I put 5 for idiots (low 2's), 4 for mid 2's, 3 for any high schooler with a 3.0 gpa. Can't remember ever having someone ineligible. There are always exceptions. Some dudes just party more so adjustments are made when progress reports come out.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/3/2019 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/3/2019 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Ok so, so far I've learned two things..... 1) when i say i use 10 early on and everyone yells at me, I'm actually not the only one that does it. The rest of you just don't wanna get yelled at, too. So you just keep quiet! And 2) every answer will be completely different. Which puts us right back at square one.

I would think the difference between starting with 10 for freshman, or starting at 0, would create such a staggering difference, that it wouldn't even be a debate topic. But apparently that's not the case.

here is what is actually happening -

you - man i run 10m for my freshman for study hall and it really doesn't work that well, i still get a bunch of yellow stripes.

me (for the last 10 years) - yeah, that's why i stopped wasting the 10m. if you run 0m, you get marginally more yellow stripes.

to re-iterate - you 'I would think the difference between starting with 10 for freshman, or starting at 0, would create such a staggering difference, that it wouldn't even be a debate topic'. me - 'No'

there is basically no difference, just like running 7 minutes on a low buys you almost nothing over running 0. those 2 myths have been around as long as i've been playing, and i have little patience for them. too many threads, just try it already. it works. go try it and there will be no need to debate, you'll see its just the right answer.

Your last paragraph here is exactly my point! I agree in that there is no rhyme or reason to this. So I'm asking..... why?!

Let's broaden this a little bit. Just for discussion purposes. Say i put 8 minutes in green cores (since that is supposed to be the number where growth will begin in a category other than perimeter and low post)..... will those 8 minutes create as much growth as if i put 20 minutes? It should. Based off of how the SH works. If it DOES then practice plans need to be scrapped all together. If it DOESN'T, then SH needs to be revisited.

I'm just bringing this up to talk about it. The logic behind the way this works is ridiculous to me honestly. And from the variety of all the input from different coaches here (and thanks a lot for that guys), shows me a different story. While some say we're "wasting" minutes in SH..... what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area.

I start every1 at 7 for the beginning of the season and it usually doesn't change.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/4/2019 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/3/2019 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/3/2019 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Ok so, so far I've learned two things..... 1) when i say i use 10 early on and everyone yells at me, I'm actually not the only one that does it. The rest of you just don't wanna get yelled at, too. So you just keep quiet! And 2) every answer will be completely different. Which puts us right back at square one.

I would think the difference between starting with 10 for freshman, or starting at 0, would create such a staggering difference, that it wouldn't even be a debate topic. But apparently that's not the case.

here is what is actually happening -

you - man i run 10m for my freshman for study hall and it really doesn't work that well, i still get a bunch of yellow stripes.

me (for the last 10 years) - yeah, that's why i stopped wasting the 10m. if you run 0m, you get marginally more yellow stripes.

to re-iterate - you 'I would think the difference between starting with 10 for freshman, or starting at 0, would create such a staggering difference, that it wouldn't even be a debate topic'. me - 'No'

there is basically no difference, just like running 7 minutes on a low buys you almost nothing over running 0. those 2 myths have been around as long as i've been playing, and i have little patience for them. too many threads, just try it already. it works. go try it and there will be no need to debate, you'll see its just the right answer.

Your last paragraph here is exactly my point! I agree in that there is no rhyme or reason to this. So I'm asking..... why?!

Let's broaden this a little bit. Just for discussion purposes. Say i put 8 minutes in green cores (since that is supposed to be the number where growth will begin in a category other than perimeter and low post)..... will those 8 minutes create as much growth as if i put 20 minutes? It should. Based off of how the SH works. If it DOES then practice plans need to be scrapped all together. If it DOESN'T, then SH needs to be revisited.

