Posted by lilspike0738 on 1/19/2016 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Unfortunately, it's a fact of DI basketball these days... Look at Butler... The only reason they competed, is because a guy like Gordon Hayward fell through the cracks. 

Who just so happens to be from Indiana, and grew up watching Butler... That's really the bread and butter right there. You want to change the sim, to have the occasional cinderella team? Then start making location preferences and childhood favorites ACTUALLY make a difference. That's the only way that D1 guys aren't going to get any and every recruit they want, with no effort, because they'll always have more money. The guys who are at these top schools, are just going to pick apart the new recruiting thing and get it to work for them, just as they did this recruit engine. 

The fact remains, that the people putting in the time and work, are seeing the results. You can't expect to jump into a school like Albany and win all the time. It's not realistic. It's even less realistic in this sim. 

Yep - didn't Heyward choose Butler over Purdue because there wouldn't be a conflict between basketball practice and his course load?  Personal recruit preference, that would be a great addition to recruit generation.
 
Stephen Curry always gets brought up - NBA MVP went to Davidson - but he choose Davidson over VCU or Winthrop (or a chance to walk on at Virginia Tech).  It isn't like Davidson got him over UNC or even Wake Forest, so this isn't really applicable to this situation.  If you want to say that there should be more lowly ranked recruits who have the potential to improve a lot, great - that's a recruit generation fix.  

Bistiza threw out some other names, although they all were from 20+ years ago, so their applicability here is less useful.  But beyond that:

Steve Nash only got an offer from Santa Clara, so again, not choosing low/mid DI schools over BCS.  His being Canadian is a bit different, and low level schools can still have some luck with internationals, although it can be expensive.  Allowing for targeted scouting trips would help this.  Also - Steve Nash is absolutely a player that a low level DI school could get currently (but probably don't), because he'd have a DE rating  in the teens and low potential.  

Moving into the 30 years ago category:

John Stockton choose Gonzaga over Idaho and Montana.  Again, not a person who chose their school over a BCS team.

David Robinson is an outlier in so many different ways that he doesn't really contribute anything to this discussion.  He did choose Navy, but that was not remotely basketball related.  He hadn't played much basketball before his senior year of HS when his coach added him to the team because he was 6'6".  He grew 3 more inches between his HS graduation and first game with Navy, and another 4 inches while at Navy.

Karl Malone did choose LA Tech over Arkansas to be closer to home, but to see that more within HD only requires tweaking the effects of things already in the game.

Larry Bird did famously leave Indiana for Indiana State because he didn't like the big city atmosphere of Bloomington, IN.  In today's world, he would have played AAU and traveled much more extensively and have exposure to environments different than French Lick well before he was a college freshman.

So, we have 2 instances where a player did choose a small school over a BCS school, and they started playing college ball in 1983 and 1976 respectively.  We also have numerous instances where a player at a low/mid school developed their game tremendously, which used to happen before recruit generation and potential (while mostly a plus, this has limited how small schools can develop players), and could happen again, with some tweaks to recruit generation.

Yes, as with most things, there's the exceptions. I'm not saying that doing something like that would work every time, but even if it happened once in a blue moon. If one player like Gordon Heyward fell through the cracks for a less than ideal school, it *could* make a world of difference. Especially if a top school lost out on recruiting him, and was forced to take less options. 

A few small swings in recruiting will change this game tremendously. The entire overhaul, will probably work initially, until one of the powerhouses figures out how to do it, then it'll be back to square one. 

acn, you are artificially limiting the scope of possibilities. We aren't necessarily talking about players who are all-time greats going to mid-majors. The most applicable context is looking at recruit rankings from every year and seeing relatively high-profile recruits going to lesser prestige schools over the powers and it happens all the time. I'll use Florida State because it is obviously the program I pay the closest attention to. Coach Hamilton has been tearing it up on the recruiting trail over the last few years and landing guys like Dwayne Bacon and Malik Beasley in 2015 and Johnathan Issac and Trent Forrest this year.

