Is this the end of HD? Topic

Posted by daalter on 7/11/2010 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chapelhillne on 7/11/2010 9:28:00 AM (view original):
I personally like the new engine. I think as far as the low quality of recruits go, the potential improvement has also gone up. I am seeing Freshmen improve faster than before. I think you have to consider potential more with this new engine. But I like it. I just added a team in a 3rd world (not a 3rd world country) :)
Actually, the new engine was specifically designed with players improving more slowly than before. That's a fact. (And I'm 100% OK with this.)  And there are also way more low potentials, also a fact. (Both per seble.) The engine isn't bad (still 3-4 significant bugs to work out, but the other engine had at least as many), but the recruiting piece needs a good bit of work.
I'm actually fine with the recruits.  Who cares what the starting numbers are if everyone across the board is equally as bad?  What was once mediocre will now be good...so what?

It's the new game play that has me strongly considering dropping down to 1 team.  Way too many 40 pt swings in a home and home and I just don't like the fact that it feels like we're basically paying to be beta testers.  I'll probably drop my Johnson St team after 1 more season, my UDM team is a season or 2 away, and I'll probably drop my Virg Weslyan team after testing my theory that all you need is high stamina and iq to win now.
7/11/2010 3:02 PM
ll, I'm not talkign about the talent of the recruits. Totally fine with that. It needed to be lowered.

What I'm talking about is that there are way too many low potentials. It is a sea of red out there. Frustrating because this is the one area that we actually spent a lot of time and energy on, and seble screwed it up big time. (One quick example, though there are dozens: I had a recruiting search of 131 guards; only one had high potential in sp and ath, 22 were low in both and 73 were low in at least one.) 
7/11/2010 3:10 PM
Posted by daalter on 7/11/2010 3:10:00 PM (view original):
ll, I'm not talkign about the talent of the recruits. Totally fine with that. It needed to be lowered.

What I'm talking about is that there are way too many low potentials. It is a sea of red out there. Frustrating because this is the one area that we actually spent a lot of time and energy on, and seble screwed it up big time. (One quick example, though there are dozens: I had a recruiting search of 131 guards; only one had high potential in sp and ath, 22 were low in both and 73 were low in at least one.) 
Agree with this.  It's about building the team you want- but how can you do that when everyone is low potential? you can build it any more than you recruit it.  practice plans will be meaningless.     
7/11/2010 4:53 PM
Posted by daalter on 7/11/2010 3:10:00 PM (view original):
ll, I'm not talkign about the talent of the recruits. Totally fine with that. It needed to be lowered.

What I'm talking about is that there are way too many low potentials. It is a sea of red out there. Frustrating because this is the one area that we actually spent a lot of time and energy on, and seble screwed it up big time. (One quick example, though there are dozens: I had a recruiting search of 131 guards; only one had high potential in sp and ath, 22 were low in both and 73 were low in at least one.) 
Opinions on both sides have merit, but this simple example speaks volumes about how far potential has been altered for the worse
7/11/2010 4:54 PM
Posted by shampton91 on 7/11/2010 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by daalter on 7/11/2010 3:10:00 PM (view original):
ll, I'm not talkign about the talent of the recruits. Totally fine with that. It needed to be lowered.

What I'm talking about is that there are way too many low potentials. It is a sea of red out there. Frustrating because this is the one area that we actually spent a lot of time and energy on, and seble screwed it up big time. (One quick example, though there are dozens: I had a recruiting search of 131 guards; only one had high potential in sp and ath, 22 were low in both and 73 were low in at least one.) 
Opinions on both sides have merit, but this simple example speaks volumes about how far potential has been altered for the worse
With the slower development in the new engine and an average WE, I feel like average potential is now what low potential used to be. I think recruiting could be worlds better if many of the low potentials in coming seasons were simply changed to average.

Plus, what are the chances of so many guys maxing out in high school in so many different categories (especially core ones) without any chance of improvement over 4-5 years in college?
7/12/2010 4:59 AM
Agreed - WIS fails on these basic items so many times. This is not the death of HD, but this release was supposed to be the rebirth. Instead the game will continue to troll along in a sea of SIMS.
7/12/2010 6:48 AM
the game appears in terms of recruiting to be pretty good for d2/d3, I have only recruited 2 or 3 times in d2 with the new recruits, but there appear to be more choices instead of fewer, and I had fun, and it seemed very fair.

