Not sure about protocol on this forum, but I just wanted to introduce myself as the new guy heading up the Babson debacle...er...I mean team.  Wanted to see what it would be like turning around a team apparently capable of giving up a "bazillion" points per game...lol.  Anyways, good luck to all in the upcoming season and recruiting class.  Well, not too much "good luck" to those in the Penn.

Posted by hgq2112 on 3/19/2013 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Not sure about protocol on this forum, but I just wanted to introduce myself as the new guy heading up the Babson debacle...er...I mean team.  Wanted to see what it would be like turning around a team apparently capable of giving up a "bazillion" points per game...lol.  Anyways, good luck to all in the upcoming season and recruiting class.  Well, not too much "good luck" to those in the Penn.

Welcome!  Is this your first team?  there are lots of good coaches who are happy to help if you have questions. 

Yep, first team.  Have done tons of similar sites in the past (and currently). First time on this one.  Looks challenging and competitive.  Quick question, when a newbie like me takes over a club, is it normal to have the Prestige rating reset?  Thought I was getting a B-, ended up with a C- team.  Lol...looks like recruiting just got harder.

There is occasionally a change to program prestige as a result of the new coach coming in. A full letter grade sounds extreme though. I've seen them move a step in either direction (from a C+ to a B- or C) but cant' recall more swing than that.

Great! Luck of the draw. Well, I wanted a challenge [head beating up against the wall].

Depending when you signed up, it may have been better.  But after such a bad season last year it dropped... as you can see the team was 12-17 last year with very high RPI... kills prestige.

Yep. Understand.  Don't think this year is going to help, either.  It's going to take some time.

Ok, here is a quick recap to give depth to my question.  So, I selected a team in shambles...on purpose.  Record was 12-17 last year, horrible RPI, the whole thing. They were rated a B-, figured they would drop to C+...C at worst. They dropped to C-. Then, in all my wisdom, I decided to violate my own draft principles and take a few gambles.  Lol...not a good idea.  So, lousy draft to boot, all on me.  Team record right now is 4-5.  Could easily be 0-9.  We've won ugly, stealing a few close games due largely to player match ups.  If I am lucky, I can steer this team to somewhere near .500 ball.  So, as I approach the next recruiting class, likely as a C- again, and I chuck any ideas of "recruiting gambles", what is the reasonable maximum player rating that I should be pursuing to have a chance at landing the recruit, for my realistic sad situation.  I know there are exceptions.  I know I could "luck out" and get a desperate drop down. Let's just say that after the last recruiting debacle, I am going to play the percentages this time. Anyone have a "magic number" they'd like to throw my way, above which I am likely just wasting time and $$$$$?

Posted by hgq2112 on 4/3/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Ok, here is a quick recap to give depth to my question.  So, I selected a team in shambles...on purpose.  Record was 12-17 last year, horrible RPI, the whole thing. They were rated a B-, figured they would drop to C+...C at worst. They dropped to C-. Then, in all my wisdom, I decided to violate my own draft principles and take a few gambles.  Lol...not a good idea.  So, lousy draft to boot, all on me.  Team record right now is 4-5.  Could easily be 0-9.  We've won ugly, stealing a few close games due largely to player match ups.  If I am lucky, I can steer this team to somewhere near .500 ball.  So, as I approach the next recruiting class, likely as a C- again, and I chuck any ideas of "recruiting gambles", what is the reasonable maximum player rating that I should be pursuing to have a chance at landing the recruit, for my realistic sad situation.  I know there are exceptions.  I know I could "luck out" and get a desperate drop down. Let's just say that after the last recruiting debacle, I am going to play the percentages this time. Anyone have a "magic number" they'd like to throw my way, above which I am likely just wasting time and $$$$$?

At the end of the season, after school prestiges have changed for the upcoming year (the day after the national championship game is played), go to your search screen, uncheck the JUCO and Transfer boxes so that you're searching only for high school kids. Take note of the highest-rated high school kid that shows on the list (don't worry how good he is/isn't...all you care about at this stage is his total rating.

-- Add 10 points to that rating...that's the max rating for any player you'll be able to successfully pull down or have drop to you, EXCEPT...