I specifically call out those guys because they are just the ones I know the most about- I am sure there are many more examples every year. Just look at the Rivals 150 from this year (or even just the Top 50) and look at the schools to which those kids are going. the #39 overall recruit from this year is going to UMass. I'd be interested to see how many Overall Top 50 recruits ended up at "second-tier" schools in HD.

Posted by noleaniml on 1/19/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):
acn, you are artificially limiting the scope of possibilities. We aren't necessarily talking about players who are all-time greats going to mid-majors. The most applicable context is looking at recruit rankings from every year and seeing relatively high-profile recruits going to lesser prestige schools over the powers and it happens all the time. I'll use Florida State because it is obviously the program I pay the closest attention to. Coach Hamilton has been tearing it up on the recruiting trail over the last few years and landing guys like Dwayne Bacon and Malik Beasley in 2015 and Johnathan Issac and Trent Forrest this year.

I specifically call out those guys because they are just the ones I know the most about- I am sure there are many more examples every year. Just look at the Rivals 150 from this year (or even just the Top 50) and look at the schools to which those kids are going. the #39 overall recruit from this year is going to UMass. I'd be interested to see how many Overall Top 50 recruits ended up at "second-tier" schools in HD.

This is perfectly spoken... Also -- there are thousands of College recruits that turn out to be all-D1-2-3 team and NEVER make it in the NBA. So to pretend like you need to have the Karl Malones and John Stocktons falling to lower tier colleges is ridiculous, acn... It's fairly comical to compare Heyward with Stockton and Malone too. :P

Players like Gerry McNamara was a legend for SU basketball, if someone like him falls to a lesser school, that school could be improve and at least compete a season or two...  

Maybe the answer is to alter the recruit generation so that the low D1 recruits have a greater chance for explosive growth potential (i.e. more of the blues turn out to be VERY high-high). It would reward the patience for developing a guy for four years (because the top teams are not going to go after those guys) and a smart low-level D1 coach can develop a team into giant killers.

The coach at Albany is still not going to win a D1 title, but he may be able to develop a team that goes to the Sweet 16 or Elite Eight.

Posted by lilspike0738 on 1/19/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 1/19/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):
acn, you are artificially limiting the scope of possibilities. We aren't necessarily talking about players who are all-time greats going to mid-majors. The most applicable context is looking at recruit rankings from every year and seeing relatively high-profile recruits going to lesser prestige schools over the powers and it happens all the time. I'll use Florida State because it is obviously the program I pay the closest attention to. Coach Hamilton has been tearing it up on the recruiting trail over the last few years and landing guys like Dwayne Bacon and Malik Beasley in 2015 and Johnathan Issac and Trent Forrest this year.

I specifically call out those guys because they are just the ones I know the most about- I am sure there are many more examples every year. Just look at the Rivals 150 from this year (or even just the Top 50) and look at the schools to which those kids are going. the #39 overall recruit from this year is going to UMass. I'd be interested to see how many Overall Top 50 recruits ended up at "second-tier" schools in HD.

This is perfectly spoken... Also -- there are thousands of College recruits that turn out to be all-D1-2-3 team and NEVER make it in the NBA. So to pretend like you need to have the Karl Malones and John Stocktons falling to lower tier colleges is ridiculous, acn... It's fairly comical to compare Heyward with Stockton and Malone too. :P

Players like Gerry McNamara was a legend for SU basketball, if someone like him falls to a lesser school, that school could be improve and at least compete a season or two...  

This discussion is about elites recruits going to schools outside the BCS, so saying that Florida State has significantly improved their recruiting isn't at all applicable.  While in terms of their professional careers Malone and Stockton are obviously superior professional players, Heyward actually recently chose Butler over a Big-10 school, so that is much more of a relevant data point to how to make DI HD recruiting more level than somebody who made a similar choice, but 30+ years ago or somebody who made a choice among 3 low prestige programs.

lilspike - what are you saying then?  It is pretty clear that the best players in HD go to the best schools, much as they do in real life.  Does the occasional Top-50 recruit slip to a non-BCS school in HD - absolutely (not even taking into account something like the Rupp CUSA). 