D1 on the other hand, is awful, no choices, and it is not fair at all, while a few schools because of location and prestige, get teams of over 800, while other schools with A+ are looking for the best 580 guy.  Variety as a goal is a good one.  Lebron type players as a goal may even be a good one.  But, when instituted together in the auction d1 setting, the results have made the game considerably less fun.

Flamers have at it, this is just not me talking, I have actually recruited as a top end d1 coach many times in the past, and as much in the new system as anyone, I am reading the conf coaches corners, the majority opinion is d1 recruiting is a bust, while a couple of coaches are just smirking over landing 3 #1 / #2 ranked guys.  There really is no reason to play d1 from the mid or low levels, you don't have a chance.

Just to turn it around, in d2 / d3, all coaches have never had more of a chance, so the new system is not a total bust by any means.  That is why I am seeing so many diverse opinions on the forums.  Since seble does not play the game as much as some of us, he may not even realize what is going on with this, since he may indeed be getting lots of compliments.

By the way, the issue I have with the game recruit generation is fixable, and fixable in such a manner that the diversity that so many want is not taken away.  It would just take CS to understand the issues and make a few modifications
7/12/2010 8:49 AM
OR - I just went through DII recruiting and I found the new generation worse than the old system. As dallter said, too many players with low potential. Just my opinion.
7/12/2010 8:54 AM
Posted by mullycj on 7/12/2010 8:54:00 AM (view original):
OR - I just went through DII recruiting and I found the new generation worse than the old system. As dallter said, too many players with low potential. Just my opinion.
mully, I do agree that potential is too red across the board and that recruit generation is worse in d2/d3.

what I do think though, is d2 / d3 will be fair in the long run, even if seble's 'red brigade' does not get fixed, since all the recruits are bad, not just 95-98% of them.

however, d1 is lost, unfair, unfun except for a few teams each season, reason it is unfair, is because a handful of recruits are not bad, and a handful of teams will be able to recruit them - this is real life, it just will be hard to justify playing for everyone else - again, d1 only, in d2/d3, seble has pretty much just made everyone miserable, which many are calling 'fun' & the recruits are diverse, of that there is no doubt.
7/12/2010 9:07 AM
Posted by oldresorter on 7/12/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 7/12/2010 8:54:00 AM (view original):
OR - I just went through DII recruiting and I found the new generation worse than the old system. As dallter said, too many players with low potential. Just my opinion.
mully, I do agree that potential is too red across the board and that recruit generation is worse in d2/d3.

what I do think though, is d2 / d3 will be fair in the long run, even if seble's 'red brigade' does not get fixed, since all the recruits are bad, not just 95-98% of them.

however, d1 is lost, unfair, unfun except for a few teams each season, reason it is unfair, is because a handful of recruits are not bad, and a handful of teams will be able to recruit them - this is real life, it just will be hard to justify playing for everyone else - again, d1 only, in d2/d3, seble has pretty much just made everyone miserable, which many are calling 'fun' & the recruits are diverse, of that there is no doubt.
No question, the DI thing is a huge problem. I have communicated this to seble, he is not acknowledging/understanding it.

The DII issue isn't necessarily one of being fair or unfair, it's of what makes for good and interesting game play. And right now the sea of red that represents the huge amount of low potentials in recruits is terrible for the game. (Although you already agreed that there are too many low potentials and that recruit generation is worse).
7/12/2010 9:28 AM
"D1 on the other hand, is awful, no choices, and it is not fair at all, while a few schools because of location and prestige, get teams of over 800, while other schools with A+ are looking for the best 580 guy.  Variety as a goal is a good one.  Lebron type players as a goal may even be a good one.  But, when instituted together in the auction d1 setting, the results have made the game considerably less fun."

Could not agree with this more. This past recruiting period in Knight, there was not ONE D1-caliber PG in the entire state of Oklahoma. I'm not saying there were a few, and I just didn't like them. There were NO D1 point guards in that state. I don't mind the goal of making LeBron-type players. I DO mind that recruit generation was changed so drastically, and that some new players treated as Big 6-type recruits wouldn't have been able to be towel wavers in the old engine.
7/12/2010 10:07 AM
In the previous engine, there was a pool of recruits that mid to low D1 schools and high prestige D2 schools recruited from.  That pool is now gone & replaced by a rather large pool of similar rated recruits available to mid to low D1 schools and all of D2 regardless of prestige.  So if I were a sub A prestige D2 school right now, I'd love the new pool of recruits & recruiting just got a whole lot of fun.  And vice versa.

