3 letters.

FSS.

After being a part of the test world, the biggest change is going to be the elimination of "cookie cutter" recruits. Recruits will have a great deal of differentiation in their ratings. So much so that FSS will become ABSOLUTELY 100% NECESSARY for any recruit you are thinking about signing.

There will be PF's with 30 REB and low potential and PG's with 20 BH and low potential. C's with 30 PASS/BH and high potential and PG's with 40 REB and high potential. Crucial information to have since there will be NO POSITION PENALTY!

I am very excited for this all to take effect. I just wanted to give everyone a preemptive warning on what to expect in this area. GL to all! (except VD and george633)

you mistyped "Run the press"

Really, No position penalty? Is this true?

If so, a 12 SF lineup could be in the works for my D3 team :)

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 5/03/2010
Really, No position penalty? Is this true?

If so, a 12 SF lineup could be in the works for my D3 team :)

Well ...with the new engine you probably only need to play 6 of them anyway.

Quote: Originally posted by reinsel on 5/03/2010Really, No position penalty?  Is this true?  If so, a 12 SF lineup could be in the works for my D3 team :)

yes, true.

I understand the thinking behind having more varied player ratings and for the most part I like it. But a PG with 20 BH? Come on, how realistic is that? The backup PG at the worst D3 school in the country would be able to handle the ball better than that.

But he doesn't have to play PG. No position penalty.

He might make a decent dIII SF for example - depending on his other ratings.

.

Looks like this will make up my mind on what to do in HD.

Guess that rules out international players?

Why would it rule out international players? You can still get scouting report information.

FSS has been 100% necessary for a while now, this doesn't change anything in that regard.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 5/03/2010
But he doesn't have to play PG. No position penalty.

He might make a decent dIII SF for example - depending on his other ratings.

Yes, that's a possibility.

But I think it's far more likely that it's just a waste of a player.

Personally, I think the certain positions should have some sort of minimum. If the player is listed as a PG, they should not have a 20 BH with low potential. Guards should have a minimum of X at BH and P, PF and C have X at LP and Reb. Or at least have the chance to get there with potential. Why even have positions listed then? Why not just have a bunch of players and the coach chooses the position they play.

I'm all for having big men with good PER, etc... but there needs to be some definition of position and penalties for playing out of position.

Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 5/03/2010Why would it rule out international players?  You can still get scouting report information.

But you can also scout a foreign PG 10 time$ and not get BH potential info.

Quote: Originally posted by sully712 on 5/03/2010Personally, I think the certain positions should have some sort of minimum.  If the player is listed as a PG, they should not have a 20 BH with low potential.  Guards should have a minimum of X at BH and P, PF and C have X at LP and Reb.  Or at least have the chance to get there with potential.  Why even have positions listed then?  Why not just have a bunch of players and the coach chooses the position they play. I'm all for having big men with good PER, etc... but there needs to be some definition of position and penalties for playing out of position.

I agree about the ratings minimums. The way recruits are generated now makes it seems they just draw random numbers for the ratings. With my D3 test team, I remember seeing some freshmen bigs with like 54 ATH and 1 SP, and I just can't fathom what this player would be like in RL or who in RL would have similar ratings. So he can fly around in the paint but it takes him 3 days to get there? That just seems inconsistent to me. But I guess that's what they needed to do to generate some diversity