Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. If I was a D1 or a D2 or a D3 program, I could scan that and find players that were "about" my divisional level.

A grade of C, at present, tells nothing. Which leaves it in stark contrast to every other item out there. A 'C' in rebounding at Level 2, for instance, means that the player has a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57 in that category. That's information. It's vague information, but useful.

An Overall score of C, by contrast, means nothing. It doesn't identify that the player lies within a given range. It's based on a "proprietary ratings formula" (seble's words in beta when we had this conversation) that is utterly meaningless to the end user because it is based on an unknown formula that WIS hasn't disclosed, is based on the player's listed position (rather than one said player's ratings better align to), and which clearly, given the distribution pattern of ratings, wasn't remotely calibrated well when placed into use.

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. If I was a D1 or a D2 or a D3 program, I could scan that and find players that were "about" my divisional level.

A grade of C, at present, tells nothing. Which leaves it in stark contrast to every other item out there. A 'C' in rebounding at Level 2, for instance, means that the player has a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57 in that category. That's information. It's vague information, but useful.

An Overall score of C, by contrast, means nothing. It doesn't identify that the player lies within a given range. It's based on a "proprietary ratings formula" (seble's words in beta when we had this conversation) that is utterly meaningless to the end user because it is based on an unknown formula that WIS hasn't disclosed, is based on the player's listed position (rather than one said player's ratings better align to), and which clearly, given the distribution pattern of ratings, wasn't remotely calibrated well when placed into use.

It is NOT true that C tells us nothing.

It tells you one of two things, depending on whether you use 'player roles' or not.

We may not know what it means .. but there is a direct numerical range involved. Either a player role grade (like 45.6 or 57.4, etc) .. or an overall score.

You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to.

When players sign, the EXACT numbers and potentials show up in the recruit pool. If you saved the initial players you have scouted at level 1 into a spreadsheet (with their letter grades), you could then on the last day of recruiting save all the level 1 players exact attributes. You could then figure out the exact range for each of those grades. Certainly if you did for more than a couple seasons, you could easily get a range.

WIS did not tell us the range of each color for potential .. people figured out what they are and posted it here .. then others verified it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2016 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I guess the better correlation in HBD was international free agents. One guys puts 20m into scouting. Another puts 2m into it. As IFA appearances are just random, they both could see the same guy. 20m gets a pretty accurate reflection of who he will be. 2m gets wild projections. However, before the the update, the bonus demands could range from 40k to 8m. And 8m was always a stud. That wasn't right and several of us lobbied for change. Many years later, it came about.

So, again, WifS is just making you spend money on scouting to get an accurate number.

Clearly its been too long since I played HBD...I don't even remember IFA's!

Not to hijack the thread but IFA had a bug. Once you saw one, you could see all of them but adding one to the player card. i.e. if you saw HBDIFA012596, you could punch in HBDIFA012597 to see the next one and so on. This inform was shared in the forum at some point, probably way too late, but, if you didn't read the forums, you didn't know. WifS fixed it after that but a select few benefited from it for awhile.

Which is why I mildly objected to "cracking the code" on the value of AP vs HV, CV, etc.

I'll be damned. I never knew that about IFAs, lol.

"But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. "


I don't really think it did Rednu....the bad 667 guys (90 WE, STA, DUR with 40-50 cores) never got signed in 2.0 because they weren't D1 players and wouldn't sign D2.

Ath 40
Spd 40
Def 40
Reb 30
Block 30
LP 50
Per 50
Ball 50
Pass 50
WE 90
Sta 90
WE 90

is 670 and a pretty crappy player at every level

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. If I was a D1 or a D2 or a D3 program, I could scan that and find players that were "about" my divisional level.

A grade of C, at present, tells nothing. Which leaves it in stark contrast to every other item out there. A 'C' in rebounding at Level 2, for instance, means that the player has a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57 in that category. That's information. It's vague information, but useful.

An Overall score of C, by contrast, means nothing. It doesn't identify that the player lies within a given range. It's based on a "proprietary ratings formula" (seble's words in beta when we had this conversation) that is utterly meaningless to the end user because it is based on an unknown formula that WIS hasn't disclosed, is based on the player's listed position (rather than one said player's ratings better align to), and which clearly, given the distribution pattern of ratings, wasn't remotely calibrated well when placed into use.

It is NOT true that C tells us nothing.

It tells you one of two things, depending on whether you use 'player roles' or not.

We may not know what it means .. but there is a direct numerical range involved. Either a player role grade (like 45.6 or 57.4, etc) .. or an overall score.

You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to.