The question is what is to blame for the imbalance between BCS and non-BCS in HD (and really, there are 3 tiers in DI, BCS, mid-level (A10, MWC, Zaga, Memphis, a few others), and entry-level).  My position is not that it is the structure of recruiting, it is the change to recruit generation.  I've already pointed out that small and mid-major schools could compete nationally prior to the introduction of potential and changes to recruit generation.  Make tweaks to recruit generation, and the situation improves immensely.  Add in some other suggestions that I and many other veteran users have suggested before (increased player preferences, requiring promises for Top 25-50 overall recruits, significantly increasing the power of promises (and significantly increase the penalty for breaking them), or something like the diamond in the rough action in HBD).  The recruiting mechanics and postseason money we use today were the same when Maine, Cleveland State, Yale, BU, and Southern were winning NTs in Allen, but the recruit generation has changed significantly.

Just a few things:

1.  In Knight this past cycle, 1 of the top 50 went to a non-big-6 school (BYU with the # 16 recruit) and 16 of the top 100.  I have no idea how this compares to real life DI. 

2.  There are recruits that slip through the cracks, granted maybe not enough of them.  Look at these two DII players currently in Crum (and there may be more, I just did a quick search).

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx  

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

And a third.

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

Posted by grimacedance on 1/19/2016 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Maybe the answer is to alter the recruit generation so that the low D1 recruits have a greater chance for explosive growth potential (i.e. more of the blues turn out to be VERY high-high). It would reward the patience for developing a guy for four years (because the top teams are not going to go after those guys) and a smart low-level D1 coach can develop a team into giant killers.

The coach at Albany is still not going to win a D1 title, but he may be able to develop a team that goes to the Sweet 16 or Elite Eight.

This has always been my vote. 

One thing i would like to see is if a handful (maybe 3-5 or so) would make requests.  Something like...

Hey man i would love to come to your school as the #5 PG, but unless my boy (who is a low DI prospect) comes with me.  I just can't do college ball without him.

I think it would help balance talent somewhat by offering midmajors the ability to snag a big time prospect by taking on the less talented player.  I also want to see more hidden gems with tons of potential that make shifting through hundreds of recruits worth it.

There's too many elite players, I've said this many times, no D1 team should have starting lineups of 95 ath/def at every position, maybe 14 Kentucky could've hit 90+ ath.  There are no superstars at D1 it seems because any good player is a superstar.  Ratings need to be turned down, make those few guys that hit 95+ ath/def really worth it, encourage battling for those Kemba Walkers, Melo's, and Roses.

Fixing post season cash, prestige calculation, and job's is a great fix, but to truly in my mind make the game pretty much it's best form you need a recruit generation fix.

But that is out of the realm of possibility, Fox sucks won't do anything and let seble do anything(even if he could probably not good), and we won't even get anything good like fixing post season cash, prestige, and job fixes.  Just have to suffer what I think it a complete waste of time for this update that we won't even see for another year.

Posted by the0nlyis on 1/20/2016 7:24:00 AM (view original):
There's too many elite players, I've said this many times, no D1 team should have starting lineups of 95 ath/def at every position, maybe 14 Kentucky could've hit 90+ ath.  There are no superstars at D1 it seems because any good player is a superstar.  Ratings need to be turned down, make those few guys that hit 95+ ath/def really worth it, encourage battling for those Kemba Walkers, Melo's, and Roses.

Fixing post season cash, prestige calculation, and job's is a great fix, but to truly in my mind make the game pretty much it's best form you need a recruit generation fix.

But that is out of the realm of possibility, Fox sucks won't do anything and let seble do anything(even if he could probably not good), and we won't even get anything good like fixing post season cash, prestige, and job fixes.  Just have to suffer what I think it a complete waste of time for this update that we won't even see for another year.

