Posted by zagsrulez on 9/13/2018 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/13/2018 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

I've suggested this a few times...

I think there should be a system where at the end of the season you need to define each and every players role on the team for the following season. They will start, ride the pine, play 15 mpg, etc. You need to do this for each and every player. Obviously highly rated players won't take too kindly to being told they will be coming off the bench their senior season after starting the previous 3 seasons so this would cause them to lose WE or transfer.

Then obviously you would again need to keep your word or you will suffer penalties - WE loss, transferring, hell even a performance loss (they stop giving a **** and play bad?). And you would suffer a loyalty hit. This loyalty hit would need to matter since it doesn't mean **** today. But your loyalty rating acts as a multiplier for recruiting actions.

This would kill the game for me, I barely know what positions my players will be filling until after experimenting during exhibition games. I can’t tell you the amount of times that I have had a newly recruited C starting at PG during the regular season after dishing out 3 assists & grabbing 0 boards in an exhibition match.

Is this serious?! I understand the part about possibly being undecided on a player's role until a few games in.

But starting a C at PG because he had 3 assists and 0 rebounds in one exhibition game, I'm not sure of a nice word to describe that. It's only 1 game. And random things happen all the time (me and Benis have figured that secret out!). But that doesn't make me completely change a C and a PG! That's a huge exaggeration. I change positions often.... a SG to SF, a SF to a PF, etc. But there's not really many players out there that I would recruit with the thought of "hmmm I can play this guy at PG and/or C!". The attribute numbers aren't even close for that!

My C's have 90 REB. My PG's have 90 PAS. There's players out there that can grow in an unexpected category that would allow them to move around the floor in general. But not on a consistent basis. Like now, I have a big man that has like 61 PAS and 55 BH. That's excellent, I'll take it. But that doesn't mean I'm playing him at PG. Because I still need the rebounding from that big man. And my PGs I've recruited are better (or equal at the LEAST) to the 61/55 that I just mentioned.

Posted by topdogggbm on 9/14/2018 9:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/13/2018 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/13/2018 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

I've suggested this a few times...

I think there should be a system where at the end of the season you need to define each and every players role on the team for the following season. They will start, ride the pine, play 15 mpg, etc. You need to do this for each and every player. Obviously highly rated players won't take too kindly to being told they will be coming off the bench their senior season after starting the previous 3 seasons so this would cause them to lose WE or transfer.

Then obviously you would again need to keep your word or you will suffer penalties - WE loss, transferring, hell even a performance loss (they stop giving a **** and play bad?). And you would suffer a loyalty hit. This loyalty hit would need to matter since it doesn't mean **** today. But your loyalty rating acts as a multiplier for recruiting actions.

This would kill the game for me, I barely know what positions my players will be filling until after experimenting during exhibition games. I can’t tell you the amount of times that I have had a newly recruited C starting at PG during the regular season after dishing out 3 assists & grabbing 0 boards in an exhibition match.

Is this serious?! I understand the part about possibly being undecided on a player's role until a few games in.

But starting a C at PG because he had 3 assists and 0 rebounds in one exhibition game, I'm not sure of a nice word to describe that. It's only 1 game. And random things happen all the time (me and Benis have figured that secret out!). But that doesn't make me completely change a C and a PG! That's a huge exaggeration. I change positions often.... a SG to SF, a SF to a PF, etc. But there's not really many players out there that I would recruit with the thought of "hmmm I can play this guy at PG and/or C!". The attribute numbers aren't even close for that!

My C's have 90 REB. My PG's have 90 PAS. There's players out there that can grow in an unexpected category that would allow them to move around the floor in general. But not on a consistent basis. Like now, I have a big man that has like 61 PAS and 55 BH. That's excellent, I'll take it. But that doesn't mean I'm playing him at PG. Because I still need the rebounding from that big man. And my PGs I've recruited are better (or equal at the LEAST) to the 61/55 that I just mentioned.

I a glad you addressed this post topdog. To me this is part of the fun of coaching any basketball. Trying to understand who goes where and experiment with my lineup. I love the strategy in all games and only want more.

Posted by metsmax on 9/14/2018 3:57:00 PM (view original):
If we are defining these roles, can I get the dropdown I have long sought to help encourage a player to leave voluntarily - options including

- inform player he will be on the bench again next season
- require player to handle team laundry
- give player's number to incoming freshman
- date player's girlfriend
- date player's mom

*leave a brown bag on fire with poop in it in front of his door room.


but seriously I do not think this will go over since we live in an age that people do not want to be responsible for their actions. Back in the day we could bribe recruits and they removed it most likely because people would bride, get put in probation, and then send in tickets complaining that they did not mean to do it. I’m sure the same thing would happen if we could have negative actions with recruits.

Posted by Benis on 9/13/2018 11:09:00 AM (view original):
I feel like some people want this game to be EASY or something.