When players sign, the EXACT numbers and potentials show up in the recruit pool. If you saved the initial players you have scouted at level 1 into a spreadsheet (with their letter grades), you could then on the last day of recruiting save all the level 1 players exact attributes. You could then figure out the exact range for each of those grades. Certainly if you did for more than a couple seasons, you could easily get a range.

WIS did not tell us the range of each color for potential .. people figured out what they are and posted it here .. then others verified it.

Unless you're in possession of some insider knowledge, I'm not sure how you can definitively say there's a "direct numerical range" involved. I am completely unaware of that explanation ever being provided, regardless of how logical it may seem. That said, let's consider the following:

1. That range absolutely does not correspond to the recruit's starting overall rating score. Based simply on data that I have, the C value runs from at least 617 on the top end to 432 on the lower end. It is overlapped at least 50 points on the high side by the B rating and by at least 30 points on the low end by the D rating. Clearly, if there is a fixed numerical value, it is NOT based off of overall score. Which leads us to...

2. The player role grade. We were told by seble that the "proprietary ratings formula" was "like player roles" but "not exactly the player roles" defaults that players have for each position.Here's the problem -- if that is how the rating is determined, then that formula only takes into account the player's listed position, meaning there is not ONE formula determining the overall grades, but actually FIVE separate ones whose data is being lumped together in one output field. Which actually could explain the FUBAR nature of the grade, but is hardly something to be defending or thinking of as good for the playability of the game.

Think of how confusing and chaotic it would be if PG and PF rebounding grades meant two different things. Sure, we could reverse-engineer things and come up with a master list, but that takes time, which in turn impedes game playability for the mass number of users, particularly the casual and/or new users who don't inhabit the forums to access such insider knowledge (in much the same way that many people didn't know you could safely zero out practice time in maxed out categories...some still don't perhaps) and upon whom the viability of the game depends.

BUT EVEN IF THERE IS a fixed numeric range tied to the evaluation produced by this unknown formula, I assert that it is functionally useless because the calibration of the scale converting numbers to letters is hopelessly off in its present form. The evidence is right in front of us in the sheer volume of players that return the same grade. The same "range" is capturing players projected from the Top 100 down to upper level D3. Even if you're comfortable with the level of vagueness which the mask produces, the FREQUENCY with which one SPECIFIC result gets created has to be a harbinger of a problem.

I honestly don't know what overall percentage of the generated recruiting class receives a C Overall evaluation, but if I had to wager money, I'd say probably just shy of 1/2 (45%?) with maybe around 1/3 of the class getting D's and the rest sprinkled between A's and B's (and F's? Do we have an F overall for generated players?). Isn't that something that we are interested in monitoring and seeing addressed as players? As game designers?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 11/23/2016 8:17:00 PM (view original):
"But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. "


I don't really think it did Rednu....the bad 667 guys (90 WE, STA, DUR with 40-50 cores) never got signed in 2.0 because they weren't D1 players and wouldn't sign D2.

Ath 40
Spd 40
Def 40
Reb 30
Block 30
LP 50
Per 50
Ball 50
Pass 50
WE 90
Sta 90
WE 90

is 670 and a pretty crappy player at every level

Actually it's only 650, but who's counting ;)

But if anything, you just demonstrated what I said. The value tells you the player's EXACT starting position, it might not have told you how good the player would be. The signing status of the player is wholly irrelevant to whether or not values have utility and functionality.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. If I was a D1 or a D2 or a D3 program, I could scan that and find players that were "about" my divisional level.

A grade of C, at present, tells nothing. Which leaves it in stark contrast to every other item out there. A 'C' in rebounding at Level 2, for instance, means that the player has a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57 in that category. That's information. It's vague information, but useful.

An Overall score of C, by contrast, means nothing. It doesn't identify that the player lies within a given range. It's based on a "proprietary ratings formula" (seble's words in beta when we had this conversation) that is utterly meaningless to the end user because it is based on an unknown formula that WIS hasn't disclosed, is based on the player's listed position (rather than one said player's ratings better align to), and which clearly, given the distribution pattern of ratings, wasn't remotely calibrated well when placed into use.

It is NOT true that C tells us nothing.

It tells you one of two things, depending on whether you use 'player roles' or not.

We may not know what it means .. but there is a direct numerical range involved. Either a player role grade (like 45.6 or 57.4, etc) .. or an overall score.

You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to.

When players sign, the EXACT numbers and potentials show up in the recruit pool. If you saved the initial players you have scouted at level 1 into a spreadsheet (with their letter grades), you could then on the last day of recruiting save all the level 1 players exact attributes. You could then figure out the exact range for each of those grades. Certainly if you did for more than a couple seasons, you could easily get a range.

WIS did not tell us the range of each color for potential .. people figured out what they are and posted it here .. then others verified it.

"You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to."

