Posted by m4284850 on 7/19/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/19/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Why don't we just jack up the value of starts (where all starts have a 20min PT guarantee) in recruiting. Have Start = 20CV or something, and if you don't fulfill your promise, the player transfers out, with the team that lost the battle last season having first ability to sign the recruit the following season. 

+1 , it's simple, no faults with this idea. Helps the small/mid majors D1 teams, and does a whole lot more.

+2

Posted by namshub on 7/18/2012 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I have thought of an idea or maybe i had read it here at some time (not quite sure) that i submit could help the game tremendously.  It has to do with DI recruiting.

The idea is simple and should be a relatively simple matter to implement from a WIS perspective.  As I'm not a computer programmer I may be off base in that assertion.

Anyway, the idea is to mandate starts/minutes with the elite players (Top 25/Top 50 overall or Top 5/Top 10 at each position).  The player would show up on your recruiting screen with the demand already in place.  If you can't start him or offer the minutes your out.

The reason to implement this is that there are to many players being stockpiled at elite schools who play 5-10 mins. with little or no distribution.  A quick look at the A+ schools solidifies my point.  They have guys riding the pine that would be Starter/25 minutes in good programs.  And i make that statement without concern for IQ. 

The impact on recruiting would cause for a wider distribution of talent over a 4 year period as some coaches would simply not sacrifice a possible Final Four year to recruit and start a freshman.  In my opinion this would be a positive thing for competitive balance. 

As to how far reaching the demands are or how deep in the talent pool players would be affected i don't have a strong opinion on.  It just seems very silly in such a great game that guys that were top 10 players are playing 4-10 minutes at a schools when they would be starting on other Big 6 teams and playing 20-25.

Would like to know what others think of this idea.  Thanks.

With all due respect namshub, this is not a good idea.  Without the ability to have true impact Freshmen, it would be a horrible idea to implement this suggestion.  If they made a change to introduce impact Freshmen with high IQs, then this idea might be OK.  If these FR were able to produce as well or better than the elite teams' other players, then the coaches would be playing them more and giving them more shots. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/19/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Why don't we just jack up the value of starts (where all starts have a 20min PT guarantee) in recruiting. Have Start = 20CV or something, and if you don't fulfill your promise, the player transfers out, with the team that lost the battle last season having first ability to sign the recruit the following season. 

I'm not opposed to increasing the value of starts (I agree it's way too small at D1), but I think 20 CV's is overdoing it. That makes it a massive magic bullet that can wildly swing a recruiting battle with one $10 click. Imagine the fun people will having messing with heads during recruiting by promising a start and then voiding it, back and forth. Or what desperate coaches locked in a tight battle after signings, and little cash left, might do. I think a lot of coaches will get upset when they get a player yanked away in one cycle after having a solid lead.

Personally, I don't think starts/minutes should be worth a fixed value at all. They should be a multiplier to other recruiting efforts, somewhere in the neigborhood of maybe 20-25%. So that the more recruiting effort you put into the player, the more that promised start becomes worth. You shouldn't instantly get $20k of recruiting value by spending only $10 of your budget.

And for a coach at an elite school who has no intention of changing jobs, there's really no downside to throwing a promised start at a guy, even if he breaks the promise. Sure he loses the player to transfer and takes a rep hit, but so what? He still got the player for a season, and for the truly elite 5-star guys, there's always the risk he goes EE after his freshmen season anyway, so really no big loss.

Posted by professor17 on 7/19/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/19/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Why don't we just jack up the value of starts (where all starts have a 20min PT guarantee) in recruiting. Have Start = 20CV or something, and if you don't fulfill your promise, the player transfers out, with the team that lost the battle last season having first ability to sign the recruit the following season. 

I'm not opposed to increasing the value of starts (I agree it's way too small at D1), but I think 20 CV's is overdoing it. That makes it a massive magic bullet that can wildly swing a recruiting battle with one $10 click. Imagine the fun people will having messing with heads during recruiting by promising a start and then voiding it, back and forth. Or what desperate coaches locked in a tight battle after signings, and little cash left, might do. I think a lot of coaches will get upset when they get a player yanked away in one cycle after having a solid lead.

Personally, I don't think starts/minutes should be worth a fixed value at all. They should be a multiplier to other recruiting efforts, somewhere in the neigborhood of maybe 20-25%. So that the more recruiting effort you put into the player, the more that promised start becomes worth. You shouldn't instantly get $20k of recruiting value by spending only $10 of your budget.

