Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 10/20/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/20/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/20/2009

Excellent call wronoj, that had crossed my mind as well and I think is a good and fair compromise.

No question that a guy getting drafted (and even more so multiple guys over a couple seasons) means more to a school like Montana than it does to an ACC team, where players getting drafted is pretty status quo. It's a signpost to potential requests saying, "Hey, we're a player, too ... come play here and you can make the NBA!". Definitely a big deal.




Soild idea but I don't know if that would work well, I have noticed since floating prestige came and was made seeable that prestige gained by draftees is very easily lost.

I think that's the way it should work, and it still adresses the issue at hand. The prestige bump, even if temporary, would help the school replace the player(s) it lost.

agreed. if Montana had hopped to B+ and been able to get at a slightly higher caliber of player this offseason, that would be enough, i think, to make it fair to dalt.

the real answer to EEs is in player personality development, but i think that is a pipe dream at this point.

I think the problem with EE is that there are other issues with the game that no matter what WIS does, short of fixing the underlying problems, it's not going to fix the EE problem. Let's think about "logical" options:

- Make it based on ratings only. Problem: There are simply too many highly rated guys in the game. Without other factors, it would be even more random unless 60 guys declared early every season.

- Make it based on stats. Problem: Coaches purposely hold back star players. WIS actually changed it to be based on ratings/other a while back because of this.

- Measure "performance" by team performance rather than stats. Problem: We're really starting to stray pretty far from "logical" here and the implementation of this was overboard to get the the point it is now. Maybe they scale this back some, but then I imagine the early entry candidate list is way too large to deal with and the "randomness" becomes even more of a factor.

I don't think the fix is simple. First, they absolutely need to change player rating distribution in the game. Have FAR less studs. Then, the "stud" players that should leave early will be much easier to find based on ratings alone. Second, they need to add more personality to the recruit, make it obviously available, and only generate a handful of recruits each season whose stated goal is to leave early for the NBA. Then, they can base it largely on ratings + personality and only a little bit based on stats/team performance. Then, it's logical, reasonably realistic, more predictable, and only a little bit "random".

Basically, EE has the same core problem a lot of this game has (i.e. unpredictable results, poor performance by "stud" players, no impact freshman, etc). The prolem is that too many players are exactly the same. Fix that and fixing EE will be a lot easier.

Cm, with the new update there should be a ton less studs. I am curious how that will impact EE's.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/20/2009
Cm, with the new update there should be a ton less studs. I am curious how that will impact EE's.

That's good to hear. I'm anxious to see it. I'm not sure if it will impact EE directly without changing the logic, but at the very least it should provide a better foundation for WIS to work with when improving the EE logic.

I think fewer studs will not be the fix everyone thinks it is going to be, much like potential, we will adapt. I might have about 5 reasons why I think this, I will start with one easy pair of ?'s - anyone really think LostMyth ain't getting the best players anyhow, if those players are even better relative to everyone else, what exactly will the reduction fix?

I don't have much new to add, but here is my two cents anyway: I don't think EEs should be eliminated, as it would take us too far from reality, but I do think it should be more based on ratings and less based on post season success. While it is true that a few guys who have no business in the NBA declare in RL every year, I don't think this is a trend that we really need to replicate in this game.

Also I LOVE wronoj's idea of giving small schools a bigger bump when they get a player drafted. Again, helps keep some realism and helps the coaches that have their programs ripped apart by having their star leave early.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009I think fewer studs will not be the fix everyone thinks it is going to be, much like potential, we will adapt. I might have about 5 reasons why I think this, I will start with one easy pair of ?'s - anyone really think LostMyth ain't getting the best players anyhow, if those players are even better relative to everyone else, what exactly will the reduction fix

More coaches will feel the need to HAVE to go recruit those players, whereas now you can avoid those battles you might lose because there is a comparable player that you know you can land.

Quote: Originally Posted By wronoj on 10/20/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 10/20/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/20/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/20/2009

Excellent call wronoj, that had crossed my mind as well and I think is a good and fair compromise.

No question that a guy getting drafted (and even more so multiple guys over a couple seasons) means more to a school like Montana than it does to an ACC team, where players getting drafted is pretty status quo. It's a signpost to potential requests saying, "Hey, we're a player, too ... come play here and you can make the NBA!". Definitely a big deal.




Soild idea but I don't know if that would work well, I have noticed since floating prestige came and was made seeable that prestige gained by draftees is very easily lost.

I think that's the way it should work, and it still adresses the issue at hand. The prestige bump, even if temporary, would help the school replace the player(s) it lost.

agreed. if Montana had hopped to B+ and been able to get at a slightly higher caliber of player this offseason, that would be enough, i think, to make it fair to dalt.

the real answer to EEs is in player personality development, but i think that is a pipe dream at this point.

Yeah I agree it would absoultely help. Just stating a point and IRL even give it another year or two and not many recruits will know or care about Curry coming from davidson anyway...