I'm just bringing this up to talk about it. The logic behind the way this works is ridiculous to me honestly. And from the variety of all the input from different coaches here (and thanks a lot for that guys), shows me a different story. While some say we're "wasting" minutes in SH..... what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area.

sorry if i came across a little rude, i had a long day in the sun and maybe a drink or two too many. but more or less, outside the tone, i pretty much maintain what i said. i am a bit sore about this subject for historical reasons, so that is on me :)

it is kind of silly it works that way - i agree with you on that. but, that doesn't change how it actually works, and you are definitely wasting minutes.

'what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area.' - we aren't, its not that hard to try this out. i'm kind of surprised someone around as long as you wouldn't have experimented with that, even a little, to know for sure it does matter what you put into most areas. never had a blue on 5m because you had too many, and saw that it didn't grow anything like the rest? really even without experimentation, i think regular experiences would make it clear the minutes do matter.

there are basically 2 cases where minutes don't matter hardly at all - study hall in the first half of the grade period, and every category once its low (in the general sense, not necessarily HD low).

the reason why study hall doesn't move the needle in the first period? i'm not sure. there is something a bit weird that goes on there. it seems like basically the grades in the second period (after the 1st email and before the 2nd, not like, how there are 2 semesters of grades) are worth more, just like in real life, and that to me sort of satisfactorily explains why you can skip study hall in period 1. but it also seems like the rate of players who end up in trouble in the 2nd period, after being OK in the first period on 0 minutes, is low. as in, i'm not sure this explanation satisfactorily covers why players on 0 who are fine in period 1 are so unlikely to fail in period 2. the observed outcomes don't make sense to me, against a simple model where SH has an impact on expected grades, and then grades are randomized off of that expected value to add some variance.

maybe grades are naturally a bit higher in the 2nd period, but i sort of doubt it because of how often players who struggle in period 1 barely squeak by in period 2. it seems more likely that period 1 and 2 are linked in some way, that if you do well in period 1, it makes it more likely you will do well in period 2. i could see the programmers putting that in to avoid frustration - basically, it would be super annoying to have a guy who was totally fine in period 1 just take a dive. the programmers tend to avoid that kind of stuff, just like how breaking promises can only lead to a player quitting if he complains first, giving you a chance to take corrective action. so, this would be my best guess - that period 2 of grades matters a lot more than period 1, and if you do well in period 1, it raises your expected grades for period 2, to avoid situations where players are fine through randomly doing better than expected but then hit the low end of their range and flunk out 'without warning'. still, even if both of those things are true, it doesn't really satisfy me, in terms of reconciling observations against the supposed model. i do wonder if grades simply do not depend on SH as much in period 1 as they do in period 2.

the other one is much easier to explain, where once ratings are sufficiently low, you can 0 them out without issue. the reason for that is simple. there is 1 curve that says how fast a given rating will grow, and that growth is based on a few factors - practice time, playing time, work ethic, and how much room is left to grow. well, we all see guys who grow blazingly fast, maybe picking up 20 points in a season on a green rating. but then when they have 3 points to go, growth is incredibly slow, even at 20 minutes. even if the break-even point is 5 minutes of practice, if you practice 0, you'll basically get a negative growth rate - but it will be incredibly slow, just like any positive growth would be.

for a long time, folks resisted 0ing out the minutes in almost-maxed ratings - because there is a quote from admin (old admin in this case, tarek) where someone asked what the minimum minutes required was to avoid losses in rating growth, and he said 7. this is correct - the minimum required minutes in the absolute sense, the minimum to avoid losses for a 1 work ethic player with 0 minutes played, is 7. however, for a regular player with say 50m who plays 15m, the break even point might be 4m. for a guy with 90 work ethic who starts, the break even point is actually negative - you'll grow in ratings on 0 minutes practice, with sufficient WE and playing time (this one is super easy to confirm through trying it yourself, and i encourage you and others to do so - i find most coaches are surprised by the result). so that break even point differs per player, but coaches read that quote from admin and read it in a way that just goes way too far. the absolute minimum required to cover any player is not the same as the actual minimum required for an actual player.

