But I like these changes, as long as top players can't be RS successfully, regardless of depth.

Posted by rednu on 6/6/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/6/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 6/6/2012 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure I agree with the logic on No. 3 of the "in all other cases" section. 

I realize the intent here is to probably do away with the practice of giving/removing/regiving of the redshirt until you get a favorable RNG result and the kid takes it with no/minimal penalty. That said, it seems illogical to me that there's no counterweight given for where a kid will be more favorable to accept the redshirt as the season progresses and said player has yet to see a minute of live action. As I'm reading the above, the kid will respond the same if I offer a redshirt 14 times in the preseason or once a day for 14 days into the season, and that doesn't seem right. In the first case, the kid might be resistant thinking he can still contribute that year if given the chance. In the latter case, more than half a season has progressed and in that case a kid might finally be starting to see the writing on the wall and begin looking out for his longterm future, in which case saving the year of eligibility (so he can transfer, so he can play more at the school, whatever) would seem to be the better option.

I'm also a little confused by the "if you've told a kid he will not be redshirted" phrase. Is there a way we can tell a kid he won't be redshirted? Or will this now be the "default" belief of every recruit UNLESS they're informed there will be a redshirt? I'm just confused since start and minutes promises are covered under another line, and those would seem to me to be the only way a kid could get the impression within the game that he's not going to be redshirted.

I disagree with you here.  What you are getting at, if I read correctly, is that leaving a guy off the depth chart all season and then giving him the redshirt the day before the season ends should convince him to take it without penalty, as he isn't going to play all season anyway.   That to me seems to be a loophole to try and get around informing him during recruiting.   Nobody would ever inform a recruit, then they would all just wait til the end of the year to do it. 

You are reading me correctly milk, at least to an extent, but to clarify/extend on the point I was trying to make...

I'm NOT saying that I should be able to leave a kid out of the lineup and be insured the kid will take a redshirt after Game 26 without penalty. I AM saying there should be a greatly increased chance the kid will take the redshirt -- at that point either 1. the kid wants to stay with my program, in which case why wouldn't he accept the chance at a free year of eligibility and play 4 instead of 3?  or 2. the kid is completely hacked off from riding the pine all season, in which case why wouldn't he take the redshirt and then bolt for the nearest exit, still with 4 years of playing time available rather than 3? I can think of very few cases where a kid with 0 minutes of PT at season's end, if confronted with the chance to call his non-year a redshirt season, would say no, coach, let's just burn this year.

The penalty though shouldn't be the kid not taking the redshirt. The penalty should be the kid hitting the bricks like a mad hornet and transferring if he's of the me-first persuasion who doesn't like sitting. It should actually be the case now as the loophole you point out exists in the status quo as well. If seble wants to tweak the transfer logic/percentage, he'd find a favorable audience in me to that proposal.

My biggest point though is that I don't think you can solely base a player''s reaction solely upon the number of redshirt attempts (which seems to be the proposal seble has listed), but that you also need to take into consideration things like when those attempts took place (as well as the personality of the kid, but I assume that's hidden in the equation somewhere...)

understood.  as long as there is a chance the kid transfers in response, then I agree with you.  unfortunately, freshman currently don't care about PT, so that would be something he would have to add I would guess

Posted by metsmax on 6/6/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
the problem with basing RS acceptance on the depth chart is that it invites us to game the system by putting a guy who is excellent low on the depth chart for that instant or for exhibitions or the like

the problem with basing RS acceptance on position rankings is - as noted by others - that official positions have no significance.  My two best SFs may be a PG and a SG.  The freshman SF might well be my third or fourth best guy for the 3 spot, but my only "SF" - how resolve that?

There is a problem no matter how you slice it. The first option you list isn't even an option imo because it's a complete gaming of the system that anyone can do anytime.

The real options are to either have listed positions have some kind of effect, in which case a situation like yours where no one is listed at X position hurts you; or have listed positions have no effect, in which case anyone who for the most part does recruit guys to play their listed positions gets messed over. If I had to pick which option is better, I'd lean towards the latter because in more cases than not, guys by and large play at their listed positions, plus/minus 1 spot. Unless they were to bring back the position penalty for being more than 1 spot out of position, I'm not sure you can really program a "middle ground" here. Maybe if the sim kept track of where returning players had played the majority of their minutes in the previous season, and view them as that position for redshirt purposes?

Sorry guys, give me to tomorrow morning and I'll answer questions on this change. 

Posted by seble on 6/6/2012 7:12:00 PM (view original):
Sorry guys, give me to tomorrow morning and I'll answer questions on this change. 

Many thanks once again, seble, for the continued dialogue.

Agreed -- thank you for the involvement and dialogue. I know everyone really appreciates it.

My question, which may have already been asked:

  If you redshirt and the WE drops, it comes back up once the player is reinstated.  We could do this multiple times with no permanent consequences.  With the new change, will the WE still rebound after multiple redshirt attempts?

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/6/2012 1:35:00 PM (view original):
you really need to change your name to a beer that is available locally for the rest of us. or at least name yourself after a less tasty beer. its cruel man!

+1

Posted by salag on 6/6/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Question: So if I do not tell Player A that I will redshirt him, then he comes to campus and I try to RS the kid, he will always drop to a 1 WE? Or could he still drop to 5-15 WE points? I understand that he has to drop some WE points, but will it always go to 1 WE?

He won't always drop to 1, but he will drop a lot.