Quote: Originally posted by cmthieme on 10/20/2009I think the problem with EE is that there are other issues with the game that no matter what WIS does, short of fixing the underlying problems, it's not going to fix the EE problem.  Let's think about "logical" options: - Make it based on ratings only.  Problem:  There are simply too many highly rated guys in the game.  Without other factors, it would be even more random unless 60 guys declared early every season.- Make it based on stats.  Problem:  Coaches purposely hold back star players.  WIS actually changed it to be based on ratings/other a while back because of this.  - Measure "performance" by team performance rather than stats.   Problem:  We're really starting to stray pretty far from "logical" here and the implementation of this was overboard to get the the point it is now.  Maybe they scale this back some, but then I imagine the early entry candidate list is way too large to deal with and the "randomness" becomes even more of a factor.I don't think the fix is simple.  First, they absolutely need to change player rating distribution in the game.  Have FAR less studs.  Then, the "stud" players that should leave early will be much easier to find based on ratings alone.  Second, they need to add more personality to the recruit, make it obviously available, and only generate a handful of recruits each season whose stated goal is to leave early for the NBA.  Then, they can base it largely on ratings + personality and only a little bit based on stats/team performance.  Then, it's logical, reasonably realistic, more predictable, and only a little bit "random".Basically, EE has the same core problem a lot of this game has (i.e. unpredictable results, poor performance by "stud" players, no impact freshman, etc).  The prolem is that too many players are exactly the same.  Fix that and fixing EE will be a lot easier.

What about using these factors WIS uses an idea that oldR had. Which is you take all of these things into consideration and then once a team loses ONE player it becomes highly unlikely they lose 2. If they happen to just have a super team (I.E. UNC in Knight) and lose 2 then it becomes almost impossible to lose 3.

Would anyone have a problem with something like that?

Yeah that might work, I wonder if you could very slightly include conference prestige in the equastion too, obviously the higher the conference prestige the more exposure a player would get (IRL).

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009I think fewer studs will not be the fix everyone thinks it is going to be, much like potential, we will adapt. I might have about 5 reasons why I think this, I will start with one easy pair of ?'s - anyone really think LostMyth ain't getting the best players anyhow, if those players are even better relative to everyone else, what exactly will the reduction fix

OR, in some ways, i agree it is all relative... but,

the problem that some of us have with the current crops of players is that there are a ton of 97+ rebounders... there is no dennis rodman. (and we could say the same thing for bh and pa and de and to a lesser extent all the attributes.) actually, id love to see the breakdown of how many D1 players in a certain world are RE99, how many RE98, etc in some type of graph form.

I am hoping that what the fix does is cap most of the D1 bigmen at 87-90ishRE. and then maybe have only ten kids that will progress to 97RE. and of course they will all play for LostMyth

no, seriously, i think that it will make recruiting even more competitive and that it will also make it more important to develop role players (as the top coaches have been stressing for a while anyway).

maybe im wrong and the changes will not be as effective as i think, but thats what i think.

one last thing... i hope that we dont end up with a gazillion players at 87-90RE (in other words, I hope most of the old 87-90RE guys become 77-80RE guys) but im a bit concerned that part will not turn out as well as i hope.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/20/2009
Can someone please give me an example of exactly what they don't like, CS has asked for one and I am too busy at work to find one myself. Maybe players who should have over those that did? Or a team that goes deep and loses no one? Please include rantings.

z, see the other active thread "8 nba draft picks in one year". LM's UNC squad had its starting SF (started every game for 3 straight years) come back for his senior year while 4 other questionable players from that team got drafted. Actually, one of those four was a senior, so i guess he's not relevant here, but the other three were a junior a soph and a frosh, and while i cant see the ratings, i can tell that none of them ever started a game and they rarely if ever scored in double figures and they got no awards.

the frosh averaged only 6 minutes per game. he was a mopup player on a team that appeared to go 9 or 10 deep. where is the logic in any of that?

so, if you wanted examples... thats the best one i could find. that would also seem to confirm that postseason success is a big factor in who goes EE. i just cant see how those young fellas would have gone EE except for the fact that UNC had gone to back to back F4s.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 10/20/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009
I think fewer studs will not be the fix everyone thinks it is going to be, much like potential, we will adapt. I might have about 5 reasons why I think this, I will start with one easy pair of ?'s - anyone really think LostMyth ain't getting the best players anyhow, if those players are even better relative to everyone else, what exactly will the reduction fix?

OR, in some ways, i agree it is all relative... but,

the problem that some of us have with the current crops of players is that there are a ton of 97+ rebounders... there is no dennis rodman. (and we could say the same thing for bh and pa and de and to a lesser extent all the attributes.) actually, id love to see the breakdown of how many D1 players in a certain world are RE99, how many RE98, etc in some type of graph form.

I am hoping that what the fix does is cap most of the D1 bigmen at 87-90ishRE. and then maybe have only ten kids that will progress to 97RE. and of course they will all play for LostMyth

no, seriously, i think that it will make recruiting even more competitive and that it will also make it more important to develop role players (as the top coaches have been stressing for a while anyway).

maybe im wrong and the changes will not be as effective as i think, but thats what i think.

one last thing... i hope that we dont end up with a gazillion players at 87-90RE (in other words, I hope most of the old 87-90RE guys become 77-80RE guys) but im a bit concerned that part will not turn out as well as i hope.

No promises but I will see what I can do... I have a three day weekend so I might be able to sqeeze in enough time.

I would also like to see it broke down by class and by either conference or level of the conference.

i think that would be really cool, especially if it really is going to change soon.

It would be interesting to see the average d1 ratings across the board.