Posted by kujayhawk on 9/6/2011 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Seriously?  That post wasn't dripping with enough sarcasm to be noticed even if folks were suffering from the aftermath of end of summer?

I suppose I need to post in the forums more often.  Since I rarely post, I might be perceived as being somebody who truly believed that the engine calling too many timeouts at the end of games was the only thing remaining to be fixed.  I figured folks would assume that person doesn't exist, but the replies suggest otherwise.

Apologies for the post above; it was meant to be tongue in cheek and obviously wasn't taken that way.

Posted by namshub on 9/6/2011 10:58:00 PM (view original):
I'll turn kujay's sarcasm to a real question.  What are the changes that everyone is clamoring for?

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/7/2011 3:14:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure most coaches still think recruit generation at D1 is untenable...

Posted by metsmax on 9/7/2011 7:55:00 AM (view original):
latest maintenance appears to have slowed the operation of the site - you can count a few beats as you move between teams and between some screens

Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/7/2011 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Here is what I would like to here. M2M defense, have the ability to assign a player to guard a specific player on the opponent's team; this is how real life defense works. Currently, it could end up being a guessing game as the team facing M2M switch SG to SF to avoid the shutdown defender at the SG position while the M2M team has to guess whether the opponent will do the switch.

Posted by jslotman on 9/7/2011 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Recruit generation, prestige, and HCA - in my opinion - are the three biggest issues with the game.  I do think that actual gameplay itself is doing pretty OK these days. 

Posted by anadeau24 on 9/7/2011 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/7/2011 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Here is what I would like to here. M2M defense, have the ability to assign a player to guard a specific player on the opponent's team; this is how real life defense works. Currently, it could end up being a guessing game as the team facing M2M switch SG to SF to avoid the shutdown defender at the SG position while the M2M team has to guess whether the opponent will do the switch.

I think that IF they decide to do this, they need to either make height matter, or make limits on how many positions away a player can guard somebody.  I think otherwise, with defense set up the way it is in the engine, it would be too easy to neutralize low post players, by putting a G with good ATH/DE and a 40+ point edge in SPD and forcing tons of TOs.

I don't like the idea in general anyway, I think it would make it more realistic, but I don't think it is good for HD.  Ultimately I think that it gives too much advantage to defenses though - in real life the offensive coach can counter, by changing up his substitution plan, or shifting distribution to a player being guarded by a weaker defender, none of which is really an option here.

I agree with jslotman, recruit generation and prestige are probably the biggest things that need addressing.

Posted by anadeau24 on 9/7/2011 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/7/2011 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Here is what I would like to here. M2M defense, have the ability to assign a player to guard a specific player on the opponent's team; this is how real life defense works. Currently, it could end up being a guessing game as the team facing M2M switch SG to SF to avoid the shutdown defender at the SG position while the M2M team has to guess whether the opponent will do the switch.

I think that IF they decide to do this, they need to either make height matter, or make limits on how many positions away a player can guard somebody.  I think otherwise, with defense set up the way it is in the engine, it would be too easy to neutralize low post players, by putting a G with good ATH/DE and a 40+ point edge in SPD and forcing tons of TOs.

I don't like the idea in general anyway, I think it would make it more realistic, but I don't think it is good for HD.  Ultimately I think that it gives too much advantage to defenses though - in real life the offensive coach can counter, by changing up his substitution plan, or shifting distribution to a player being guarded by a weaker defender, none of which is really an option here.

I agree with jslotman, recruit generation and prestige are probably the biggest things that need addressing.

I agree, as I saw a few point out, that the way prestige is calculated is old. It needs to be changed and it wouldn't be that difficult of a change to make. I have stated in the past, but will throw it out again my idea for changing prestige:

Create a formula that is a moving baseline prestige that takes into account a 'baseline' (since WIS is clearly dead set on keeping that, i.e. Duke has an A+ for this portion) and make that a small portion of a teams prestige. Use a moving average of the teams last 10-20 years of the teams success in that world, to finish off the moving baseline. This moving baseline value could then be used to calculate the yearly prestige that is shown on the team pages. This would allow a coach to create a 'gonzaga' by staying put and succeeding, and if they left the school could still be solid.

I'll touch on jobs as well since prestige affects those. Use this moving baseline prestige to start job hiring process, but as the job process moves on slowly move towards the old baseline prestige (that we have now, which would likely be lower in all circumstances when this occured) so that good schools that a coach has built up than left don't get axed by simmy for a few seasons.