I normally think you're pretty much on point with your posts, but you didn't really just list Kemba Walker along with Carmelo Anthony and Derrick Rose did you?  Okay, in college, maybe and maybe that's what I should focus on but their pro careers are vastly different, in my humble opinion (Kemba's 52 a couple of days ago notwithstanding).

Broadly speaking, I think that adding texture to recruits would be a great way of enhancing the opportunity for mid major and low DI schools while also making the game more fun

We discuss this stuff repeatedly to no avail, but

- have some kids want warm climates
- some want cold
- some want great academics
- some want party schools
- pick 5 other preferences too and add them
- create pipelines where recruiting a kid from a specific HS makes it easier for the next year or two at that school
- geographic pipelines - where recruiting from a small area makes it easier in that area - could be a state (Hawaii) could be a city.....

- then create more extreme potentials - kids with mega upsides
- also create kids with super IQ straight out of HS

and some more texture......it should then be possible for a clever mid or low DI to put together a great team

Posted by fd343ny on 1/20/2016 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Broadly speaking, I think that adding texture to recruits would be a great way of enhancing the opportunity for mid major and low DI schools while also making the game more fun

We discuss this stuff repeatedly to no avail, but

- have some kids want warm climates
- some want cold
- some want great academics
- some want party schools
- pick 5 other preferences too and add them
- create pipelines where recruiting a kid from a specific HS makes it easier for the next year or two at that school
- geographic pipelines - where recruiting from a small area makes it easier in that area - could be a state (Hawaii) could be a city.....

- then create more extreme potentials - kids with mega upsides
- also create kids with super IQ straight out of HS

and some more texture......it should then be possible for a clever mid or low DI to put together a great team

I've agreed in the past and I agree now as well.  I think that one change that could be implemented rather easily and have an effect immediately would be to have kids with very high IQ's coming out of high school.  Like coaches kids or the high GPA gym rat.

Posted by emy1013 on 1/20/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 1/20/2016 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Broadly speaking, I think that adding texture to recruits would be a great way of enhancing the opportunity for mid major and low DI schools while also making the game more fun

We discuss this stuff repeatedly to no avail, but

- have some kids want warm climates
- some want cold
- some want great academics
- some want party schools
- pick 5 other preferences too and add them
- create pipelines where recruiting a kid from a specific HS makes it easier for the next year or two at that school
- geographic pipelines - where recruiting from a small area makes it easier in that area - could be a state (Hawaii) could be a city.....

- then create more extreme potentials - kids with mega upsides
- also create kids with super IQ straight out of HS

and some more texture......it should then be possible for a clever mid or low DI to put together a great team

I've agreed in the past and I agree now as well.  I think that one change that could be implemented rather easily and have an effect immediately would be to have kids with very high IQ's coming out of high school.  Like coaches kids or the high GPA gym rat.

yes, to all. i still think recruit gen is the key, adding more high max ratings with lot of potential guys (not the dice roll ones though - a 65 high high isn't a dice roll - those 35 per guys who hit 95 are cool and nice to have sometimes, but you can't build on that - we need guards with 65 spd/def/per/pass all high/high and crap like that). also add high starting rating players (80s in cores) with crap potential (ending still 80s in most cores, maybe low 90 here or there, whatever). then you have guys who can compete with BCS schools, but there's still a gradient.

i like the personalities thing, to add some spice, and also make it so mid majors can such can occasionally punch significantly above their weight, on a single player. but come on, the single most ridiculous thing to never be implemented... guys with high IQs out of highschool. 1000 posts for and 0 against. even emy and i agree on it. it almost has to be a simple change. what else can seble want?  

maybe, not fixing the 2 hour starting window for recruiting, is more ridiculous. maybe. but at least that is hard. seble did a whole effort to fix d1 recruiting and left out the iq thing. why??? the one thing i still cannot get about seble, is the way he prioritizes things to work on. half the house is on fire, and hes in the ******* den painting the trim.