Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 8:41:00 AM (view original):
"So you're averaging 66 possessions per game. Teams running slowdown against you hurts there."

And THERE is the retarded feature that is broken. Tempo is an offensive feature that should not be impacted by what the opponent does. The only thing the preference should be looking at is the tempo you start the game at. But that makes too much sense.

Preferences are updated already in Smith (game 7)

I agree with that. It should be based on what you set the team at. Otherwise you have no control if the opponents play slowdown against you, which will often be the case if your team is good and plays up tempo a lot.

Posted by cwisniewski on 2/15/2017 12:13:00 PM (view original):
We are currently testing a change in which the tempo preference will now look at the average tempo that you have set to use throughout the season, similar to how the offense and defense preferences currently work.

We also are changing the Paint offense and Perimeter offense preferences to be much more intelligent.

Very good! Thanks for looking at it!

Posted by johnsensing on 2/15/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):
"If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring."

This. I expect the kind of coach who is going to monkey with his team just to get a small preference boost is the kind of coach who isn't winning many games.

With one team, one year, I did try to get the paint offense preference by driving the ball inside more. I knew I was going to be in a close battle for a player I really wanted that preferred paint offense. I had a good enough team that I knew we would still be good, and had talent that could succeed at that, as opposed to my normally balanced offense. But that was one season out of the 50 or so I have played at 3.0 now. I don't plan on doing that again regularly, but if there was an occasional player that came along that I really wanted, I'd consider it. However, it's probably not a very solid strategy.

What about team success? What prevents a team from literally tanking and losing on purpose to get a VG for Wants Rebuild?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 2/15/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):
"If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring."

This. I expect the kind of coach who is going to monkey with his team just to get a small preference boost is the kind of coach who isn't winning many games.

That's probably two different arguments. Is it a good idea? Should it be possible?

FWIW, when I took my team, several vets said "It's terrible. Expect to lose 3-4 years until you get better players as upperclassmen." I doubt it would have mattered but I'd have definitely played with my settings to get preferences to the detriment of my current team. After all, I expected to lose for 3-4 seasons.

So I have no doubt that users do it. So, really, should it be possible?

Fair point -- you're right it's two separate issues. To respond to the second, sure it should be possible. As a practical matter, how do you stop it? Does WIS monitor and decide that if someone's "gaming the system," they don't get credit for the preference? How does WIS decide that? There's no way they are going to monitor 10,000 teams (1000 teams per world x 10 worlds) for this sort of thing, and even if they are, it strikes me as impossible to determine intent. Do you remove the preference for paint/outside offense, or for uptempo/slowdown? That seems like a pretty radical fix for something that I (and I believe, many others) don't believe is a problem.

Firing should be easier, and prestige shoudl matter more. We should be focusing on winning games, not gaming tactics to "ring the bell" on recruits while actually hurting the current team's success.

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):
What about team success? What prevents a team from literally tanking and losing on purpose to get a VG for Wants Rebuild?

"Team success" is a multi-season thing. I'm at my first season at Syracuse in Allen, and the last two seasons we've missed the post-season entirely (RPIs of 178 and 263), and we're going to miss it this year (current RPI of 155) -- I'm still "good" on "wants success," and "bad" on "wants rebuild" (which is sort of ridiculous, since I've never had a team more in need of rebuilding). Highly doubt you'll see a multi-year tank job just for that 1 preference.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 2/15/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):
"If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring."

This. I expect the kind of coach who is going to monkey with his team just to get a small preference boost is the kind of coach who isn't winning many games.

That's probably two different arguments. Is it a good idea? Should it be possible?

FWIW, when I took my team, several vets said "It's terrible. Expect to lose 3-4 years until you get better players as upperclassmen." I doubt it would have mattered but I'd have definitely played with my settings to get preferences to the detriment of my current team. After all, I expected to lose for 3-4 seasons.

So I have no doubt that users do it. So, really, should it be possible?

It should be possible because it comes at a price. Wins. Which is prestige and the "wants success" preference. You aren't gaining the system by gaining one and losing two.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/15/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 2/15/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):
"If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring."

This. I expect the kind of coach who is going to monkey with his team just to get a small preference boost is the kind of coach who isn't winning many games.

That's probably two different arguments. Is it a good idea? Should it be possible?

