Hardwood - Discussion Forum: Redshirt Limitations?

Forum >> Discussions >> Redshirt Limitations?

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#13283	01/29/2021 6:42:42 pm	Feb 23rd, 2017
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2512 Hardwood Administrator	Some people have suggested that redshirting is too powerful (especially for elite schools that are redshirting 4- & 5-star recruits). I'm wondering if there should be restrictions on who you can redshirt -- like any 5-star recruit or a player with a SI above some value (130 for example) or something like that. Not sure...just starting to think about this a bit more. Steve

#13285	01/29/2021 6:49:51 pm	Feb 23rd, 2017
kauffdaddy Joined: 11/30/2020 Posts: 693 Inactive	Doesn't consistent redshirting of players have some negative impact on recruiting? EDIT: If that recruiting penalty is already in place, I wouldn't do anything else. Updated Friday, January 29 2021 @ 7:23:06 pm PST

#13286	01/29/2021 7:03:55 pm	Feb 23rd, 2017
Hchou17 Joined: 12/15/2019 Posts: 34 Inactive	This seems interesting. I have my best class incoming this season with two 4 stars and a 5 star. In previous years, I redshirted everyone, but after hearing on the forum that the recruiting hit for redshirting 4-5 star guys is significant, I was thinking about letting them play it out and avoid the redshirt (or maybe redshirt one of the 4 stars). Not sure what to do at the moment though.

#13287	01/30/2021 12:48:52 am	Feb 23rd, 2017
naph Joined: 02/29/2020 Posts: 605 St. Marys Gaels II.1	The RS penalty on 4* and 5* recruits seems a reasonable deterrent. But in general I don't see a nice fix for this issue. This is mostly kept in check in the real world by other factors: 1) Some players refuse to red-shirt 2) Some players transfer, grad-transfer in particular becoming a bigger concern for RS-Seniors. 3) Some players go pro before using their eligibility. But every one of those is a can of worms programming wise. It is powerful, but it is an option available to all users can gain from equally. Unless someone comes up with a great idea I'd be inclined to leave it as it is as any potential solution might be worse than the current problem.

#13288	01/30/2021 12:52:08 am	Feb 23rd, 2017
Divac Joined: 01/16/2020 Posts: 325 Gettysburg Bullets VI.19	I think that block it for some players isn't way to go. RS 4 or 5 stars hits recruiting abilities a lot (at least I feel this way after RS my 4 stars guy), but if president is willing to take the hit so be it. I think We should know a bit more about penalties. For example if I RS it will hurt my recruiting for how long? Until he's on the roster (5 season) or decade (10 seasons) or even more? Does it applie for 3 stars and higher on scale: matters a bit (like +3 contacts to low), matters (+6 contacts) and for 5 stars it matters a lot (+10 contacts or more)? We don't need to know the formula but something more real then just our guess. Because right now it's almost impossible to know what's RS hit and what's something else. It's really different to know that higher raking players will hate your team for more then decade.... or 4 and 5 stars player will hesitate a bit when you have RS 5 stars on the roster. D.

#13289	01/30/2021 7:43:04 am	Feb 23rd, 2017
lmartins6746 Joined: 02/26/2020 Posts: 254 North Greenville Crusaders IV.3	I think allowing players to go pro early would be biggest deterrent.

#13290	01/30/2021 8:56:28 am	Feb 23rd, 2017
Blackbeard Joined: 03/17/2019 Posts: 565 St. Johns Red Storm VI.7	Why are you constantly trying to think up ways to limit everything? First it was limiting recruiting now it's limiting red shirting. Keep this limiting thing up and you will be limiting and driving away managers because they will be quitting due to all the limits. Just the fact that there has been a big increase in human managers has put a big limit on the game. Thats not a bad thing but now there aren't enough descent players to go around. Try recruiting a guy over 6-7 lately, especially in a small region. Why don't you fix that by adding more and better players to the player pool? this is a recruiting game more than anything else and now you want to put more limits on it It just doesn't make any sense. This isn't real life and it never will be. If something is being exploited or it gives some players an advantage then sure, limit it but everyone red shirts so whats the problem...........

#13292	01/30/2021 10:28:22 am	Feb 25th, 2017
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	a couple of things. People that complain about 4-5 stars probably won't like the impact that redshirt restrictions would have on them going after the 3 star players. the 8-15 SI gains by redshirts would probably push more teams into a packed list of 3 potentials from where i sit since some 4-5 stars wont hit their caps now. so you increase competition on a smaller group of players than there originally were. Redshirts in general if we are really honest are used predominantly on fringe prospects or are medical redshirts irl. So eliminating them on 4-5 but not 3 would probably not be realistic even still We don't know the precise impact of redshirts and the effects on future 4-5 star player recruiting. We know there is apparently some based on what people have said in various places (mainly discord, but also here). I see a lot of these individual complaints from both sides. top league managers whine that lower league teams take their recruits, lower league managers whine that top teams stash talent. I'd tell them to both go fly a kite for a while and simmer down and play a game that is free for free

#13293	01/30/2021 10:40:49 am	Feb 25th, 2017
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Players get redshirted because there is little downside (i.e. graduate transfers) and plenty of upside. If 5* and 4* players are being redshirted too often then just make the penalties more severe. But honestly, the reason they get redshirted is because even 4* and 5* players are not very good as freshman. Even Richard Love started at 144 SI which would've put him tied for 4th in SI on my team, and we are a fringe top 100 team in Division 1. Cade Cunningham would be the best player on every Division 1 team with the exception of maybe a dozen teams. I really don't like the idea of basing it off of SI. So you can't RS a player with SI over 130 - well what about JUCOs? What about the player that has 129 SI? You can't just sit there waiting for that last development update praying that your HS SR doesn't develop too much so that they can be redshirted. If you want to make some sort of limit - maybe limiting based on potential. So something POT 14 and 15 can't be redshirted. I don't agree that this needs to be done, but at least you know what you are getting.

#13295	01/30/2021 11:11:13 am	Feb 25th, 2017
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	One other thing to add that I just realized - most teams redshirt their players as freshman. Regardless of their star value that hurts recruiting because of the playing time mechanic since now there are more freshmen on the roster (regular freshmen and RS freshmen), and thus less perceived playing time for your recruits. I recruited 2 centers pretty heavily and lost out on both to lower level teams. Looking back on it, I probably shot myself in foot by redshirting a 6'11 3* center: http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/86365 If I didn't redshirt I probably get one of my targets, so even redshirting 3* players can hurt your recruiting.

