Posted by courtmagic on 5/3/2011 12:27:00 PM (view original):

• Iguana1's BBIQ Practice Minute Chart: These are the ranges
  I've found based on the 4 seasons since the iq grading has
  changed.
  The number on the left assumes a "fast" learner.  WE of 80 and
  GPA over 3.2.  The number on the right is for a slower learner.
  WE around 40, GPA under 2.5.
  Of course there are extreme cases on both ends.  I had a player
  with a WE of 11 that took about 20% longer than the second
  number.

  • F   > D-      50-75
    D- > D       50-75
    D   > D+    50-75
    D+ > C-     50-75     total F  > C-    200-300

  • C- > C     100-150
    C  > C+   100-150
    C+ > B-   120-200    total  C- > B-  320-500    total  F  > B-   520-800

  • B- > B     290-400
    B  > B+   290-400    total  B- > B+  580-800    total  F  > B+   1100-1600

  • B+ > A-   375-500
    A- > A     575-775
    A  > A+   450-625    total  B+ > A+  1400-1900  total  F  > A+   2500-3500

Are there any other sources or is that the only one?   By itself, this doesn't say anything about player ratings being affected by GPA.  This only implies that GPA has an impact on IQ improvement rate.  That is, if it is to be believed without any verification from Seble or anyone else.

^ Courtmagic, I have a hunch that Iguana1 was, in this example, using GPA as a proxy for inherant student aptitude, since high school gpa is often correlated to how quickly the student learns in the classroon and "on the court" (i.e. improves IQ).    I am not 100% sure, but I believe that GPA does not actually impact rate of learning.  It just correlates to student aptitude, which is an actual attribute you can discover through scouting. 

It's also important to understand the role that a player's potential has on improvement. The rate of improvement in any individual category will be based on a player's playing time, practice time, work ethic and how near/far a player is to reaching their potential.

What I'm saying is, if you have to decrease a players practice time to any one (or multiple) catergories because of bad grades, i.e. take minutes away from improving a specific skill, his ratings will stagnate, stymie, taper off, or decrease because of it, and it happened to me last season. I forgot to set my practice plan for my incoming freshman who had a HS GPA of 2.8 and left the basic setup at 8 minutes and when I got my grades after the first midterm, he came in at a 1.4 with 6 Ratings Improvement Points and I went "Oh ****". Consequently, using my formula, I had to give him 26 minutes to get his grades back up (he got a semester 1 final grade of 2.7), but I lost ALL 6 of my Ratings Improvement Points because of it and started the 2nd semester with 0 (zero) improvement.

So now your guy who came in at a 1.7 GPA 3rd quarter midterm who you should have had at (4.0 - 3.2) x 10 +2 = 10 minutes, now is gonna need (4.0 - 1.7 rounded down to 1.6) x 10 +2 = 26 minutes, which is a LOSS of 16 minutes (remember, in order to increase one, you have to subtract from another or multiple because the Max is 130 practice minutes total for all catergories) you could have used to improve your Core Catergories (which will probably go down now) and that's how GPA affects Ratings Improvements.

Posted by courtmagic on 5/3/2011 10:53:00 AM (view original):
Also remember the higher your GPA, the faster your guys improve their skill Ratings and Offense/Defense IQ.

This is wrong.  What impacts the rate of growth of IQ is a player's high school GPA.  And the GPA (high school included) has absolutely no impact on the rate of growth of skill categories. 

Posted by courtmagic on 5/3/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
It's also important to understand the role that a player's potential has on improvement. The rate of improvement in any individual category will be based on a player's playing time, practice time, work ethic and how near/far a player is to reaching their potential.

What I'm saying is, if you have to decrease a players practice time to any one (or multiple) catergories because of bad grades, i.e. take minutes away from improving a specific skill, his ratings will stagnate, stymie, taper off, or decrease because of it, and it happened to me last season. I forgot to set my practice plan for my incoming freshman who had a HS GPA of 2.8 and left the basic setup at 8 minutes and when I got my grades after the first midterm, he came in at a 1.4 with 6 Ratings Improvement Points and I went "Oh ****". Consequently, using my formula, I had to give him 26 minutes to get his grades back up (he got a semester 1 final grade of 2.7), but I lost ALL 6 of my Ratings Improvement Points because of it and started the 2nd semester with 0 (zero) improvement.

So now your guy who came in at a 1.7 GPA 3rd quarter midterm who you should have had at (4.0 - 3.2) x 10 +2 = 10 minutes, now is gonna need (4.0 - 1.7 rounded down to 1.6) x 10 +2 = 26 minutes, which is a LOSS of 16 minutes (remember, in order to increase one, you have to subtract from another or multiple because the Max is 130 practice minutes total for all catergories) you could have used to improve your Core Catergories (which will probably go down now) and that's how GPA affects Ratings Improvements.

