RECRUIT GENERATION Topic

arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
Posted by chewchad on 8/3/2010 12:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 8/2/2010 8:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chewchad on 8/1/2010 11:44:00 PM (view original):
ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS!  For small Di schools, we have no shot of getting good enough players to compete to move up the coach ing ladder.  Im definitely dropping a team, maybe 2.  The only ones Im going to keep are the ones that already have a high prestige. 

In my opinion, the quest to make HD as close to real life as possible has sacrificed alot of fun.  I remember being able to get a recruit and "mold" him into the type of player I wanted.  It wasnt as realistic, but it was a helluva lot more fun to see what he would look like by his senior year.  Now I have a D1 guy with a 90+ WE that is a sophomore and only improving in like 4 or 5 categories (which actually isnt realistic at all)

Now that we are 30-45 days into the new engine, does anyone see what I see or am I in the minority?

I guess I keep hanging on because I used to absolutely LOVE HD.  I couldnt wait to read my play by play/boxscore.  I keep hoping it will be as fun as it once was, but it just simply isnt anymore. 
Right, because having a prospect that works hard that just isn't very talented never happens right? 

I mean, I worked hard, played HS basketball, if you would have recruited me to a D1 team, I'm afraid I would have been pretty much maxed out, just not going to get much faster/stronger/better shooter etc.  Shaq never got better at shooting 3s or Fts. 

Recruit players with 90 WE and they reach their ceilings pretty fast.
Reinsel, you are probably a 5'8, 190 pound white guy with no core skills.  i would guess a 22 in speed and 9 in ath.  Of course, you can work your butt off and never improve. 

And you bring the 'ol overused Shaq analogy.  What about Charles Oakley, Barkley, Sam Perkins, Karl Malone?  I have 5 guys that worked over and over on their game for every 1 you throw out.  Those guys developed great jumpers by practicing every day.

Here is my point.  Certain things will not improve much (ATH, SPD, BLK, FT).  But are you telling me a guy with a 90 WE wont improve his low post moves over 3 seasons of work?  What about BH?  Defense?  PE?  Those are all skills that DO get better with practice.  So for a guy with a 90+ WE with HIGH potential in those categories to stop improving after 1 season is just plain STUPID. 

I loved the idea of potential, but they arent using common sense with it. 

And of course, the guys who never improve will be listed as "Joe Schmoe"  Who never went to the NBA because he didn't improve every single year in most aspects" How about you list five non NBA players - who are most definitely NOT typical college players.  Assuming 55 - 60 going into the NBA each year - and then subtract out international players - and there are perhaps 15% of division one players TOTAL that get drafted.  Then you know that a good percentage of those show they can't significantly keep improving and wash out of the NBA.  Then, of those that DO make it.   .your examples are four star players, including at least two hall of famers..

 


 

8/3/2010 7:33 AM (edited)
gomiami1972
Posts: 4541 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 1 554 49 141
Pro
chewdad, I am also in agreeance with you.  I've fought through 6 years of program updates to maintain my passion for the game and this latest change has pretty much worn me out.  I will never quit HD, it's a part of my blood at this point, but my interest in keeping 7-8 teams (as I have traditionally have done) is gone with recruits that only improve small amounts each season.  I was against the implementation of potential, so that should give you a reference on my feelings about what is happening now.

I have dropped all of my DI schools (except Hawaii) down to DIII, where the game is still enjoyable for me because there are no pre-determined dynasties for marketing purposes and everybody has a chance to build a Championship program, even with the recruits as they are.  I almost find DI unplayable now and that really is too bad.  I used to love bringing teams like South Florida, Furman, etc. to national relevance.  Now, I think it's so stacked against those schools, why bother.  Hawaii has been my only remaining link to DI because it really is a low DI program that benefits from the money and conference prestige of one of the CHOSEN (Pac-10). 

HD used to be such a wonderful game...such a shame.
8/3/2010 8:52 AM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
Posted by namshub on 8/2/2010 10:49:00 AM (view original):
what hasn't been brought up is that the new engine allows for you to compete with a team that's only 8 deep so you don't have to be stacked with talent 10-12 deep to compete.  this helps smaller schools that have a roster with upper classmen.  i'm not trying to make an argument that the playing field is leveled by any stretch of the imagination.  smaller school expectations should be somewhat lower if you're going to coach there.  may not be about winning the national championship but maybe winning the conference and/or conference tourney and making the Big Dance, then ******* off a team or two by upsetting them in the Dance.  maybe you can even catch lightning in a bottle and make it to a final four, which is still happening with teams outside of the Big 6.  I just think if expectations are modified than the game can be fun from any level.  having said that, i prefer to try and win the national championship so i currently coach the Big 6 schools but i have coached at lower levels and built programs too.