#13296	01/30/2021 12:06:30 pm	Feb 25th, 2017
Rickyride Joined: 12/23/2018 Posts: 4 Eastern Illinois Panthers II.2	Well said Blackbeard. Totally agree with you!

#13298	01/30/2021 1:36:43 pm	Feb 25th, 2017
Hayseed Joined: 04/05/2019 Posts: 133 Lewis & Clark Pioneers I.1	I think the recruiting penalty should be a sufficient way to deal with RSing 4-5 star players and shouldn't be too stiff even. There is another issue which I haven't seen anyone bring up yet: how some recruits can pop to a higher star. I haven't recruited many 4 stars and haven't RSed those that I received, because of the supposed penalty. I really only target 3 stars because of this, but unfortunately sometimes they pop to 4 stars and then they lose value to me. Having them pop is frustrating, but fine if it is part of the game. If they pop in the off-season you can adjust, but I just had a 3 star HS SR pop at around day #30-35 and I got him at day #38. I was bummed and am considering RSing a 4 star for the first time. There wasn't anytime for me to pivot. I don't know what I will do, but a lot goes into a team's plans when they RS, not just getting a few more SI. I have 2 other underclass recruits pop on me and at least I have some time to adjust. One popped from 3 to 5 star. That's fine for me because my team is a top team, but if you are LL5 or LL6 and have restrictions on recruiting 4 or 5 stars, then you really got screwed if you put 40+ contacts into them like I have so far.

#13300	01/30/2021 7:18:45 pm	Feb 25th, 2017
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2512 Hardwood Administrator	Here's the thing...recruiting stars are just a snapshot of the prospect rank at a given time. A prospect that develops well (blows up) might get an extra star. A prospect that develops more slowly, might lose a star. That happens in real life. I don't think they can be fixed -- otherwise, by the time recruits are seniors, the star rating wouldn't necessary be very accurate. Steve

#13301	01/30/2021 9:06:29 pm	Feb 25th, 2017
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	I agree with Blackbeard. Also, if you add more of a penalty for RS 4 and 5 stars, you are inherently giving an advantage to teams that recruit and RS 3 star players. A lot of 3 stars are similar enough or greater SI to 4 and 5 stars. Very rarely is there a 4 or 5 star who is going to get significant playing time at a top conference school and be effective their freshman year. So you RS.....and get a penalty. Meanwhile the school with the 3 star dude decides to RS and doesn't get a penalty. So at the end of the day your options are to RS to get that one extra great year, while dealing with the penalty......or not RS'ing and seeing the other school get similar SI out of their RS 3 star that you get from your non-RS 4 or 5 star. If you want to limit RS in this game, there either needs to be a similar penalty for ANY RS.....or implement something where a player can be drafted after 4 years from HS graduation regardless of class level (that way RS JR can be drafted).

#13302	01/30/2021 9:31:15 pm	Feb 25th, 2017
g10rsh Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 95 Columbia Lions V.8	I suggested the possibility of JRs being drafted. I think it makes sense. though i dont think it would have much of an impact on redshirting anyway. The percent of players drafted every year is very low, and the number of players who would get drafted over seniors would be even lower.

#13303	01/31/2021 1:26:02 am	Feb 25th, 2017
ouija7 Joined: 07/07/2019 Posts: 47 Inactive	Agree with Blackbeard here, there is no need to change.

#13306	01/31/2021 7:12:34 am	Feb 25th, 2017
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Star ratings should still change. My 5* SG started as a 3* and got to 5* his senior year (109 SI, 13 POT his HS SR year). If he stayed a 3* that would be ridiculous. I agree that nothing should change, it's not like people are getting an unfair advantage since anyone can RS their players.

#13308	01/31/2021 7:35:05 am	Feb 25th, 2017
Bridger Joined: 02/09/2018 Posts: 207 Huntington University Foresters III.3	I don't think there is a need for a change...but if you feel the need to change it, it would make more sense to have it tied to SI than star rating.

#13309	01/31/2021 9:12:42 am	Feb 25th, 2017
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Star ratings are based on SI and potential, so if you base it on SI you are also essentially basing it off of star rating.

#13312	01/31/2021 12:37:18 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2512 Hardwood Administrator	Why are you constantly trying to think up ways to limit everything? First it was limiting recruiting now it's limiting red shirting. Keep this limiting thing up and you will be limiting and driving away managers because they will be quitting due to all the limits. I keep trying to improve the game. Occasionally I float ideas to see what the reaction to them is from the current pool of users. Just the fact that there has been a big increase in human managers has put a big limit on the game. Thats not a bad thing but now there aren't enough descent players to go around. Try recruiting a guy over 6-7 lately, especially in a small region. Why don't you fix that by adding more and better players to the player pool? this is a recruiting game more than anything else and now you want to put more limits on it I have to disagree with you here. There should be a scarcity of tall players -- it reflects reality and offers recruiting and management challenges. Just like in RL, there are plenty of 6'7"+ players, but some are projects and under-skilled. So if you have a lower level team, do you try to develop these type of players or start shorter players at the 3 and 4? I don't want a game where every team has a Lew Alcindor they can just plug into the middle. I continue to make small adjustments to the state and regional balance (in terms of prospect creation -- but it is still highly random too). I don't pretend that its perfect, but there are top teams from all over. At the beginning of the game, people were complaining that Texas had too many prospects for too few managed teams, but Texas isn't exactly dominating the top conference nor the national tournament. A lot more depends on regions that have attracted dedicate & skilled users. It just doesn't make any sense. This isn't real life and it never will be. If something is being exploited or it gives some players an advantage then sure, limit it but everyone red shirts so whats the problem........... I don't know that there is a problem. I do see that a lot of people are red shirting players that wouldn't normally redshirt -- so I wonder if I could create more parity by limiting 5-star player redshirting thereby making them less dominate. Steve

#13314	01/31/2021 12:56:14 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	Big men also don't have the same impact on the college game IRL as they do in this game. They're important, don't get me wrong but guard play tends to give better results. If you have a few bigs in this game with decent skills and SIZE, that's an enormous advantage.

