The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
OR I think that the diversity in players will help the overall HD enviroment quite a bit. Honestly, every player is the same. Every C looks the same. Every pg looks the same, so on.

I guess where I feel it is a good idea is what I have said is I don't want the players overall potential to be changed, just where they start. I am not a fan of the 2 years and your players are virtually all they are going to be method that HD uses right now. By lowering the inital ratings (like i said 5-10%) you are only going to see 30-40 points gone from a number of recruits initially. By using your practice plan (using my idea) you would still be able to get the player to where you want him too be.
11/5/2009 12:13 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/05/2009davey - i think the 'kill the d1 ratings guys' are looking for low ratings so some guy like yokey can dominate, I am a 'fix the engine guy' so a player like yokey can dominate, the forum fact way of addressing this problem is like curing cancer with open heart surgery, unfortunately, I am positive seble has listened to the vocal majority (minority?) on this issue, I hope I'm wron
ol d -- I was just kidding about the "You Got Pittsnoggled" ... having a little fun. As I said before, I've been beating the drum on this issue for a long time.

OR -- I agree and have stated many times that the engine is the main issue, and the ratings are just a mitigating factor.
11/5/2009 12:25 PM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
Z - here is what I think seble will implement:

by the time players reach their senior season, right now a core skill like rebounding does not follow a bell curve, it follows a half bell curve where the max population is in the 98-100 range, and the number of members falls off in some sort of bell distribution with each reduction in rating 95-97 has fewer than 98-100, 92-94 fewer yet, etc, etc, etc

what I think the implementation will do is the max population will be at - lets just say for argument's sake 80, with a bell like distribution on both sides of 80, such that the number of seniors at 60 will equal the number of seniors at 100, more or less.

If this idea is implemented accross all players for all ratings, true superstars will emerge, absolutely, I agree with the vocal majority on this.

what the vocal majority has argued successfully to seble, is this rating distribution will force all the A+ schools to battle for those high end members of the bell curve. What I am saying is 2 things

1 - not only is this argument wrong, but the A+ schools will do even better, because they will still get the top guys, and those top guys will make their teams even better relative to everyone else (you have to remember, most of the vocal majority coach A prestige schools)

2 - we are not sure how the engine will work with this new player rating distribution, but we have a bad history in regards to the engine's ability to withstand player rating changes (really, the beta test should catch this if it is an issue)

Actually, I do not think it will ruin the game, the game just got thru a pretty disasterous period of time, if it got thru that, it can get thru this

finally, as I said in the middle of a different debate on ratoings reductions, I simply want to represent the other side of this issue BEFORE the change, hope I am wrong.
11/5/2009 12:37 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/05/2009
Z - here is what I think seble will implement:

by the time players reach their senior season, right now a core skill like rebounding does not follow a bell curve, it follows a half bell curve where the max population is in the 98-100 range, and the number of members falls off in some sort of bell distribution with each reduction in rating 95-97 has fewer than 98-100, 92-94 fewer yet, etc, etc, etc

what I think the implementation will do is the max population will be at - lets just say for argument's sake 80, with a bell like distribution on both sides of 80, such that the number of seniors at 60 will equal the number of seniors at 100, more or less.

Agree here it should not be a bell curve on both sides.

If this idea is implemented accross all players for all ratings, true superstars will emerge, absolutely, I agree with the vocal majority on this.

I think this is where I (and likely others) think it will help the game. I want a superstar like Durant or Beasley were to be possible in HD.

what the vocal majority has argued successfully to seble, is this rating distribution will force all the A+ schools to battle for those high end members of the bell curve. What I am saying is 2 things

1 - not only is this argument wrong, but the A+ schools will do even better, because they will still get the top guys, and those top guys will make their teams even better relative to everyone else (you have to remember, most of the vocal majority coach A prestige schools)

I agree to a point but I also think that if there were a handful of super studs the As would have to battle for them to stay at the upper level. I guess we will only know when (if?) it happens. Until then I honestly believe it could go either way depending on how the change is made in ratings.

2 - we are not sure how the engine will work with this new player rating distribution, but we have a bad history in regards to the engine's ability to withstand player rating changes (really, the beta test should catch this if it is an issue)

I agree we do not know what the engine will do with these players but I do honestly feel it has to be hard for the engine to work well when all the players are so closely rated.

Actually, I do not think it will ruin the game, the game just got thru a pretty disasterous period of time, if it got thru that, it can get thru this

finally, as I said in the middle of a different debate on ratoings reductions, I simply want to represent the other side of this issue BEFORE the change, hope I am wrong.

