coach can precisely DETERMINE how good or bad a recruit will be by the time they are a senior?

|

Potential is the same.  You can determine, based on his ratings and potential, almost exactly where he'll end up as a senior.  The only thing you really can't determine is the high/high categories.  Other than that, it's fairly easy to project.  At least without potential, we could mold the player to OUR specifications, you know, the "WHAT IF" part of the game.

SO in other words,given that the exception of 'high high' exists, the potential players are LESS predictable than the pre potential ones.

Not sure if I am in the minority here or not but I definitely feel as though promised starts and minutes should carry more weight. I recently lost 2 seperate recruiting battles in which I had promised 1 player a start plus 20 minutes and the other player 20 minutes. These players ending up signing with teams and are now averaging 8 minutes and 4 minutes respectively.  I am sure prestige had a big part in why they didn't sign with my school but its not like my team is a mid-major or anything. I have an A prestige in a BIg 6 conference and lost to A+ prestige schools. It just doesn't make much sense to me for a player to sign with a school to be a bench warmer when that same player could have signed with another major program and started and/or played significant minutes.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/3/2010 8:00:00 AM (view original):
SO in other words,given that the exception of 'high high' exists, the potential players are LESS predictable than the pre potential ones.

Not less predictable, just different in the way that they can be molded.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/3/2010 2:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/30/2010 8:51:00 AM (view original):

As opposed to non potential, where a coach can precisely DETERMINE how good or bad a recruit will be by the time they are a senior?

|

Potential is the same.  You can determine, based on his ratings and potential, almost exactly where he'll end up as a senior.  The only thing you really can't determine is the high/high categories.  Other than that, it's fairly easy to project.  At least without potential, we could mold the player to OUR specifications, you know, the "WHAT IF" part of the game.

Still can do this "What if" a team recruited good perimeter shooters, even at center?  "What if" a team concentrated its recruiting efforts on high rebounders?  Etcetera.  Why is "What if" only valid if brought around by your practice plan?