Someone posted a thread that they're seeing Big Six conference schools going after high-end D2 recruits.  It seems that some players on the D2 list are indeed better than several high-ranked D1 list players.  This seems confusing and really messed up. 

I'm frustrated because how does one determine what is "good?"  Here is an example, the #191 SF in Phelan: 

Posted by tkimble on 7/28/2010 4:57:00 PM (view original):
With my d2 team, i've taken the approach that if I player is incomplete like this guy, there really is no point in recruiting him.  Guys like this don't have positions and so they won't get recruited.  Guys like this really do exist in real life, I'm just not sure they're great for a sim game.  That being said, I really do like these new recruits.  The only thing about them that ticks me off are these guys that can't really play ANY position.

And the guys that can play a position but, like the example above, have 40 STA and perhaps average or LOW potential there.  Are they chain smokers or something?  Donated half a lung?  Are these considered playable, because there certainly are a lot of them?  In the past, I would never recruit anyone with less than 60 STA starting out. 

I would think twice about recruiting that guy for my D3 team...  I wonder how they come up with positional rankings.

what's the sadsack SF's WE?

because he may end up somewhere around these numbers.
85-90    ATH
40-50+  SPD
55-65+  REB
63-68    LP
21-31+  PER
15-22    BH
 1- 5      PAS
60-70+  STA

could be a decent PF ( if he has a decent DEF?)  if some of those "high" potential categories are "really-high" which would allow him to gain 30-40 points. 
I have a D2 PF with numbers close to this putting up 10+ pts a game.

I know its only the second or third or fourth season with the new recruits, but I can't really see myself getting used to them per se, and I would think it would be harder for you guys that have played longer because you'll always be thinking about the quality of recruits that you "used to get". The middle of the road D1s are practically not the quality of D2s or low pulldowns in the old engine. Recruits were EONS better in the old engine...I can't believe people pushed for this change.

I fail to see why having a different caliber of recruits impacts the game so significantly.  Everyone has access to the player pool.  It was utterly ridiculous when all the D1 players would max out all their cores.  It is not the case that every D1 player is equally athletic (95+), every D1 guard handles the ball equally well (95+), etc.  Now you have to pick your poison a little bit.  Why is that bad?

Posted by Iguana1 on 7/28/2010 7:24:00 PM (view original):
what's the sadsack SF's WE?

because he may end up somewhere around these numbers.
85-90    ATH
40-50+  SPD
55-65+  REB
63-68    LP
21-31+  PER
15-22    BH
 1- 5      PAS
60-70+  STA

could be a decent PF ( if he has a decent DEF?)  if some of those "high" potential categories are "really-high" which would allow him to gain 30-40 points. 
I have a D2 PF with numbers close to this putting up 10+ pts a game.

His WE is 91.  At D2, when I look at "high" potential I make a conservative estimate of 20 points of improvement (Iguana, even the "really high" players I've never seen get to 40 points, even at D1).  I guess I'm not the optimist seeing him as a possible good PF his senior year.  I typically want someone to be a sophomore starter. 

20 would be a VERY conservative estimate for high..

i think 60 rebounding amongst the new recruits very well could be OK for a backup PF at D1

especially if you send him in with other great rebounders

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/28/2010 8:34:00 PM (view original):
I fail to see why having a different caliber of recruits impacts the game so significantly.  Everyone has access to the player pool.  It was utterly ridiculous when all the D1 players would max out all their cores.  It is not the case that every D1 player is equally athletic (95+), every D1 guard handles the ball equally well (95+), etc.  Now you have to pick your poison a little bit.  Why is that bad?

Until rosters filter through with the "new" recruits, it creates quite the clash between the old and the new IF the "average" value of a recruit generated by the new engine differs from the "average" value of one under the old. I don't know if that's the case, but from postings I've seen and general discussion, I'm strongly thinking that's the case for the rank-and-file recruits (the handful of "elites" might grade higher, but I think Joe Q. Average probably is rated lower than he was pre-switchover.
Someone can correct me if that perception is wrong.

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/28/2010 8:34:00 PM (view original):
I fail to see why having a different caliber of recruits impacts the game so significantly.  Everyone has access to the player pool.  It was utterly ridiculous when all the D1 players would max out all their cores.  It is not the case that every D1 player is equally athletic (95+), every D1 guard handles the ball equally well (95+), etc.  Now you have to pick your poison a little bit.  Why is that bad?

It's not the lower caliber that people are complaining about. Lowering the overall quality was good and necessary.

It's that there are too many ridiculous recruits -- pf's who can't rebound, sf's who are slower than Olden Polynice, pg with crap bh or pa, players who can barely run up the court once without falling over.

I was and still am all for recruit diversification. But they made too many players that probably shouldn't exist and don't even reflect reality, and are essentially just dead weight in the recruiting pool. That's stupid.

Idea = good. Implementation = not so good.

I posted something like this awhile back being at a D prestige DIV I school. Recruiting sucks for these kinds of schools. The old engine the 1 or 2 star players gave a guideline to what can be targeted or not. I posted rediculous looking players on here. A DIV I prospect SG with speed at 18 and PER that was 20 and he was a top rated 200 player at the DIV I prospects. Major change.

Posted by daalter on 7/29/2010 7:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/28/2010 8:34:00 PM (view original):
I fail to see why having a different caliber of recruits impacts the game so significantly.  Everyone has access to the player pool.  It was utterly ridiculous when all the D1 players would max out all their cores.  It is not the case that every D1 player is equally athletic (95+), every D1 guard handles the ball equally well (95+), etc.  Now you have to pick your poison a little bit.  Why is that bad?

It's not the lower caliber that people are complaining about. Lowering the overall quality was good and necessary.

It's that there are too many ridiculous recruits -- pf's who can't rebound, sf's who are slower than Olden Polynice, pg with crap bh or pa, players who can barely run up the court once without falling over.

I was and still am all for recruit diversification. But they made too many players that probably shouldn't exist and don't even reflect reality, and are essentially just dead weight in the recruiting pool. That's stupid.

Idea = good. Implementation = not so good.

I think the incredibly low staminas across all recruits is pretty ridiculous.  That and the lack of depth/quality potential recruits for mid-majors are probably the two biggest problems I have with new recruits.

I'm not sure that the PF with low REB, SF with really slow speed, etc. is necessarily a big problem with the new recruits, or simply is now magnifying how ridiculous and bad the position classification and ranking problems (either Top-200 by position and whether or not they are a DI/DII/DIII recruit) that have ALWAYS been there.