All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > What the problem with recruit generation?
5/22/2013 3:30 PM
Posted by tkimble on 5/22/2013 3:21:00 PM (view original):
Recruit Generation before the last major change produced many recruits who were 99s in all their core categories.  There were just too many elite players that the sweet 16 teams would all be identical with 99 core players everywhere.  This needed to be changed for a more interesting game to be played.

When they made the change, they did accomplish not have that many 99 core players.  One of the goals, which I thought was a good one, was to try to create a few "super recruits", your Carmelos, Durants, etc.  They didn't quite accomplish this, but I do think this would be a nice addition to the game (perhaps 1 or 2 super recruits, 1 and done's, every season).  There have been complaints that there aren't enough high potential mid-tier players out there for mid-majors to develop for 4 years and have them turn into solid players.  I think this has been over-stated and that there are more out there than most mid-major coaches realize, but I do think adding some more  high-potential low-rated players to the mix that could turn into great players would benefit mid-majors.  

There are two other things holding mid-majors back that are not talked about as much.
1) Coach talent- Generally there is far more coaching talent in the major conferences.  These major conferences are more desireable, in part because of recruiting money, but mostly because of higher baseline prestige.  Higher baseline prestige makes it far easier to sustain a winning program.  If you look at the most talented coaches in D1, they're probably coaching at major schools (not B baseline BCS schools, but A- and higher) because they want to win national championships and those are the schools that give them the best chance.  If you look at their coaching resumes, most of them didn't spend that long at mid-majors because they were able to have pretty quick success and move to better jobs.  D1 recruiting is brutal and you better have a really good plan, be very observant of the other teams, and be very smart in general if you want to succeed at that level.  If you're recruiting against a bunch of people who are more experienced and have the advantage of a higher prestige (what you will be doing at a mid-major), you better be a damn good recruiter to have a good mid-major school.  This is the same as real life and I don't see any reason why it should be any different.  Building a good program at a mid-major is super hard in real life and you have to be a great coach to do it, just like here.  If some great coach (or coaches) decide they are going to stay at a mid-major for a long time and not move up, they can be very successful (There are many examples out there, the best one is lostmyth at St. Bonnie's (I think).  

2) Empty Conferences- Empty conferences not only hurt the conf $$ situation, they also hurt mid-majors in terms of scheduling because there are a bunch of games that, even if they win, mean nothing.  This is also similar to real life.  If a conference of coaches gets together in a mid-major conf, they can be successful (A10 in some worlds, WCC in some worlds, Ivy in some worlds).  

Honestly, I think the talent of coaches is a much bigger factor in mid-major (lack of) success than anybody talks about and blaming it on recruit generation, which I think is actually pretty good (not perfect, but appropriately challenging), makes me a little frustrated.  


Great post!
5/22/2013 3:32 PM
Posted by smackawits on 5/22/2013 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I think all of what you wrote is correct and is part of the problem (as I see it).   Some people, as yourself, think it is not a problem.  That's OK also.  It's OK to have different points of view.  
Oh, definitely ok to have different points of view.  I actually really enjoy these discussions.  I have a lot to say on this subject (if you hadn't already figured that out, ha) What part of view I presented do you see as a problem that I don't?  I'm just a little mixed up by your pronouns. 
5/22/2013 3:33 PM
One more recruiting fix I want to point out: Having promises mean much more would play a big part in mid-majors being able to sway better recruits.  I think that would be more realistic and more fun.  
5/22/2013 3:45 PM
Posted by tkimble on 5/22/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by smackawits on 5/22/2013 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I think all of what you wrote is correct and is part of the problem (as I see it).   Some people, as yourself, think it is not a problem.  That's OK also.  It's OK to have different points of view.  
Oh, definitely ok to have different points of view.  I actually really enjoy these discussions.  I have a lot to say on this subject (if you hadn't already figured that out, ha) What part of view I presented do you see as a problem that I don't?  I'm just a little mixed up by your pronouns. 
OK, I probably did not word this correctly.  I'm at work and the phones ring while I'm typing!  Anyway, your post was very good.  I agree with what you said.  I think it's more than that, though.  You said (paraphrasing) "coaches couldn't cut it in DIV I so they went back to DIV II to win more".  That statement may be correct also, but why?  If they felt that DIV I was very tilted towards the Big 6 (in recuitment) and they found that more similar DII recuits were available to build a team (and be with more human coaches) was more fun, who can blame them?  Again (unintended) the best teams get better because the SIM population has expanded.  I think my arguements regarding prestige and money have some merit in this conversation also.   
  
