I Checked the top ten overall ratings of Div 3 teams and some of them would have made it to the top 25 of overall team ratings in div 2. The top 25 of Div. 2 teams were not even close to the top 25 of Div. 1. It makes sense that the top 25 div 2 teams are not in the top 25 of div. 1, but it makes no sense that a div. 3 top 25 team should be in the top 25 of div 2. teams. It's in the recruiting I guess. However, a div 3. team should never compete for players that could be obviously playing in almost most of the top 100-200 div. 2 teams 

They do in real life, so why not WIS?

I also attribute it to not enough human coaches, if each world was filled to the cap.  All the good players would go to D1 including a majority of the players from top D2 teams, so those top D2 teams would end up taking from the low D2 and top D3 schools, leaving D3 with a majority of bad players probably making D3 more focused on finding that 1 30+ ath/spd hidden gem.

Why would you assume all the good players go to D1 and bad players stay in D3?

Posted by crazyivan on 3/13/2015 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Why would you assume all the good players go to D1 and bad players stay in D3?

because the coaches at D1 have the advantage in recruiting so they would get first choice pretty much.  Now there maybe a good amount of D1 coaches who aren't great and could lose to D2 schools, but I'd expect the majority of D1 midmajors to soon be on par if not better than top D2 compared to now where a decent D3 team can beat a D1 mid major.

The difference between D1 and D2 is much larger than the difference between D2 and D3 no matter how you slice it, both in real life and in this game.  Game-wise, just off the top, D1 schools get $15,000 per available scholarship, 3x the amount D2 gets.  D2 schools get $5000, less than double what D3 schools get.  It makes perfect sense that there would be much more overlap between D2 and D3 than D1 and D2.

I agree totally with what u said llamanuts between d1 and d2, and is reflected in WIS, both money wise in recruiting and also top 25 ratings of d1 vs d2 However, we are talking every year the top 5 teams of d3 is always in the top 10-15 of d2. No way in real life that happens every year. And in real life d3 players do not get a scholarship in d2 they do albeit limited. I can see a d3 player going to say Amherst instead of a d2 school because it is a top academic institution but that would bring in a whole bunch of worms to the equation. But every year top d3 teams would potentially have a rpi equal or greater than the top 15 of d2. 

and BTW, I have searched my butt off trying to find real stats of d2 vs d3 and I haven't found any so this thread is based on feel rather than fact

my bad. by players, i took that to mean us - coaches, not the actual make believe basketball players....that goes w/ out saying, if a kid has a choice between kentucky and yeshiva...go figure....but coaches - there are good and not so good at every level - real life and HD.

I know kids who had DI offers - not high DI - and decided to go DIII because they cared about stuff other than basketball and/or because at the DI school they expected to be at the back of the bench while a DIII place told them they would play.  In real life, players do tend to gravitate up the food chain but it isnt universal

Likewise, in this game.  Stuff happens.  

When you consider geography and potential and the knowledge and ability of some coaches, it is not surprising that some good players drift down a level.

Plus, overall rating is an imperfect indicator.  It would be hard to gather the same data and then adjust for the importance of different skills, but I bet that some of those high overall rating DIII guys were not swallowed by DII teams because their ratings points were not in the useful places.

Posted by flexpete on 3/13/2015 2:58:00 PM (view original):
and BTW, I have searched my butt off trying to find real stats of d2 vs d3 and I haven't found any so this thread is based on feel rather than fact

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/mens-basketball-statistics

 

I just checked to see D3 team ratings compared with D2 team ratings for the three worlds I'm in.  

In Tark, the highest rated D3 team (Stillman) is at 625.  The #25 team in D2 is at 634.  
In Knight, the highest rated D3 team (Manchester) is at 605.  The #25 team in D2 is 616.  
In Wooden, the highest rated D3 team (William Patterson) is 623.  The #25 team in D2 is 620.  623 would rank them tied for 19th in D2.  William Patterson is definitely an outlier among outliers as the next highest rated team in D3 Wooden is 606.  

In conclusion, I see very little evidence of the inequities flexpete is trying to point out.  

Posted by tkimble on 3/13/2015 6:10:00 PM (view original):
I just checked to see D3 team ratings compared with D2 team ratings for the three worlds I'm in.  

In Tark, the highest rated D3 team (Stillman) is at 625.  The #25 team in D2 is at 634.  
In Knight, the highest rated D3 team (Manchester) is at 605.  The #25 team in D2 is 616.  
In Wooden, the highest rated D3 team (William Patterson) is 623.  The #25 team in D2 is 620.  623 would rank them tied for 19th in D2.  William Patterson is definitely an outlier among outliers as the next highest rated team in D3 Wooden is 606.  

In conclusion, I see very little evidence of the inequities flexpete is trying to point out.  