#13315	01/31/2021 1:51:38 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
grayman Joined: 04/15/2020 Posts: 66 Methodist University Monarchs III.3	Personally, I don't see an issue with how things are now. I really appreciate the desire to keep improving/refining though, so in that spirit here's a possible idea: If you want to limit redshirting, I think it makes sense to base it on the player's SI relative to the current players on the roster. Nobody who plays a sport likes being put on the bench. But if there are better players on the team, players don't feel so bad about riding the pine. In other words, the skill level of a player's teammates influences how they react to being benched. If there are enough players above his skill level, he can justify sitting out. What if we apply that logic to redshirting? A team's roster must have a certain amount of players above a player's SI to justify redshirting him. Otherwise, the team suffers a recruiting hit for a season or two. I mean, how many recruits would want to play for a team that benches perfectly capable players? This would encourage teams to play their high SI recruits rather than stash them away.

#13317	01/31/2021 2:14:11 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
kauffdaddy Joined: 11/30/2020 Posts: 693 Inactive	If anything is tweaked with redshirting (and again, I'm more in the "no" camp), grayman's suggestion is the best one yet.

#13318	01/31/2021 2:29:51 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
Itsjustmath Joined: 10/22/2018 Posts: 82 Muhlenberg Mules IV.4	Unlike real-life - 5 star players aren't as talented as most of the 3 star sophomores on the team. Over their career they will be better, but if the skill levels in the NCAA were the same as they are here - a coach wouldn't be playing 4 or 5 star players if they couldn't crack the two or three deep on a team. Also unlike real-life, players will use up all of their eligibility, unlike the last freshman class of NCAA players where one of the top ten are still in college.

#13319	01/31/2021 2:33:07 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
Evaristo Joined: 01/06/2021 Posts: 52 Inactive	How does redshirting work in real colleges? Is that a topic of conversation between player an colleges before he commits to a college? I guess once the player has committed he can't refuse being redshirted, because he cannot force the coach to put him in the lineup. Maybe a player that won't play basketball professionally, can leave university after graduation in his fourth year and take a job, even if he had been redshirted. And a player that will play professionally can declare himself eligible or accept an offer from other country. I see rosters where every player with scholarship has been redshirted. I don't think that is the idea of redshirting, It sounds like something exceptional, not the norm. Maybe the players can say something about it.

#13322	01/31/2021 3:57:23 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Redshirting happens in college basketball because of a season-ending injury or a player transfers schools (both of these don't exist in HW). Very rarely do players redshirt just to get an additional year of development. The main reason why is because a player can transfer anywhere after they graduate college and not have to sit out a year. Teams then don't have an incentive to RS players just to lose their player when they become a RS senior. My concern with grayman's suggestion is that it makes it better for teams at the top and harder for teams on the bottom.

#13324	01/31/2021 4:17:00 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2512 Hardwood Administrator	Occasionally basketball players are red-shirted for development reason. Often that happens more in football to let their bodies develop and learn the system. Steve

#13325	01/31/2021 6:08:00 pm	Mar 2nd, 2017
lmartins6746 Joined: 02/26/2020 Posts: 254 North Greenville Crusaders IV.3	Just getting some thoughts out (skip to end for TLDR). I think redshirting could happen less here if freshmen were actually ready to contribute in a meaningful way. More often than not they are the 10-13th best players. There is less benefit from redshirting if: 1) The player will hit is development cap early. Think of guy that peaks between years 1-3. 2) The player makes the team more competitive. 3) The team could lose a year of the players production by redshirting (if he could go pro/leave early). I personally don't feel like there are enough (any?) recruits that ready to contribute right away. The 4 and 5 star recruits should either be guys with really high ceilings or guys that are pretty much ready to go pro now (those don't necessarily need high ceilings). It seems that in most cases they can't even crack the starting 5 of decent college team. If, for example, there were more recruits that were ready to start day 1, I think this could help curb the redshirting. These don't have to be 5 stars though. These could be high skill, low potential players (we don't seem to have any of these now)...think guys that are good as freshmen/sophomores but never get much better from there. (Maybe an extreme example, but think 140-150 SI 8/9 POT). This could also lead to some differing opinions on recruits (which is always good). 100 SI/12 POT vs 145 SI/9 POT? 90 SI/13 POT vs 130 SI/8 POT? One could argue that there isn't a single recruit less than 10 POT that will ever be of much value to a decent team. Every player over 130 IS is 12 POT or higher. Right now all of the recruits follow a pretty predicable career path. Yes, there can be significant fluctuations in SI growth, but we are talking like 10-30 pts per player each year. Even on the low end a player will get 30-50 pts in his career and we never see anyone regress (yes, someone may lose a point on attribute occasionally). < 10 POT players are not good recruits more so because of their current skill index than because of their growth potential. This will be unpopular opinion, but if there were more (any?) "duds", season ending/longer term injuries, and players leaving early then managers would have to adapt and make harder decisions. Pair that with higher SI players to begin with (be they low, medium, or high potential) and I would bet you'd see a reduction of redshirted players. That said, this was more of a thought exercise and I don't particularly like the idea of "duds" or longer term injuries (even it more realistic...yes, Blackbeard, I know his isn't real), but you have to admit that it would likely force good teams to play freshmen. TL;DR; Reduce redshirting by having more high SI recruits, including those with lower POT (< 10). Also, redshirting can be reduced by having more recruits be "duds", having players leave early (nba/europe/just gone), and/or longer term injuries (I know, I know). And for the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with redshirting as-is, but I would support high SI low POT recruits, players leaving early, etc.

#13338	02/01/2021 10:25:03 am	Mar 4th, 2017
ouija7 Joined: 07/07/2019 Posts: 47 Inactive	I think sorting the hiring and firing of coaches out is more important

#13346	02/01/2021 4:31:31 pm	Mar 4th, 2017
allen54chevy Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 165 Inactive	Some of the redshirting of the top recruits may settle down here soon without any changes... why? Assistant coaches. Yep. Here is how the assistants are making the difference: those of us with monster recruiting head coaches in D1 used to be able to deal with the redshirting penalties. The RS recruiting penalties just were not enough to dissuade us from RS everyone. Looking at Legends teams 75% of 4/5* players have been redshirted. Now with the assistant coaches, the head coach recruiting skills are diluted by the other coaches. I for one am feeling the effect on recruiting and will need to adjust my managment plans including Red Shirting to keep an edge. I would wait a bit to see how that shakes out over the next couple seasons, it may already be disadvantagious for most schools to be RS heavy. If still an issue (ie not the way the game creator intended) then there are some options: 1. Allow students to to go pro (be drafted) after age 21 season. (It may only affect a handfull of players, but the threat would make for some interesting decision making. 2. Limit 1 or 2 redshirts per season or some total number of redshirted players on a roster (maybe 6). On average, we are handing scholarships to 3.x players per season. 3. Fractionally increase the negative effects of redshirting on recruiting. Just turn up the heat a bit. Evenly across the board. If it is more disadvantagious to redshirt, then it will happen less. Looking through the legends rosters, those without multiple 4/5 recruits Heavily redshirt their 3star players. 4. Cut scholarships to 12. Then the decision becomes depth vs redshirt. It may not be consistant with real life, but it would do the trick. 5. Decrease SI growth during a RS year (so RS becomes less advantagious for growth and more about realigning graduation class. Overall, I agree there is an issue. But not just highstar players. Too many teams have redshirted the Entire Squad. I do think it is lower priority and worth seeing what the assistants do as they level coaching effects.

