I feel like some people want this game to be EASY or something.

Posted by Benis on 9/13/2018 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

I've suggested this a few times...

I think there should be a system where at the end of the season you need to define each and every players role on the team for the following season. They will start, ride the pine, play 15 mpg, etc. You need to do this for each and every player. Obviously highly rated players won't take too kindly to being told they will be coming off the bench their senior season after starting the previous 3 seasons so this would cause them to lose WE or transfer.

Then obviously you would again need to keep your word or you will suffer penalties - WE loss, transferring, hell even a performance loss (they stop giving a **** and play bad?). And you would suffer a loyalty hit. This loyalty hit would need to matter since it doesn't mean **** today. But your loyalty rating acts as a multiplier for recruiting actions.

This would kill the game for me, I barely know what positions my players will be filling until after experimenting during exhibition games. I can’t tell you the amount of times that I have had a newly recruited C starting at PG during the regular season after dishing out 3 assists & grabbing 0 boards in an exhibition match.

Making players’ reactions to broken promises absolute and deterministic is simply one more in a very long line of poorly thought out Benisisms.

Coaches make choices based on their evaluation of risk and reward. It’s not an “If/then definitely” proposition in real life, it’s “if/then possibly”; players make their own determination of how they react to broken promises. Coaches don’t control it. This would be a stupid simulation of a real life sport if coaches made “choices” with pre-determined outcomes.

If we want to talk about tweaking parameters to increase transfers from sim teams - or better yet, what I’ve called for since Beta, creating a new pool of late-blooming jucos with breakout seasons for teams to start fresh with in the late session - cool.

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

We don't need more transfers.

Human coaches don't like to lose players. That is well established. You can say "It would be ok..." but I guarantee you that for most of the coaches already on here complaining endlessly about EEs, it wouldn't be ok. We already have a baseline for how coaches react to losing their guys before they play 4 years. It's not positive.

Sims are already bad enough. They don't need to be losing their guys who at least have established some IQ. We shouldn't be making them worse. Transfers away from sims, who as far as I know don't even have the ability to make promises, would be a wholly artificial mechanism within the game and make them even less competitive. This would not be positive.

So where would the transfers come from?

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/13/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

We don't need more transfers.

Human coaches don't like to lose players. That is well established. You can say "It would be ok..." but I guarantee you that for most of the coaches already on here complaining endlessly about EEs, it wouldn't be ok. We already have a baseline for how coaches react to losing their guys before they play 4 years. It's not positive.

Sims are already bad enough. They don't need to be losing their guys who at least have established some IQ. We shouldn't be making them worse. Transfers away from sims, who as far as I know don't even have the ability to make promises, would be a wholly artificial mechanism within the game and make them even less competitive. This would not be positive.

So where would the transfers come from?

I'm one of those who complain endlessly about EEs and I'd be fine with more transfers IF wasn't just doesn't arbritarily.

If they made a logical system that didn't reward blind luck, it would be great. Oh wait.. sorry I forgot what game I was talking about here.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/13/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

We don't need more transfers.

Human coaches don't like to lose players. That is well established. You can say "It would be ok..." but I guarantee you that for most of the coaches already on here complaining endlessly about EEs, it wouldn't be ok. We already have a baseline for how coaches react to losing their guys before they play 4 years. It's not positive.

Sims are already bad enough. They don't need to be losing their guys who at least have established some IQ. We shouldn't be making them worse. Transfers away from sims, who as far as I know don't even have the ability to make promises, would be a wholly artificial mechanism within the game and make them even less competitive. This would not be positive.

So where would the transfers come from?

I agree with almost all of this.

I think it would be a positive to have a pool of “breakout” players created for the second session, to give more competitive options for coaches changing jobs. Coaches experiencing EEs would also have more options, and while I don’t think the game needs to be easier for us, I don’t think it’s specifically a negative. If the issue is avoiding “talent inflation”, this can be avoided simply by removing some proportion of late and whenever signees from the first session pool, and having them show up in the new pool, after the season.

I’m not talking about hiding obvious elite, 2+ star players from everyone’s view in the first session. I’m thinking that D1 pool could be ~550 OVR 4 year players with decent potential, and a high proportion of jucos in the ~650 range. Just a little above replacement level placeholder jucos, and project type 4-year players.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. It does feel somewhat artificial.

A smaller change that might take a small step toward the same goal could be to limit scouting to level 3 during the first recruiting window. That would mean nobody could "discover" super-high potential players during the first window. You could have an idea, but ultimately low-high vs. high-high would only be available during the 2nd window.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/13/2018 3:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. It does feel somewhat artificial.

A smaller change that might take a small step toward the same goal could be to limit scouting to level 3 during the first recruiting window. That would mean nobody could "discover" super-high potential players during the first window. You could have an idea, but ultimately low-high vs. high-high would only be available during the 2nd window.

To me, this would be a recognition that there are some “late-bloomers”, players whose stock rises during the season. It feels less artificial to me than blocking the vision, scouting, and recruiting actions available to certain teams.