I think you should look at core ratings:

These are the top 10 teams in Ath:

	School	Players	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
1	San Francisco St.	12	70	51	42	70	34	45	48	44	40	72	78	60	C	654
2	Shippensburg U.	12	70	49	44	70	27	45	38	36	33	42	72	58	C	584
3	Hawaii at Hilo	12	68	51	38	72	35	37	43	54	49	65	78	58	C+	650
4	Bloomsburg U. (PA)	12	68	54	42	70	37	36	38	41	38	56	77	59	C+	616
5	Valdosta St.	12	67	49	37	64	31	39	34	39	41	50	74	53	C+	580
6	Rollins	12	67	47	37	72	31	30	37	44	37	53	73	65	C+	592
7	N.W. Nazarene	12	66	56	34	67	26	37	47	52	45	58	75	63	C+	626
8	Missouri S&T	12	65	47	33	65	26	41	41	40	38	60	76	59	C	591
9	Lincoln	12	65	52	34	62	29	42	45	44	39	45	73	57	C+	589
10	Tarleton St.	12	64	53	37	61	30	36	41	44	47	51	77	55	C	598
			67	50.9	37.8	67.3	30.6	38.8	41.2	43.8	40.7	55.2	75.3	58.7

Now here is D3:

1	Dickinson	12	65	47	37	72	29	30	16	27	26	40	73	55	C+	515
2	Becker	12	63	47	34	55	26	26	32	40	29	45	71	54	C	520
3	Greensboro	12	61	44	45	63	36	34	32	31	28	50	76	53	C	552
4	Marymount	12	61	44	26	55	23	36	28	35	32	52	75	66	C	533
5	Curry	12	60	48	37	58	28	21	29	39	34	51	77	58	C+	539
6	Montclair St.	12	58	42	38	58	30	51	37	34	28	68	79	56	C+	578
7	Manchester	12	58	54	36	57	30	38	48	46	40	62	79	58	C+	605
8	Piedmont	12	56	51	23	56	19	28	41	42	42	52	73	57	C	541
9	California Tech.	12	56	44	36	56	32	30	41	39	38	43	74	57	C+	546
10	Drew	12	54	44	34	48	23	25	39	41	28	51	77	64	C	528

59.2

46.5

34.6

57.8

27.6

31.9

34.3

37.4

32.5

51.4

75.4

57.8

But I think what at least I'm saying is that these top D3 teams are way better than a majority of mid to bottom tier D2/D1 teams and you see a good amount of D3 teams able to beat D1 teams in exhibition games, because while those sim teams have better ratings its probably not in cores.

So I was saying that if there were worlds filled:  Those bottom D1 schools and midmajors would be taking those better core players from D2 and D3 players and D2 would be taking the best from D3 and D3 getting the leftovers and hidden high potential gems.

But we might not be on the same page of what we are discussing.

Heres another example look at this D1 Baylor team in Knight:

Francis Deshazo	Sr.	PG	66	97	3	96	5	8	90	99	98	70	85	99	B-	816
Gerald Biddle	Jr.	SF	52	45	68	64	45	79	68	41	31	75	80	79	B	727
William Lam	Jr.	PF	52	56	53	74	68	51	42	36	30	48	71	75	C+	656
James Andrews	Jr.	PF	52	47	62	65	64	96	59	48	59	80	82	86	B	800
Charles Smart	Jr.	SF	77	57	47	63	51	77	62	66	54	61	68	81	C+	764
John Varda	Jr.	PG	63	84	2	46	3	17	83	75	75	89	77	64	B-	678
Jeffrey Mattera	Jr.	SG	69	68	23	72	15	45	84	69	54	69	90	69	C	727
Freddie Safford	So.	SG	49	55	31	48	20	46	69	47	58	65	81	20	C+	589
Robert Zets	So.	PG	43	71	16	48	20	25	63	64	63	59	81	67	B-	620
Raleigh Culbertson	Fr.	C	38	22	84	46	91	43	10	11	26	81	75	47	D	574
James Forsyth	Fr.	SG	38	50	29	58	11	53	50	54	67	33	77	25	C+	545
Calvin Vera	Fr.	C	44	33	92	51	85	80	15	30	17	41	66	56	D	610

Keith Gilliam	Sr.	PF	73	26	85	80	51	90	6	7	13	47	72	44	B-	594
Arthur Burner	Sr.	SG	86	72	20	80	28	29	82	55	52	73	77	56	B-	710
William Renteria	Sr.	C	73	17	87	74	67	83	2	1	9	69	70	47	B-	599
Jacob Brown	Jr.	C	75	30	97	82	84	69	11	7	4	53	75	23	C	610
Jon Little	Jr.	PG	38	82	1	44	4	1	88	52	65	42	88	47	B	552
Terrence Crocker	So.	PF	56	31	51	54	42	56	7	24	37	34	69	41	C-	502
Donald Thomas	So.	PG	45	70	2	37	3	30	62	55	36	52	81	85	C+	558
Michael Lawson	Fr.	SG	31	65	5	28	10	49	54	60	34	46	72	53	B-	507
Robert Scott	Fr.	C	65	5	59	51	31	28	9	9	13	53	73	74	D+	470
Parker Shear	Fr.	PG	43	61	1	17	1	11	67	49	46	25	75	48	B-	444
Joseph Howell	Fr.	PG	42	71	1	45	1	11	26	69	56	14	82	38	C-	456
Jerry Bell	Fr.	SF	14	23	14	6	6	20	17	1	6	100	65	36	B-	308

Besides the walk-on and some freshmen who are development projects this looks on par with a big 6 school.


Personally because of the lack of coaches I think the inequalities have seperated schools into somewhat "new" divisions:

D1 is now:

• Every top level team looks like Kentucky
• Every non high baseline prestige/sim coached teams look like D2 at best

D2 has:

• Teams that look more like mid-majors
• and then teams that don't even look like D3 teams

D3 has:

• Teams that look like D2 teams
• and than teams full of some 8th grade rec league players

Sorry for such a long post. But I think thats what I'm saying is those strong D2 teams would be wiped out in recruiting by good human coached mid majors, sure some top level D2 teams will still be better than those teams that suck year in and year out with questionable moves to D1.  And some D3 perennial powers should be able to be some bottom talent D2 schools


Then in recruit rankings you have these #78 or #135 players who don't even look like starting players on D3 tourney teams...