Rocketcan

Dank

It does not let me see the pic. I bet it has Dean's feet in it.

"It's like a whole other country."

I appreciate the comments, but I don't agree that we should be basing the transfer system on the assumption that mid tier and lower schools will just turn over. Because what about the coach that does decide to stay? Now those bad promises follow him around, but he had no choice if he wanted to compete in the transfer market.

I think this is a feature that will not only make the portal more realistic, but more fun as well. I think this will help alleviate some of the issues I have experienced with the current system. This is a bit off-the-cuff and somewhat anecdotal, but here are my thoughts: The current structure of the portal is such that it only benefits two categories of schools: FCS teams/bottom-end G5 and top 10-15 P5. Everyone else in between has to pick between scraps or no one. Benefits for top-tier schools: Make "high" promises for a transfer (Natty, Win 10 games, Great unit stats, etc.) Able to backup those promises and create a positive feedback loop. Therefore, high base point values as promises are kept AND ability to continue to offer "high" end promises. Only 5% (10 out of 200) possible transfers were of pro potential. When supply is low, and demand is high, the price will increase such that only the richest (teams most able to fulfill high promises and keep them) are able to realistically bid on pro-potential transfers. Benefits for FCS/bottom G5: Vast majority (190 out of 200, 95%) possible transfers are not Pro-potential. This usually precludes most FBS teams from bidding on these players, as they will do no good for them other than maybe be a backup. Of those 190 non-pro potential players, 131 (69% Nice.....actually I rounded up from 68.947%....) are only 3.0 potential. This weeds out most of the rest of the FBS teams, as even lower-tier FBS teams usually have at least 3.0 potential players in starting roles, although some teams do needs rebuilds and might seek them out. The remaining 3.5 potential players (59 out of 190, or 31.053%) are potential starters for bottom-half teams (including FCS). Since FCS teams play in a smaller league, it is more likely that they can be successful in reaching the post season which yields the potential for better promises Also, since FCS teams can offer play their transfers immediately, they also have the ability to use transfers to "put them over the top" if they already have a decent roster, which leads them to have the ability to fulfill higher promises again. What does this mean for the 100+ schools in the middle? Don't bother bidding on players with pro potential. Only big schools will get them due to their ability to offer high promises. Even on 3.5 potential transfers (most likely players you could bid on and still use), you are at a disadvantage since FCS schools can usually make higher promises than you and still use that player. Of the players left (3.0 potential), the vast majority of them would never start for you or would be career backup. This could lead to teams choosing simply to not participate in the transfer portal since there is very little utility. This is just some back of the napkin kind of stuff I slapped together to try to express how I feel. This is by no means negative criticism: we all appreciate the work you do putting this together. I understand this is only 2 years in to this new system, and stuff like this takes a while to propagate all the way through (like teams failing in their promises). I also realize that the results might be intended behavior (in which case, feel free to just chuck these comments in the trash). I hope that this could be used to improve the system, and if you need any help let me know.

Done.

Culver has only started one full season.

I think this is supposed to say WR?

I do not like this.

GG

Rerolling Harris and Copeland table { width: 95%; border-spacing: 0; } table td { padding: 3px; } tr { background-color: #FFF; } tr:nth-child(even){ background-color: #EAEAEA; } table.boxscore tr { background-color: #fff; } table.boxscore td { font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 90%; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #D3D3D3; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; } table.boxscore td:first-of-type { border-left: 0px; } table.boxscore tr:first-of-type td, table.boxscore tr:last-of-type td { border-bottom: 0px; } table.compare td { font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 80%; text-align: center; } table td.block { height: 35px; text-align: center; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; background-color: #00004c; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; } table td.helper { height: 18px; text-align: center; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; background-color: #939799; color: #000000; } table td.teamspecific { width: 49%; min-width: 400px; display:inline-block; } table td.teamspecific td.stat{ text-align: left; } table td.teamspecific td.name{ text-align: left; } table td.teamspecific td.stat.name{ width: 12%; background-color: #BBB; font-weight:bold; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 80%; } table td.teamspecific td.label { width: 40%; background-color: #BBB; font-weight: bold; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 80%; text-align: left; } @media (max-width: 840px) { table td.teamspecific{ width: 100%; } } FIU Score Sheet (Overtime) Point Calc Order 1 2 3a 3b 4/5 6 7 Final Comments Pos Player Rolls Doubling Rolls Gameplan Effects (Yours) Gameplan Effects (Theirs) Attributes (Yours) Stars Attributes (Theirs) Total Notes PG PG Dwayne Harris 6-3 228 (Sr) Windermere (Windermere FL) [Physical**] 1 5 1 - 2 2 - 11 +2 from Physical SG G Parelle Bishop 6-3 218 (Sr) Montverde Academy (Montverde FL) [Mental Toughness*] 0 - - - 3 1 - 4 +3 from Mental Toughness SF SF Michael Tyler 6-7 258 (Jr) Montverde Academy (Montverde FL) 3 - - - - - - 0 - PF PF Reuben Booth 6-5 239 Fr Seminole (Sanford FL) [Physical] 3 - - - 2 - - 5 +2 from Physical C C Tyrice Copeland 6-8 274 So Westminster Academy (Fort Lauderdale FL) [Director] 1 0 - - - - - 1 - Helpful Hints • SW may play as SG or SF Fatigue Rules [Ball Hog] Steals 1 pt from above, if happens, +1 • G may play as PG or SG 4th Q Played: -3 [Distributor] Next player down +1 if no attribute • FG may play as PG or SF 5th Q Played: -6 [Ferocity] (1x) Player scores same as opponent in pos • F may play as SF or PF Each Q After: Add. -3 [Gunner] DR on any number. If DR is 0 or 1, 0 total • FC may play as PF or C [Tenacity] is 1 less [Motivation] Allows teammate to score 1 if down >3 Score = 21 @kwheele

FIU Panthers Overtime PG Dwayne Harris 6-3 228 (Sr) Windermere (Windermere FL) [Physical**] G Parelle Bishop 6-3 218 (Sr) Montverde Academy (Montverde FL) [Mental Toughness*] SF Michael Tyler 6-7 258 (Jr) Montverde Academy (Montverde FL) PF Reuben Booth 6-5 239 Fr Seminole (Sanford FL) [Physical] C Tyrice Copeland 6-8 274 So Westminster Academy (Fort Lauderdale FL) [Director]

@kwheele Scratch OT I believe