And this math is not correct.  You failed to consider all the minutes he gained over your "approach" by having more minutes for skill ratings in the first 3 grade periods.  You would have started with 14 minutes and he started with 8.  Then you would have went to 10, while he still stayed at 8.  Then for the 3rd period, you stayed at 10, while he reduced to 7.  Thus, for the 1st period he had a net of 6 more minutes per day.  The 2nd period the net was 2 minutes, and the 3rd period the net was 3 minutes per day.  

Then for the 3rd period you failed to consider that under your system which would have suggested 10 minutes, it still would have been quite likely that the player would have a bad grade around 2.0.  Therefore, he still would have had to bump up that 10 minutes significantly for the final period.  So it is not a loss of 16 minutes.  It is much more complicated than that. 

I would suggest going with 23 minutes, and if he uses that, his practice plan would still be more effective than the one you suggested. 

On my DII team this season I have a guy who brought in a 1.2 gpa. Since the guy was playing a valuable role for us off the bench I increased his SH minutes to 80 as soon as I got the email from the asst. coach and the kid still managed not to make the 2.0 barrier. In fact he only got to 1.6 when grades came out.

But your arguement is only one side of the equation. The 6 additional min  per day + 2 additional min per day + 3 additional min per day = 74 to 77 minutes spent on Ratings improvements (which he's probably gonna lose now) that could have been spent on maintaing the GPA, which if he would have, he wouldn't have to dump all the extra minutes into it now and take away from the ratings improvements. In my specific example of my own guy who got a 2.7 on the 1st semester final, it meant I could decrease his minutes now to 16 for the 3rd quarter and put the extra 10 back into Ratings Improvements (4.0 - 2.6) x 10 +2 = 16 minutes. It's quite likely that instead of a 2.0 on the final in your example he probably could have easily gotten a 2.5 as well and by using your formula he would only have to bump him up to 15 minutes. We are using the same basic formula except that I add 2 minutes for freshman and round the GPA down a tenth to play it safe in order to improve my players on a nice bell curve instead of going through peaks & valleys. Your 23 minutes + my 2 minutes for freshman + .1 rounded down (1.7 to 1.6) = my original 26 minutes.

But Tyber, how many minutes did you start him with at the begining of the season. The point I'm trying to make here is if you start the season with enough minutes to make sure, these problems won't be as significant as they can become. It's all about how you start them.

I never start my players with any minutes in SH at all. My SH minutes get allocated based on the emails I get from the asst. coach.  Now most of the time it's not a problem at all, it just happened to bite me in the arse this time.

court, I'm 99% sure that iguana was simply referring to HS GPA, and 99.9% sure that your statement that college GPA impacts rate of improvement is false. (Although you could make the argument that there is an indirect correlation, because guys with high GPA as freshmen require less SH minutes later on, freeing up more minutes of skill improvement.) 

And I have no doubt that your formula prevents guys from failing, but I also believe it to be unnecessarily conservative.

On an average, I'll have between 1-4 players out of the whole roster, without putting any minutes into SH, that require attention when I get the email from the asst. coach. Then any guy that falls between 2.0 to the 2.3 mark I'll park up to say 15 minutes into SH. Any player falling under the 2.0 mark will get more attention but rarely do I have a situation like my one team did this season. Once grades come out though and the kids have passed, all the minutes come back out of SH and go right back into rating development until the next set of grades come out.

Posted by courtmagic on 5/3/2011 8:43:00 PM (view original):
But your arguement is only one side of the equation. The 6 additional min  per day + 2 additional min per day + 3 additional min per day = 74 to 77 minutes spent on Ratings improvements (which he's probably gonna lose now) that could have been spent on maintaing the GPA, which if he would have, he wouldn't have to dump all the extra minutes into it now and take away from the ratings improvements. In my specific example of my own guy who got a 2.7 on the 1st semester final, it meant I could decrease his minutes now to 16 for the 3rd quarter and put the extra 10 back into Ratings Improvements (4.0 - 2.6) x 10 +2 = 16 minutes. It's quite likely that instead of a 2.0 on the final in your example he probably could have easily gotten a 2.5 as well and by using your formula he would only have to bump him up to 15 minutes. We are using the same basic formula except that I add 2 minutes for freshman and round the GPA down a tenth to play it safe in order to improve my players on a nice bell curve instead of going through peaks & valleys. Your 23 minutes + my 2 minutes for freshman + .1 rounded down (1.7 to 1.6) = my original 26 minutes.