so, the break-even point for each player is different - in some cases, even 0 minutes puts you above that break even point. and also, the growth curve for ratings is 1 curve per rating, there is no separate equation to penalize you for under 7 minutes. it merely smashes together practice time, playing time, WE and growth remaining, to come up with a rate, and any time the growth remaining is very low, that rate is going to be very slow, no matter which direction. put the 2 together, and you have a full explanation (IMO) of why its totally fine to 0 out minutes for low ratings and further why you sometimes can 0 out blue or green ratings without seeing a drop, on guys who have lots of blues/greens and you need to focus on the cores - which only applies when you have a guy with sufficient WE and playing time.

I’ve moved down slightly over the years, but still fairly conservative. I start average freshmen at 6, sophs at 3, upperclassmen at zero. Average meaning HS GPA around 3, WE above 30. Move up a minute for every ~.25 under 3.0, so 7 for 2.75, 8 for 2.5, etc. For real dunces, I’ll theoretically still start as high as 10. Never had anyone lose eligibility, and very rarely need to increase someone due to yellow stripe. I think I’ve bumped one guy up to more than 12 in the last few RL years, not counting guys I’m trying to keep off or down the big board.

Am I “wasting” minutes? Sure. Everyone wastes some minutes by some standard. You pick your priorities, and go with it. There’s no prize for highest and fastest OVR increase on individual players, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. On the other hand, losing a guy to academics can be a b!tch, or so I’m told. I wouldn’t know.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/4/2019 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/4/2019 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/3/2019 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/3/2019 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Ok so, so far I've learned two things..... 1) when i say i use 10 early on and everyone yells at me, I'm actually not the only one that does it. The rest of you just don't wanna get yelled at, too. So you just keep quiet! And 2) every answer will be completely different. Which puts us right back at square one.

I would think the difference between starting with 10 for freshman, or starting at 0, would create such a staggering difference, that it wouldn't even be a debate topic. But apparently that's not the case.

here is what is actually happening -

you - man i run 10m for my freshman for study hall and it really doesn't work that well, i still get a bunch of yellow stripes.

me (for the last 10 years) - yeah, that's why i stopped wasting the 10m. if you run 0m, you get marginally more yellow stripes.

to re-iterate - you 'I would think the difference between starting with 10 for freshman, or starting at 0, would create such a staggering difference, that it wouldn't even be a debate topic'. me - 'No'

there is basically no difference, just like running 7 minutes on a low buys you almost nothing over running 0. those 2 myths have been around as long as i've been playing, and i have little patience for them. too many threads, just try it already. it works. go try it and there will be no need to debate, you'll see its just the right answer.

Your last paragraph here is exactly my point! I agree in that there is no rhyme or reason to this. So I'm asking..... why?!

Let's broaden this a little bit. Just for discussion purposes. Say i put 8 minutes in green cores (since that is supposed to be the number where growth will begin in a category other than perimeter and low post)..... will those 8 minutes create as much growth as if i put 20 minutes? It should. Based off of how the SH works. If it DOES then practice plans need to be scrapped all together. If it DOESN'T, then SH needs to be revisited.

I'm just bringing this up to talk about it. The logic behind the way this works is ridiculous to me honestly. And from the variety of all the input from different coaches here (and thanks a lot for that guys), shows me a different story. While some say we're "wasting" minutes in SH..... what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area.

sorry if i came across a little rude, i had a long day in the sun and maybe a drink or two too many. but more or less, outside the tone, i pretty much maintain what i said. i am a bit sore about this subject for historical reasons, so that is on me :)

it is kind of silly it works that way - i agree with you on that. but, that doesn't change how it actually works, and you are definitely wasting minutes.