#13349	02/01/2021 5:27:48 pm	Mar 4th, 2017
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	I think the real question to ask is this: Do we really want to mirror real life with this game? It seems that some keeping pointing to real life redshirting, but real life doesn't have recruiting limitations that are dead set over the course of a season whether or not you redshirt or don't. Quite bluntly, you would have to reinvent the wheel in terms of how recruiting worked in this game for that to be a possibility. Redshirting 13 players right now means i get an extra 135 points per recruiting cycle (5 years i retain all HS/INTL recruits, 135 + 135 + 135 + 135 + 135 while that player is in my posession. if i don't redshirt anyone, i instantly lose 135 because i only have 4 recruiting cycles until that scholarship has to be covered again to field a full 13). Quite honestly my biggest issue right now is that people are still kinda looking at the end result and how to restrict the end result. If anything the approach should be to make it so that we aren't losing 135 contacts due to inefficiently talent utilization, or 135 * (x/13) where x is the average number of players not redshirted.

#13351	02/01/2021 5:51:13 pm	Mar 4th, 2017
lmartins6746 Joined: 02/26/2020 Posts: 254 North Greenville Crusaders IV.3	@furysk I like the way you think RE pts per scholarhip. I do think that while we are not trying to mimic real life that the game is clearly based on real life (even if there are obvious differences) so we can look to real life for solutions to problems, enhancements, etc.

#13357	02/01/2021 8:04:34 pm	Mar 4th, 2017
allen54chevy Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 165 Inactive	Fury I get what you are saying about it gives you a 5-year recruiting cycle . But honestly you can do the same thing by running An 11-man team . That is essentially what you are doing now

#13358	02/01/2021 10:15:36 pm	Mar 4th, 2017
allen54chevy Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 165 Inactive	And this is NOT the question: Do we really want to mirror real life with this game? The real question was how do we feel about restrictions on redshirting, posted by the game creator. Either he is happy with teams redshirting all their players and is listening to some vocal players concerns and testing the water to see how wide spread the concern is, or he is unhappy that the game is not being played the way he meant for it to be played. It is his perogative. We are just lucky to be consulted. My opinion is to wait a bit to make higher priority changes and see how things shake out since we just changed the coaches, but it is a problem when gobs of teams are rewarded for redshirting their entire squad. It seems more like an exploit then tactical planning.

#13360	02/02/2021 5:01:24 am	Mar 4th, 2017
Evaristo Joined: 01/06/2021 Posts: 52 Inactive	In fact I don't know why is not every player redshirthed. You can play with a rotation of 9-10 players without any problem. So you can redshirt 3-4 players every season. That means all players. And, why would you play with a 18-21 rotation if you can play with a 19-22 rotation? You can say I am a noob, and I am, but this is pure logic.

#13367	02/02/2021 10:55:12 am	Mar 9th, 2017
verysilentone Joined: 07/05/2018 Posts: 62 Mississippi Rebels IV.1	I almost posted this on Sunday, but did not. I rarely used to redshirt my top recruits, but I started running into teams in the tournament with 3-4 RS SR beasts that were all in the 170-190 range and I would lose with me having one guy in that range. People on the forums and on discord were always saying that they redshirted everyone, so I changed my gameplan. There are still exceptions but I've begun redshirting 95% of the players that I get. I'm currently R/S my 4th best player. Now, he's not great defensively, so I do have my reasons, but 10 seasons ago, he would never have redshirted. http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/86943 If you look at my roster, I've redshirted or am redshirting all but 2 players, those being Ed Cunningham(I needed a big when he came in) and Jeff White, because he is a basketball God. http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/91731 Everyone else has redshirted, is redshirting or will R/S next season (Ken Dobbs) Updated Tuesday, February 2 2021 @ 10:55:35 am PST

#17574	12/10/2021 11:10:44 am	Dec 10th, 2022
nobodyjones Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 114 UPR Río Piedras Roosters III.1	Props to 1 team owners with less than 4 redshirts.

#17590	12/11/2021 7:31:12 pm	Dec 15th, 2022
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2512 Hardwood Administrator	What is the solution? Some people feel the recruiting penalty for red shirting highly rated players is too much and other say it's too little. Steve

#17591	12/11/2021 7:51:47 pm	Dec 15th, 2022
electriceel883 Joined: 06/07/2021 Posts: 134 Wisconsin Badgers II.1	Considering A. you either have to recruit lower SI players (i.e. D3 or lost recruiting battles) or B. won recruiting battles on a couple guys and had to fill out your roster with few points left, redshirting is basically a necessity. I have a full roster, and while I dont see myself red-shirting 4 guys, 1-2 is very possible. I dont see that there needs to be more than 4 allowed. 9 minimum active scholarship players seems reasonable to me. Whether I red-shirt my newest recruit, a 4-star depends a lot more on the depth chart than that he's a 4 star. It will be a very long time before I get to the sexy leagues, if I ever do. The real life Badgers coaches have said that red-shirting is a "players choice". So the penalty could be removed altogether and something such as "Feels he is ready for top-level play and may not be willing to be red-shirted" be added to 4,5 star profiles their senior season. Then, since some players who arent much of a student commit and others dont, the redshirt box can either be available after he is added to roster or frozen out. Updated Saturday, December 11 2021 @ 7:57:04 pm PST

#17592	12/12/2021 1:28:39 am	Dec 15th, 2022
nobodyjones Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 114 UPR Río Piedras Roosters III.1	4 future seasons from now... 1. Disallow 4 and 5 stars from being redshirted period. Give prestige bonus for POY, AA, Pro 2. Disallow half or more of the scholarships being redshirted. Max 6/13, 5/12, 5/11, 4/10, 4/9, 3/8, 3/7... 3. Allow 2 max redshirts per year, and 3 max over 2 years.