I think you have some misconceptions.  I'll try to lay it out without an overly long explanation.  That formula doesn't seem to have any relationship to helping players improve better or faster or saving you minutes in the long run. It just does one thing really well, which is to insure that there are no ineligible players.  I am pretty sure it slows down your player development and you are not saving anything, except saving yourself from risk of ineligibility. Just because you start very high and decrease monotonically, doesn't mean that you are being more efficient than if you had started low and spiked intermitently.  A spiking strategy which anticpates the occasional need to increase minutes (by "spiking" I mean a rapid increase to accomodate a bad grade report) is almost certainly more efficient because you only have to spike a few players on your roster, whereas your strategy is required for EVERY player.  You are probably wasting minutes on 75% of your players.  

Your plan has one distinct advantage, which is that there is negligible risk of ineligiblity.  What makes this question (and this thread) so interesting is that figuring out the risk and the cost of the risk is very tricky.  Nobody knows that actual risk.  Furthermore, it seems like lately the extreme outlier GPA results are more common.  I don't know that for certain, but it seems that way, based on the comments I read and my own results. If this is true, then the risk has increased. 

The other factor is that to each coach, what constitutes an acceptable risk is different.  If you most vehemently want to avoid any chance of ineligibility, then what I may define as "waste," for you, is not a waste at all.  So, I won't say you are doing it wrong or should do it another way.  But, I am pretty sure you have got the wrong idea about some things.

Posted by girt25 on 5/3/2011 11:13:00 PM (view original):
court, I'm 99% sure that iguana was simply referring to HS GPA, and 99.9% sure that your statement that college GPA impacts rate of improvement is false. (Although you could make the argument that there is an indirect correlation, because guys with high GPA as freshmen require less SH minutes later on, freeing up more minutes of skill improvement.) 

And I have no doubt that your formula prevents guys from failing, but I also believe it to be unnecessarily conservative.

(Although you could make the argument that there is an indirect correlation, because guys with high GPA as freshmen require less SH minutes later on, freeing up more minutes of skill improvement.) 

That was the point I was trying to make.

Posted by kujayhawk on 5/3/2011 1:43:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure there is a right answer jkline.  I've been tracking this pretty closely in the forums and I think the current forum fact is that if you give a player 10 extra minutes, it "guarantees" a player's grades not *dropping* from midterms.  An increase in study hall almost always correlates with an increase in GPA, but there have been coaches that gave 8-9 extra minutes at midterms and still had players drop in GPA come finals.

I had a player at 2.1 last semester that I gave 12 extra minutes -- because that "guarantee" really just means that nobody has posted an example that proves otherwise and while it didn't drop the GPA, it only improved it to 2.2.

This is my crazy theory because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else than my head.  But I really believe that there is no difference in the 2.81 GPA compared to a 2.5 - 2.99 GPA.  They are all below average in the classroom - or whatever that message reads on the scouting report.  I had been getting burned by not giving enough study hall to those that fell on the 2.8 and 2.9 part of the spectrum.  I think you have to treat this guy like a 2.5 student.  Fortunately, that's a lot better than 2.0.

What type of potential does Joseph Bryan have in rebounding?  If it isn't high potential, I'd think strongly about punting whatever minutes you are putting into rebounding -- or any non-high potential category you are currently practicing -- and then shave minutes off the rest.  With the 1.7 at midterms, I think you are going to have to put in an awfully lot of minutes if you want to "ensure" he gets above 2.0.  Probably 25 or more.  I'm not saying to do that, but if you want to "ensure" you are going to need to go big.

That's an interesting theory.  I never payed attention to see how closely high school GPA correlates to the court/classroom intelligence of the player because I know that high school GPA does not exactly correlate to intellegence.  They are correlated, but not exactly correlated. In other words, a player with a 3.0 high school GPA is not guaranteed to be more intelligent than a player with a 2.75 GPA.  The 3.0 GPA student will probably be more intelligent, but there is some random deviation in these correlations.  Seble stated this in a Dev Chat, I believe. Plus, the intelligence rating could  actually be more graduated than it appears, just like FT% and IQ are more graduated than they appear.  So, when you say that there is no difference in intelligence between 2.5 and 2.99 GPA maybe you are actually getting confused by the randomness since not every GPA is falling into its expected intelligence slot . . . and maybe there is some variation you are not perceiving, even between players who appear to have the same intelligence in the scouting report.  Anyway, there's no way to know these things without getting an answer from HD.

Here's a somewhat related question:

Is there any benefit to having your players in study hall after the 4th report card comes in?  Since players continue to improve through the CT, and they have finished final exams at that point, shouldn't you take the players out of study hall?  I've never been sure about this.