And for a coach at an elite school who has no intention of changing jobs, there's really no downside to throwing a promised start at a guy, even if he breaks the promise. Sure he loses the player to transfer and takes a rep hit, but so what? He still got the player for a season, and for the truly elite 5-star guys, there's always the risk he goes EE after his freshmen season anyway, so really no big loss.

Easy way to make break promises matter. Just like draftees increase prestige, have transfers decrease prestige. 

I think the argument for increasingly the value of starts and PT is so teams cannot stash 5 stars on the bench. And in terms of realism, what #1 recruit in the nation would be happy playing 2 min/game. 

And I don't quite see the argument of "Or what desperate coaches locked in a tight battle after signings, and little cash left, might do. I think a lot of coaches will get upset when they get a player yanked away in one cycle after having a solid lead." Both coaches can offer start/pt. If you are in a tight battle and your opponent offers start/pt, while you choose not to, you deserve to lose the battle. 

Understood completely on your last paragraph, but my point was really that the start offers are going to be held back as a last-minute gotcha tactic that swings you from barely being considered by the guy, to completely knocking the other team off the considering list in one fell swoop... and if that happens after the signings period, there's no recourse. It's just way too overvalued as you've proposed, IMO. It will completely overwhelm other efforts, and I don't think any one tool should be that powerful all by itself. Especially when you don't have to spend any of your budget to wield it.

I understand the reasoning behind wanting to increase the value of starts, and agree with that in principle, but it should be done in moderation. Increasing value of starts by 20 times beyond what they are now is a huge over-correction all at once. Even if we eventually want to go that way, it'd be better to move it incrementally at first so we understand what the unintended consequences might be.

But in the end, I just think using a multiplier to other recruiting efforts is the better way to go than a huge fixed value. You can still make starts much more valuable than they are now, but it would have to be coupled with actually tapping into your recruiting budget. IMO, I don't think an offered start should carry as much weight all by itself as the entire budget for a single scholarship.

In that case ... make the promised start only apply to recruiting effors made AFTER the promise, so you only really gain the benefit if you promise early?>

 

Posted by utahjazz88 on 7/19/2012 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 7/18/2012 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I have thought of an idea or maybe i had read it here at some time (not quite sure) that i submit could help the game tremendously.  It has to do with DI recruiting.

The idea is simple and should be a relatively simple matter to implement from a WIS perspective.  As I'm not a computer programmer I may be off base in that assertion.

Anyway, the idea is to mandate starts/minutes with the elite players (Top 25/Top 50 overall or Top 5/Top 10 at each position).  The player would show up on your recruiting screen with the demand already in place.  If you can't start him or offer the minutes your out.

The reason to implement this is that there are to many players being stockpiled at elite schools who play 5-10 mins. with little or no distribution.  A quick look at the A+ schools solidifies my point.  They have guys riding the pine that would be Starter/25 minutes in good programs.  And i make that statement without concern for IQ. 

The impact on recruiting would cause for a wider distribution of talent over a 4 year period as some coaches would simply not sacrifice a possible Final Four year to recruit and start a freshman.  In my opinion this would be a positive thing for competitive balance. 

As to how far reaching the demands are or how deep in the talent pool players would be affected i don't have a strong opinion on.  It just seems very silly in such a great game that guys that were top 10 players are playing 4-10 minutes at a schools when they would be starting on other Big 6 teams and playing 20-25.

Would like to know what others think of this idea.  Thanks.

With all due respect namshub, this is not a good idea.  Without the ability to have true impact Freshmen, it would be a horrible idea to implement this suggestion.  If they made a change to introduce impact Freshmen with high IQs, then this idea might be OK.  If these FR were able to produce as well or better than the elite teams' other players, then the coaches would be playing them more and giving them more shots. 

utah, one of the points i am trying to make with this suggestion is that an impact player at your Duke program is defined differently than an impact player at for example, Alabama, West Virginia, etc.(lower baseline teams).  I simply believe the way that A+ hoard talent creates a competitive imbalance which is bad for the game.

in RL, guys look at roster depth all of the time while dealing with recruiting.  i follow RL recruiting quite a bit for the school i have season tickets for (a high DI major) and available PT is huge with these high end recruits.  In fact, i would submit it is their most important consideration in a majority of cases.

The elite recruit with high IQ idea gets thrown out there frequently, but I wonder what use it is if that player doesn't play your O/D. I don't know of anyone that will stop recruiting some elite 5 star just because the O/D doesn't match, whereupon implementing the idea is useless, unless you have that recruit be an A IQ across the board, which is a terrible idea.

my thought of the demanded starts/pt was so everyone would know what they were getting into before putting dollar 1 into the player.  I am sure there are many ways this could be implemented but seeing top 10/top 20 guys sitting on the bench at Reload University creates a problem in this game.

for purposes of disclosure, i have coached at a Reload University in the ACC so i know a little about what i'm talking about. 

lastly for the evening (excuse the multiple posts but i'm in though free-flow) i'm not sure i fully buy in on the idea of elite freshman not being able to create an impact at the DI level (even high DI).  They may not be the go to guy but as a starter many of them are more than serviceable and could make a huge impact on a lower level Big 6 team.  I can't see an argument against that point. 

