Posted by mullycj on 10/5/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
...and wants a rebuild

Success preference would be better if it was based on the player looking for team success (conference titles, NT appearances) vs individual success, i.e. If he would be the focus of the team. I don't think top players typically think to themselves "I want to go to a historically poor team because I just like underdogs". But there are guys who want and expect to be "the man" on their team, and for those guys, having a loaded roster and established scorers ahead of them can be a negative.

I think 10 of us could have sat in a room for 3 hours and hammered out better preference logic than what Seble came up with in 3.0

Posted by pkoopman on 10/5/2016 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/5/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
...and wants a rebuild

Success preference would be better if it was based on the player looking for team success (conference titles, NT appearances) vs individual success, i.e. If he would be the focus of the team. I don't think top players typically think to themselves "I want to go to a historically poor team because I just like underdogs". But there are guys who want and expect to be "the man" on their team, and for those guys, having a loaded roster and established scorers ahead of them can be a negative.

I agree for the most part but I do think being 'the man' is kind of covered under the wants to play preference.

For success, I think in real life, you're going to have 2 schools of thought for highly rated recruits for 'success'. 1) I want to go to a big time program where I can win and further my professional career and 2) I don't care as much for team success and want to go somewhere that I'm appreciated and comfortable and become a better player.

So I think you have here a wants to play and a no preference from these two scenarios.

Now, I do think it is POSSIBLE to have a scenario where a new coach comes in and there's a changing of the guard where they will be trying to do something special. Maybe think like when Larry Brown went to SMU and picked up some big time commitments.

I think this whole success thing really is mostly relevant to D1 and more specifically those top 100 rated guys. A random *** D3 player doesn't have the same career aspirations and would be more likely to 'want a rebuild' vs a 5 star guy.

Posted by mullycj on 10/5/2016 9:48:00 AM (view original):
I think 10 of us could have sat in a room for 3 hours and hammered out better preference logic than what Seble came up with in 3.0

I think if 10 of us were in a room with a hammer most of us wouldn't make it out lol...

Posted by Benis on 10/5/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/5/2016 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/5/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
...and wants a rebuild

Success preference would be better if it was based on the player looking for team success (conference titles, NT appearances) vs individual success, i.e. If he would be the focus of the team. I don't think top players typically think to themselves "I want to go to a historically poor team because I just like underdogs". But there are guys who want and expect to be "the man" on their team, and for those guys, having a loaded roster and established scorers ahead of them can be a negative.

I agree for the most part but I do think being 'the man' is kind of covered under the wants to play preference.

For success, I think in real life, you're going to have 2 schools of thought for highly rated recruits for 'success'. 1) I want to go to a big time program where I can win and further my professional career and 2) I don't care as much for team success and want to go somewhere that I'm appreciated and comfortable and become a better player.

So I think you have here a wants to play and a no preference from these two scenarios.

Now, I do think it is POSSIBLE to have a scenario where a new coach comes in and there's a changing of the guard where they will be trying to do something special. Maybe think like when Larry Brown went to SMU and picked up some big time commitments.

I think this whole success thing really is mostly relevant to D1 and more specifically those top 100 rated guys. A random *** D3 player doesn't have the same career aspirations and would be more likely to 'want a rebuild' vs a 5 star guy.

Getting off topic of OP, but I wanted to note that someone had brought up the idea of prestige following the coach as well as the program in beta, and I thought that was brilliant. Along those lines, back to something I've suggested before, a preference for playing professionally - whether in the NBA for the 3-5 star guys, Europe or Asia or the D-league for others - vs a preference for academics would add depth and strategy, AND give a little prestige kick for early entries.

That last part of your post is most relevant to this thread in that way. For as intricate as the new system is, there doesn't seem to be any logical connections between the quality of the recruit and his preferences, and that's one area I think 3.0 has lots of room for improvement. Most top 100 guys should prefer to wait to see how the depth charts of the top teams look after early entries. Have more top guys programmed to sign late (maybe even holding off on visits), and you've done a lot to address early entry concerns right there.

Great suggestion.

If most (all?) of the top 100 guys were "sign late" and "wants success" and very few had with "wants rebuild" or 'signs early' that would help a TON with the EE issue.

Posted by reinsel on 10/5/2016 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Great suggestion.

If most (all?) of the top 100 guys were "sign late" and "wants success" and very few had with "wants rebuild" or 'signs early' that would help a TON with the EE issue.

+1

Posted by pkoopman on 10/5/2016 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/5/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/5/2016 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/5/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
...and wants a rebuild

Success preference would be better if it was based on the player looking for team success (conference titles, NT appearances) vs individual success, i.e. If he would be the focus of the team. I don't think top players typically think to themselves "I want to go to a historically poor team because I just like underdogs". But there are guys who want and expect to be "the man" on their team, and for those guys, having a loaded roster and established scorers ahead of them can be a negative.

I agree for the most part but I do think being 'the man' is kind of covered under the wants to play preference.

For success, I think in real life, you're going to have 2 schools of thought for highly rated recruits for 'success'. 1) I want to go to a big time program where I can win and further my professional career and 2) I don't care as much for team success and want to go somewhere that I'm appreciated and comfortable and become a better player.

So I think you have here a wants to play and a no preference from these two scenarios.

Now, I do think it is POSSIBLE to have a scenario where a new coach comes in and there's a changing of the guard where they will be trying to do something special. Maybe think like when Larry Brown went to SMU and picked up some big time commitments.

I think this whole success thing really is mostly relevant to D1 and more specifically those top 100 rated guys. A random *** D3 player doesn't have the same career aspirations and would be more likely to 'want a rebuild' vs a 5 star guy.

Getting off topic of OP, but I wanted to note that someone had brought up the idea of prestige following the coach as well as the program in beta, and I thought that was brilliant. Along those lines, back to something I've suggested before, a preference for playing professionally - whether in the NBA for the 3-5 star guys, Europe or Asia or the D-league for others - vs a preference for academics would add depth and strategy, AND give a little prestige kick for early entries.

That last part of your post is most relevant to this thread in that way. For as intricate as the new system is, there doesn't seem to be any logical connections between the quality of the recruit and his preferences, and that's one area I think 3.0 has lots of room for improvement. Most top 100 guys should prefer to wait to see how the depth charts of the top teams look after early entries. Have more top guys programmed to sign late (maybe even holding off on visits), and you've done a lot to address early entry concerns right there.

I brought up coach prestige recently but many others have mentioned it too. I love the idea. Either as a preference or as a general multiplier like school prestige. I'm a fan of rewarding success.