Early Entries and actual data Topic

reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by acn24 on 11/17/2011 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 11/17/2011 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Just a random Allen observation that I just posted on our coaches corner: 

The ACC currently has eight (!!!!) teams with A+ prestige.  The rest of the world has four (Stanford, Arizona, Michigan State, Kansas).
The rest of the ACC is comprised of 3 teams with A prestige and 1 with A-.
Conference prestige run amok. 

8 = A+
3 = A
1 = A-.

That's BEFORE the draft.
11/17/2011 3:47 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
Posted by acn24 on 11/17/2011 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 11/17/2011 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Oh, no doubt that has been going around for awhile.  I had six drafted from my one and only title team, and I think four of them were EE's. 
Wasn't that the season they ran the draft like 6 times, so you had gotten credit for 36 draftees until they fixed it.  Talk about A++++++++++++.
One and the same.  And no, even after that, Northwestern never got to A+.  We even played a fellow B1G team in that finals that season. 
11/17/2011 4:07 PM
cornfused
Posts: 1492 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 235 11
Prospect
God, that was the best.  For a brief moment, Jslot could've walked up to most NBA players and said, "how'd you like to come back to college and play for Northwestern?" and they would've jumped at the opportunity.
11/17/2011 4:56 PM
fmschwab
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
47
Prospect
Posted by reinsel on 11/17/2011 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Yeah there are still some crazy results though.  NT runner up Boston College retains a 997 overall junior.  Huh?

He also lost three players, two to EE and one damn good one because he couldn't get enough PT. So that's three already. How many should BC lose in one seasons? Four? Half a dozen? All non-seniors? Some great players will stay. There are varying personalities and probabilities at work. But the two most talented teams that went the farther (BC and Kansas) lost the most players. 
11/17/2011 6:24 PM
fmschwab
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
47
Prospect
And I'm not saying that the EE system has zero problems, only that it's FAR from the main problem, and not nearly as bad as jslotman tries to make it out to be every season. It's also telling that the people complaining about it here are all DI Allen coaches, and this is really about them being ****** that the ACC is so dominant rather than a true EE issue. 
11/17/2011 6:27 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
EE's are part of the equation.  As is NT money, baseline prestige, and the effect of conference success on prestige.  The ACC in Allen is so far out of whack that it's anti-competitive.  I thought my comparison to Standard Oil the other day was pretty apt.  The only way to return competitive sanity to Allen is to fix all of the above, and that includes having more top talent leave top schools earlier. 

Northwestern has as many EE's the last four seasons as Clemson and Maryland combined, yet never have we once advanced further in the NT than those two teams.  I just don't see how that isn't anything but anti-competitive and a big piece of the problems in Allen.       
11/17/2011 8:33 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by fmschwab on 11/17/2011 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 11/17/2011 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Yeah there are still some crazy results though.  NT runner up Boston College retains a 997 overall junior.  Huh?

He also lost three players, two to EE and one damn good one because he couldn't get enough PT. So that's three already. How many should BC lose in one seasons? Four? Half a dozen? All non-seniors? Some great players will stay. There are varying personalities and probabilities at work. But the two most talented teams that went the farther (BC and Kansas) lost the most players. 
1)  BC losing an awesome 850 rated Soph because he got 5 mpg isn't my problem.  It just shows how talented BC was.
2)  Kansas lost 3 EEs, BC lost 2, and I think its crazy they kept a 997 overall junior.  He's the 2nd highest rated player in the world (seniors included), and just lost in the NT championship.  If he isn't going pro early, why not?  Why must it be so random.  I bet if everyone knew he'd be back for all 4 years during recruiting he'd be worth a lot more attention than the 2 or 3 freshmen that left early this season.
11/17/2011 10:44 PM
fmschwab
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
47
Prospect
There is a personality aspect. Are you proposing that we just line up the top 15-20 players by overall rating and just have them leave early? Because anything approaching that would be 10x worse than the system we have currently, and that more or less sounds like what you want. There needs to be some personality driven stuff and, yes, some randomness.

As others have said, what they need to do is to make the personality stuff meaningfully apparent during recruiting. That way, teams know what they are or aren't getting, and jslotman, et al won't be able to credibly belly ache and say "I can't believe so-and-so did or didn't leave ... " We will understand why some studs stay and some more questionable guys leave sometimes.

