Let us not forget, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, that there is an IQ development penalty for taking walk-ons and it can be pretty severe if you have 3 or more.  So there is a built-in penalty for taking 10 or less scholly players. 

I'm new to this game and didn't realize there is an IQ development penalty for taking walk-ons. Is that penalty activated after a certain number of walk-ons? And does anyone know the degree to which the penalty hinders IQ development?

I have one walk-on this year, so I'm hoping I dodged the penalty somehow...

pep- I can't find the verification, but I understand that every walk on gives your team a practice penalty (I thought it was all, not just IQ).  1 is insignificant, 2 is minor, 3 or more is significant.

Posted by asher413 on 3/1/2011 5:20:00 PM (view original):
pep- I can't find the verification, but I understand that every walk on gives your team a practice penalty (I thought it was all, not just IQ).  1 is insignificant, 2 is minor, 3 or more is significant.

Great thanks asher. I'll have to keep this in mind for next year.

Posted by namshub on 3/1/2011 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Let us not forget, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, that there is an IQ development penalty for taking walk-ons and it can be pretty severe if you have 3 or more.  So there is a built-in penalty for taking 10 or less scholly players. 

Okay, at the risk of sounding stupid, are we sure the walk on penalty applies to offensive and defensive IQ? 

My interpretation has always been that excessive walk ons hinder individual player attribute development/progression, but I never took any of the stuff I read/heard on the matter as extending to the IQ's. Have I been in the dark this whole time? (I've never taken a walk on, much less multiple walk ons, so it definitely is possible that I'm operating under false assumption here...)

THats what I thought as well rednu

Posted by rednu on 3/1/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 3/1/2011 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Let us not forget, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, that there is an IQ development penalty for taking walk-ons and it can be pretty severe if you have 3 or more.  So there is a built-in penalty for taking 10 or less scholly players. 

Okay, at the risk of sounding stupid, are we sure the walk on penalty applies to offensive and defensive IQ? 

My interpretation has always been that excessive walk ons hinder individual player attribute development/progression, but I never took any of the stuff I read/heard on the matter as extending to the IQ's. Have I been in the dark this whole time? (I've never taken a walk on, much less multiple walk ons, so it definitely is possible that I'm operating under false assumption here...)

you've NEVER taken a walkon? holy crap! that is insane :O

Posted by asher413 on 3/1/2011 5:20:00 PM (view original):
pep- I can't find the verification, but I understand that every walk on gives your team a practice penalty (I thought it was all, not just IQ).  1 is insignificant, 2 is minor, 3 or more is significant.

i am pretty sure there is not a penalty for every walkon. i can't remember if its that there is no penalty for the first 2 walkons, or if there is no penalty for the 1st and a negligible penalty for the second, but i think its the former.

i thought it was more than 1 you get a penalty

Posted by turtis21 on 3/1/2011 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/28/2011 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/28/2011 6:36:00 AM (view original):
SO then, if you don't like it because its 'less like real life' you then want to create more separation in the recruits that Duke, Kentucky et al are able to get and everyone else at division one, right?  Because Providence winning national titles isn't 'like real life'.

And I can't belileve I am posting this, given I have argued the other side of the fence but. . . well. . just because its like real life doesn't make it better.  Just like food being 'Organic' doesn't make it better for you.

My point wasn't that I wanted things more like real life. My point that the change came under the guise of "this'll make things more like real life", but in the end game, I don't believe it does.

I have always said, let's do what's best for HD, not simply copying real life.

I believe this is what's best for HD.  It just means that coaches should change their strategies if they want to stay on top.  This change just presents a new set of challenges for coaches.  I don't understand why you have a problem with players who were able to play 22 minutes in the old engine, now playing 26-27 mins.  I didn't hear anyone complaining when it was easy to get all of your players' STA in the 90s.  This change only seems like a big deal because you are now used to the new recruits with low stamina ratings.  If you go back to before the new recruits were created, you would see this is not such a big change at all. 

And I believe it's impossible to argue that this doesn't make "things more like real life".  Like OR pointed out, you don't see many D1 schools running 12 deep.  This is much better because in real life STA is probably the easiest rating to improve.  Before, it was extremely unrealistic to have your guys only able to play 20 minutes.  Girt, would you have had a problem with the change if they would have brought back the stamina levels of old instead? 

You didn't have to play 12 deep before the change, even with fcp. And starters were not limited to 20 minutes before either. These are straw man arguments.

