Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 3:23:00 PM (view original):
I'm stupid because I don't agree with you? Classy as usual. I'd rather play with a higher mean of players and you'd rather play with whatever seble tells you and whatever the 10 guys during testing told seble to do...whatever happened to zhawks anyway...I'll play however, but I don't have to like it just because it's new and "everyone else does". Give me strength on strength any day. If HD was a push button game, you wouldn't play it.

No, you're stupid because you're unable to understand simple concepts, and because you're completely inflexible in your viewpoints.

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/29/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Look.  Its like taking your currency to another country where the monetary exchange rate is different.  $90(Or 90 rating points) buys more with the new recruits than it did with the old ones.

I agree that the new recruits are just...different.  The problem is, one has to ask "can I live with having a 40 ATH center because my opponents weren't able to find guys greater than 40 ATH except for those that only had 20 LP, 25 BLK..." etc.  It's frustrating because we're not seeing nearly as many all-around good players anymore.  A PG might have 80 PA with *very high* potential but only 30 BH and average potential.  Do you take him, knowing he'll have the highest PA in D2 but among the lowest BH ratings at D2?  Those are the recruits we're being dealt, and I'm frustrated by it.  Hence the title of this post-- what is good? 

Posted by cthomas22255 on 7/29/2010 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/29/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Look.  Its like taking your currency to another country where the monetary exchange rate is different.  $90(Or 90 rating points) buys more with the new recruits than it did with the old ones.

I agree that the new recruits are just...different.  The problem is, one has to ask "can I live with having a 40 ATH center because my opponents weren't able to find guys greater than 40 ATH except for those that only had 20 LP, 25 BLK..." etc.  It's frustrating because we're not seeing nearly as many all-around good players anymore.  A PG might have 80 PA with *very high* potential but only 30 BH and average potential.  Do you take him, knowing he'll have the highest PA in D2 but among the lowest BH ratings at D2?  Those are the recruits we're being dealt, and I'm frustrated by it.  Hence the title of this post-- what is good? 

Yeah that seems difficult. Maybe the key will now be recruiting against your conference. Getting players based on taking advantage of what other coaches tend to go after. an example would be getting a very fast sg with average D and sub par shooting to go against someone who got a sg that shoots lights out but is average at speed with no defense.

Posted by docmastermd on 7/29/2010 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cthomas22255 on 7/29/2010 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/29/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Look.  Its like taking your currency to another country where the monetary exchange rate is different.  $90(Or 90 rating points) buys more with the new recruits than it did with the old ones.

I agree that the new recruits are just...different.  The problem is, one has to ask "can I live with having a 40 ATH center because my opponents weren't able to find guys greater than 40 ATH except for those that only had 20 LP, 25 BLK..." etc.  It's frustrating because we're not seeing nearly as many all-around good players anymore.  A PG might have 80 PA with *very high* potential but only 30 BH and average potential.  Do you take him, knowing he'll have the highest PA in D2 but among the lowest BH ratings at D2?  Those are the recruits we're being dealt, and I'm frustrated by it.  Hence the title of this post-- what is good? 

Yeah that seems difficult. Maybe the key will now be recruiting against your conference. Getting players based on taking advantage of what other coaches tend to go after. an example would be getting a very fast sg with average D and sub par shooting to go against someone who got a sg that shoots lights out but is average at speed with no defense.

You have to recruit based on what your team needs/lacks. For example, using the SG mentioned, if you have one guy who is has excellent sp/ath and def, but no PE, then you recruit a guy with high PE to compliment him. With the new recruits, you actually have to build your team based on strengths and weaknesses

Posted by george633 on 7/29/2010 3:33:00 PM (view original):
Colonels, the problem is not that there is a player that peaks at 750 instead of 900, but that two totally different systems were merged.  The impact of this will be felt for two or three more seasons past the ones we have just played, and there is no clear picture that it will settle out somewhere positive. 

There is no clear picture that it will settle out negative, yet [people seem to make that assumption. . . .

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 2:58:00 PM (view original):
I most certainly am. I'd rather play a game where there are too many ACTUALLY talented guys than play a game where talent is weighed/judged on whose GARBAGE is better. Give me 700s v. 700s over 550s v. 550s every single day of the week. Too much talent is a good problem to have.

And you, are going into the typical arssintheb nonsense where I have you beaten thus you have nothing left to say but "you're illogical" and I won't debate with these empty statements.

Right,  Believe whatever makes you feel good;  but just a hint - just because someone else gives up arguing with you doesn't mean you are actually RIGHT.  Food for thought.  

Posted by george633 on 7/29/2010 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 7/28/2010 8:20:00 PM (view original):
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 am not doubting that someone did push for this, but was it anyone remotely familiar with the game?  It is the singly most ridiculous change in the new engine.  If anyone in HD had been listening, they would have realized that a moderate change would have been preferred by most coaches.  I am of the mind that no one listened, and that the new seeding is the the narrow vision of a few with some agenda not particularly clear.

Further, we have players that have significant numbers in skill areas that make little or no sense to their position.  I saw some post asking if we found the new recruits fun, and/or interesting?  If you are interested in the absurd, then the answer is yes to both points.   We use to measure players by how many wasted numbers they had before recruiting, and now they all seem to have plenty of them.  There has only been a feeble attempt by Customer Service to explain how these players could possibly work into game play.