Of course, if your starting lineup consists of 800-1000 rated sophs, juniors and seniors then of course a freshman wouldn't have quite the impact of these players.  Its relative though.  Back to my original point, 750+ freshman riding the pines regularly at the elite schools is bad for the game.

My proposal was what i thought an easy attempt to prevent this from happening further.  Its developing into a vicious cycle in HD right now. 

Interestingly, alot of the anti coaches in this thread are the stockpilers themselves.  Sorry, but its true and relevant to the argument.

"Interestingly, alot of the anti coaches in this thread are the stockpilers themselves.  Sorry, but its true and relevant to the argument."

If by chance you're referring to me, I did offer an alternative solution that I believe would accomplish similar objectives, and would definitely scale back the ability of Reload University to continue such practices. I'm not an "anti coach" with regard to the concerns you bring up; just with the method by which you would seek to rectify the problem. Reload U. will be fully capable of offering starts to any player they really want, and there's no real downside to breaking promises if they choose to do so. They won't be so willing/able to commit $15K each to 4 or 5 elite guys off the bat, under my minimum recruiting effort suggestion.

Posted by namshub on 7/19/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by utahjazz88 on 7/19/2012 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 7/18/2012 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I have thought of an idea or maybe i had read it here at some time (not quite sure) that i submit could help the game tremendously.  It has to do with DI recruiting.

The idea is simple and should be a relatively simple matter to implement from a WIS perspective.  As I'm not a computer programmer I may be off base in that assertion.

Anyway, the idea is to mandate starts/minutes with the elite players (Top 25/Top 50 overall or Top 5/Top 10 at each position).  The player would show up on your recruiting screen with the demand already in place.  If you can't start him or offer the minutes your out.

The reason to implement this is that there are to many players being stockpiled at elite schools who play 5-10 mins. with little or no distribution.  A quick look at the A+ schools solidifies my point.  They have guys riding the pine that would be Starter/25 minutes in good programs.  And i make that statement without concern for IQ. 

The impact on recruiting would cause for a wider distribution of talent over a 4 year period as some coaches would simply not sacrifice a possible Final Four year to recruit and start a freshman.  In my opinion this would be a positive thing for competitive balance. 

As to how far reaching the demands are or how deep in the talent pool players would be affected i don't have a strong opinion on.  It just seems very silly in such a great game that guys that were top 10 players are playing 4-10 minutes at a schools when they would be starting on other Big 6 teams and playing 20-25.

Would like to know what others think of this idea.  Thanks.

With all due respect namshub, this is not a good idea.  Without the ability to have true impact Freshmen, it would be a horrible idea to implement this suggestion.  If they made a change to introduce impact Freshmen with high IQs, then this idea might be OK.  If these FR were able to produce as well or better than the elite teams' other players, then the coaches would be playing them more and giving them more shots. 

utah, one of the points i am trying to make with this suggestion is that an impact player at your Duke program is defined differently than an impact player at for example, Alabama, West Virginia, etc.(lower baseline teams).  I simply believe the way that A+ hoard talent creates a competitive imbalance which is bad for the game.

in RL, guys look at roster depth all of the time while dealing with recruiting.  i follow RL recruiting quite a bit for the school i have season tickets for (a high DI major) and available PT is huge with these high end recruits.  In fact, i would submit it is their most important consideration in a majority of cases.

The change they just made to early entries already hurts the elite teams. This change just introduced is already going to increase playing time for elite recruits.  The reason why (in RL) the top Frosh play so many minutes for the top programs is because they can perform better than the other guys on the team.  HD is set up so the seniors and juniors are basically always the top performers in the game.  In RL, it is totally different.  Therefore, it would be a bad idea to change one aspect of the game without the other. 

I don't deny that PT is important to some recruits in real life.  But, that doesn't mean it's good for HD.  It seems like you want to basically eliminate prestige and have all major teams to have the same quality of players.  If these other schools want to sign these top recruits, all they have to do is improve their prestige, recruit wisely, schedule properly, etc.  They already significantly reduced the importance of baseline prestige, so there is more opportunity than ever for mid-majors and
lower Big 6 teams to become elite. 