The notion of starters playing more minutes -- when viewed in a bubble -- is no doubt more like real life. But there are other unintended consequences that actually push things to be less like real life. There are many, many things that exist in real life that don't in HD (or vice versa), and for very good reason.

Name one thing in real life that isn't in HD that would justify why playing 9-10 players in HD is better than playing 7-8. I don't see how this hurts the game one little bit. I'm new, but still, I don't see it

Just look at real Top d1 teams. They have a 7 or 8 guy rotation. Sometime it's 6 like Kentucky this year. Sometimes its as many as 10 or 11 with press teams. I think besides the fact that FCP stamina logic is a little wacky, I think this new update mirrors real life. Which i think, in this case, Is a good thing

And I know your gonna say "don't blindly mirror real life" but you've said that many times, but you have failed to give a good reason why this would be bad for the game. Like OR said. This gives the games more variety, and now each coach can better carve out his own style. and two me as a new coach, that makes me want to stay with this wonderful game even more.

And I don't think we are blindly copying real life here. and besides that, even if its true we shouldn't try to make HD completely like real life, this is a basketball game based off of real life college basketball. we need to at least use real life as a close model, or we will lose sight of what this is as a game.

And besides, from my perspective, as a new coach, making the game more life like does three good things. 1. It means real life strategies that I know will probably work in HD, 2. It means that all the terminology will be similar and 3. makes it MUCH easier to relate to, as a first time HD player, but life long college BBall fan.

so my question to you is, when is there an on the court scenario when realism is not a desirable goal?

There are many times where realism isn't a desirable goal for HD.

Making the BCS teams/conferences more and more powerful would be more realistic. In real life, if (for example) Oklahoma wanted a kid from Cali, he'd go to OK rather than a non-BCS Cali school. In HD, the non-BCS Cali school is likely to sign the kid.

If BCS schools were as all-powerful as they were in real life, it would be tragic for the competitive balance of HD and foster an environment where only a handful of teams could win. This would be terrible for the game. There was a recent move that hurt low/mid DI teams ability to get higher-level talent, and it resulted in a clear exodus of human coaches from the low/mid conferences. Terrible for the health of DI/HD in general.

There are many examples, that's the first and most significant example that popped into my head.

Posted by coach_billyg on 3/1/2011 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 3/1/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 3/1/2011 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Let us not forget, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned here, that there is an IQ development penalty for taking walk-ons and it can be pretty severe if you have 3 or more.  So there is a built-in penalty for taking 10 or less scholly players. 

Okay, at the risk of sounding stupid, are we sure the walk on penalty applies to offensive and defensive IQ? 

My interpretation has always been that excessive walk ons hinder individual player attribute development/progression, but I never took any of the stuff I read/heard on the matter as extending to the IQ's. Have I been in the dark this whole time? (I've never taken a walk on, much less multiple walk ons, so it definitely is possible that I'm operating under false assumption here...)

you've NEVER taken a walkon? holy crap! that is insane :O

Nah, if you want insane, let me tell you about how I've never owned a cell phone either ;) 

Posted by girt25 on 3/2/2011 12:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by turtis21 on 3/1/2011 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/28/2011 9:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/28/2011 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/28/2011 6:36:00 AM (view original):
SO then, if you don't like it because its 'less like real life' you then want to create more separation in the recruits that Duke, Kentucky et al are able to get and everyone else at division one, right?  Because Providence winning national titles isn't 'like real life'.

And I can't belileve I am posting this, given I have argued the other side of the fence but. . . well. . just because its like real life doesn't make it better.  Just like food being 'Organic' doesn't make it better for you.

My point wasn't that I wanted things more like real life. My point that the change came under the guise of "this'll make things more like real life", but in the end game, I don't believe it does.

I have always said, let's do what's best for HD, not simply copying real life.

I believe this is what's best for HD.  It just means that coaches should change their strategies if they want to stay on top.  This change just presents a new set of challenges for coaches.  I don't understand why you have a problem with players who were able to play 22 minutes in the old engine, now playing 26-27 mins.  I didn't hear anyone complaining when it was easy to get all of your players' STA in the 90s.  This change only seems like a big deal because you are now used to the new recruits with low stamina ratings.  If you go back to before the new recruits were created, you would see this is not such a big change at all. 