'what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area.' - we aren't, its not that hard to try this out. i'm kind of surprised someone around as long as you wouldn't have experimented with that, even a little, to know for sure it does matter what you put into most areas. never had a blue on 5m because you had too many, and saw that it didn't grow anything like the rest? really even without experimentation, i think regular experiences would make it clear the minutes do matter.

there are basically 2 cases where minutes don't matter hardly at all - study hall in the first half of the grade period, and every category once its low (in the general sense, not necessarily HD low).

the reason why study hall doesn't move the needle in the first period? i'm not sure. there is something a bit weird that goes on there. it seems like basically the grades in the second period (after the 1st email and before the 2nd, not like, how there are 2 semesters of grades) are worth more, just like in real life, and that to me sort of satisfactorily explains why you can skip study hall in period 1. but it also seems like the rate of players who end up in trouble in the 2nd period, after being OK in the first period on 0 minutes, is low. as in, i'm not sure this explanation satisfactorily covers why players on 0 who are fine in period 1 are so unlikely to fail in period 2. the observed outcomes don't make sense to me, against a simple model where SH has an impact on expected grades, and then grades are randomized off of that expected value to add some variance.

maybe grades are naturally a bit higher in the 2nd period, but i sort of doubt it because of how often players who struggle in period 1 barely squeak by in period 2. it seems more likely that period 1 and 2 are linked in some way, that if you do well in period 1, it makes it more likely you will do well in period 2. i could see the programmers putting that in to avoid frustration - basically, it would be super annoying to have a guy who was totally fine in period 1 just take a dive. the programmers tend to avoid that kind of stuff, just like how breaking promises can only lead to a player quitting if he complains first, giving you a chance to take corrective action. so, this would be my best guess - that period 2 of grades matters a lot more than period 1, and if you do well in period 1, it raises your expected grades for period 2, to avoid situations where players are fine through randomly doing better than expected but then hit the low end of their range and flunk out 'without warning'. still, even if both of those things are true, it doesn't really satisfy me, in terms of reconciling observations against the supposed model. i do wonder if grades simply do not depend on SH as much in period 1 as they do in period 2.

the other one is much easier to explain, where once ratings are sufficiently low, you can 0 them out without issue. the reason for that is simple. there is 1 curve that says how fast a given rating will grow, and that growth is based on a few factors - practice time, playing time, work ethic, and how much room is left to grow. well, we all see guys who grow blazingly fast, maybe picking up 20 points in a season on a green rating. but then when they have 3 points to go, growth is incredibly slow, even at 20 minutes. even if the break-even point is 5 minutes of practice, if you practice 0, you'll basically get a negative growth rate - but it will be incredibly slow, just like any positive growth would be.

for a long time, folks resisted 0ing out the minutes in almost-maxed ratings - because there is a quote from admin (old admin in this case, tarek) where someone asked what the minimum minutes required was to avoid losses in rating growth, and he said 7. this is correct - the minimum required minutes in the absolute sense, the minimum to avoid losses for a 1 work ethic player with 0 minutes played, is 7. however, for a regular player with say 50m who plays 15m, the break even point might be 4m. for a guy with 90 work ethic who starts, the break even point is actually negative - you'll grow in ratings on 0 minutes practice, with sufficient WE and playing time (this one is super easy to confirm through trying it yourself, and i encourage you and others to do so - i find most coaches are surprised by the result). so that break even point differs per player, but coaches read that quote from admin and read it in a way that just goes way too far. the absolute minimum required to cover any player is not the same as the actual minimum required for an actual player.

so, the break-even point for each player is different - in some cases, even 0 minutes puts you above that break even point. and also, the growth curve for ratings is 1 curve per rating, there is no separate equation to penalize you for under 7 minutes. it merely smashes together practice time, playing time, WE and growth remaining, to come up with a rate, and any time the growth remaining is very low, that rate is going to be very slow, no matter which direction. put the 2 together, and you have a full explanation (IMO) of why its totally fine to 0 out minutes for low ratings and further why you sometimes can 0 out blue or green ratings without seeing a drop, on guys who have lots of blues/greens and you need to focus on the cores - which only applies when you have a guy with sufficient WE and playing time.