FWIW, when I took my team, several vets said "It's terrible. Expect to lose 3-4 years until you get better players as upperclassmen." I doubt it would have mattered but I'd have definitely played with my settings to get preferences to the detriment of my current team. After all, I expected to lose for 3-4 seasons.

So I have no doubt that users do it. So, really, should it be possible?

It should be possible because it comes at a price. Wins. Which is prestige and the "wants success" preference. You aren't gaining the system by gaining one and losing two.

Great point.

I just think the term gaming the system is very inaccurate and misleading. Its working the system a bit but you're hardly gaining a big unfair advantage.

there are bigger things you can do to work the system like intentionally taking walk ons. Is that working the system or just strategy?

Posted by johnsensing on 2/15/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):
What about team success? What prevents a team from literally tanking and losing on purpose to get a VG for Wants Rebuild?

"Team success" is a multi-season thing. I'm at my first season at Syracuse in Allen, and the last two seasons we've missed the post-season entirely (RPIs of 178 and 263), and we're going to miss it this year (current RPI of 155) -- I'm still "good" on "wants success," and "bad" on "wants rebuild" (which is sort of ridiculous, since I've never had a team more in need of rebuilding). Highly doubt you'll see a multi-year tank job just for that 1 preference.

Right, big 6 teams, especially high baseline big 6 teams, are never going to get to rebuild status for recruits. Wants rebuild is a lifeline for low D1 programs that are taken over in disarray. It's not going to make sense to try to tank to get that box checked.

But it could make sense, for someone unconcerned about exploiting loopholes, to go uptempo and jack up 3s, regardless of the team he has, in order to have VG for those two preferences. Those will be advantages not many teams have. And if they're in a rebuilding year anyway, or a mostly-sim conference, not maximizing the present team's efficiency if it helps score some select recruits will be an angle some coaches will try to exploit.

If coaches were generally unconcerned about manipulating their teams to line up their preference profiles, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Since I got three responses, here goes:

johnsensing: I already said I don't have a solution. But manipulating the system just doesn't feel right whether one really gains an advantage. No idea how to stop it but I personally don't like manipulation. I said I'd have done it but I'd prefer it not be an option. Simply personal preference.

trenton: I don't know how much prestige matters but, if I believe this forum, it's not much. Not every player "wants success". I've found several who "want rebuild", that's me!!!!, and "paint offense", which can be me if I manipulate the system. I'm sure I can find "wants rebuild" and "uptempo" as well.

benis: There probably are bigger issues and, as stated, I don't have any inkling of a solution on how to stop manipulation/gaming of preferences. But, if I could, I'd like to remove manipulation/gaming from the sim I play. Again, personal preference.

When I found "quirks" in HBD, I'd contact CS and then post them in the forums for everyone to use until/if they were fixed. That's just how I prefer to play. I think the ability to fruitlessly fire up 3s to get a "perimeter" preference is definitely a "quirk".

That's bullshit Koop. I have a good team, a deep team, I run uptempo, and I want to get credit for it. That's not gaming the system. It's calling the system out for not getting credit for a preference that should be a match. Sorry you can't see the difference.

"trenton: I don't know how much prestige matters but, if I believe this forum, it's not much. Not every player "wants success". I've found several who "want rebuild", that's me!!!!, and "paint offense", which can be me if I manipulate the system. I'm sure I can find "wants rebuild" and "uptempo" as well."

1, Prestige matters more than people think in D2 and D3.
2. I think "wants success" is as common as "fast tempo" or "post/perimeter offense".

Actually, I think WANTS SUCCESS is about twice as common as perimeter/paint, three times as common as wants rebuild and four times as common as fast pace.

Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 5:13:00 PM (view original):
That's bullshit Koop. I have a good team, a deep team, I run uptempo, and I want to get credit for it. That's not gaming the system. It's calling the system out for not getting credit for a preference that should be a match. Sorry you can't see the difference.

Go back and read my first post, mully. I recommended they keep the possession requirement, and adjust it to account for your opponent's choices, so if all your opponents are playing slowdown, your threshold is lower. I want you to get credit for having a good uptempo team, too. But I want the system to be more intelligent, not less; because if it's less intelligent, your credit won't be worth any more than the bad team that is gaming the system to get that same credit. That goes for all the style preferences. Those equations should be intelligent, they should not be simple targets to hit. The recruit that wants fast tempo should be able to tell the difference between Wisconsin, and some random low D1 team trying to hit simple thresholds.