 
5/22/2013 4:00 PM
Posted by tkimble on 5/22/2013 3:33:00 PM (view original):
One more recruiting fix I want to point out: Having promises mean much more would play a big part in mid-majors being able to sway better recruits.  I think that would be more realistic and more fun.  
I'm in line with tkimble here. the recruit generation isn't a problem by itself, it's only when paired with the fact that its too easy for high prestige schools to get multiple top recruits. Make it easier for mid-majors to land that one stud by guaranteeing him 25 minutes a game, career starter, 15% distro from the get-go, etc.

The all-99 recruiting era simply masked the recruiting problem.
5/22/2013 4:02 PM
by the same token, trying to get Villanova to A+ prestige in Iba has been the most exciting and enduring challenge i've faced in this game.
5/22/2013 4:24 PM
Just throwing it out there -- but if we're talking people in D1 moving back to D2 we probably also need to look at how much of that is the messed-up hiring logic that (from what I frequently hear) has made moving up the ladder at D1 a ton harder than it used to be.
5/22/2013 7:40 PM
Some good posts in this thread.

Few notes:

1) smackawits does seem very negative on the site staff. And why shouldn't he? There's been very little done to improve the game over the last few years.

2) Bringing up the Big 6 in the PIT thing was pretty funny. It gives the conference $417 per team game played, a drop in the bucket. The postseason cash is an issue worth fighting on though. If I want to make Delaware St a dynasty, I'm greatly inhibited because the Big 6 teams are getting an extra $20,000 - $40,000 for recruiting.

3) I think the hiring logic is fine. The firing logic is just horrible. It makes it hard to move up within the D1 ranks when PIT appearances can keep people at A+ prestige jobs.
5/22/2013 8:11 PM (edited)
this thread seems to have sort of gone in 2 directions, first, what was changed from the old way to make things so bad, and second, what is ideal. i think the latter issue is fairly unbounded and there are so many ways to go, ill just stick to the first.

the fundamental change was with respect to quantity of recruits available at different levels of quality. previously, there were great recruits, yes, but there was a nice gentle slope down, there were a lot of great players, a lot of really good players, a lot of good players, a lot of pretty good players, etc... what people didn't like is that the top teams only had great players, which made them too similar, and there wasnt enough strategy in coaching (how do you game plan against a team with no weakness? its ok when they are #1, but not when they are #15). i will say, my opinion is strongly that the problem was over stated. i totally agreed there were too many recruits on the high end, but totally disagreed there was no room to differentiate there, and people were very successful even though some called it the "coin flip dynasty".

anyway, its hard to say when the "old days" were exactly, there was pre-potential and then a few months of potential where it was totally ridiculous, where players were obscenely good, and then seble's patch that brought back sanity. for this post, ill refer to the time after seble's patch, and before the "new engine" (~2 years ago when seble changed d1 recruit generation, resulting in one in three d1 coaches hanging it up), the "old potential" era. anyway, in that old potential era, there were more players who could appear as low end players on top teams, and solid players on decent big 6 teams, or great players on mid major teams (all 3 of those are about the same, roughly). there is often a mis-statement that recruits are better now and everyone was capped back then. the top recruits are actually clearly better today than they ever had been, at least IMO. there were guys with 90s in all their cores, but you didnt get the guards with 95+ in all their cores plus 60 reb plus 60 lp, or the bigs with 95+ ath/reb/def/sb/lp AND 50+ per/bh/pass. 

so, what actually happened is the top players got even better - making the minimum player who could compete with those guys, significantly better. but the number of players over that minimum was greatly reduced. there are some high potential low rating guys out there, but the only reason its nearly enough to go around is because d1 is so empty, and its still not enough to go around, its just that a smart coach can find a way to survive. i can say with certainty, its at least 5 times harder right now for a coach like me to pick up a mid major in a non-power conference and win a title, than it used to be. because there were so many guys who were good or better, it was a lot easier for things to slip through. also, the advantage of IQ was more significant - now you might have better IQ, but the other team's players are all 150 points better. that IQ isnt making up that gap. before, if you were a really good coach, you could recruit a team without major problems, who just wasnt quite as flashy, and when they were experienced, of course you were still disadvantaged to the A+ elite schools, but you could routinely put together teams capable of beating just about anyone.