I agree, should not be dumbed down.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/13/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. It does feel somewhat artificial.

A smaller change that might take a small step toward the same goal could be to limit scouting to level 3 during the first recruiting window. That would mean nobody could "discover" super-high potential players during the first window. You could have an idea, but ultimately low-high vs. high-high would only be available during the 2nd window.

I like this tweak actually.

Just throwing these two out, just something I have thought about that has a true to life feel. 1) Hide WE on all players until they report, or 2) Hide potentials until players report. Or a twist being only hidden from lower division coaches. Sorta the concept of a D1 Level recruit, being stalked by a D3 Coach. He has to ask himself is this a recruit that has fallen in my lap, or is this guy a bum who won't progress (or already tapped out on ability). I think this is a valid thought, that includes randomness, and also the ability in the real World for most of the D1 Level talent to be found and attend D1 programs.

Posted by wvufan76 on 9/15/2018 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/13/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. It does feel somewhat artificial.

A smaller change that might take a small step toward the same goal could be to limit scouting to level 3 during the first recruiting window. That would mean nobody could "discover" super-high potential players during the first window. You could have an idea, but ultimately low-high vs. high-high would only be available during the 2nd window.

I like this tweak actually.

Just throwing these two out, just something I have thought about that has a true to life feel. 1) Hide WE on all players until they report, or 2) Hide potentials until players report. Or a twist being only hidden from lower division coaches. Sorta the concept of a D1 Level recruit, being stalked by a D3 Coach. He has to ask himself is this a recruit that has fallen in my lap, or is this guy a bum who won't progress (or already tapped out on ability). I think this is a valid thought, that includes randomness, and also the ability in the real World for most of the D1 Level talent to be found and attend D1 programs.

I like this idea too and might be easier to implement. This way in D1 top teams would target only the top 100 first.

What? Three pages of discussion about how to help "those who failed miserably in the 1st half of recruiting" (quoting the OP). Maybe we could combine that with three pages of how to punish the coaches who are successful at recruiting. I think the OP successfully pulled the wool over everybody's eyes.

Posted by l80r20 on 9/16/2018 11:17:00 PM (view original):
What? Three pages of discussion about how to help "those who failed miserably in the 1st half of recruiting" (quoting the OP). Maybe we could combine that with three pages of how to punish the coaches who are successful at recruiting. I think the OP successfully pulled the wool over everybody's eyes.

I do not fair at recruiting. Just feel that transfers would create more strategy and help those who take over new teams. Adding transfers are how RL coaches fill heir roster when they need to add more bodies. Transfers are a major piece of college basketball that this game only needs to add more to improve the game.

Right now you fail at 1st half recruiting by changing teams. l80r20 have you coached at D1? You are not even playing the game currently. What world are you currently in? Have you ever changed teams at D1?

bump - if transfers are increased or jucos multiplied by 50x... I will come back and bring friends. Looks like no changes in 2 years (to anything).

I just moved up to DI in Knight. I took Towson, where the sim had already signed freshman recruits. There were still 3 openings plus I cut 1 more to give myself 4 scholarships which could only be used on JUCO and Transfers. I then scouted every state at DI, and was surprised as recruiting went along that there were 3 total DI transfers. Just seemed extremely low.
I agree we shouldn't have players leave for no reason, so I don't know if there is a real solution. But I found it interesting.

Posted by dan2044 on 11/18/2020 4:19:00 PM (view original):
I just moved up to DI in Knight. I took Towson, where the sim had already signed freshman recruits. There were still 3 openings plus I cut 1 more to give myself 4 scholarships which could only be used on JUCO and Transfers. I then scouted every state at DI, and was surprised as recruiting went along that there were 3 total DI transfers. Just seemed extremely low.
I agree we shouldn't have players leave for no reason, so I don't know if there is a real solution. But I found it interesting.

Boston College and their D2 proj JUCOs give me nightmares....

Posted by zagsrulez on 9/13/2018 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/13/2018 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

I've suggested this a few times...

I think there should be a system where at the end of the season you need to define each and every players role on the team for the following season. They will start, ride the pine, play 15 mpg, etc. You need to do this for each and every player. Obviously highly rated players won't take too kindly to being told they will be coming off the bench their senior season after starting the previous 3 seasons so this would cause them to lose WE or transfer.

Then obviously you would again need to keep your word or you will suffer penalties - WE loss, transferring, hell even a performance loss (they stop giving a **** and play bad?). And you would suffer a loyalty hit. This loyalty hit would need to matter since it doesn't mean **** today. But your loyalty rating acts as a multiplier for recruiting actions.

This would kill the game for me, I barely know what positions my players will be filling until after experimenting during exhibition games. I can’t tell you the amount of times that I have had a newly recruited C starting at PG during the regular season after dishing out 3 assists & grabbing 0 boards in an exhibition match.

This was such a gem