#17593	12/12/2021 1:31:04 am	Dec 15th, 2022
nobodyjones Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 114 UPR Río Piedras Roosters III.1	6 redshirts is still a lot but not disgusting. Also maybe 1 and 2 stars should be exempt from any restrictions for balance. Not sure if I like that. (Actually I don't. I feel like this should be predominantly a 4 year experience.) People will also have something to say about 3's becoming 4's midseason as HS seniors, so maybe take that out of the processing engine. Updated Sunday, December 12 2021 @ 2:53:48 am PST

#17594	12/12/2021 5:05:44 am	Dec 15th, 2022
naph Joined: 02/29/2020 Posts: 605 St. Marys Gaels II.1	Clearly define the problem. Brainstorm solutions Try to predict consequences of those solutions. Pick the solution(s) with the best outcomes. Is the problem that too many good players get redshirted? Then maybe RS JR’s should be eligible to be drafted. Is the problem that too many players are redshirted? Then some sort of quota like nobodyjones suggested might be feasible. Is the problem that redshirting is simply the best strategy? Why is it the best strategy? Maybe lmartins solution of higher SI but lower pot guys would fix that. Maybe redshirt penalties should be tied to number of team redshirts, not just the star rating of redshirts? I think we can collectively come up with lots of possible solutions. But the first step should be consensus (or a decision) on the problem trying to be solved. Updated Sunday, December 12 2021 @ 6:10:52 am PST

#17596	12/12/2021 5:45:52 am	Dec 15th, 2022
Slickandjake Joined: 03/21/2021 Posts: 193 Inactive	I think #1 from Naph is most important, what is the problem? Having too many redshirts is not really a problem in itself. Everyone has equal opportunity to do it. Does it cause imbalance in the game, and favor higher prestige teams? I don’t see it, but can someone make a case? Is the goal to make this game model real life? Well then you have a crap game where only the most prestigious teams win year in, year out and therefore you only have about 60-70 active users and everyone else quits because their team can’t compete (that’s what real life is). By limiting redshirts it may increase the strategy needed, but can then also favor the best teams who get all the 4 and 5 star players because teams with a bunch of 2 and 3 stars will never catch up or compete. And few of the Div 2 teams that enter Div 1 will be able to compete well. The beauty of this game is the ability to take a team and be successful within a recruiting cycle if you manage well. Gards’ team DUCA is a clear example of going from starting the game to solid success being achievable. I’m not sure why anyone wants to mess with that. The parity this game has and the ability for anyone to compete is what makes it great. I don’t see the point of throwing these things out the window in order to model real life more closely and/or upset the balance of the game. So it goes back to the question, what problem is there that needs to be solved? I really don’t see one.

#17598	12/12/2021 6:22:09 am	Dec 15th, 2022
Slickandjake Joined: 03/21/2021 Posts: 193 Inactive	So to summarize, how is redshirting causing imbalance in the game now? And how can it be changed to improve playability of the game for EVERYONE, not just elite teams or non-prestigious teams. In other words, how are the changes one proposes going to impact teams at every level? Right now, I see the game balance being fantastic.

#17599	12/12/2021 7:05:05 am	Dec 15th, 2022
nobodyjones Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 114 UPR Río Piedras Roosters III.1	Lose the 2nd team, Blackbeard.

#17600	12/12/2021 7:21:15 am	Dec 15th, 2022
Slickandjake Joined: 03/21/2021 Posts: 193 Inactive	Blackbeard never said that, he was opposed to limitations. Your proposal is to put on a limitation. So how does limiting to one team help redshirting and how is it negatively impacting the game? By having more competition?

#17603	12/12/2021 2:13:33 pm	Dec 17th, 2022
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	I wouldn't object to a rule where you cannot RS a 5-star player, or putting a limit on RS where you can do max of 2 per year and 7 over a 4 year period. Not both though. If these get implemented, the RS penalty should be eliminated.

#17604	12/12/2021 2:29:04 pm	Dec 17th, 2022
alt_lmartins Joined: 09/29/2020 Posts: 46 Amherst Mammoths IV.6	I have to agree here. What is the issue we are trying to fix? Is it simply that these are blue chip recruits and blue chip recruits shouldn't redshirt because they rarely do in real life? If that is the case then we may want to re-evaluate what a blue chip recruit is in this game. In real life a blue chipper is not only going to contribute, but likely be a top player in their first year (there are a lot of variables that cause this IRL that don't apply in the game) Would your team be better next year by playing any of these guys 20+ minutes a game? http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/119688 http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/122727 http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/119259

#17606	12/13/2021 5:08:21 am	Dec 17th, 2022
TavesSoul Joined: 06/25/2020 Posts: 149 Nazareth Golden Flyers V.16	I'll give my two cents: 1) I'd leave things as they are on the redshirt front. I don't think there's any issues with the current redshirt process, as there's already a penalty for 4/5 star recruits, and that's enough deterrent in most cases not to sit them. If you sit them, there's a cost and you have a harder time on the trail. 2) My only real "recruiting" issue is that I think Prestige should be a little more dynamic, but that's a can of worms and I don't think we have agreement on that either, so I'd leave it. 3) Not sure why nobodyjones is so anti-multiple teams? Do you feel like it's impacting how people recruit? Or is it that there's more teams with non-bot managers because of this, which makes it harder for a couple teams to recruit? I'm not really seeing the connection here but quite possible I'm missing something. Maybe you think there's a lot of people playing with multiple teams and leveraging them to help their recruiting with their main team, but I'm not really sure how that would work either. So, TLDR from me is essentially: You're doing a great job, Admin, and I appreciate the question and drive to improve the game, but I think no changes are necessary.