Posted by stinenavy on 7/19/2012 8:16:00 PM (view original):
The elite recruit with high IQ idea gets thrown out there frequently, but I wonder what use it is if that player doesn't play your O/D. I don't know of anyone that will stop recruiting some elite 5 star just because the O/D doesn't match, whereupon implementing the idea is useless, unless you have that recruit be an A IQ across the board, which is a terrible idea.

I've tossed around the idea to have IQ incorporated with a potential element as well --- meaning that, while I wouldn't start elite recruits with high IQs, there would be FR capable of reaching a high IQ by, say, midseason of FR year.  And I wouldn't just limit it to high-end recruits either.  You could have lower-end recruits capable of the same thing, giving coaches an interesting choice vis a vis the trade-off between a more skilled player vs. a more intelligent player

Posted by professor17 on 7/19/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):
"Interestingly, alot of the anti coaches in this thread are the stockpilers themselves.  Sorry, but its true and relevant to the argument."

If by chance you're referring to me, I did offer an alternative solution that I believe would accomplish similar objectives, and would definitely scale back the ability of Reload University to continue such practices. I'm not an "anti coach" with regard to the concerns you bring up; just with the method by which you would seek to rectify the problem. Reload U. will be fully capable of offering starts to any player they really want, and there's no real downside to breaking promises if they choose to do so. They won't be so willing/able to commit $15K each to 4 or 5 elite guys off the bat, under my minimum recruiting effort suggestion.

I provided a fairly straight forward way to punish "Reload U" for breaking promises: you break promises, you drop in prestige, with the drop based on how severely you broke the promise. You get a prestige bump for getting a player drafted (you train him well, played him well, etc. and got rewarded) so when you do the opposite, you get punished. 

About coaches not putting in 15k to a 4/5 star? How often is a top tier 4 star or a 5 star not "very tight" with a top program or not in a battle? 10% of the time? 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/20/2012 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 7/19/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):
"Interestingly, alot of the anti coaches in this thread are the stockpilers themselves.  Sorry, but its true and relevant to the argument."

If by chance you're referring to me, I did offer an alternative solution that I believe would accomplish similar objectives, and would definitely scale back the ability of Reload University to continue such practices. I'm not an "anti coach" with regard to the concerns you bring up; just with the method by which you would seek to rectify the problem. Reload U. will be fully capable of offering starts to any player they really want, and there's no real downside to breaking promises if they choose to do so. They won't be so willing/able to commit $15K each to 4 or 5 elite guys off the bat, under my minimum recruiting effort suggestion.

I provided a fairly straight forward way to punish "Reload U" for breaking promises: you break promises, you drop in prestige, with the drop based on how severely you broke the promise. You get a prestige bump for getting a player drafted (you train him well, played him well, etc. and got rewarded) so when you do the opposite, you get punished. 

About coaches not putting in 15k to a 4/5 star? How often is a top tier 4 star or a 5 star not "very tight" with a top program or not in a battle? 10% of the time? 

It doesn't take anywhere near $15K for an A+ program to get a recruit to be "very tight", and many programs don't even bother spending the extra money to get to that level because they know no one's going to mess with them anyway. A major reason there are no battles is because the elite A+ team can often lock up all their players for less than 10% of their budget, leaving the other 90% to fend off any would-be challengers, who know better than to go up against that kind of prestige and bankroll.

Let's consider an example of an A+ school with 4 openings and a budget of $100K.

They'll typically recruit by jumping on 3 or 4 local 4-5 star guys, spending a total of maybe $10K. They're in no battles and are sitting on $90K. Obviously, no one bothers them. Then as signings approach, they either use that $90K to poach someone for their last opening, or if they already have their 4 guys, they'll get a cool $22K to carry-over into next season, and the cycle repeats.

Now, what if we had minimum recruiting effort in place? That team is now committed to spending $60K of their budget for those same 4 players. They've only got $40K left in reserve. Now they're not nearly so invincible for being challenged. It will promote more battles. It will reduce their ability to poach players. And it will drastically reduce carry-over. All of these things will help with competitive balance.

Changing topics back to mandatory starts... what is your biggest criticism of using a multiplier to other recruiting efforts as a way to increase the value of promises? If you promise a start/minutes, all your recruiting efforts get multiplied by "X". The value of "X" would certainly be open to debate... it could be 1.25 or 2.00 or whatever. But just as a concept, this would work to significantly increase the value of promises, while eliminating the "magic bullet" nature of offering a start and instantly getting $20K of effort in. I could see teams throwing starts at 20, 30, 50 guys, just hoping it sticks somewhere. Just curious as to what your fundamental beef with the multiplier concept is?