Didn't think you were being rude at all. And the part i have issue with, is where you said "there is something a bit weird that goes on there". That "something" is the reason for this thread. The rest of it is just table talk. And playing devil's advocate

Posted by darnoc29099 on 8/3/2019 10:45:00 AM (view original):
This is a solid thread as I’ve often wondered the same things as you, Top.

I’d like to add two more questions to the list and it’s embarrassing I don’t know the answers.

1) If I have a freshman that is yellow-striped at midterms but is ABOVE 2.0, is there ever a reason to increase his SH minutes?

2). What about a sophomore that started the season at 2.5 and is 2.1 at midterms-would you bump his minutes?

I’m certain I’m also in the camp of coaches that waste WAY too many minutes on SH.

1. yes - there is obviously a meaningful random factor in these grades - just because a guy hits 2.2 doesn't mean he can't go 1.8 next period and end with a 1.93 or so (assuming the first period is worth half the second). i have guys who are yellow striped and above 2.0 regularly, and i just about always increase their SH.

2. yes

topdogg - i dont want to quote that entire mess - but there is slightly more to it than simply a discussion about the mechanics behind study hall. its nice when we understand the mechanics behind things, but there is a middle ground - we can understand the way something is, without understanding why it is that way. in the case of study hall, you don't have to understand mechanically why the first period is a waste of minutes, to understand that it is a waste of minutes.

a lot of folks still do not recognize the waste that first period SH minutes are, so to me, there is a lot of room for improvement over the status quo, without fully understanding why the study hall minutes are such a waste in the first place. i'm certainly happy to discuss the latter, but i do not think that is the only reason for a thread like this!

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/4/2019 10:54:00 PM (view original):
topdogg - i dont want to quote that entire mess - but there is slightly more to it than simply a discussion about the mechanics behind study hall. its nice when we understand the mechanics behind things, but there is a middle ground - we can understand the way something is, without understanding why it is that way. in the case of study hall, you don't have to understand mechanically why the first period is a waste of minutes, to understand that it is a waste of minutes.

a lot of folks still do not recognize the waste that first period SH minutes are, so to me, there is a lot of room for improvement over the status quo, without fully understanding why the study hall minutes are such a waste in the first place. i'm certainly happy to discuss the latter, but i do not think that is the only reason for a thread like this!

Agreed. At this point, i am not asking for an in depth answer any longer. At the beginning of the thread i was. Since then I've just tried to clarify the exacts. I was looking for more than "that's just how it is". But that is not available, so be it.

We all start out playing this game with a mindset of the way we would expect it to work. And everyone has a different mindset. It's the reason we see new coaches with players on their roster with 1 ATH and 100 PER. Had i not talked to the other coaches about this before i posted it, or those of you that chimed in here, i wouldn't have had any other point of view to see through. That's the benefit to a thread like this in my opinion. You said something along the lines of "an experienced coach like myself should've seen this by now".... how would i? If i start at 10 since the beginning of my career and get yellow striped, and never discussed this with anyone, why in the world would i think..... "you know what? Let's drop to 0 when 10 isn't getting it done". That would be ridiculous to me, without this discussion. But now i know.... that's just how it is.

I start my freshman at 8 min. If they are above 3.0 after midterms I drop them to 6 min. If they are below 2.4 after midterms I up them to 10. If below 2.0 after midterms I up them to 12-15 depending on how far below. For Sophomores, If over 2.8-3.4 I start at 5 min, if over 3.5 I start at 3 min. If under 2.8 I start at 8. For Jr and Sr, if over 3.5 I start at 1, and move to 0 after midterms if they maintain. If under 3.0 somewhere in the 3-6 range, but honestly never have Sr.'s under 3.0. On most of my teams, all of my Jr's and Sr's are at 0 or 1 after the first midterm as long as they didn't go below 2.5.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/5/2019 4:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/4/2019 10:54:00 PM (view original):
topdogg - i dont want to quote that entire mess - but there is slightly more to it than simply a discussion about the mechanics behind study hall. its nice when we understand the mechanics behind things, but there is a middle ground - we can understand the way something is, without understanding why it is that way. in the case of study hall, you don't have to understand mechanically why the first period is a waste of minutes, to understand that it is a waste of minutes.

a lot of folks still do not recognize the waste that first period SH minutes are, so to me, there is a lot of room for improvement over the status quo, without fully understanding why the study hall minutes are such a waste in the first place. i'm certainly happy to discuss the latter, but i do not think that is the only reason for a thread like this!