#17609	12/13/2021 6:52:50 am	Dec 17th, 2022
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	The only thing frustrating for me about RS today is that you HAVE to do it with almost all of your roster if you want to remain competitive and have a shot at promoting to the highest level and/or winning the National Championship. If you look at Legends, only Ursinus and IUPUI have more than 2 upperclassmen who are not redshirted (seems most of UTEP's are JUCO's). I don't have a problem if nothing changes, it's just that if everyone HAS to do it then it's not really a strategy. Versus putting a cap on RS, which introduces so more strategy on who to RS and when (and with the 4/5 star recruiting penalty lifted)

#17610	12/13/2021 7:37:10 am	Dec 17th, 2022
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	The one issue I have is that is based so much on the star rating system. Two players on my team really show this: http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/97567 http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/106336 Roberson was a 3 star entering college with 102 SI. Glenn was a 4 star entering college with 103 SI (both had same potential). Yet the penalty for redshirting Roberson is nothing and for Glenn it is significant - yet the difference is literally 1 skill point. I RSed Roberson and he will probably reach 175 SI, I didn't RS Glenn because of the penalty and he probably peaks at 160. Just seems to have too much luck involved on how well your players develop in HS. Maybe instead of basing it off of star ratings we base it off of their "overall rank" where the penalty diminishes as the rank decreases. I guess I am kind of hijacking this thread - maybe this should be brought up separately. I don't think redshirting needs to be considered a strategy. All of the teams in I.1 have pretty full rosters of scholarship players, they all have decent size in the post. Those are things you need to do to be successful in HW, just like you need to RS as many 2 and 3 star players as possible to be successful.

#17613	12/13/2021 9:12:32 am	Dec 17th, 2022
cwb Joined: 02/08/2019 Posts: 67 Prairie View A&M Panthers IV.1	I've been thinking about it and reading the thread.. the only point that really resonates with me is el jefe's point about how if you want to compete at the top level, you HAVE to redshirt. I think about March Madness in real life, and the best moments are the Cinderella stories... about how any team could possibly pull off and upset and make a run. And while there are certainly random events that can happen in this game, I've also seen how - as teams have grown over time - there is now a bit of predictability to the tournament every year. The top league teams are so stacked, they squash teams until they get matched up with one another in the playoffs. Similarly, there isn't much movement down for those teams once they make it to the top (unless a team loses its President). Redshirting adds to this problem. These teams are already getting all the 13 and 14 POT recruits. Now, they are able to fully max those recruits via redshirting their entire roster. So I think capping at 2 redshirts a year and 7 over a 4-year timespan is a reasonable compromise. So teams can still think strategically about recruiting and developing, but it can also ever-so-slightly close that gap between the very top teams and those others trying to move up (or make a Tournament run). Essentially, it would still give those teams an advantage because they still have the recruiting advantage. However, it could reasonably close those TPI gaps by 5-10 SI.. which could be all the difference. Just my two cents - as someone who didn't really see a reason to cap redshirts in the past. Updated Monday, December 13 2021 @ 9:14:18 am PST

#17615	12/13/2021 9:55:44 am	Dec 17th, 2022
ouija7 Joined: 07/07/2019 Posts: 47 Inactive	Redshirting is fine from where I sit, why stop it and hinder the chance to get that recruit maxed out in si? Why have them graduating at 160 si when they can be 170+ ? I just don’t see the benefit off cutting a guys progress by a year when most freshmen need that year of redshirting so they have time to build si and hence start playing at around 120si instead of 100 🤷🏻‍♂️

#17618	12/13/2021 12:17:22 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
cdilks Joined: 03/21/2020 Posts: 18 Inactive	I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that teams can't build into top teams. Just looking at the champions page: 2022 runner-up DUCA was 4 years removed from LL5, 8 years removed from LL6 2021 champ Minnesota State was 2 years removed from LL5, 6 years removed from LL6 2020 runner-up Bentley was 6 years removed from LL5, 7 years removed from LL6 2019 champ Marist was 2 years removed from LL5, 3 years removed from LL6. So lots of teams are working their way up and having success. As for the tournament itself, look at how top overall seeds have fared in recent years. Pretty much every tournament game is a toss-up. Limiting redshirts wouldn't even things between the best teams and lower teams, it would only widen the gap. Redshirting allows lower level teams to take lower SI/high POT recruits and give them time to reach their full potential(Find FurySK's YouTube videos about this). The right high-2/low-3 star can be just as good as a 4/5 if you play your cards right.

#17619	12/13/2021 12:52:14 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Well - is the problem too much redshirting or is the problem a logjam at the top that prevents other teams from breaking through? Similarly, there isn't much movement down for those teams once they make it to the top (unless a team loses its President). Is this a problem? 5 years ago only 1 legit team from I.1 is currently LL3 or below and that is Simpson (sorry for signaling you out, I don't make the rules) - the rest are either in LL2 or LL1 or their owner quit which led to their downfall. HW is a zero-sum game and if the main way teams move down from higher leagues is their owner quitting, I am not sure that is great. But on the other hand, I think people are overstating the recruiting advantage in LL1 - I promoted last year and had a 25% bump to my prestige and my recruiting interest barely budged.

#17620	12/13/2021 1:49:56 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
cwb Joined: 02/08/2019 Posts: 67 Prairie View A&M Panthers IV.1	All good points. I didn't say that it doesn't happen with teams moving up, but as pschwartz points out better than I did... Would those teams have moved up if other teams hadn't lost their Presidents? I stated what I did by just looking at the Champions and saying "Huh... so many of those Presidents have been in place for awhile!" I mean, look at the juggernauts like Dominican, Richmond, Tennessee. It's even more obvious when you look at the Conference One Champions. Aside from Bentley, most of those are teams that have been embedded in the top two leagues for YEARS. And once you make it to the top league and you are able to redshirt your entire roster year after year, you're pretty much ensured to never fall below League 2 (as pschwartz pointed out). Either way, I don't have a strong feeling on the matter. I'm just pointing out a potential problem that we could agree on, as naph had posed. pschwartz, regarding your comment on overstating the recruitment... I agree. I think the bonus between the top Leagues is negligible, but the big bonus comes between Divisions. That said, those teams who stick around the top (League 1 and League 2) are regularly protected, even if they have a bad year and demote. But if you're a team hovering around League 3 and League 4, it can be a big knock if you have a bad year and drop to Division 2.

