I searched for work ethic but didn't find anything on this thought; does a team with high work ethic ratings just play better and win more games, even if their cores are lower than opponents?

For example, if a team has an average work ethic of 60 but their average ath/sp is 45/45, do they typically beat teams with a work ethic average of 40 but that opponent's ath/sp ratings average 55/55?

I think I have seen over the years several examples of this or something close to this thought.

Work ethic helps players reach their rating potential ceiling earlier. It does not impact an individual game in and of itself other than helping mostly Freshmen,Sophomore and Juniors to improve their ratings at a faster rate.
That said, I never recruit anyone with a work ethic of less than 20 because they don't improve much. I would favor the team with better core ratings in an individual game. Now, the team with the better work ethic is more likely to improve and catch up on those core ratings later on in the season if they play a team twice for example.

Here is my take FWIW:
- Work ethic does not impact the game per se, although it has been previously indicated that a kid with higher work ethic may work harder in games which does potentially impact the outcome. For example, of two kids with a 50 defense rating, the kid with 80 WE *should* be a better defender (how much better? who knows.) than a kid with a 30 WE all else being equal. Similar relationship on rebounding and other aspects. So in that sense there is supposed to be some impact on the game, but it is a supplementary impact to other ratings (ie: I would not give WE much weight in deciding starters and distro, but it *could* be a tie-breaker of sorts).
- Higher WE kids do improve faster and / or reach their potential faster.
- Most coaches typically avoid low WE players, as they will not improve much, especially if in the 10-15 range or lower. HOWEVER, I personally will take a low WE kid if his ratings are acceptable to me as-is, especially if he will get a lot of starts and/or PT. No, he won't improve like his higher WE peers, but if he is ahead of them to start he may still be a better recruit. Sometimes you can find a real stud with abyssmal WE who no one wants that can plug a hole or maybe command a start right away--in those instances I will consider and sometimes sign a low WE kid (see my Brandeis team for a pair of JR Centers; at end of 1st season with Dewitt starting he was an 11 WE (up from 9 as a new recruit) and 471 overall, Smith was a 33 WE and a 490 overall. You can see their progression...Dewitt could command the start right away and helped plug a gap, but Smith has now surpassed him although Dewitt still starts. Dewitt's WE has not gone up a lot with starts but it is climbing and he makes slow improvement and does have use).

Bottom line, if you can take a low WE kid and use him as he is right now and can accept him for what he is if he doesn't improve at all (worst case), then I'd consider signing him. My take only for what it is worth.

Quote: Originally Posted By l_eustachy on 3/10/2010Here is my take FWIW:
- Work ethic does not impact the game per se, although it has been previously indicated that a kid with higher work ethic may work harder in games which does potentially impact the outcome. For example, of two kids with a 50 defense rating, the kid with 80 WE *should* be a better defender (how much better? who knows.) than a kid with a 30 WE all else being equal. Similar relationship on rebounding and other aspects. So in that sense there is supposed to be some impact on the game, but it is a supplementary impact to other ratings (ie: I would not give WE much weight in deciding starters and distro, but it *could* be a tie-breaker of sorts).

Work ethic has NO effect on in game results at all ....period.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I'm one who likes to see what someone says backed up--I went from memory on information that has since been superceded it seems. So, in this case the reference I posted shows the latest I could find. Although technically what I said is correct (since I said it had been previously indicated which is true...sheesh I should go into politics splitting hairs like that)

We are not sure if WE ever played a role in game mechanics. There were CS responses to tickets years ago that indicated that it helped in rebounding and defense.

But later development chats and CS tickets said it had no impact. So we are to guess if the old CS responses were plain wrong or if there was a change to the engine at some point.

In any event mullycj, thanks for pointing that out. In me digging for ammo to support what I *thought* was correct, I learned that whether it once was correct it is not the case now.