another way of saying it is, because all the top guys go to the top schools (obviously), the gap between #5 and #30 teams is bigger than ever. really there are like 10 teams each year now that are so good, it feels more like coin flip dynasty to me now than it ever has, just among those top teams. the thing that makes people so unhappy is not that the best teams get the best guys, but that what is left over just simply has no chance of competing. if you had d1 worlds at the level of population they were in the old potential era, a solid d1 mid major would basically be a top d2 team today, and d2 teams and d3 teams would be a notch lower. that all is fine except that the #10 d1 team is then beating solid mid majors by 20 points a game, its just too big a gap. there has to be a middle ground, for all parties. top teams get ****** because if they lose a target, the drop off to the next guy they can get is MASSIVE, so they get really ****** off when they have a rough class, instead of just tolerating a couple decent guys to replace the guys they missed. the mid tier BCS teams are frustrated because you are stuck playing against teams who are only a little above you in standings - maybe the 3rd best team in a conf, instead of 5th - but they are way better, a good 10ppg better frequently, without significantly better coaching. so that really ****** those guys off, they just cant compete with the upper crust of the conference (unless they are way better of a coach). the low BCS teams and mid majors are frustrated as hell because even if they coach really well, they struggle substantially to make the NT.

it used to be that excellent recruiting OR excellent coaching could get you really far. great coaching and creative recruiting could have a major impact. today it feels like you really have to nail recruiting to have a chance, because all the coaching in the world won't win a game where the other teams' backups crush your starting lineup. things are too 1 dimensional now. you need to be able to find guys with solid ratings to start who dont have much growth, and guys with lots of growth and crappy ratings, who as seniors, can compete with the top sophmores. there has to be a variety of angles to attack the problem from, any of which, when combined with high quality execution, yield quality results. when you simply have to recruit the elite players or you are screwed, its 1 dimensional, and it takes the fun away. to me, that is the problem. i know the best HD coaches can succeed at any d1 team anywhere, but that can't be the standard. significantly better performance should make up for significantly better prestige, but it doesn't, and that sucks.
5/22/2013 10:35 PM
I agree with billyg's summary if the current situation, however I would propose that the fix is NOT to change recruit generation again.
5/22/2013 11:13 PM
I think  gillispie 100% nailed it.
5/23/2013 12:42 AM
Would anyone disagree with making promises count more?  Come to my house or bring me to your school, great.  Gurantee I am a starter and you more likely have a deal.  Seems like now it works the other way around?
5/23/2013 6:02 AM
Posted by alblack56 on 5/22/2013 3:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joeykw18 on 5/22/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
So it sounds like a which do you prefer: A. Each world being more like real life in having the Big-6 teams generally at the top. or B. Any school (big or small) could be a perennial power?

Personally I like having simular to real life and having the traditional big schools at the top (I don't really enjoy seeing Southern, Cleveland St, Dayton, Etc winning tittles).  However, WIS may have over-corrected making it fairly difficult to have a Gonzaga-like team at the lower levels.
In the on-going Smith tournament,  the Big-6 schools are 25-5 vs. the mid-majors.  And it's not even close. The average winning margin in those 25 games is 16.5 and only two of them have been decided by fewer than 5 points.   Three of the 5 mid-major wins were by the same team, which then lost by 25 in their next game.

By comparison, in the 2013 NCAA tourney, the Big-6 was 19-10 vs. the mid-majors
In the first round of the Iba tournament, the Big-6 was 21-1 vs. the mid-majors.
5/23/2013 6:58 AM

I marvel at how gillespie always has a well thought out and put-together opinion....well done g.

5/23/2013 8:32 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 5/23/2013 12:42:00 AM (view original):
Would anyone disagree with making promises count more?  Come to my house or bring me to your school, great.  Gurantee I am a starter and you more likely have a deal.  Seems like now it works the other way around?
If there is a corresponding increase in the punishment of breaking promises (increase transfer rates, reduce or eliminate the value of promises in subsequent recruiting periods, etc), then no problem.

It may be tougher to program, but I'd like FR to have some expectation of PT too, although on a sliding scale. Currently, you can sign the #1 player in the county and play him 0 minutes all season and he won't complain. There should be some level of expectation, varied among recruits and tied to a team's prestige. So the top player may want 10 minutes at an A+ or A, 15 minutes at an A-, 20 at a B+, start + 20 minutes at a B or below. Some guys may be fine with the current system, some should want to start wherever they go.
of 4
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > What the problem with recruit generation?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.