i agree re: wall and BH/pass. but really, i DEFINITELY agree with iguanas statement, except ill take out the not sure part. this game does not allow for elite players, and it really sucks. ive tried to talk seble into it but to no avail. the reality is, with all the guys with SB in the 90s, anthony davis would need to be more like 120 or something. and with all the guys with per in the 90s, jimmer would need to be like 120, too. 

i don't know the right thing to do is to make 70 a good d1 rating, and 80 great - to leave room for elite. then youd have d1 stars on big 6 teams with 80 ath/spd/def/per/bh/pass playing pg and stuff. i think that would be fine, but i think coaches would HATE it - everyone would feel like their team sucks. instead, id either let elites go above 100, or else (and i think this is what ill do in my sim engine, should i ever get there), make the 90s work differently - bigger jumps. so while the difference from 70 to 80 is about equal to 80 to 90, maybe 80 to 90 is about equal to 90 to 94. youd have to handle it across the board- players couldnt grow from 90 to 95 in a season (well, at least not normally, maybe with 60m in it or something). but this way, players would only have to be toned back a little - we'd have a lot of guys on d1 teams in the high 80s. but to get someone who is 100 per, they would be like the difference from 65 per to 90 per or something. it would have to be REALLY rare.

you could do a lot of really cool stuff with it, too. there are guys who are just lights out shooters but they cant really get open, who are better in a 3 point contest than a lot of the best d1 guards. i dont see why you cant have a guy with 40 ath/spd and 98 per (on my scale). it would make things interesting, at least. and then you could create a truly elite guy like anthony davis, with ath, reb, and sb all in the 95-100 range, so that he could go up a guy on a team who is 85-90 in all those ratings, and really have a significant advantage (unlike today).

I think if 80 was made to be the new "great" rating at D1, coaches would **** and moan about it at first, but they'd adjust to the changes just like they do with everything else.  I also think it would be better for the game because it WOULD allow for a player to get up to a 95-96 rating and be elite.  CBG is right, right now that player really just doesn't exist, simply because there are too many others like him.

What Seble would have to be careful of though is how making 80's great would affect the ratings down at D2 and then at D3.  Does that then make a 60 Spd PG "great" in D2 and an 80 elite?  70 and 90?  What would the D3 scale look like?  Could be a very slippery slope.  And there are certainly ways to take advantage of the phase-in period as the "new" ratings replace the "old" ones?  Don't think coaches wouldn't figure out how to take advantage of that (I've already thought of two ways that would be extremely easy) and use it to GREATLY benefit their teams.

Posted by emy1013 on 10/28/2012 12:46:00 AM (view original):
I think if 80 was made to be the new "great" rating at D1, coaches would **** and moan about it at first, but they'd adjust to the changes just like they do with everything else.  I also think it would be better for the game because it WOULD allow for a player to get up to a 95-96 rating and be elite.  CBG is right, right now that player really just doesn't exist, simply because there are too many others like him.

What Seble would have to be careful of though is how making 80's great would affect the ratings down at D2 and then at D3.  Does that then make a 60 Spd PG "great" in D2 and an 80 elite?  70 and 90?  What would the D3 scale look like?  Could be a very slippery slope.  And there are certainly ways to take advantage of the phase-in period as the "new" ratings replace the "old" ones?  Don't think coaches wouldn't figure out how to take advantage of that (I've already thought of two ways that would be extremely easy) and use it to GREATLY benefit their teams.

Agreed, the high-90 ratings are way too common, and while I'm fine with it for the purpose of the game, it doesn't reflect accurately on real life (obviously). When trying to make a player like Larry Bird's ratings, you realize that in this game he probably wouldn't even be a D1 player because of the low athleticism. In order to be more realistic, the ratings should be scaled back, as you mentioned, and the importance of certain ratings *cough athleticism cough* shouldn't be so extreme. Not every elite player in real life is a 95+ athlete/95+ defender.

Posted by emy1013 on 10/28/2012 12:46:00 AM (view original):
I think if 80 was made to be the new "great" rating at D1, coaches would **** and moan about it at first, but they'd adjust to the changes just like they do with everything else.  I also think it would be better for the game because it WOULD allow for a player to get up to a 95-96 rating and be elite.  CBG is right, right now that player really just doesn't exist, simply because there are too many others like him.

