While fixing the redshirt issue why not fix the issue that a player gets upset even if the season is over and he did not play a single minute. At that point it is not a surprise he won't be contributing, he already didn't contribute.

Posted by lildiggins on 6/19/2012 7:09:00 PM (view original):
While fixing the redshirt issue why not fix the issue that a player gets upset even if the season is over and he did not play a single minute. At that point it is not a surprise he won't be contributing, he already didn't contribute.

No- this creates the loophole that coaches can sit players to try to force a redshirt. At this point if we want to follow RL the kid should transfer.

Posted by milkamania on 6/19/2012 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/19/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Appreciate your hard work and effort. My only problem with it is the timing of the announcement. We are just finishing up with job placements in Crum. As I understand it the new Prestige change will kill me on my new job.

If we had known this change would be implemented I would have never picked the rebuild I did, simply because of their record the last 4 years.   I would have taken into consideration the last 4 years and positively picked a different team. I think this change is going to severly deter coach's from taking over rebuilds of bad teams and only takeover teams that have been good in the recent past.This will keep the bad teams bad.

It appears those of us who took over rebuilds, will be punished because it will be much tougher and will take longer to turn those teams around, if it can be done at all. The bottom teams will stay on the bottom  and the top teams will stay on the top.  Please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong. Right now I am really regretting this job move.  

I dont think the 4 year window is new - I think the change is making the most recent year less of a factor, but I think - others can correct - that there has long been a focus on the last 4 years. 

I think that a year or two ago, there was a change to move from exclusively looking at 4 years to include some of prior history - like 10 seasons - but 4 years has been there for a long long time

I thought that the change from a 4 year window to a 10 year window was for hiring logic only, while this is referring only to a team's prestige.  Someone correct me if I am wrong

I think you may be right - I change jobs too rarely

but I am sure that prestige has long focused on 4 seasons

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Posted by metsmax on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/19/2012 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/19/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coachvegas44 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Appreciate your hard work and effort. My only problem with it is the timing of the announcement. We are just finishing up with job placements in Crum. As I understand it the new Prestige change will kill me on my new job.

If we had known this change would be implemented I would have never picked the rebuild I did, simply because of their record the last 4 years.   I would have taken into consideration the last 4 years and positively picked a different team. I think this change is going to severly deter coach's from taking over rebuilds of bad teams and only takeover teams that have been good in the recent past.This will keep the bad teams bad.

It appears those of us who took over rebuilds, will be punished because it will be much tougher and will take longer to turn those teams around, if it can be done at all. The bottom teams will stay on the bottom  and the top teams will stay on the top.  Please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong. Right now I am really regretting this job move.  

I dont think the 4 year window is new - I think the change is making the most recent year less of a factor, but I think - others can correct - that there has long been a focus on the last 4 years. 

I think that a year or two ago, there was a change to move from exclusively looking at 4 years to include some of prior history - like 10 seasons - but 4 years has been there for a long long time

I thought that the change from a 4 year window to a 10 year window was for hiring logic only, while this is referring only to a team's prestige.  Someone correct me if I am wrong

I think you may be right - I change jobs too rarely

but I am sure that prestige has long focused on 4 seasons

yes mets, the 4 year thing is nothing new.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryanderson on 6/19/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

That is assuming you are weighing all seasons equally. I can only assume it is some sort of stepping down, where the 4^th season is counted small enough that this won’t happen.

True, but regardless of anything else he is correct that the number behind the grade would likely go down but with enough success it would be a negligible effect.

And I'm sure in some cases it will have a very noticeable effect. Seble said that more emphasis will be placed on the 4th season now and the emphasis on the most recent season will be reduced. This will create an abundant amount of cases similar to the one that I mentioned earlier. 

If a few more seasons were added, even if the weight was low on those seasons, this effect would become negligible. So I think it's the best course of action that seble could take. 

The four year window isn't new. If you can't sustain continued success you shouldn't be proped up by a few decent seasons and that is what baseline does already (don't get me started on baseline because I doubt seble wants to read that again ;) )

I don't think this is an issue at all, however if it comes up to be one I am sure that seble will take the appropriate action.

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Are you talking about the same afterthought UCLA that brought in the No.1 rated recruiting class in the country this year? Just sayin'. 

History always matters. 

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Are you talking about the same afterthought UCLA that brought in the No.1 rated recruiting class in the country this year? Just sayin'. 

History always matters. 

It doesn't matter.  It's not an "unintended consequence" because it's not new.

Posted by ike1024 on 6/19/2012 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Are you talking about the same afterthought UCLA that brought in the No.1 rated recruiting class in the country this year? Just sayin'. 

History always matters. 

It doesn't matter.  It's not an "unintended consequence" because it's not new.

It IS new that there's more weight being placed on the fourth season, which could result in the aforementioned scenario. 

And also, I'm only saying that history matters in RL, I'm not suggesting that it should matter in WIS. 

But in the past that weight wouldn't have been there anyway, so it's not like it screws anyone or anything.  

Frankly, I see both sides, but I really think the window should be longer.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Are you talking about the same afterthought UCLA that brought in the No.1 rated recruiting class in the country this year? Just sayin'. 

History always matters. 

I realize that but there is that possibility in HD as well. Plus this game isn't supposed to nor should it mirror RL 100%.

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 10:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/19/2012 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deer454 on 6/19/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/19/2012 4:18:00 PM (view original):
What makes the 4 season limit make no sense whatsoever is that if a team won a National Championship 4 seasons ago, they will likely have high prestige due to that. However, once the season ends, they will drop in prestige even if they have a good season, simply because they couldn't win a Nat. Champ again. 

great point - unintended consequence, I'm sure.

I disagree, look at RL UCLA with two final fours and then a few years of pathetic bbal, they've been an afterthought just like the situation you are both talking about without continued success. If you have that it doesn't matter and it shouldn't.

Are you talking about the same afterthought UCLA that brought in the No.1 rated recruiting class in the country this year? Just sayin'. 

History always matters. 

I realize that but there is that possibility in HD as well. Plus this game isn't supposed to nor should it mirror RL 100%.

Right and I conceded that in my other post. I suppose baseline prestige would be HD's way of accounting for a team's history though. 

I guess then the only thing seble could do would be to add in dynamic baseline where a team's prestige is slightly tugged towards the average prestige of the past 15-20 seasons rather than a number that was appropriate years ago when HD was created. 

Doritos Locos Tacos.

Posted by vandydave on 6/20/2012 1:58:00 AM (view original):
Doritos Locos Tacos.

Sometimes you just gotta Live Mas.