After a few years of this, I see D2 being totally watered down and the NT being a crapshoot.  And the lines between D2 & mid to low D1 blur even more.


7/12/2010 10:35 AM
Here are my thoughts after finally dropping HD after 5 or 6 years.  The new engine didn't cause me to quite, so I'll get that out of the way, in fact in my 1 season playing with it (or was it 2?) I had already grown disinterested, to have given it a proper evaluation.  On my other account, where I picked up Michigan State for my final season after dropping a long run at Georgetown so I could turn a ready made NT squad to whatever coach wanted to take over there long term, I only bothered to check in 1x once conference play started.  Still finished 2nd in my division and made it all the way to the PI finals.  The team had some decent pieces, but it wasn't great.  Had 1 kid miss the entire 2nd half of the year due to grades, and another miss the postseason due to failing grades.  I'm sorry, but w/ no attention paid and 2 gaurds forced to the bench, no team should be making any run in the postseason, PI or NT.

In hindsight, I think potential has been an epic fail for HD.  When it was implemented, I thought it had, well potental, no pun intended.  I thought it would be good, but looking back, I think it took away from the game.  There are/were 3 things that kept me interested in HD right out of the gate.  Recruiting was fun and essential.  Developing kids was equally important, and setting up a game plan was important, at least that is what I thought at first.  It didn't take too long to figure out that coaching alterations made from game to game had far less impact than the actual talent on the roster.  Don't get me wrong, there were always coaches who got more out of less, and there were always things that could be done to increase my odds, but if I could nail the first 2, I could coast on gameplanning until the NT hit.  So like many coaches, I set a game plan early and outside of a few alterations it remained pretty much the same.  No bigge though, I still liked the recruiting and development aspect, and by this time had come to enjoy the conference banter and rivalries.

One of the first things I used to do when getting to work, was to download my roster to excel and figuing out who improved where and how much.  I used to enjoy recruiting a SF and developing them into a SG or PF if I thought I could recruit a better SF the next season.  Seeing the next year's batch of recruits was as important to my development plan for a new recruit than anything else.  I almost always had an idea of who I wanted to recruit a full season a head of time (once that became an option).  Having to decide if I should poor 30 minutes into rebounding, or attempting to get some passing and ball handling improvement in my low post players, where always key decisions.  Once potential hit, it seemed like all practice plans went out the window.  Put minutes into the areas they had high or normal potential, and maintain or ignore those areas where they had low potential.  Aside from the day recruits were released, the first day a world rolled over was my favorite day of the year.  Finding out which kids made a surprise 8 point jump in PE or 5 in DE was always fun.  Once potential hit, a kids future was pretty well set in stone, so I stopped paying attention.

Finally, recruting became a chore.  Shifting thru cruddy D3 recruts with no potential and limited FSS funds become mind numbing, and high prestige levels in D1 made recruiting too easy, not that that was always a bad thing, just didn't give me the excitement of so many battles as I worked my way up.

I think in order for this game to get back to where it used to be, potential has to be dropped.  Potential has probably made players more balanced across divisions.  Sure there were RS seniors on my D3 team back in the day that could be starting on mid-level D1 teams, but who cared.  Perhaps it wasn't realistic, but how much on here is really "realistic".  However, potential gave me less reason to check in on my team every day, to care if a kid had 12 minutes of practice in shooting, or 15 minutes.
7/12/2010 11:11 AM
Posted by shampton91 on 7/11/2010 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by daalter on 7/11/2010 3:10:00 PM (view original):
ll, I'm not talkign about the talent of the recruits. Totally fine with that. It needed to be lowered.

What I'm talking about is that there are way too many low potentials. It is a sea of red out there. Frustrating because this is the one area that we actually spent a lot of time and energy on, and seble screwed it up big time. (One quick example, though there are dozens: I had a recruiting search of 131 guards; only one had high potential in sp and ath, 22 were low in both and 73 were low in at least one.) 
Opinions on both sides have merit, but this simple example speaks volumes about how far potential has been altered for the worse
If it weren't a gross exaggeration, sure.
7/12/2010 12:14 PM
◂ Prev 12
Is this the end of HD? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.