Of course you can. I really don't understand how the guy could keep arguing with you when you say something so bedrock, fundamentally true. One moment he claims, "That range absolutely does not correspond to the recruit's starting overall rating score." And in the next breath he absolutely contradicts himself: "Based simply on data that I have, the C value runs from at least 617 on the top end to 432 on the lower end." He has numbers he claims don't exist! smh

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/23/2016 8:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. If I was a D1 or a D2 or a D3 program, I could scan that and find players that were "about" my divisional level.

A grade of C, at present, tells nothing. Which leaves it in stark contrast to every other item out there. A 'C' in rebounding at Level 2, for instance, means that the player has a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57 in that category. That's information. It's vague information, but useful.

An Overall score of C, by contrast, means nothing. It doesn't identify that the player lies within a given range. It's based on a "proprietary ratings formula" (seble's words in beta when we had this conversation) that is utterly meaningless to the end user because it is based on an unknown formula that WIS hasn't disclosed, is based on the player's listed position (rather than one said player's ratings better align to), and which clearly, given the distribution pattern of ratings, wasn't remotely calibrated well when placed into use.

It is NOT true that C tells us nothing.

It tells you one of two things, depending on whether you use 'player roles' or not.

We may not know what it means .. but there is a direct numerical range involved. Either a player role grade (like 45.6 or 57.4, etc) .. or an overall score.

You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to.

When players sign, the EXACT numbers and potentials show up in the recruit pool. If you saved the initial players you have scouted at level 1 into a spreadsheet (with their letter grades), you could then on the last day of recruiting save all the level 1 players exact attributes. You could then figure out the exact range for each of those grades. Certainly if you did for more than a couple seasons, you could easily get a range.

WIS did not tell us the range of each color for potential .. people figured out what they are and posted it here .. then others verified it.

"You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to."

Of course you can. I really don't understand how the guy could keep arguing with you when you say something so bedrock, fundamentally true.

Thank you for waiting almost two pages to insert something condescending and snarky. That's got to be close to a record. Traveling for the holiday perhaps and unable to get online?

Isn't the argument "you could reverse-engineer the game and give meaning to that value" somewhat circular and silly on its face?

No snark there, pal, just honest astonishment. Hughes wouldn't need to say a word. You are actually arguing with yourself, and honestly that is something astonishing to see, even for these forums.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/23/2016 9:05:00 PM (view original):
No snark there, pal, just honest astonishment. Hughes wouldn't need to say a word. You are actually arguing with yourself, and honestly that is something astonishing to see, even for these forums.

LOL...if that's what you want to believe, more power to you.

Come back when you have facts to insert into the discussion.

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 8:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/23/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/23/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 11/23/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
If the overall grades are not going to be even plausibly rational, then they should not be included in the game.

The have been included since the beginning of 1.0 .. and they have NEVER been accurate. Overall means nothing, because different attributes mean different things based on position, etc. So 667 current overall score means absolutely nothing. It also stands to reason, then that a 667 overall score converted to a letter grade also means absolutely nothing.

When you take into account that it also does not take into account potential .. well .. it is worth even less. Unless you use player roles and you define what you think is important for each position. Then the overall grade can mean something as a current score .. but since it does not include potential, it only means something when compared against other freshmen. Because, comparing the current score of a freshman against the current score of a senior (who has had 4 years of growth) is kind of pointless. Now, comparing a Freshman to that senior WHEN he was a freshmen as some merit.

But that 667 HAD value -- it told you the starting point of the recruit. It might not have told you how good the player would be, but it told you the EXACT starting position. If I was a D1 or a D2 or a D3 program, I could scan that and find players that were "about" my divisional level.

A grade of C, at present, tells nothing. Which leaves it in stark contrast to every other item out there. A 'C' in rebounding at Level 2, for instance, means that the player has a minimum of 42 and a maximum of 57 in that category. That's information. It's vague information, but useful.

An Overall score of C, by contrast, means nothing. It doesn't identify that the player lies within a given range. It's based on a "proprietary ratings formula" (seble's words in beta when we had this conversation) that is utterly meaningless to the end user because it is based on an unknown formula that WIS hasn't disclosed, is based on the player's listed position (rather than one said player's ratings better align to), and which clearly, given the distribution pattern of ratings, wasn't remotely calibrated well when placed into use.

It is NOT true that C tells us nothing.

It tells you one of two things, depending on whether you use 'player roles' or not.

We may not know what it means .. but there is a direct numerical range involved. Either a player role grade (like 45.6 or 57.4, etc) .. or an overall score.

You could likely very easily figure this out if you want to.