Another serious flaw is that there is going to be a greater disparity in the game between the rich and those trying to build teams.  A person taking over a C rated BCS school has more of a chance of being fired before they would ever get the team built up.  One team is playing with one set of players, and others different ones.

On top of that, we are faced with the option of leaving, or continuing to pay money to a company that does not seriously seem to be concerned about the customer, in order to find out if this mess is actually going to work, and knowing full well it is seriously flawed now and will be for the length of time you have suggested.

Since the positions are now irrelevant to the game(No penalty) YOu then put those players where their skills DO make sense. . .

Arssanguinus, your point is not lost on me, but there are many more complex issues with the differences in these players than you are describing.   There will be two or three seasons where there will be a lack of parity in the players on teams.  This will ultimately impact things like prestige, job security, and things that simple numbers do not address. 

Players were never cookie cut, and you always had to try and find a niche for them.  Now, there is little reason in them and for sure not much assurance that these new guys will mesh with the old ones.  In some cases, players are a full 25% or more below previous ones that are still being played.  Throw in the supposed increase in the importance of match up, and what are you going to get with the two systems.(?)

A change was necessary, but not this drastic one we ended up receiving.

In both div III and div II, I really have not noticed that my players got worse with the new recruits. I have seen mid div I lower, but that was much needed. Great is what good use to be, and good is what average use to be.

Furry, but why?

Because everyone maxed out with no weakness was stupid. Now, a starter might be a littler slower, a little bit weaker on the boards or his inside game, a weaker defender. In the top part of div I, this was NEVER the case. You can now adjust and attack. Other coaches have to make adjustments on a game by game basis. You might take a slightly worse player overall, but is a beast at whatever you need. You may sign a ben wallace type guy who is a freak athleticly, defender and rebounder, but lacks scoring. You'd of course counter this by getting a dominate inside scorer to play next to him. Isn't that much better/realistic? 

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/29/2010 6:28:00 PM (view original):
Because everyone maxed out with no weakness was stupid. Now, a starter might be a littler slower, a little bit weaker on the boards or his inside game, a weaker defender. In the top part of div I, this was NEVER the case. You can now adjust and attack. Other coaches have to make adjustments on a game by game basis. You might take a slightly worse player overall, but is a beast at whatever you need. You may sign a ben wallace type guy who is a freak athleticly, defender and rebounder, but lacks scoring. You'd of course counter this by getting a dominate inside scorer to play next to him. Isn't that much better/realistic? 

+100000000

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/29/2010 6:28:00 PM (view original):
Because everyone maxed out with no weakness was stupid. Now, a starter might be a littler slower, a little bit weaker on the boards or his inside game, a weaker defender. In the top part of div I, this was NEVER the case. You can now adjust and attack. Other coaches have to make adjustments on a game by game basis. You might take a slightly worse player overall, but is a beast at whatever you need. You may sign a ben wallace type guy who is a freak athleticly, defender and rebounder, but lacks scoring. You'd of course counter this by getting a dominate inside scorer to play next to him. Isn't that much better/realistic? 

this is what the new recruits are.  can someone please argue how this is a bad thing?  I really want to hear it.  Colonels?

Posted by daalter on 7/29/2010 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 3:23:00 PM (view original):
I'm stupid because I don't agree with you? Classy as usual. I'd rather play with a higher mean of players and you'd rather play with whatever seble tells you and whatever the 10 guys during testing told seble to do...whatever happened to zhawks anyway...I'll play however, but I don't have to like it just because it's new and "everyone else does". Give me strength on strength any day. If HD was a push button game, you wouldn't play it.

No, you're stupid because you're unable to understand simple concepts, and because you're completely inflexible in your viewpoints.

Thanks for the multiple personal attacks and name calling...I might just have to inform CS of these...however, as usual, you display your own inadequacy in grasping my points/arguments. We have different definitions of talent, and you don't understand this. Guys that are talented in this game have 750-900+ ratings. You're trying to tell me that the game is just as good with worse talent/ratings, just because the rest of the game has worse talent/ratings....I don't see how worse/talent ratings equates to a better game, because it just doesn't. In a push button, I'd rather have a mean of 80 than 70.

Posted by arssanguinus on 7/29/2010 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 2:58:00 PM (view original):
I most certainly am. I'd rather play a game where there are too many ACTUALLY talented guys than play a game where talent is weighed/judged on whose GARBAGE is better. Give me 700s v. 700s over 550s v. 550s every single day of the week. Too much talent is a good problem to have.

And you, are going into the typical arssintheb nonsense where I have you beaten thus you have nothing left to say but "you're illogical" and I won't debate with these empty statements.

Right,  Believe whatever makes you feel good;  but just a hint - just because someone else gives up arguing with you doesn't mean you are actually RIGHT.  Food for thought.  

Well if you give up because you can't beat me, then what does that really say about you and your argument? You can poopoo what I say all you want, it doesn't mean that what I say/argue isn't valid....food for thought.

You always back out in the heart of an argument, and it's because ya got nothin.