Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 7/13/2010 11:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dknox on 7/13/2010 11:06:00 PM (view original):
In the upcoming Tark pool, there are 8 PGs with a rating of 80 in BH; 9 with 80 in Passing; but 27 with 80 in PERIMETER. That's just weird, not what you see in real life, and in this case I don't see where it helps the game. Most PGs being generated are in the 50-60 range in BH/PS. Overall, for a couple of seasons (until the upperclassmen graduate) the disparity is going to be very frustrating for most DI coaches. And the battle for the handful of good PGs will be bloody, leading to very poor recruiting classes with multiple walk-ons for mid-majors and also-rans in elite conferences.

You say this is not like real life, but it is. The top players are much better than the others and leave after a year or 2. There wasn't a senior picked in the first 20 picks of the NBA draft, if memory serves me correct. So those guys in the 50-60 range will be around until they are seniors and that's realistic. Also in real life, the battles for good PGs is bloody. As coaches in WIS begin to adjust, they will start conserving cash more because battles will involve 4,5 or more teams and all will need backup plans. To me, this is very realistic and good for the game.

Posted by hughesjr on 7/14/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by coolman97865 on 7/13/2010 11:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the process of recruiting between WIS and RL can really be compared. 

I think the local team has too much of a money advantage.

What I think they  could do is make the cost much closer regardless of distance ... and have the recruits that balance between these:

"wants to play close to home", "wants to play for a great team", "wants playing time", "does not care about distance at all"

maybe some more categories...

I mean, there are some guys who grow up in Kentucky or North Carolina, and if the home team offers a scholly. they are taking it no matter what.  The home team money advantage is good for this kind of player.  There are others like Terrance Jones.  Local means nothing .. they want a big time program.  Prestige means everything to them.

Not sure how we take it into account, but there needs to be some variance in this IMHO.

Posted by dknox on 7/14/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 7/13/2010 11:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dknox on 7/13/2010 11:06:00 PM (view original):
In the upcoming Tark pool, there are 8 PGs with a rating of 80 in BH; 9 with 80 in Passing; but 27 with 80 in PERIMETER. That's just weird, not what you see in real life, and in this case I don't see where it helps the game. Most PGs being generated are in the 50-60 range in BH/PS. Overall, for a couple of seasons (until the upperclassmen graduate) the disparity is going to be very frustrating for most DI coaches. And the battle for the handful of good PGs will be bloody, leading to very poor recruiting classes with multiple walk-ons for mid-majors and also-rans in elite conferences.

You say this is not like real life, but it is. The top players are much better than the others and leave after a year or 2. There wasn't a senior picked in the first 20 picks of the NBA draft, if memory serves me correct. So those guys in the 50-60 range will be around until they are seniors and that's realistic. Also in real life, the battles for good PGs is bloody. As coaches in WIS begin to adjust, they will start conserving cash more because battles will involve 4,5 or more teams and all will need backup plans. To me, this is very realistic and good for the game.

Maybe I wasn't clear with my point -- you don't see point guards who are better outside shooters than they are ballhandlers and shooters in real life, and I don't see the purpose it serves to have them in this game, except as 2 guards. You DO see point guards that are woeful PER shooters but can handle the ball. But there are no recruits like that being generated.

In the upcoming Tark pool, there are 27 PGs with 80 PER or better and only 32 SGs at 80 or better. That doesn't seem out of whack to you?

If the players were just worse, that would be one thing -- but they're just ODD. I don't know what a 1 speed player looks like, or a 30 stamina, and I don't know how they could be in a DI pool. And again, I don't see the purpose it serves to have them in this game.

Posted by dknox on 7/13/2010 11:06:00 PM (view original):
In the upcoming Tark pool, there are 8 PGs with a rating of 80 in BH; 9 with 80 in Passing; but 27 with 80 in PERIMETER. That's just weird, not what you see in real life, and in this case I don't see where it helps the game. Most PGs being generated are in the 50-60 range in BH/PS. Overall, for a couple of seasons (until the upperclassmen graduate) the disparity is going to be very frustrating for most DI coaches. And the battle for the handful of good PGs will be bloody, leading to very poor recruiting classes with multiple walk-ons for mid-majors and also-rans in elite conferences.

Posted by hughesjr on 7/14/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by coolman97865 on 7/13/2010 11:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the process of recruiting between WIS and RL can really be compared. 

I think the local team has too much of a money advantage.

What I think they  could do is make the cost much closer regardless of distance ... and have the recruits that balance between these:

"wants to play close to home", "wants to play for a great team", "wants playing time", "does not care about distance at all"

maybe some more categories...

