and my #1 comment

great work being responsive with this adjustment

and terrific that seble is here discussing the adjustment -

and also terrific that users are engaged and being constructive

thanks all!

Good job Seble!! People complained and there wasnt some sort of behind the scenes cover up...There was lets test this thing out; realize it wasnt working in accordance with what was planned and make an announced adjustment...Assuming the issue isnt overcorrected...GREAT JOB...

I like the change and I say the sooner the better.

I think what most coaches want is to be able to have some level of influence on player development. We don't want to simply plug in minutes based on feedback from our AC. I think we need some sort of method or tool that will let us override the potential in certain categories. Soft caps is certainly one possibility. Another approach might be something like an extra point or two kicking in based on reaching a certain GPA level, for example. Perhaps something based on experience like an extra boost after X amount of minutes played. I don't know exactly what but something a coach can control is needed.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

just one other quick thought - why does it have to be all or nothing on the changes?

why can't a few guys improve very fast in year 1-2 and much slower in 3-4 and say most players fit the middle of the road format you are changing too and then some players increase slow in 1-2 and very fast in 3-4

that's much more realistic

i guess i'm not sure how universal changes to all players makes the most sense

but all things being equal - thanks for listening and trying to work something out to make this better

seble you say it already takes into account playing time . well make that more distinct. i want an email from my ac mentioning 'wow thomas cox has really hit his stride in the gym' i want to know my guy gaining what we'd consider 'old potential' growth

i want to know they will continue to gain the seven points a year with twenty minutes. give us difference in how recruits max out and a way to figure it out during recruiting. that would spice up recruiting too.

There seem to be a lot of suggestions and questions still, so maybe I'll schedule a developer chat.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I did not play college basketball, but I've played my entire life including organized high school ball. I'm pretty sure that I could spent 10 hours a day practicing my ballhandling and I'll never be as good as Chris Paul. There are physical limitations. For ball handling, hand/eye coordination, size and strength of hands, body balance, etc. will determine your ultimate potential.

I would also argue that any improvement is still part of your potential, so there's no reason not to have a hard cap.

Quote: Originally Posted By jjboogie on 2/11/2009i'll echo what seems a majority sentiment - even if it's at the expense of some realism - and that's get rid of hard caps and install soft caps..

amen...

...and if you are going to make a change that is ready to go now, why not implement it tomorrow. To hell with waiting.

seble i agree there are absolutely physical limitations players have and that does indeed make hard caps an option. refering to your example above. if your a 70 bh and thats your potential too if you practice 20m a day sure you won't end up at 95. . .

. . . but after two years you'd end up at 74 to 76 sure not much if any growth in two years time but it gives us something to use practice minutes on otherwise once its capped we are stuck keeping 8 lousy minutes in it hoping it doesn't decrease.

Quote: Originally Posted By runninute on 2/11/2009
Let me echo the voices of others:

We need SOFT CAPS on growth.

Hard caps are frustrating and unrealistic.

here here