Agreed. At this point, i am not asking for an in depth answer any longer. At the beginning of the thread i was. Since then I've just tried to clarify the exacts. I was looking for more than "that's just how it is". But that is not available, so be it.

We all start out playing this game with a mindset of the way we would expect it to work. And everyone has a different mindset. It's the reason we see new coaches with players on their roster with 1 ATH and 100 PER. Had i not talked to the other coaches about this before i posted it, or those of you that chimed in here, i wouldn't have had any other point of view to see through. That's the benefit to a thread like this in my opinion. You said something along the lines of "an experienced coach like myself should've seen this by now".... how would i? If i start at 10 since the beginning of my career and get yellow striped, and never discussed this with anyone, why in the world would i think..... "you know what? Let's drop to 0 when 10 isn't getting it done". That would be ridiculous to me, without this discussion. But now i know.... that's just how it is.

just FYI, that comment about you experiencing it had nothing to do with study hall. you said something like, maybe it doesn't matter for any ratings. i was saying, surely you have at least tried that! (putting 0 in the actual ratings).

here it is 'what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area'

i don't expect you to have thought to try 0 SH. now that you've heard about it and its easy and low-stakes to try it yourself, its probably worth doing. FYI, one downside is that you have to pay more attention, you have to actually go check on your grades and stuff. if you don't want to mess with that, its not worth it.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/5/2019 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/5/2019 4:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/4/2019 10:54:00 PM (view original):
topdogg - i dont want to quote that entire mess - but there is slightly more to it than simply a discussion about the mechanics behind study hall. its nice when we understand the mechanics behind things, but there is a middle ground - we can understand the way something is, without understanding why it is that way. in the case of study hall, you don't have to understand mechanically why the first period is a waste of minutes, to understand that it is a waste of minutes.

a lot of folks still do not recognize the waste that first period SH minutes are, so to me, there is a lot of room for improvement over the status quo, without fully understanding why the study hall minutes are such a waste in the first place. i'm certainly happy to discuss the latter, but i do not think that is the only reason for a thread like this!

Agreed. At this point, i am not asking for an in depth answer any longer. At the beginning of the thread i was. Since then I've just tried to clarify the exacts. I was looking for more than "that's just how it is". But that is not available, so be it.

We all start out playing this game with a mindset of the way we would expect it to work. And everyone has a different mindset. It's the reason we see new coaches with players on their roster with 1 ATH and 100 PER. Had i not talked to the other coaches about this before i posted it, or those of you that chimed in here, i wouldn't have had any other point of view to see through. That's the benefit to a thread like this in my opinion. You said something along the lines of "an experienced coach like myself should've seen this by now".... how would i? If i start at 10 since the beginning of my career and get yellow striped, and never discussed this with anyone, why in the world would i think..... "you know what? Let's drop to 0 when 10 isn't getting it done". That would be ridiculous to me, without this discussion. But now i know.... that's just how it is.

just FYI, that comment about you experiencing it had nothing to do with study hall. you said something like, maybe it doesn't matter for any ratings. i was saying, surely you have at least tried that! (putting 0 in the actual ratings).

here it is 'what if you're wasting minutes in the rest of the categories? Maybe it doesn't even matter what numbers you put in any area'

i don't expect you to have thought to try 0 SH. now that you've heard about it and its easy and low-stakes to try it yourself, its probably worth doing. FYI, one downside is that you have to pay more attention, you have to actually go check on your grades and stuff. if you don't want to mess with that, its not worth it.

Got ya. I check everything daily. SH, other practice plans, the worx