Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/17/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 2/17/2010

1) Mentoring program - Its simply a waste of their time trying to set something like this up and HD can use their time in more efficient manner, on things more important like the Simengine. The problem of a ghost town is not as complicated as the 20 page threads Ive seen. They are worried about their bottom line. Fine, makes sense. 1) Eliminate FREEHD; 2) Put Rewards points back; 3) Get rid of the gift cards Seble was talking about.

As Mlat showed in his research almost no coaches are playing for free under the old rewards points system (I think it was 2 per 10 seasons or something). This will get the vets back to their old DIII dynasties which in turn is good for the game.

Perhaps I'm underestimating, but I just don't see this as taking alot of time and resources for WIS. The onus would mostly be on the coaches. Agreed on the rest.

I really think the biggest issue is not having the vets playing at those levels. When I started my first two conferences were with Rails and Mully. Both of them offered a ton of advice on the CC and through sitemail. Mully had (along with tons of other DIII conferences) forums set up for the conference which was there for crap talking, player of the night awards, conference records etc...all things which made the game fun, kept coaches around and helped them learn throughout the process. Now the individual world threads are basically dead. Since those days Ive helped and spent countless hours helping other users either from my conference or just via random sitemails. We got help, so we in turn provided it. The #1 problem is getting new coaches and getting them to stay. Its obvious that marketing isnt going to be increased as theyve spoken about that since I joined in 2005. People do however still find the site. Getting them to stay means making the experience the way it was for us. That means put the rewards points back AND get those old dynasties going again. Ive never heard NOT ONCE a new player say they quit because of an existing dynasty (yet this is part of what WIS contends). As for the mentoring program, instituting something along the lines of ACN suggested is simple and easy. But I think they must relook at the rewards points.

2) Impact of Def rating. I think it works the ways its intended. Some people want it to be the only rating reflective of how an individual player will defend. It was never intended to work that way, and I frankly dont see a problem with it being tied to other factors. (SP/ATH/IQ).

Personally, I disagree with this. I don't view def rating in a bubble, nor do I think it should be viewed that way. That said, having a guy with good sp/ath and really low def is like alot of real life players who are talented but don't have the will or desire to play defense ... and those guys are defensive liabilities in real life.

I think you really see the impact of playing a low Def but high SP/ATH player when playing a M2M, where the lack of desire to play def cant be hidden. When those types play against equally talented offensice players and the distribution is raised, those players get lit up. I used to use more even distributions but after seeing many of the more experienced coaches attack these guys with loaded distribution Ive come to realize to ratings flow better than people give them credit for. In a zone and press these guys can be hidden to a certain degree.

3) Sim Engine in general. I personally dont see a problem with it now that the post potential players have cycled through. Sure its easy to point to anomolies in the simulation, which is normal considering how many games are simmed daily you can probably find several a day. But in general it gets it right. What does need to happen and Ive been complaining about this for over a year is more player variations - which it seems is being done in the new update.

I think you're in a very small minority on this one.

With the changes in the update and potential, I think alot of people tried to continue operating in the same manner as before which causes some to think something is broken. When coaches like Lost, OR, and Gill all disagree of the impact of running uptempo v. normal v. slowdown...yet they all consistantly win...it tells me the engine is more complex than we sometimes give it credit for AND there are multiple ways to win. I put more time into gameplanning then I used to and notice most time (95%) the game plays out as expected. So I guess we'll agree to disagree here.

4) I have no problem at all with EE. If a team is going to consistantly recruit guys whose evals all say "He has a chance to leave after a year or two" and that same team happens to lose 3-4 players, I'm fine with that, and Ive spoken to various coaches who are as well. The ones complaining are primarily those losing the players.

Those evals are meaningless, and you know it. They say that for every single 4/5 star player. Seble has openly admitted that the EE process can be improved upon. FWIW, I currently don't have any BCS teams and want to see things improved.

Of course it can be improved on...my point is...I think its a good part of the game and enjoy the randomness of it. There should however, be some factors which can be used as indicators and those factors should primarily include ratings and personality of each player which can be attained during recruiting. I do think that any system should still maintain a 15-20% random factor.