So I know I have some half crazy ideas sometimes. I have thought since this version of the game came out that you should have an option during recruiting to "offer walk-on roster spot". We've all been in the spot where we are looking at taking 3 walk-ons and have a guy or two on our radar that we would take for one year if we didn't need to keep him for all 4 years. Think how often you're happy to recruit a 1 year transfer because they are better than a walk-on and you still get resources for him for the next season's recruiting period. I'd propose that you can recruit a guy and not offer him a scholarship but a roster spot, good for 1 year only. At the end of the season the player would automatically enter the transfer pool during the second session with one year of growth in both IQ and skills. Would these be great players? No, but they would be better than walk-ons and would give some options to recruit in the second session as stopgap players. There is the also the possibility that a player could play for 4 different teams in 4 years which is not realistic, but it would still help the game. Also, it would give some of us reason to recruit that last day of two of recruiting. A lot of times if you lose a late battle you're done with a day and a half left before recruiting ends with roster spots still open. Well in this case you could then keep recruiting these 1 year rental guys rather than take a walk-on. Anyway, I know it won't ever happen, but I think it would help with the lack of depth in the second session pool and would give us more to do during recruiting in the last day or two of the second session.

another option would be to just create some juco2's that appear only for the 2nd recruiting cycle - not from any current roster

This is what I would propose. I must admit I am a college basketball fanatic and love RL, hence would like to see aspects more RL. But I am really starting to wonder if Seble and the programmers do have the ability to make any changes, at least it is not easy to make any changes. But here is what I would change.

1. Especially D1 transfers (to a lesser extent D2-3) because of broken promises should be turned up... not all the way but much more than it is. Especially if it is a 2nd-3rd-year player who was guaranteed a start + minutes in his Freshman year but in the 2nd-3rd year are benched... (especially with 4-5 star players). I know lazy players will not like this but with more transfers, it will be easy to sign a couple senior transfers to replace lost players. This will add more strategy to the game.
2. Sim signed players should be transferring regularly. Like 70-95% transfer rate each season. They are useless players and who cares about the sim teams anyway. WIS should be making these teams bad on purpose and making it easier to take over a SIM team and put your own brand on it quick.
3. Bump up the JUCOs and only make them available during the 2nd recruiting cycle along with the transfers.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/13/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

We don't need more transfers.

Human coaches don't like to lose players. That is well established. You can say "It would be ok..." but I guarantee you that for most of the coaches already on here complaining endlessly about EEs, it wouldn't be ok. We already have a baseline for how coaches react to losing their guys before they play 4 years. It's not positive.

Sims are already bad enough. They don't need to be losing their guys who at least have established some IQ. We shouldn't be making them worse. Transfers away from sims, who as far as I know don't even have the ability to make promises, would be a wholly artificial mechanism within the game and make them even less competitive. This would not be positive.

So where would the transfers come from?

D2-3 is less affected by not having transfers. Sims in D1 are terrible and only decent if a human coached them in the past 1-4 seasons. I love when a bad player transfers because it gives me more money to recruit with and I make sure good players get playing time... so they usually don't transfer.

I have numerous players leave each season (drafted), it is a good place to be because you are getting great players. Sometimes it hurts but it is better than having non-draftable players.

Do we really care about SIMs? And if so, why? Especially at D1.

The transfers do not need to be good players. They can be the trash of the trash. I just like having the strategic option of looking for a JR-SR to fill my team at the end of recruiting, like they do in RL.

Posted by mamxet on 9/14/2018 6:18:00 AM (view original):
another option would be to just create some juco2's that appear only for the 2nd recruiting cycle - not from any current roster

Holding JUCO signing till 2nd recruiting cycle is a start. MORE COWBELL!!!!

Posted by Benis on 9/13/2018 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 9/13/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
It would be okay if you lose 2-3 guys transfer due to playing time/broken promises because there would be lots of transfers available to you. The only downside is with the powerhouse teams that bench 5-star players for 1-2 seasons because their teams are loaded.

Let us not name call and stay focused. We need more transfers - and I dont care if they come from human or Sim teams.

Maybe lower rated players on losing teams would leave more often, giving those teams a chance to rebuild faster too.

I've suggested this a few times...

I think there should be a system where at the end of the season you need to define each and every players role on the team for the following season. They will start, ride the pine, play 15 mpg, etc. You need to do this for each and every player. Obviously highly rated players won't take too kindly to being told they will be coming off the bench their senior season after starting the previous 3 seasons so this would cause them to lose WE or transfer.

Then obviously you would again need to keep your word or you will suffer penalties - WE loss, transferring, hell even a performance loss (they stop giving a **** and play bad?). And you would suffer a loyalty hit. This loyalty hit would need to matter since it doesn't mean **** today. But your loyalty rating acts as a multiplier for recruiting actions.

I like this. It would definitely make it challenging. My biggest problem is that I often have to make big promises to land the top players, and then my best players do not start during the year, until tournament time. This is not really that realistic though, and I do like realism.

I think if you define the role you should have a chance to adjust it afterwards - kind of like how the redshirts work. You submit the player roles. Then you get feedback from the players. Then you can adjust it and submit again. That way, if it looks like you might lose one of your best players, you could change your promises. (Not ones you made during recruiting to incoming players though - those are set in stone)

If we are defining these roles, can I get the dropdown I have long sought to help encourage a player to leave voluntarily - options including

- inform player he will be on the bench again next season
- require player to handle team laundry
- give player's number to incoming freshman
- date player's girlfriend
- date player's mom