#17621	12/13/2021 1:56:22 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
Slickandjake Joined: 03/21/2021 Posts: 193 Inactive	If the problem is stated as too much redshirting, what constitutes it as too much? I see a lot of comments stating it is much more than real life. If that is the real problem, is that really a problem? The game differs in many ways to real life. I think most people don't care about this. Is the problem it helps the most prestigious teams? I actually think it creates more parity, the teams that redshirt 2 and 3 stars can then almost reach the same SI as a redshirted 4 or 5 star, POT being equal. If one says, yeah but POT isn't equal in all cases, well is that again really a problem? Do we want all players to be the same POT? I don't think many would say yes to that. Is the problem it hurts the top end teams too much, allowing the lower level teams to catch up from redshirting. Well the top end teams do have a recruiting edge (so I have heard), but definitely a recruiting edge exists between Div 1 versus 2 and 3 for 4 and 5 star talent. So they still hold a slight edge in recruiting overall. There have been complaints from top end teams and low end teams that things are "unfair", meaning lower end teams seem to be able to advance quite easily (from top end teams) OR top end teams get all the best talent and low end teams can't compete (from low end teams). When there are complaints from both ends of the level spectrum, AND there are a lot of new teams able to reach the pinnacle, then the parity is quite exceptional if you are a neutral observer taking things in. If the problem is stated as a logjam at the top preventing teams from breaking through, I can't see how that is either. I'll make two examples of this, the first using pschwartz's look at 5 years ago, but I will look at all of the last 5 years. Here were the teams that have been in Legends the last 5 years, where they currently are, and whether it is the same manager: Rochester LL2, same manager Miss LL2, same manager UCLA LL1, same manager Ursinus LL1, same manager Butler, LL4, manager quit Evansville LL2, same manager L&C LL1, same manager K state LL2, manager quit Washburn, LL5, manager quit UMKC LL3, manager quit Florida St LL2, same manager Chowan LL2, same manager Huntington LL1, same manager Simpson LL3, same manager MIT LL3, manager quit when demoting to LL3 IUPUI LL1, same manager Tarleton LL2, same manager LUPA LL2, same manager Louisville LL2, same manager West Virg LL4, same manager Lehigh LL3, same manager Wake Forest LL3, same manager Oregon State LL4 same manager Loyola Chic LL4 same manager Iona LL2 same manager Cal St. Mont Bay LL3 same manager Bentley LL2 same manager Tufts LL2 same manager So of the teams that have been in Legends the last 5 years, 5 are currently there, 12 are in LL2, 6 in LL3, 4 in LL4, and 1 in LL5. Of the managers that quit while in LL1, it accounts for 4 of those teams, one each in LL2, LL3, LL4, and LL5. This looks like plenty of room in Division 1 for other teams, and I didn't even look how far some of the teams slid before getting back to LL2 or whatever level they are at. But lets take a different look. Here are the teams currently in Legends, how many seasons the team has been in Legends, and any current streak the team is on (and I am listing these according to how they currently sit in the conference standings): CSDH - first season ever UCLA - 9 seasons overall, 6 straight (other three were 2001-2003) Richmond - second season overall (2 of last 3 seasons) Toledo - second season overall, and 2 straight seasons L&C - 4th overall season, and second season in a row N. Greenville - third overall season, three straight Ursinus - fifth overall, first since 2020 Florida Gulf Coast - second overall, second straight season DUCA - second overall, second straight Iowa - third overall, three straight seasons Tennessee - 12 overall seasons, 12 of last 13 Daemen - First ever season IUPUI - second overall, first since 2018 NYU - third overall, three straight seasons UTEP - third overall, first appearance since 2010 this season Huntington - 7 overall seasons, third straight this year So, two teams making their Legends debut this season, three new teams last season, and three teams made their debut two seasons ago. 8 brand new teams the last 3 years (out of 18 promotions), and three making an appearance for the first time since 2020 or earlier. UCLA and Tennessee are the only two that have sustained long stints, and between the two they have one regular season Legends title and no NT titles. I have a hard time arguing parity doesn't exist. In addition, 20 different teams have won a Div 1 NT (in 22 seasons) and 14 different teams have won Legends regular season. I haven't seen anyone make a solid case that the amount of redshirting is really hurting the game, competitiveness, or anything else. So again, why change the redshirting rules? Who is getting favored too much by the rules? Who is getting hurt too much by the rules? And yet the evidence for great parity exists. Updated Monday, December 13 2021 @ 2:21:06 pm PST

#17622	12/13/2021 2:32:22 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
Wine13 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 20 Inactive	Nice write-up Slickandjake. Just a note here. Take a look at Cal State Dominquez Hills. Steady climb through the conferences to right now one of the best teams in HW. Not 1 single 4 or 5 star EVER on Holocrons roster and ONLY 1 pot 13!!! He has made his way to the top using 12pot 3 star players and redshirting. Seems like a good strategy. I don't think RS should be changed. The trick to the game is finding the right players for the game tactics you want to use regardless of Pot and stars.

#17623	12/13/2021 2:39:00 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
cwb Joined: 02/08/2019 Posts: 67 Prairie View A&M Panthers IV.1	I mean, with 6 teams being demoted out of League 1 every year, there's bound to be some new team making appearances. Considering there have been 18 new spots over the last three seasons, and only 8 "new" teams remain (and half of those teams likely demoting out after this season)... I think the point you're trying to make is a little flimsy. Additionally, of the 6 teams that look to promote to League 1 for next year, half of those teams have already been in League 1 in the last 5 years. So yes, new teams do come into League 1. That's bound to happen just because 6 teams demote every year. But which teams remain? And which teams from League 1 will demote for 1-2 seasons and then be back because their entirely redshirted roster has secured them? Meanwhile, teams like Daemen will climb up just to enjoy one season to League 1 and then demote back out (until their entirely redshirted roster can develop enough for them to sustain at the top). If anything, limited redshirts just adds some extra strategy to the game rather than becoming a must-do after-thought.

#17624	12/13/2021 3:38:07 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	I feel this is getting off topic. RS doesn't give an advantage to any one team - everyone can do it and make it to Legends over time with the right players. Then some bad luck, bad recruiting, heated recruiting battles can shoot someone back down the latter. The only reason in my mind to change this is because you HAVE to RS to have sustained success of any kind because everyone does it. If everybody RS, then it isn't a strategy and is no different from the game not even having a RS option to begin with. Every other game/roster management decision in this game has a strategy or uniqueness about it that can be significantly tailored from team-to-team without a right or wrong answer.....so RS could benefit from an enhancement to introduce more strategy to how it is used.

#17625	12/13/2021 4:58:02 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
gards710 Joined: 05/17/2020 Posts: 461 Dominican Univ. of California Penguins I.1	damn, I'm a juggernaut?

