Seble confirmed that 2nd session prestige is used for actions in 2nd session.
12/10/2017 10:17 AM
Yeah yeah I got that response from a ticket but honestly do not buy it.
12/10/2017 11:05 AM
Posted by Benis on 12/10/2017 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Seble confirmed that 2nd session prestige is used for actions in 2nd session.
I don't buy it either. In Knight UCONN went from "very good" for 'wants rebuild' when they had a C- prestige in RS1. The lost in the title game and went to A- and were still "very good" for 'wants rebuild' in RS2.

Ive also had examples (like this one) where the only logical explanation to the final odds are based on prestige in RS1 being used all the way through.
12/10/2017 11:13 AM
i'm with cubcub and darnoc....my experience has been the same.
12/10/2017 11:21 AM
"wants rebuild" doesn't appear to have nearly as much impact as "wants success".
12/10/2017 11:33 AM
the funny thing is i also recall getting booted to moderate by a C prestige team when I was A- on a "wants rebuild" guy and at the time i concluded "wants rebuild" was so powerful it inverted prestige. but obviously i missed something on that battle, or the odds of the one in this thread would have been very different.
12/10/2017 2:14 PM
I have reason to believe that 2nd session prestige is used for 2nd session recruiting.
12/10/2017 2:52 PM
If Georgia Southern’s prestige was D- when most of the effort was spent, well there’s the answer. Huge difference between D- and C- prestige, huge difference between a one full grade difference and a 2 full grade difference in a battle. At 2 full grade difference, the lower prestige teams with similar effort credit are generally on the cusp of getting in signing range, and need preference advantages, which is about where this one is.

This is one was tricky though, because of the relatively low priority, not many overall APs spent, not many visits done.
12/10/2017 3:24 PM
I think this also shows how promises to ineligibles need to be revamped.

I offered Medrano the start and minutes knowing there was probably an 80% chance that he would remain ineligible and I would never be forced to honor them (and he's a decent enough prospect that if he suddenly became eligible, I was willing to fulfill the promise). If I was going to be forced to honor the promises in the first season that he becomes eligible, then my calculus changes.
12/11/2017 10:05 AM
Posted by grimacedance on 12/11/2017 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think this also shows how promises to ineligibles need to be revamped.

I offered Medrano the start and minutes knowing there was probably an 80% chance that he would remain ineligible and I would never be forced to honor them (and he's a decent enough prospect that if he suddenly became eligible, I was willing to fulfill the promise). If I was going to be forced to honor the promises in the first season that he becomes eligible, then my calculus changes.
I think the penalties for breaking promises should be a lot harsher (reputation should substantially decrease *AND* reputation would have a huge impact on future promises during recruiting).

That way, coaches who honor those promises are rewarded and those that break them are harshly penalized.
12/11/2017 10:37 AM
Posted by buddhagamer on 12/11/2017 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by grimacedance on 12/11/2017 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think this also shows how promises to ineligibles need to be revamped.

I offered Medrano the start and minutes knowing there was probably an 80% chance that he would remain ineligible and I would never be forced to honor them (and he's a decent enough prospect that if he suddenly became eligible, I was willing to fulfill the promise). If I was going to be forced to honor the promises in the first season that he becomes eligible, then my calculus changes.
I think the penalties for breaking promises should be a lot harsher (reputation should substantially decrease *AND* reputation would have a huge impact on future promises during recruiting).

That way, coaches who honor those promises are rewarded and those that break them are harshly penalized.
They really should be. But this has been mentioned several times throughout the years and always got the same response, something along the lines of "Thanks for the suggestion, we'll take it under consideration".

If they actually did do something like this, my wish would be that the hiring/firing logic be fixed at the same time. I know, I know, that's the last thing the game needs is to have a ****** off coach quit. Easy resolution to that. When a coach takes a job at a D1 school they should get an "e-mail" from their AD stating exactly what the minimum qualifications are. If said coach feels that they can't meet those minimums, then they should have the option of declining the job and the school should go back into the mix. If WiS did this, then they could fill all schools that were wanted with human coaches. My opinion is that once a coach makes the jump to D1 then they should be able to LEGITIMATELY apply for any vacancy in the off season. They know going in that if they don't meet the minimums, they're gone. Period. I'm telling you, I'd MUCH rather have a mediocre human coach at a blue blood school than Simmy, any day of the week. All Simmy does to those schools is torpedo them until they're so bad that someone can actually qualify for them.

That also "kind of" addresses the issue of letting coaches start anywhere in D1 they want. They'd have to get there first of course, but once there any and every school is fair game to any and every human coach.
12/11/2017 10:22 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
◂ Prev 12

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.