And I believe it's impossible to argue that this doesn't make "things more like real life".  Like OR pointed out, you don't see many D1 schools running 12 deep.  This is much better because in real life STA is probably the easiest rating to improve.  Before, it was extremely unrealistic to have your guys only able to play 20 minutes.  Girt, would you have had a problem with the change if they would have brought back the stamina levels of old instead? 

You didn't have to play 12 deep before the change, even with fcp. And starters were not limited to 20 minutes before either. These are straw man arguments.

The notion of starters playing more minutes -- when viewed in a bubble -- is no doubt more like real life. But there are other unintended consequences that actually push things to be less like real life. There are many, many things that exist in real life that don't in HD (or vice versa), and for very good reason.

Name one thing in real life that isn't in HD that would justify why playing 9-10 players in HD is better than playing 7-8. I don't see how this hurts the game one little bit. I'm new, but still, I don't see it

Just look at real Top d1 teams. They have a 7 or 8 guy rotation. Sometime it's 6 like Kentucky this year. Sometimes its as many as 10 or 11 with press teams. I think besides the fact that FCP stamina logic is a little wacky, I think this new update mirrors real life. Which i think, in this case, Is a good thing

And I know your gonna say "don't blindly mirror real life" but you've said that many times, but you have failed to give a good reason why this would be bad for the game. Like OR said. This gives the games more variety, and now each coach can better carve out his own style. and two me as a new coach, that makes me want to stay with this wonderful game even more.

And I don't think we are blindly copying real life here. and besides that, even if its true we shouldn't try to make HD completely like real life, this is a basketball game based off of real life college basketball. we need to at least use real life as a close model, or we will lose sight of what this is as a game.

And besides, from my perspective, as a new coach, making the game more life like does three good things. 1. It means real life strategies that I know will probably work in HD, 2. It means that all the terminology will be similar and 3. makes it MUCH easier to relate to, as a first time HD player, but life long college BBall fan.

so my question to you is, when is there an on the court scenario when realism is not a desirable goal?

There are many times where realism isn't a desirable goal for HD.

Making the BCS teams/conferences more and more powerful would be more realistic. In real life, if (for example) Oklahoma wanted a kid from Cali, he'd go to OK rather than a non-BCS Cali school. In HD, the non-BCS Cali school is likely to sign the kid.

If BCS schools were as all-powerful as they were in real life, it would be tragic for the competitive balance of HD and foster an environment where only a handful of teams could win. This would be terrible for the game. There was a recent move that hurt low/mid DI teams ability to get higher-level talent, and it resulted in a clear exodus of human coaches from the conference. Terrible for the health of DI/HD in general.

There are many examples, that's the first and most significant example that popped into my head.

Good point. I stand corrected.

without going through this thread with a fine-toothed comb, i would like to present this angle: It should be possible to run a variety of strategies when it comes to rotation size and tempo. just like real life, there should be significant pros and cons for each style. this inherently makes the game better and more fun in both strategical variety and real life simulation. (i think we can all agree that, in a vacuum, both of those are positive virtues for HD)

IF the current setup makes it very difficult for majors and mid-majors to compete with big schools (keeping in mind that it SHOULD be pretty difficult) then a change should be made...but NOT a change that restricts the number of systems you can run (such as finding the system that small schools implement the most easily and making that system better).

instead, the potential for smaller schools to achieve effective versions of each system should be increased. this can come through increasing the number of lower recruits with huge potential, increasing the value of IQ, making it more difficult for top schools to get all the top recruits by requiring more of a financial commitment for individual 5-start recruits, etc.

not not really, real life with bcs would be far better, since often, bcs schools get it wrong, and 750 sf's really are 600 sf's and visa versa, I once said real life is a slippery slope used by CS, seble, tarek, girt and oldresorter to selectively justify or not justify anything they chose, anything, girt knows enough about this game that he can trick you using real life selectively, so can I, so can seble, truth , is you cannot get it real life, so you choose.

Bottom line, in this case, I think they chose reasonably well, that doesn't mean girt can disagree, but also, does not mean girt is right, the debate can be endless, I know enough about real life and enough about this game, to make up a reasonable argument in near any of these cases, so does girt, eithre of us could take the other side and prove it too for that matter, at least I could - LOL

and it is seble's job to chose, not girt's (at least I hope it isn't, cause he is not batting 100% by any means), not mine either luckily, as I realize I don't always get it right, an example, I did not like FSS, by and large, it took 6-8 months, but the end product is pretty good, better than the old way