#17626	12/13/2021 5:38:22 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	I think that the biggest problem here is that there isn't a solution that is 100% agreeable. There are some that want the redshirts to be prominent, some that don't want them at all, and some that one different levels of allowance. If you pick one or the other extreme, someone will always be in here complaining (or in one case, they'll complain about 3 or 4 different things at once and take petty shots at owners in the process). Let's look at the pros and cons of redshirting penalties on 4 and 5 stars 1) Does it appropriately punish redshirts on really talented players? I think we can sufficiently say that it does really hurt to redshirt a 5 star player. Most 5 star players are good enough all around to merit people recruiting them regardless of deficient areas of their build. 4 star penalty does hurt, but if you have a player with higher potential and lower starting SI, you are still compelled to take the hit if you make that recruiting decision. 2) Does it make some players unrecruitable? to me the answer is it does. There are some with deficient areas of their build that i'd consider just based on their high SI. For example, a guy pacing to 130 SI but with 5 PD and 5 ID i'd take the chance on being good enough at scoring, distribution, rebounding despite the massive hole in his game. Now i have to take a hit for awful defense and having a tougher time recruiting other players. 3) Does it make the game more fun for teams? Not particularly. While some feel like it may have a positive impact as the top end players can now be played without a redshirt without fear of others becoming way better than them, it also has frustrated others whom are trying to recruit 3 stars only for them to turn into 4 stars at the end of the season, and now cost a huge penalty to redshirt. This is more problematic on low SI high potential variants of 4 stars. a 95-100 SI 13+ might fringe his way onto the list, but you have to pay quite the steep price if they do get to the 4 star. I would like to see star updates end at the start of the senior season. IRL not many HS commits get regraded on star potentials after committing, so i find it quite unrealistic and only a nuisance for owners trying to maximize their talent in recruiting. I am of the belief that you have a lot more fighting for talent at the high end of the 3 star spectrum now than you did before the RS penalty, and you might further create problems if you fully eliminate 3 stars OR redshirting from the game, as you would then make certain players at a low SI start unviable at a VI or V level of the game. Right now those levels can take chances on really low (65-75 SI) talent because they only need them to gain 55-60 SI to be capable of winning games for them at that level, but to get there they need all the time they can get. So we aren't properly looking at the impacts of our wants and needs as teams in Division 1 if we want to be quite fair about it. I also think that people are not properly analyzing the ceiling that has become more prominent these days on talent. I've very clearly started seeing people i redshirt stall out after a Redshirt, FR, SO, and Junior season. They will go a large chunk of the senior season without much improvement. So you aren't getting a guy to grow even higher than a non-redshirted player in at least a chunk of cases, you are simply getting them to the top of the build as a Junior rather than a senior, giving you more time maximized. This makes redshirting advantageous to do more often than not, but you could argue that there are at least 15-20 guys a draft now that are aiming towards 135-140 SI minimum at the start of their college career, and if they have 11 or 12 potential you could very easily just start them true freshmen and get them there without sacrificing a lot. the TL:DR here is i don't see there being a meaningful enough result to merit a change. IMO the only change i'd like to see is the end of star regrading by the start of the senior season.

#17630	12/13/2021 7:01:09 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
electriceel883 Joined: 06/07/2021 Posts: 134 Wisconsin Badgers II.1	What is the penalty? I got my first 4 star recruit this recruiting cycle...

#17632	12/13/2021 11:10:58 pm	Dec 22nd, 2022
cwb Joined: 02/08/2019 Posts: 67 Prairie View A&M Panthers IV.1	Sorry, gards, I got you mixed up with another school. Nevermind that. lol But yes, el jefe said it better than I. I definitely derailed it by trying to make a point that could’ve been stated much more succinctly. Redshirting is so great that all the good teams do it… now what? Just assume it to be the thing you must do to compete at the top levels? Or should we introduce some strategy to it by limiting it and encouraging players to think more deeply about how they apply the redshirts?

#17649	12/14/2021 8:08:15 pm	Dec 24th, 2022
naph Joined: 02/29/2020 Posts: 605 St. Marys Gaels II.1	electriceel883 Additionally, teams with a history of red shirting highly rated players will also experience diminished recruiting prowess. This is because elite prospects want to play as soon as they arrive on campus and not wait a year to play regularly. - http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/rules#recruiting It will take you a few more contacts to get each sublevel of interest on recruits for a season or two after you redshirt a 4-star of 5-star player.

#17650	12/14/2021 9:09:42 pm	Dec 24th, 2022
electriceel883 Joined: 06/07/2021 Posts: 134 Wisconsin Badgers II.1	Yes, more contacts, just like recruiting out of area recruits and so on. I guess the crucial info there is the duration of the penalty. If it lasts a couple seasons, than an epic class could move you past that by the time they graduate if you did it when they were Freshmen. But I would have to be sure that is the case.

#17651	12/15/2021 5:39:03 am	Dec 24th, 2022
lmartins6746 Joined: 02/26/2020 Posts: 254 North Greenville Crusaders IV.3	Does the penalty apply to all recruits for that multibyear period or just 4 and 5 star recruits?

#17652	12/15/2021 6:04:27 am	Dec 24th, 2022
naph Joined: 02/29/2020 Posts: 605 St. Marys Gaels II.1	Its hard to isolate the factors that change the number of contacts needed for each sub-level in recruiting. I've had a 3-star big go from needing 4 contacts for a sublevel to as many as 20 (on the same recruit). In the same red-shirt effected season I had a 3-star guard that only needed 19 contacts to get to High. It seems to have more effect on more highly regarded recruits. Could possibly have more effect when you are in competition with a team that doesn't have the redshirt history.

#17656	12/15/2021 12:04:45 pm	Dec 29th, 2022
Hayseed Joined: 04/05/2019 Posts: 133 Lewis & Clark Pioneers I.1	I mainly agree with FurySK: "i don't see there being a meaningful enough result to merit a change. IMO the only change i'd like to see is the end of star regrading by the start of the senior season." I have only RSed one player greater than 3 star, because of the penalty. That said, I only have had three or four 4 star players ever. Of the 4 star players I have gotten, all but one were 3 stars when I recruited them. Now that my team has had some success and prestige I am now beginning to recruit 4/5 star guys. I share all this, because I find that there is some fun strategy about recruiting and developing players regarding star levels and RSing. I think the RS penalty should be more than 1-2 seasons, but not greater than 4 or 5. The change in star level messes with a team's strategy and hence is kinda annoying without much benefit. It might add a little strategy or uncertainty to recruiting (which isn't necessarily a positive), but it can really mess someone up (definitely a negative). I PMed a newer player last week who is in Division 3, because they were recruiting a 5 star. They said that the player popped to 5 star after they got them to High. Imagine all the points they must have put into getting him to high at LL6? Totally brutal and probably sets them back a couple of seasons. Why should we have star regrading ever? Are the benefits worth it? IMO -- naw.