Leagues
DEL Daily News
DEL Forum
Coach Tools
MyDEL
Search Coaches
Coach Records
Change Requests
Changes
Newbie Help
Help Pages
DEL Time: 20:27
|
Request For: College All Sports Request Title: Transfers Description 800 transfers in D1 basketball last season, DEL isn't reflecting real life when it comes to transfers. How can we get the game to a take a step in the right direction? Reasons a guy would transfer
Would love thoughts, bad suggestions? Anything that should be added? Admin notes - combining this with another request so we can keep the discussion on one thread. Other suggested criteria unique from those above: 6. Superior players redshirting 7. Bad season for the team 8. Not on scholarship 9. Former starter now on bench Category: Enhancement Status: In Work (last updated Sep 28 16:11:08 2025 ) Priority: Long Term
Admin Notes
So, I think the most promising suggestions are reduction in minutes and expansion of the talent criteria. I think if either were to be incorporated, the current player performance drop if PT demand is not met would be eliminated (the only penalty for not meeting a demand is the player transfers). I will put this "in work", but initially the change will be adding a list of players who might demand PT to the "top prospects" list rather than actually implementing. Comments on those lists would be appreciated. The number at the end of each line is the odds of the player demanding PT, if implemented. (sorry for multiple e-mails, am debugging the ticket system at the same time.)
Submitted Oct 31 16:02:49 2019 by Luke McCann Coaches In Favor of Change: Luke McCann, Stephen Thompson, Loren Smith, Ron BK DD, Gregor Ellis, Stephen Thompson AA Coaches Opposed to Change: Coach Shers, Bill Edwards, Pythagoras A Comments
Luke McCann Stephen, As a response to your input which I value. I think they are many good players at low tier schools that never get talked about. Just a quick glance, you have Hartford with a losing record right now, player 483 S.Bell which is an A rated player. If he transferred to an ACC school, it would be "news" with our "community". Duke signed a 5th year grade transfer S. Bell who could potentially start. ect ect. Duke is struggling this year it seems, but overall if Bell was in the ACC....he gets more "exposure" than playing in a small conference with no human coaches or coverage. Which in real life, many starters at lower tier conferences move up to bigger conference schools for yes, the chance to play in the big dance...but also better program, resources, facilities, and it gives them more creditability and opportunity to land overseas contracts. What sounds better, a guy who averaged 8ppg at Duke or 12 PPG at Hartford? Also, even if RonBK is having a rough year at Duke in the ACC, they still go up against the better programs in the nation which hypothetically would be aired on national TV, covered by national media. That is what I mean by exposure. If Bell scores 30 points against FSU and beats them in a upset....he would get much more exposure than scoring 30 points at Hartford. So in general, higher tier programs offer more exposure even if they are a losing program just because of the competition they play. Loren Smith In general, I think Andy's potential changes make sense. I have a couple of thoughts: For 3 (Depth Chart Projection). Basketball is hard with ability to play multiple positions; there have been times when I've played someone at a position one year and then played him elsewhere later as the roster changes. To Stephen's point, would we need some way to see each player's general attitude, similar to the PtP info provided today. I'd like to be able to decide whether to find a way to play the disgruntled guy more or just let him walk. Maybe with a little bit of uncertainty as with EPBL low minor league players? Coach Shers All Andy's points make sense I'm voting against but here's why - yes there are a large number of transfers, but they typically aren't the top tier or even the starting lineup of teams. Its typically either after a coaching change has happened (which isn't what we're talking about here, but maybe we should? more on that in a second) but its more often than not kids who think they should be getting more PT even though they haven't cracked the rotation. I think if the focus was given there, borderline guys with a huge potential number (however that is factored) that forces the coaches to make a gamble on them. Otherwise where I think we see a number of real life transfers is coach moves. Maybe when we do have a coaching change/vacancy/promotion, a higher number of players than normal transfer out of that school. Would cause chaos (scorched earth) behind if not careful, but thats more in line with reality I think So anyway, I think if we did something like the above that doesn't really move the needle a whole heck of a lot. Would mean more recruits in the no-region/transfer area which would be nice but not sure its mirroring reality Ron BK DD (Jan 6 19:57:07 2020 ) I really like this change Pythagoras A (Sep 15 17:45:10 2025 ) Can you add a neutral voting option? I am in favor of parts of this, but against other parts. One big concern I have would be good players leaving lower tier schools just because they are good and want "more exposure". While that may indeed mimic real life, it would absolutely be a gut punch for lower tier teams. At least in CCEL, it is already almost impossible for a tier 2 team to make a real challenge to the top 10 teams, even though in real life we see a team pop up to that level every couple of seasons. I have seen far more accomplished coaches than me try it and fail. In CCEL, it is a negative to be the top tier 2 team as you become a sacrificial lamb in a New Year's Day bowl game. Pulling the best talent away from those teams just to get more exposure from the player would make it more likely to see far fewer coaches willing to coach at those levels. Gregor Ellis (Sep 27 23:42:32 2025 ) I agree that most of these should leave or demand pt/schollie. I think an interesting side effect if this is implemented without hurting the high tier 2 teams too much would be more upsets and really close games as the top teams lose some of their depth advantage. Specifically: Reason #1/9 - Depends on the sport but I agree that a former starter or even top BU who is demoted on the depth chart should have a high probability to transfer. It seems that this could be accomplished through the current 'demanding pt' mechanism. Reason #2 - already exists Reasons #3 and 8 - So any B rated Jr/RS So not at least the top BU for any position he could play should have a non-zero chance of demanding pt. I don't think it should be automatic but rather just like the current implementation with just higher probabilities all around. I think any Sr or RS Jr who is BB or BA rated and not at least the top backup at any position other than QB in football should have close to 100% probability of demanding pt. Any rising Sr QB who is B rated and not the starter should 100% demand pt imo. Reason #4 - I think this is a more complicated problem and whatever is done should also have some % of these B rated and better players not transferring. Reasons #5 and 7 - Would not want to see this. It may be realistic, especially for A potential players but given how the sim runs Bob teams, not sure that this wouldn't just make their disadvantages too big. Reason #6 - With the current schollie/ptp mechanisms and the randomness of training camps, I think a better approach here would be making almost all BA and above players in the recruit pool demand or at least be influenced by pt promises. Stephen Thompson AA (Oct 22 06:58:42 2025 ) So I'm looking at this in CBEL and this is good, although I think the information is too precise. For example, when I see that a player has 7 shooting, we know that is really 70-79, and then with intangibles it's really more like 61-88. That's fine - the level of uncertainty makes the game more interesting. But on the current pro-prospects page, I see that some players are listed as 28% chance to moving - something that like. I would not like the final implementation to be so precise. I think if a player is starting to think negatively about his PT, he could just be added to the "unhappy" list, even if he's not demanding PT. I think that's all the info we need. Andy Dolphin (Oct 27 19:36:03 2025 ) The final implementation will not have that information at all. This is being provided only to help coaches review the specific planned change.
|