I mean, there are some guys who grow up in Kentucky or North Carolina, and if the home team offers a scholly. they are taking it no matter what.  The home team money advantage is good for this kind of player.  There are others like Terrance Jones.  Local means nothing .. they want a big time program.  Prestige means everything to them.

Not sure how we take it into account, but there needs to be some variance in this IMHO.

Posted by ryanderson on 7/14/2010 6:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 7/13/2010 11:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by asher413 on 7/13/2010 11:24:00 PM (view original):
I just don't think you can judge recruit generation until a full 5 seasons have passed, and only NEW recruits are in the game.  The transition is very akward, yes, but until the new baselines have been established for all classes, you can't quite pass judgement on if it worked or didn't.

But that's just little ol' been to DI twice me.

I agree with you ... and it might even take a little longer than that due to prestige effects.

If there are few superstars and if lots of them leave early, and if the A+ guys are battling more for those superstars and take on more walkons, and if that allows some other recruits to drop from the top to some of the lower guys, then it can work.

Do they have the balance exactly right?  Probably not.  Is it a good concept?  I think so.  It may need some tweaks.

An old issue that this now brings up is how horrible walk-ons are. I have a walk-on 305 rated SG in DIII who is slower and a worse shooter, ball handler and passer than my center. In RL (at least at DI since I don't really pay attention to lower divisions), walk-ons are very backup-worthy and some of the better ones find themselves contributing come junior, senior year. In over a dozen seasons now in HD, I have never seen a walk-on (my team or any other I've seen) legitimately worth offering a schollie.

Now I know how many people say you can't compare HD to RL, but I see no reason why walk-ons can't at least be playable, rather than not seeing a minute the entire season in the new engine. If anything this would encourage upper-tier coaches to battle a little more, allowing for more drop-downs for lower levels.

Posted by ryanderson on 7/14/2010 6:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 7/13/2010 11:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by asher413 on 7/13/2010 11:24:00 PM (view original):
I just don't think you can judge recruit generation until a full 5 seasons have passed, and only NEW recruits are in the game.  The transition is very akward, yes, but until the new baselines have been established for all classes, you can't quite pass judgement on if it worked or didn't.

But that's just little ol' been to DI twice me.

I agree with you ... and it might even take a little longer than that due to prestige effects.

If there are few superstars and if lots of them leave early, and if the A+ guys are battling more for those superstars and take on more walkons, and if that allows some other recruits to drop from the top to some of the lower guys, then it can work.

Do they have the balance exactly right?  Probably not.  Is it a good concept?  I think so.  It may need some tweaks.

An old issue that this now brings up is how horrible walk-ons are. I have a walk-on 305 rated SG in DIII who is slower and a worse shooter, ball handler and passer than my center. In RL (at least at DI since I don't really pay attention to lower divisions), walk-ons are very backup-worthy and some of the better ones find themselves contributing come junior, senior year. In over a dozen seasons now in HD, I have never seen a walk-on (my team or any other I've seen) legitimately worth offering a schollie.

Now I know how many people say you can't compare HD to RL, but I see no reason why walk-ons can't at least be playable, rather than not seeing a minute the entire season in the new engine. If anything this would encourage upper-tier coaches to battle a little more, allowing for more drop-downs for lower levels.

I also think that promises should go back to meaning something in recruiting.  As it is now, players will not even listen to you promises of starting and minutes until they are already considering you anyway.
I think that there are guys, even high end guys who are going to like a promise of starts and minutes and may consider lesser schools because of this exposure.
On the flip side I think that if you break this promise and the guy complains or transfers because of it, it should effect your reputation which would hurt, you in recruiting in the future.
before promises were given lesser weight, I know you could go in and sign someone with just a few promises and little else, but there was no penatly for breaking those promises other than the diminished work ethic. I think a prestige or reputation hit if you lie to your players would make these promises carry more weight and help ensure coaches keep these promises.

Posted by jnickpayne on 7/15/2010 4:57:00 PM (view original):

I also think that promises should go back to meaning something in recruiting.  As it is now, players will not even listen to you promises of starting and minutes until they are already considering you anyway.
I think that there are guys, even high end guys who are going to like a promise of starts and minutes and may consider lesser schools because of this exposure.
On the flip side I think that if you break this promise and the guy complains or transfers because of it, it should effect your reputation which would hurt, you in recruiting in the future.
before promises were given lesser weight, I know you could go in and sign someone with just a few promises and little else, but there was no penatly for breaking those promises other than the diminished work ethic. I think a prestige or reputation hit if you lie to your players would make these promises carry more weight and help ensure coaches keep these promises.