Quote: Originally posted by pink1 on 2/11/2009Thanks for taking this under advisement and working on a plan... My suggestion no hard cap...That has been a big sticking point for many...

I would suggest when a player reaches the cap.... that he could expect improvements of 2 points a year or so with 15 mins practice and decent WE and starter PT... Not so much tha the would get much better but have a place for practice time that wasnt worthless..

If that doesnt work.. then maybe make it so that when a player reaches his peak he need a higher level of practice time to maintain it... say 12 mins or so...

Seble,

this is the idea of a soft cap.

"Soft caps"--you can't stop improving if you keep practicing.

If you have reached the soft cap you only improve 2-3 points a year with consistent practice. Obviously the closer the player is to 100 on the respective stat the slower the improvement rate.

It is frustrating to have so many min. in practice and not have the Jr. or Sr. player improve regardless of where you allot the minutes. That would be called a 'hard cap'--what do you do with the practice time then?

good idea/response seble ... for what ifts worth - potential should "grow faster" with more PT......

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/11/2009I'm not sure I understand what a "soft" cap is.

"Soft Caps": after hitting potential they can still improve 2-4 points a year with continued practice.

"Hard Caps": once they hit the ceiling no amount of practice will improve stats. Then you have JR. and SR. who have a ton of practice time and nowhere to put it.

Obviously the closer the player is to 100 ratings on stat the slower the pace of growth.

To echo others comments, a player can still have a "cap". This is where he would progress to with "normal" practice time. However, instead of cutting improvement off after this, just make it a very large modifier against improvement. For example, maybe 25 mins of practice in a skill maks the player reach his "soft cap" by his Jr season. After that, maybe the same practice time only moves it another 2-5 points after the soft cap is reached. It keeps the idea of potential, but doesn't make practice time worthless. This, in combination with spreading out the improvement across seasons overall, would be good.

If you find a way to randomize the improvement schedule across players, that would even be better.

Personally I favor a hard cap. Players have natural physical limitations even in skills. For example, if a guy has poor timing he might never be a good rebounder, regardless of how much time he works on it in practice.

The whole point of this change is that players won't be hitting their caps nearly as quickly. So you will need those practice minutes when they're juniors and seniors.

Look everyone...its seble...the new female dog....Hail Hail PeteC!!

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/11/2009what you need are players who are doing all these posts of things seble. some growing amazing amounts year one. some having breakout sophomore years some growing steadily to become great sr players. not just one or the other.

I agree! and some players that flop. Boy the the hate mail CS would get.

i'll echo what seems a majority sentiment - even if it's at the expense of some realism - and that's get rid of hard caps and install soft caps...

We have talked about including some randomness to the process that might produce better than expected or worse than expected improvement, but I don't think it would ever be so extreme that it would produce "busts".

great job responding to feedback, CS. I am pleased we are getting this change.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/11/2009Personally I favor a hard cap. Players have natural physical limitations even in skills. For example, if a guy has poor timing he might never be a good rebounder, regardless of how much time he works on it in practice

Any thoughts on adding some type of randomization of improvement schedules? I can see your point on hard caps. I think the other way would be more fun, but by spreading out improvment, it's less of an issue.

However, having some guys develop more in the back-half of their careers rather than up front would be a realistic and fun addition.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/11/2009Personally I favor a hard cap. Players have natural physical limitations even in skills. For example, if a guy has poor timing he might never be a good rebounder, regardless of how much time he works on it in practice

Seble, not to be mean, but did you play college basketball? If you work at CERTAIN skills (BH, P, PE, REB) everyday, you WILL improve or gain consistentcy, even if it is at a lower rate than others. Some things like Speed may never gte better because it is God given.

I think we all (myself included) appreciate you guys listening to the masses, but I think the hard cap is one of the most unrealistic things recently added.

I like many of the enhancements - like some more randomness - or "noise" - in the process

While fancier changes/enhancements would be nice, slowing the rate as FR and SO would be a good idea

I would favor giving a couple of weeks notice - this may affect how people recruit and how they manage their teams - three quick examples

a. recruiting - the balance between filling a roster spot with a juco or a true FR - the decision may now be different

b. recruiting - I have a lot of openings - lets say 5 or 6 - do I grab a kid with average or even low potential but relatively strong current ratings or do I go for a kid who is weaker now but higher potential growth - in current scheme the answer is usually go for the high potential - with the change maybe I want a couple of kids who are ready now but lesser potential?

c. team management - this will change how one allocates practice mins - between categories and between IQ and skills