I do also think that EE's should be restricted to BCS teams that made the NT. Someone mentioned Army losing a guy last season, and I agree that stuff like that is stupid. 
11/18/2011 12:38 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I don't think there should be randomness to EE's.  This isn't the real world.  This is a simulated basketball engine where - in the case of Allen - one conference has every possible advantage from prestige to recruiting.  If a team is recruiting the best players, those players should be leaving early 95 percent of the time.  997 juniors should virtually never stay.  The 1000 rated SG that NC State had this year should almost never, ever stay for their senior seasons.  Until more of those guys leave and less of the 740 rated mid-majors leave, EE's will not be working very well. 
11/18/2011 7:13 AM
jamespastine
Posts: 74 (0)
Hall of Famer
126
Prospect
Posted by reinsel on 11/17/2011 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fmschwab on 11/17/2011 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 11/17/2011 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Yeah there are still some crazy results though.  NT runner up Boston College retains a 997 overall junior.  Huh?

He also lost three players, two to EE and one damn good one because he couldn't get enough PT. So that's three already. How many should BC lose in one seasons? Four? Half a dozen? All non-seniors? Some great players will stay. There are varying personalities and probabilities at work. But the two most talented teams that went the farther (BC and Kansas) lost the most players. 
1)  BC losing an awesome 850 rated Soph because he got 5 mpg isn't my problem.  It just shows how talented BC was.
2)  Kansas lost 3 EEs, BC lost 2, and I think its crazy they kept a 997 overall junior.  He's the 2nd highest rated player in the world (seniors included), and just lost in the NT championship.  If he isn't going pro early, why not?  Why must it be so random.  I bet if everyone knew he'd be back for all 4 years during recruiting he'd be worth a lot more attention than the 2 or 3 freshmen that left early this season.
We lost 4, Reinsel.
11/18/2011 10:14 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
jamespastine is an absolute magician. 
11/18/2011 10:21 AM
doomey
Posts: 141 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 329 12 13
Prospect

It's not just Allen. It's every world. When they changed the recruit generation it just exposed the inherent flaw in baseline. Unlike RL where the ACC ebbs and rises, unless a drastic change is made, it's giong to be all ACC all the time in every world. And while there are always decent coaches in the ACC in most worlds, it simply isn't about coaching entirely. Phelan ACC has 6 A+ to go with 3 A's. Personally, I don't see this getting fixed without a drastic change. There was always a disconnect between what was done on the floor and what the game wanted to have happen as far as prestige went, now it's simply broken.

Virginia Tech in Phelan is the poster child for what is wrong with the prestige system: No NT wins ever. only 4 appearances. Has only had 3 winning seasons in the last 10 (17 win - NT appearance and a 19 win PI champ) and they are at an A- (oddly enough Clemson has more NT wins in the last 5 but is one of two B+'s).

As far as the EE situation goes, also in Phelan, the runner up (UNC) kept a 1000+ rated junior while my one NT win Stanford team lost two sophomores (to go along with 4 seniors) as did Oregon. The ACC had 3 of the 4 final four teams and only lost 4 to EE as a conference (1 each from the FF teams) while the Pac 10 lost 5 and didn't get out of the second round. 

11/18/2011 12:32 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by doomey on 11/18/2011 12:32:00 PM (view original):

It's not just Allen. It's every world. When they changed the recruit generation it just exposed the inherent flaw in baseline. Unlike RL where the ACC ebbs and rises, unless a drastic change is made, it's giong to be all ACC all the time in every world. And while there are always decent coaches in the ACC in most worlds, it simply isn't about coaching entirely. Phelan ACC has 6 A+ to go with 3 A's. Personally, I don't see this getting fixed without a drastic change. There was always a disconnect between what was done on the floor and what the game wanted to have happen as far as prestige went, now it's simply broken.

Virginia Tech in Phelan is the poster child for what is wrong with the prestige system: No NT wins ever. only 4 appearances. Has only had 3 winning seasons in the last 10 (17 win - NT appearance and a 19 win PI champ) and they are at an A- (oddly enough Clemson has more NT wins in the last 5 but is one of two B+'s).

As far as the EE situation goes, also in Phelan, the runner up (UNC) kept a 1000+ rated junior while my one NT win Stanford team lost two sophomores (to go along with 4 seniors) as did Oregon. The ACC had 3 of the 4 final four teams and only lost 4 to EE as a conference (1 each from the FF teams) while the Pac 10 lost 5 and didn't get out of the second round. 

This sort of runaway train thing is what needs to be fixed.  I've worked as a control systems engineer and its surprisingly easy to have control loops that lead to wilder and wilder gyrations until the wonder system shakes apart.

The ACC is in the best recruting ground geographically, and they have the best baselines, and everything is set up to help the rich get richer.

Time for a OWS movement for WIS?  We are the 90% of coaches who aren't in the ACC?
11/18/2011 1:09 PM
◂ Prev 12
Early Entries and actual data Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.