When players sign, the EXACT numbers and potentials show up in the recruit pool. If you saved the initial players you have scouted at level 1 into a spreadsheet (with their letter grades), you could then on the last day of recruiting save all the level 1 players exact attributes. You could then figure out the exact range for each of those grades. Certainly if you did for more than a couple seasons, you could easily get a range.

WIS did not tell us the range of each color for potential .. people figured out what they are and posted it here .. then others verified it.

Unless you're in possession of some insider knowledge, I'm not sure how you can definitively say there's a "direct numerical range" involved. I am completely unaware of that explanation ever being provided, regardless of how logical it may seem. That said, let's consider the following:

1. That range absolutely does not correspond to the recruit's starting overall rating score. Based simply on data that I have, the C value runs from at least 617 on the top end to 432 on the lower end. It is overlapped at least 50 points on the high side by the B rating and by at least 30 points on the low end by the D rating. Clearly, if there is a fixed numerical value, it is NOT based off of overall score. Which leads us to...

2. The player role grade. We were told by seble that the "proprietary ratings formula" was "like player roles" but "not exactly the player roles" defaults that players have for each position.Here's the problem -- if that is how the rating is determined, then that formula only takes into account the player's listed position, meaning there is not ONE formula determining the overall grades, but actually FIVE separate ones whose data is being lumped together in one output field. Which actually could explain the FUBAR nature of the grade, but is hardly something to be defending or thinking of as good for the playability of the game.

Think of how confusing and chaotic it would be if PG and PF rebounding grades meant two different things. Sure, we could reverse-engineer things and come up with a master list, but that takes time, which in turn impedes game playability for the mass number of users, particularly the casual and/or new users who don't inhabit the forums to access such insider knowledge (in much the same way that many people didn't know you could safely zero out practice time in maxed out categories...some still don't perhaps) and upon whom the viability of the game depends.

BUT EVEN IF THERE IS a fixed numeric range tied to the evaluation produced by this unknown formula, I assert that it is functionally useless because the calibration of the scale converting numbers to letters is hopelessly off in its present form. The evidence is right in front of us in the sheer volume of players that return the same grade. The same "range" is capturing players projected from the Top 100 down to upper level D3. Even if you're comfortable with the level of vagueness which the mask produces, the FREQUENCY with which one SPECIFIC result gets created has to be a harbinger of a problem.

I honestly don't know what overall percentage of the generated recruiting class receives a C Overall evaluation, but if I had to wager money, I'd say probably just shy of 1/2 (45%?) with maybe around 1/3 of the class getting D's and the rest sprinkled between A's and B's (and F's? Do we have an F overall for generated players?). Isn't that something that we are interested in monitoring and seeing addressed as players? As game designers?

In every other place a C is a direct numerical range.

What is your setting for: Office => User Settings => Overall Rating

Is it: Use Player Roles .. OR .. Use Total

The reason is .. Overall Rating means different things if you use Player Roles or Total.

If you are using total .. then a grade has a numerical equivilant that is based on total score. If you have player role, then overall score means something different.

If you look at this link: AASU .. the score in the top right says 58.1 for me because I use player roles , but if you use Total it will instead say: 596 and not 58.1. Not only that, I might be the only person that sees 58.1, because I have my own (and not the standard) player role factors.

Also, it COULD be that a C for Div-3 is different than a C for Div-2 and also different than a C for Div-1 (the division that the guy is actually rated in). Or it might be that a C is same numerical range. If could also be that the C is based on the positional player role score.

The only way we will know is if someone does a study.

But, since it does not take into account potential .. it really doesn't matter.

The bottom line is, you need to scout people to at least level 2 to get any meaningful information.

With no disrespect intended, actually "the bottom line is, you need to scout people to at least level 2 to get any meaningful information" unless you have looked at level one scouting info closely enough to get meaningful information from it. It is possible for even the imprecise info available at level one to be useful.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

I'm with Rednu on this one. unnecessarily complicated.

I don't see a disconnect. That large range has always been there. The distribution of the individual attributes and potential has always made the difference. We just don't see the individual attributes right away from the beginning like we use to but usually (not always) there is a reason why they are ranked.

Level 1 is just an introduction to the player. It lets me know that player exists and I can sign him - blindly if I want to. Without Level 1, the player is invisible to me. Level 2 is the level that allows you to start sorting through players ability. You just need to direct your scouting budget accordingly. I am still learning how to interpret everything but I think all the information is there, even if you use the vaguest of information. It just takes time to learn. Which is what is rubbing some long time players the wrong way. They don't like change.

I have gone through a couple of recruiting periods and I am really starting to get into the new version. My only complaint is that it is a distraction to do the recruit during the season and I don't like that part. I understand why it was done though. Overall, I find that it takes me less time in the actual recruiting process than before.