we all know (and have discussed at length) that it takes way too many evals to get the info we need because the same info is repeated without the info we're searching for ever being included in the eval response. it really sucks because i have multiple recruits considering us that i would like to know how high their potentials are, but its not worth wasting any $$$ on evals because i will potentially (i.e., probably) get useless eval response after useless response until i finally get the info i'm looking for. if evals were corrected as many people have suggested (either with a checkbox system, or eliminating repeats by combining groups of attributes for each eval, or any of the other suggestions that we've seen), this flaw remains an unfortunate deterrent to coaches spending recruiting cash. when is this going to be addressed???

I kinda like the evaluation system.   I think the "randomness", it  is an interesting aspect to the game.

The fact that you can't always get what you want appeals to me.   

But if I am paying to evaluate a player I am not going to report on the same items over and over. Maybe you could select what you wanted to evaluate the player on.

randomness isn't a problem - its the repetitiveness of the same attributes that renders multiple evals a waste.

Maybe I'm just one of the few coaches that relies solely on fss for potential and only uses evals to pull down...mainly bc evals are not a cost effective tool for the former in most cases.

They need to set up 2 types of evals - you can do a targeted eval and get the potential for 1 attribute, or you can do the regular eval and get the 4 random.

Posted by jtt8355 on 1/4/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'm just one of the few coaches that relies solely on fss for potential and only uses evals to pull down...mainly bc evals are not a cost effective tool for the former in most cases.

I would suspect that your first statement is true, especially at the lower divisions.  While FSS is more cost-effective, it is also limited in how much information it provides.

Posted by acn24 on 1/4/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 1/4/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'm just one of the few coaches that relies solely on fss for potential and only uses evals to pull down...mainly bc evals are not a cost effective tool for the former in most cases.

I would suspect that your first statement is true, especially at the lower divisions.  While FSS is more cost-effective, it is also limited in how much information it provides.

+1

i think that you can be effective without using evals to gain more information. but i have no doubt that you could be more effective if you did. its a massive advantage, in some cases. so many players in lower divisions are close enough in talent that ultimately the high/high vs low/highs in their key categories make all the difference. knowing those is huge.

Posted by acn24 on 1/4/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 1/4/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'm just one of the few coaches that relies solely on fss for potential and only uses evals to pull down...mainly bc evals are not a cost effective tool for the former in most cases.

I would suspect that your first statement is true, especially at the lower divisions.  While FSS is more cost-effective, it is also limited in how much information it provides.

This is not true for Puerto Rico in D2 (no FSS), or International recruits, since you cannot FSS them.  It makes recruiting internationally a real pain, since 3 evals can get you the shot blocking, FT%, grades and rebounding potential for a PG prospect, and have zero idea about his ath/spd/per/def/bh/pa despite spending $2100.

If you like the variability that is fine, but just make it be 4 random attributes we haven't seen, so that 3 evals will get you almost everything.

Posted by reinsel on 1/4/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 1/4/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 1/4/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'm just one of the few coaches that relies solely on fss for potential and only uses evals to pull down...mainly bc evals are not a cost effective tool for the former in most cases.

I would suspect that your first statement is true, especially at the lower divisions.  While FSS is more cost-effective, it is also limited in how much information it provides.

This is not true for Puerto Rico in D2 (no FSS), or International recruits, since you cannot FSS them.  It makes recruiting internationally a real pain, since 3 evals can get you the shot blocking, FT%, grades and rebounding potential for a PG prospect, and have zero idea about his ath/spd/per/def/bh/pa despite spending $2100.

If you like the variability that is fine, but just make it be 4 random attributes we haven't seen, so that 3 evals will get you almost everything.

Yeah, at D1, it's the internationals where it really becomes a pain. And it's not so much the $$$ (although it's certainly part of it), but how much time (number of cycles) it takes to finally get information about a certain skill. I've had instances where I wanted to find out the Passing info for a PG, but it took me like 8 cycles (24 hours) worth of evals before I finally got it. Very frustrating when it's signing day, and you're trying to figure out whether to offer a guy a scholly or not.

Prof - just do 8 separate evals in one cycle

Posted by mullycj on 1/4/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Prof - just do 8 separate evals in one cycle

Yeah, I realize I can do that, and often do multiple evals when I first scout a player, but when I get down to the point where I only need to know about one more rating, I would rather not blow nearly $6000 on gobs of evals when just one more at $700 just might give me what I need. I'd be in favor of a happy medium, where you can spend a relatively high amount to get one rating quickly (maybe $2500?). In the example cited in my prior post, it took a total of 17 evals ($11,900) before I finally got info about Passing rating for a PG. Once the initial evals were done I could see he was an elite-level PG pretty much across the board, but he was only 54 or so in passing, so I really needed to know whether he was High-High. Turned out he was, and I ultimately signed him once I found that out.

i like the idea about having two types...one where you get the 4 randoms like now and one where you can select one (i would like it better with 2) skillset and get that rating. 

to alleviate the international issue, how about a bulk international package for internationals for say the cost of NY or PA or CA where you could see the potential of all internationals...doesn't help you for high high vs high, but at least you'd have a general idea of specific skills which would alleviate issues like the one Prof brought up

Posted by professor17 on 1/4/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 1/4/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Prof - just do 8 separate evals in one cycle

Yeah, I realize I can do that, and often do multiple evals when I first scout a player, but when I get down to the point where I only need to know about one more rating, I would rather not blow nearly $6000 on gobs of evals when just one more at $700 just might give me what I need. I'd be in favor of a happy medium, where you can spend a relatively high amount to get one rating quickly (maybe $2500?). In the example cited in my prior post, it took a total of 17 evals ($11,900) before I finally got info about Passing rating for a PG. Once the initial evals were done I could see he was an elite-level PG pretty much across the board, but he was only 54 or so in passing, so I really needed to know whether he was High-High. Turned out he was, and I ultimately signed him once I found that out.

Got it.    I thought from your 1st post you were only doing one per cycle.