5) I dont think FT shooting should improve more than a maximum of a full letter grade. Its unrealistic to think an F FT shooter can suddently become a C+, its just not how FT shooting works.

Yes, sometimes it does. Not all the time, and not like before (when anyone could become an A/A+ ft shooter), but some guys do make big leaps in ft shooting.

The numbers were broken down by Tarek back in the day and the statistical data overwhelmingly demonstrated the consistency of FT shooting. Im not saying it shouldn't improve at all, but if its between the current rate of improvement v. the old method. Im for the new method. And I'd say again NO player should change more than a letter grade.

6) Prestige - I dont agree with most of whats there on this subject. IMO (as Ive stated in various threads) Prestige needs to be broken into two. Baseline prestige used for hirings (this goes to supply and demand). Current prestige used for everything else. Baseline should never under and circumstances change.

Interesting, and don't necessarily disagree. I think leaning more heavily on baseline prestige for hirings (maybe 75% baseline and 25% current, or something like that) would be a great change, actually. (I'm going to add it to the thread ... thanks for participating!) The bigger issue though is how current prestige is determined.

Baseline needs to remain the same...There will always be people that want to coach UNC/Duke...etc regardless of their current prestige and there will always be a hard time filling teams like CSU Fullerton regardless of recent success. But as Ive said in the past...If the coach from Fullerton wins a title, then leaves...that job won't fill which destroys the school and in turn hurts the conference. Maybe drop the current prestige to an A from an A+ as the coach BUT view the schools baseline for hiring purposes so a DII coach can make the jump and keep the program in human controls. If a better qualified DI coach wanted the job for whatever reason, he'd still be the top choice anyways. Its a win win.

Glad to help.

7) I agree with everything he has there regarding recruiting and in game strategy.

Quoted for posterity.

You might wanna print it out and hang on your wall.

In general I'm not saying Im right or that all those suggestions are nec. bad. Im just saying that Im sure its not even close to a consensous and I hope WIS doesnt make changes based on the forums as it seems they did with potantial. At that time if you remember, you had about 10 coaches screaming at the top of their lungs for potential, WIS changes it and you remember the results. I didnt wanna really debate his points

Whoops, sorry. Lol.

All good, we might as well discuss these things here and keep your forum clean as I do think the general purpose is good. And this way people can discuss and clutter this area up all they like.

as theyve been done at length in other threads. But just wanted to put it out there that he doesnt speak on behalf of the community. There are plenty of coaches that never comment in the forums and a ton of others that rarely visit them.

I agree they are not a consensus of all WIS coaches. That's virtually impossible, and really just stating the obvious. Again, they're meant to reflect the sentiments of a cross section of HD coaches that is very active and knows and cares about the game. And I definitely think there's significant value in that.

EDIT: And mmt, I definitely appreciate your thoughts on various issues ... in no way am I trying to represent that anything brought up is universally endorsed by everyone, and it's always helpful to have countering viewpoints on an issue. THANKS!

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 2/17/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/17/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 2/17/2010

5) I dont think FT shooting should improve more than a maximum of a full letter grade. Its unrealistic to think an F FT shooter can suddently become a C+, its just not how FT shooting works.

Yes, sometimes it does. Not all the time, and not like before (when anyone could become an A/A+ ft shooter), but some guys do make big leaps in ft shooting.

The numbers were broken down by Tarek back in the day and the statistical data overwhelmingly demonstrated the consistency of FT shooting. Im not saying it shouldn't improve at all, but if its between the current rate of improvement v. the old method. Im for the new method. And I'd say again NO player should change more than a letter grade.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/17/2010
Of course not. What you're saying is common sense, there's literally no chance I'd be able to get opinions from 50% of HD users.

But what I am doing is getting opinions from the cross section of users who know HD the best and care about it the most, so to me that is worthwhile. Perfect? Of course not. Still useful? Absolutely.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 2/17/2010
2) Impact of Def rating. I think it works the ways its intended. Some people want it to be the only rating reflective of how an individual player will defend. It was never intended to work that way, and I frankly dont see a problem with it being tied to other factors. (SP/ATH/IQ).