players exceeding/improving their color scale versus always declining? I’m very content with the current system but it seems this game is a lot more take and not so much give. One example would be a green 44 defensive player you’ve exhausted a ton of money and attention points on during recruiting only to have that player turn blue 44 after one exhibition game. Wouldn’t it be equal to have an occasional recruit go from blue to green, black to blue, etc?

So you mean once they're on campus, they would gain potential?

Posted by cardman17 on 7/11/2018 8:07:00 PM (view original):
So you mean once they're on campus, they would gain potential?

I assume that's what he means and, if so, I'm undecided. Sometimes college players have growth spurts, get a coach who actually teaches them how to box out a defender, etc. My guess is WIS would argue that potential already takes the unexpected into account. A player that stays green for a long time vs a player that immediately turns blue...the first example is the diamond in the rough and the latter the scouting report dud.

Yes absolutely. I have a freshman who has went from 42 green defense to black 49 in a span of 15 games which I’m ok with. It is what it is. Why not have players go the other way versus always declining? Doesn’t have to be significant but some players realistically improve on skills they may not be great in high school and then excel at in college.

Not to mirror that to real life but that does happen quite frequently. As an IU guy I can think of a bunch of players over the years who were projected beasts coming out of high school that never lived up to the hype. Andre Patterson, James Blackmon, etc.. would be your green suddenly going blues, while Victor Oladipo would be your greens with high/high category growth.

That said the sudden drop in potential is one of the most frustrating things in the game, esp. after you have dropped huge resources to get the guy only to discover you have an average player at all american recruiting expenditure. It sucks.

Haha I’m with ya man. I’m a ucla fan and have seen my fair share of 5 star busts. I’m just kinda looking at this scenario as an eye for an eye approach. If you can take from us, you should be able to give us a little in return.

HBD has “diamonds in the rough”, and in general I think it would be neat, as long as it’s pretty rare (like 1-2% of players have an attribute, or attribute group improve potential). Rebounding, defense, block, LP, Perimeter, ball-handling, passing and FT would all be good candidates for DITR.

I'm just not sold, because the only thing colors are for is an indication of how much potential is left. How good the player is is a set number and it's up to the coach to reach it. It sucks when the colors change immediately but you don't actually lose anything. It's just a risk/reward when dealing with low greens, as they are usually easier to recruit.

Now if you could find some way for the coach to boost it a couple points after they had maxed out that might be cool. Say once a player has reached A+ iq status maybe that should allow for some further development.

I've always thought the HBD's DITR system would be good...every now and then a recruit is a late bloomer or something just clicks for the kid and they're able to do more than initially projected.These are 18-23 year olds...projection isn't and shouldn't be an exact science (one of my long-running knocks on the game is that it is, in fact, TOO exact now...) And just like HBD, a lot of the time the change isn't going to matter (oh look, Scott has higher durability potential suddenly...yay!), but every now and then it might turn a projected bench player into a solid starter or such.

It would be cool to have a DITR system that affected 5% if walk-ons. Like rednu said, it wouldn’t even turn most of them into high quality players, but would at least put some occasional use into that “offer scholarship” button.