Understood, thanks for explaining. I see where you are coming from and like you hope only for the best of HD. I have sent in a few tickets about the matter and hope to get some honest answers since the last time I asked about the player reduction they said they had no immediate information and had not decided on anything, that differs from what seble just posted the other day so hopefully I can get a few answers that can either A) raise the alarm now, while it is still being made or B) show that maybe it has been thought through.

On another note I really hope seble chooses Beta testers wisely. I think it could be a great opportunity for those that are not only closest to the game but also the most in the now help make the game that we all love that much better.
11/5/2009 12:56 PM
oldave
Posts: 1162 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 302 12
Pro
OR, sometimes i have seen your point a bit, but at other times not so much.

I guess I am definitely a ..what did you call it? ,.. oh yeah.. a "kill the D1 ratings" guy.

I just think there has to got be differentiation of players. my guess is that there will be less differentiation than i would like to see. as to what trickle down effects it might have? i dont know.. you have brought up great points and i now realize there will almost certainly be unintended effects to some degree. i guess the whole question is to what degree?

this has been a bandwagon of mine for a long time. i think it was just silly to introduce a game where so many players are maxed out in so many areas, i wonder if EE and potential were not backhanded attempts to limit the number of Max's.

if nothing else, my curiousity is piqued and i am interested to see where the game will go.

one other thing, and im pretty sure im in the minority here, but i actually thing that a game that is constantly evolving (although hopefully with some logic behind the changes) is a GOOD thing. if you leave the game the same, then of course the same folks will keep winning. i find it interesting whent here are changes as to which players are best at adapting.
11/5/2009 1:06 PM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
I think adapting to change has been one of the secrets to success at this, so I agree, i like that the game evolves & this evolution may be the most real life thing about the game (if u don't think real college buckets has changed, watch how they played defense 20-25 years ago vs today)

I simply think that this change will be the d1 equiv of drop downs in d2 / d3 (the vet coaches play with different players than everyone else), that the A+ coaches will NOT battle for the durants, that the A+ coaches with the biggest budgets will get durant, and that the A+ coaches with the next biggest budget will get johnny flynn, and that everyone else is going to get 12 john anderson's, just like d2 and d3 is today

time will tell, as seble is convinced and is putting the idea into place
11/5/2009 1:32 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
to many of those who complain about the process of d1 recruiting - what needs to be changed is not d1 recruiting but the mindset of the coaches who overcommit themselves early and then complain late.

if you want to avoid these issues then save a large chunk of money (I don't mean $10K, I mean like 1/3 to 1/2 of your budget) so you have options late, or lower your expectations of the type players you go for, or fill a few spots with clearly career back-up type guys, or plan to take a couple walk-ons. But mostly, save your money so you have options.

to the new player differentiation, i merely say get rid of potential as it was changed by admin before he and don't mess with the new change.
11/5/2009 1:47 PM
oldave
Posts: 1162 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 302 12
Pro
sounds like somebody who liked things the way they were when he was playing against himself in the NC every year.

just kiddin vandydandy...i do agree whooleheartedly withyhour first point and i actually probably agree with you more than i admit

but... the best thing about vandydude? he makes me feel young (in HD years)
11/5/2009 2:12 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
The question of how having real superstar recruits will effect competition is an interesting one. I could see it going either way.

My gut instinct is that it will make the rich get richer. The elite schools are basically going to get all of the elite players.

Now, you may or may not think that's a bad thing. It certainly would be more like real life. But I'm fairly convinced that it won't be a good thing for the low/mid-DI schools.

It definitely needs to be accompanied by a tweaking in the early entree logic to make sure that these super recruits are much more likely to leave early than other players, regardless of whether their teams lose a round or two earlier in the NT than a clearly lesser player.
11/5/2009 2:32 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
I agree that the Superstar players should have a much greater chance of going pro, completely regardless of team performance.
11/5/2009 2:52 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
we already have superstar recruits.
11/5/2009 3:06 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 11/05/2009
we already have superstar recruits.
About five thousand of them a year and there is no way to know which ones will randomly leave early for the draft.
11/5/2009 3:08 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/05/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 11/05/2009
we already have superstar recruits.
About five thousand of them a year and there is no way to know which ones will randomly leave early for the draft
what world are you in that has 5000 guys rated above 750 or so each year as incoming freshmen? am i missing a cheat code?
11/5/2009 3:17 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Vandy, you should know that overall rating is a very bad way to judge a player.
11/5/2009 3:40 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/05/2009Vandy, you should know that overall rating is a very bad way to judge a player
indeed, and i agree. i could have phrased my statement with any number of qualifiers and it would stand. how many post players with 90+ REB, DEF, LP do you see as incoming freshmen? how many guards with 90+ PER, BH, PAS?

i'll bet its closer to 5 than 5000.
11/5/2009 3:55 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...75 Next ▸
The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate 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.