What Seble would have to be careful of though is how making 80's great would affect the ratings down at D2 and then at D3.  Does that then make a 60 Spd PG "great" in D2 and an 80 elite?  70 and 90?  What would the D3 scale look like?  Could be a very slippery slope.  And there are certainly ways to take advantage of the phase-in period as the "new" ratings replace the "old" ones?  Don't think coaches wouldn't figure out how to take advantage of that (I've already thought of two ways that would be extremely easy) and use it to GREATLY benefit their teams.

i definitely agree with this, and have considered how i would handle this in my own CBB simulation, should i ever make one. i think it would take some work, but not too much, for seble to implement this - while reaping pretty large dividends - so, we all know it will never happen. but still, heres my plan:

basically, i would split d1, d2, and d3 players - you could only recruit within your pool. d3 and d2 would then have ranked recruits, and unranked recruits would be recruitable by any team, while ranked recruits may have higher standards for certain teams (i really would not expect to have 500 ranked players like HD did, and probably not even the 300 there are now, but thats a detail i can figure out later). anyway, that would basically allow you to keep dropdowns and pulldowns (which people really seem to like), while spliiting d1/d2/d3 recruits, so you could have d3 recruits on a similar scale to d2 and non-BCS d1 recruits. i mean really you could have 90 or 100 in everything d3 recruits but i probably wouldnt, i think it would be more fun as coaches went up the divisions the first time to have access to higher ratings, even though its basically totally superficial.

anyway, this would also solve the problem of people hating how higher division schools take their recruits, especially when they actually just go battle for em after the lower division school has the recruit first, and also, i think it would be MUCH better for FSS to not see all these other division and ****. additionally, this would help curb cheating and cheating concerns - i would allow coaches to have one team per division per world (so 3 max), but never 2 teams per division. to get around people who want all their teams to recruit the same time, instead of having 10 worlds at different times, there would be "pods" of worlds - say there were 12 worlds - there might be 4 pods of 3 worlds, each pod on the same schedule. this way, you dont have people who want to get around the system, like you have today with 1 team per world.

theres also 1 more major benefit to this scheme, in my book. in HD, you have offenses and **** that are all over the place, because there is 1 engine, and its just so hokey having the same formulas for players with 98s in everything, and players with 50s and 60s in most stuff. i mean, i think its good everything isn't exactly the same, but i also think it makes it damn near impossible to keep things realistic at all levels. i would think that by having the levels MUCH more similar in terms of ratings, it would be MUCH easier to keep it realistic across the board.

oh, actually 1 more. this would also really open up the range on ratings for me, which i think would be great. for example, today, you only really have point guards in d1 with passing in the 60 to 100 range, and for BCS schools, its a lot tighter. well, bad example i guess, that probably wouldnt be that much different in my game, because of the nature of passing always being good for gaurds. but you could have a lot more variation in the overall quality within a division (which would be HUGE in d1), and also more variation in the quality in specific ways (like, how good are you defensively) when you aren't forced to make d3 players worse than d2 players by a lot, and d2 worse than d1 by a lot, giving you only part of the 1-100 range to work with. you still would be limited in my version by position - if some bigs have 1 passing and some have 50, you really cant have point guards that anyone would want with like, 20 passing. but still, i think it would open things up considerably (for example, d1 bigs without 80+ rebounding are totally **** useless, and d3 bigs mostly are not allowed to have above 70 ath and 70 reb (or maybe its 75/75, i havent played d3 in forever) - because otherwise, the d3 < d2 < d1 paradigm doesnt hold. in my game, this would not be a necessary paradigm, which would let you open things up, which i think would really play into the "whatif" concept, getting away from (borrowing from, i forget who, maybe mlatsko?) the "thisissports" concept).

not sure how many birds that is, or how many stones, but i am pretty happy with that scheme, and think it really shores up a number of HDs weaknesses. there is a decent chance i will finish that sim so if anybody has any thoughts on why that system wouldnt work, or maybe just some way to improve it, id be pretty interested to hear it.