-- Add 25 points to the rating of the kid in your search...sometimes in-state kids and kids within your 300-mile circle (usually your 70-mile circle) will fit in this range and you can pull them down/get them to drop). Expect a lot of rejections of your initial contacts, but the occasional stud you get as a result pays off for it.

I have yet to land a player that's above the max rating +25 demographic, but I always nibble at the edges in the hope of being proven wrong someday.

Keep in mind that your "magic number" will change each season, so you'll want to repeat this process at the start of every recruiting period.

rednu,

Thanks, for the advice.

Only one aspect of the game I am having a hard time getting a handle on and I want to know if this is pretty normal, or am I just doing something horribly wrong. When assigning specific player offensive plays (not defensive, as that is going just fine...given my team), I seem to encounter the following issue:  If I assign certain key match up players a relatively higher % of plays run for them, then virtually 90% or so of the shots taken the whole game is only by those players, but if I zero out the player % allocations, then I have a ridiculous combo of minutes played and shot selection completely inconsistent with match ups.  What am I missing?  There has to be a better way to balance between 3-5 guys getting 90%+ of my shots, and the recent other extreme of having my ace SG, with a great match up, going 1 for 1 from the floor, for the game.  Any suggestions are appreciated.

I am not sure I exactly understand your question.  When assigning distribution there is some trial and error.  if you leave distro at 0 for a player, then they will not shot the ball except in obvious situations I suppose (steal > fastbreak layup)....

Remember, distro does not have to add up to 100% total for the team.  It's a ratio in reality... think of the players on the court and how much their ratio compared to others on the court at the same time... for example, I usually assign average scorers somewhere around 7, players I want to shoot more around 15.  Players that are not scorers will get 0 or 2-5 depending on their effectiveness (I think the motion seems to value more teamwork, so I try to get most players involved at least a little, plus it prevents defense from focusing on main players perhaps... but I digress)....

I also think of who I want to score off the bench and assign them a higher value (perhaps 12-15).  My overall distro often adds up to 50-60 as a team.

In sum, you have to play around to get it just right.  Keep in mind, unlike real life - you don't have to worry about ball hogs.  As the coach you can control to a large degree how much a guy shoots - so go for what's best for the team rather than making a guy look like a star.  In your team, there may be a few players that could use more distro from my quick assessment (based on their FG%, although some of them have very few shots so it's not conclusive).

I only use zero distro for guys I don't want to shoot at all, because they have other roles (defense or rebounding).  I think the software does penalize players that shoot too much, so there might be some benefit by having your 2 main guys shoot less.  Burnett is probably the biggest candidate to shoot more and have some success.  sometimes players that have lower per or LP still can score (my guy Smith is an interesting example of this).

gotta run

brianxavier,

Great advice.  I understand better.  In fact, I may understand exactly what has gone wrong. One finer point, which still confuses.  When I read the rules, my understanding was that assigning these % ratios for "plays designed" for specific players was more a priority suggestion than an actual guaranteed "ball distribution" scheme throughout the game. Are you (or anyone) saying that, in practice, the Game Engine (GE) actually attempts to strictly follow the distribution ratios?  I recognize it won't do it precisely, but if the GE does attempt to match the ratios, I understand how I have handicapped my team.  I assigned % ratings in a hierarchical format, based on game match ups. Given how poor an offensive team I have (hey, they make up for it by being poor on defense, as well), I have clustered % assignments around only a few players, leaving the rest at zero. If I now understand you correctly and how the GE might work...ouch!  

yes, it definitely attempts to match the distros assigned by the coach.  keep in mind, it only applies to the players on the floor - so as subs come in and out there are different configurations of 5 players -- so if you have a guy you like to score alot with a high distro assignment and a bunch of bench players (perhaps none of whom are scorers) you will see your high distro guy shooting more... for instance - if I have a guy with 12 disto playing with guys that have distro of 0, 0, 5, 5 - you can see who will get most of the shots...  so you have to play around to get the right feel.  Exhibition games can help with this touch, as well as making adjustments as you go along.

obviously in your case, with not too many scoring options, you have to weigh the pros and cons of giving lesser ability players shots just to keep your main scorers from losing effectiveness by shooting so much and getting tired.

brianxavier,  got it.  Very helpful. All clear now.  Will correct this for future seasons.  Thanks!