Posted by jdno on 6/6/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
1. Is it safe to assume that no change has been made to the amount of extra effort needed for a kid to be OK with a R/S, right?  For example, in D3, simply throwing out a CV and a scholly and an intent to R/S typically won't be sufficient for him to be OK with the R/S, more effort will be needed in most instances as is the case currently, correct?

2. I'm not following #2 above and the games missed due to an injury.  Is this currently part of the game where we can try to R/S a kid who's injured?  Can you give more insight here?

1. I'm not sure what you mean.  Amount of recruiting effort doesn't impact a redshirt decision.  Maybe you're thinking of the decision for a non-qualifier to come to your school vs. going JUCO.

2. The injury portion would only really apply if a player was hurt in an exhibition game.  It was in the old logic, so I carried it over.  Once a player has played in a regular season game, he is of course ineligible for redshirt.

Posted by tkimble on 6/6/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):
There is a recruiting option after you've informed a guy of redshirt to inform him of non-redshirt.  I believe that is the option seble is talking about.

Yes, that's correct.

Posted by rednu on 6/6/2012 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure I agree with the logic on No. 3 of the "in all other cases" section. 

I realize the intent here is to probably do away with the practice of giving/removing/regiving of the redshirt until you get a favorable RNG result and the kid takes it with no/minimal penalty. That said, it seems illogical to me that there's no counterweight given for where a kid will be more favorable to accept the redshirt as the season progresses and said player has yet to see a minute of live action. As I'm reading the above, the kid will respond the same if I offer a redshirt 14 times in the preseason or once a day for 14 days into the season, and that doesn't seem right. In the first case, the kid might be resistant thinking he can still contribute that year if given the chance. In the latter case, more than half a season has progressed and in that case a kid might finally be starting to see the writing on the wall and begin looking out for his longterm future, in which case saving the year of eligibility (so he can transfer, so he can play more at the school, whatever) would seem to be the better option.

I'm also a little confused by the "if you've told a kid he will not be redshirted" phrase. Is there a way we can tell a kid he won't be redshirted? Or will this now be the "default" belief of every recruit UNLESS they're informed there will be a redshirt? I'm just confused since start and minutes promises are covered under another line, and those would seem to me to be the only way a kid could get the impression within the game that he's not going to be redshirted.

The logic to decrease odds of acceptance based on previous redshirt attempts was already in there.  I carried that over (with some tweaks).  I may just end up disallowing multiple attempts completely, but I'm not ready to go that far yet.  I definitely want to close the loophole where you can just keep trying until he accepts it.  That's obviously not how it should work.

I thought about incorporating a factor for how many games your team has played, making the player more likely to accept later in the season.  But I feel like, while that makes sense logically, it opens up a bit of a loophole.  I think it would lead coaches to wait until late in the season to attempt a redshirt, giving them better odds for the guy to accept.  That's not really in the spirit of the redshirt feature.

Posted by seble on 6/7/2012 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 6/6/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
1. Is it safe to assume that no change has been made to the amount of extra effort needed for a kid to be OK with a R/S, right?  For example, in D3, simply throwing out a CV and a scholly and an intent to R/S typically won't be sufficient for him to be OK with the R/S, more effort will be needed in most instances as is the case currently, correct?

2. I'm not following #2 above and the games missed due to an injury.  Is this currently part of the game where we can try to R/S a kid who's injured?  Can you give more insight here?

1. I'm not sure what you mean.  Amount of recruiting effort doesn't impact a redshirt decision.  Maybe you're thinking of the decision for a non-qualifier to come to your school vs. going JUCO.

2. The injury portion would only really apply if a player was hurt in an exhibition game.  It was in the old logic, so I carried it over.  Once a player has played in a regular season game, he is of course ineligible for redshirt.

1. He meant when you're recruiting and you hit "Inform of RS", the guy will often require extra effort to accept the RS without stopping considering you, or you'll fall behind in a battle or whatever. It's relatively common practice to both hit "Inform of RS" and add a couple extra HVs or a CV or something to make sure he's OK with it... 

Posted by Weena on 6/6/2012 12:50:00 PM (view original):
2. Games the player is designated to miss due to injury (the more games means higher chance he'll react well)  Is this based on an injury from an exhibition game or does it mean that if a player is injured anytime during the season there is an opportunity to RS him?

3. Number of times you've attempted to redshirt him already (the more times, the less chance he'll react well) So, if a player doesn't react well (big WE drop) to the RS the first couple of times then it won't get any better, right?

4. Where the player rates out talent-wise on his team. So a player who is the 11th best guy on your team will be much more likely to react well than the 4th best guy on your team. This may be obvious but I have to ask. Is this based on his current overall rating or does it consider potential?

3. Yes

4. Based on current ratings

Posted by kujayhawk on 6/6/2012 1:17:00 PM (view original):
If Seble is reading this thread ... he's been pretty good about these types of threads recently.

Regarding #4, this seems like it might have some unintended consequences.  For example, I return 6 players: 0 guards, 1 SF, 5 post players.  I recruit six freshman and my best freshman is a post player and my worst freshman is a guard.  My post player is unlikely to take the redshirt because he'll be the 7th most talented player on the team, correct?  And my guard who may be in line for some serious playing time is more than happy to take the redshirt because he's the 12 most talented player on the team.

Or is there another way you are looking at "talent"?  I know that a lot of D2 and D3 coaches try to redshirt their most talented freshman first and foremost.

In this case, yes, it might hurt you.  But you could think ahead and inform him of the redshirt during recruiting. 

My first thought was to look at just that player's position, but that won't always work because players don't always play their listed position.  The fairest way was to look at the whole roster.