just my two cents.
You are making a real life arguement here nams.  But, thats not the point of this game.  At least not what it used to be.  The idea of a dynasty is that you could build any school into a power.  A coach could turn Pepperdine into Duke.  But there is just no way that happens anymore.
8/3/2010 8:54 AM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
Posted by cburton23 on 8/3/2010 8:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by namshub on 8/2/2010 10:49:00 AM (view original):
what hasn't been brought up is that the new engine allows for you to compete with a team that's only 8 deep so you don't have to be stacked with talent 10-12 deep to compete.  this helps smaller schools that have a roster with upper classmen.  i'm not trying to make an argument that the playing field is leveled by any stretch of the imagination.  smaller school expectations should be somewhat lower if you're going to coach there.  may not be about winning the national championship but maybe winning the conference and/or conference tourney and making the Big Dance, then ******* off a team or two by upsetting them in the Dance.  maybe you can even catch lightning in a bottle and make it to a final four, which is still happening with teams outside of the Big 6.  I just think if expectations are modified than the game can be fun from any level.  having said that, i prefer to try and win the national championship so i currently coach the Big 6 schools but i have coached at lower levels and built programs too.

just my two cents.
You are making a real life arguement here nams.  But, thats not the point of this game.  At least not what it used to be.  The idea of a dynasty is that you could build any school into a power.  A coach could turn Pepperdine into Duke.  But there is just no way that happens anymore.
I'd take issue that last sentence - fewer than 100 DI schools in HD have the opportunity to become Duke/UNC/Kentucky type programs.  I'm not sure there are many beyond Memphis, Marquette, Gonzaga and the 84 schools in the big conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC-10 and Atlantic 10).

Everything else has a de facto cap of A-.
8/3/2010 9:20 AM
cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=2285

UCR got up to an A.  But regardless, you are essentially right, there is a cap.  Maybe I should have said you could build Pepperdine into Texas.

8/3/2010 9:29 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
I know positions are cosmetic in the game, but there's a D1 recruit at PG in Tark #17PG, #67 overall that has a 39 PASS rating and a 45 LP rating....wtf kind of sense does that make? Again, not intriguing, not "better for the game", it's just stupid. The guy's probably a better SF to begin with, so why not properly label him as an SF?
8/3/2010 11:24 AM
deberly
Posts: 907 (0)
Hall of Famer
114 1 109 1
Prospect
I agree with the comments here.   I certainly don't mind an attempt to be more realistic, but, jeez, there are TONS of things they could have done better.

The most glaring problem in the game is stamina; no team can compete with an 8 man rotation.  In reality, almost all teams do.  

Because of this, it becomes vital for a team to recruit 10-12 competent players.  That is now impossible because of the adjustment to the recruiting pool for lower level teams.  

The solution would be to allow a team to run 8 guys out there and be "good."
8/3/2010 11:44 AM
4green2
Posts: 284 (0)
All Star
30
Prospect
Posted by colonels19 on 8/3/2010 11:24:00 AM (view original):
I know positions are cosmetic in the game, but there's a D1 recruit at PG in Tark #17PG, #67 overall that has a 39 PASS rating and a 45 LP rating....wtf kind of sense does that make? Again, not intriguing, not "better for the game", it's just stupid. The guy's probably a better SF to begin with, so why not properly label him as an SF?
"I know positions are cosmetic in the game"

Doesn't that first comment make the rest of the comment academic?  What are his potential ratings?  If he has high(Or even high high) potential in passing then he could be a brutal slashing PG - what are the rest of his numbers?

 

8/3/2010 12:02 PM
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
1. we have yet to see how often the top recruits declare for the draft.

2. everyone is in love with the whole "recruit a guy and mold him over the years" paradigm. why is that so great? not all real players can be molded, nor should all players be moldable.

they did a study a while ago asking students at Duke about how much $$ it would take for them to sell/buy final four tickets. everyone entered a lottery with equal chance at winning tickets...they found that people who did not win tickets were willing to buy them for about $250. people who won them weren't willing to sell them for less than $2000.

what does this mean for HD? everyone who's been playing for a while, and used to be heavily invested in the game, is in love with the past. they're more concerned with not losing the old fun parts of the game, less concerned with adding the new fun parts. i think recruiting a variety of players and fitting them in with the rest of your team is more fun than just how you allot practice time.

i think HD techs and seble know this is a natural reaction for people to have and are ignoring most of these complaints.
8/3/2010 12:25 PM
summerteeth
Posts: 52 (0)
Hall of Famer
83
Prospect
jet - i've posted this in the past, but for me it's not a "natural reaction" of being change averse.  i simply think the old way was better in that recruiting (before potential) had some focus, but it was effectively counter-balanced by having practice plan matter.  now, recruiting means nearly everything and, IMHO, is too important a part of the game.

there were things not good about the growth of the players before potential that could have been tweaked, but now things are pretty cut and dry - you KNOW how your guy will end up provided his growth isn't stunted by a 10 WE.

i will say this though - the new recruit generation is, to me, better than with earlier versions of potential in that you've got to think outside of the box a little more in terms of how you want to shape your overall team.  that being said, i still prefer the old recruit generation and molding him how you want (with the caveat that player improvement could have been improved here).

8/3/2010 12:33 PM
daalter
Posts: 326 (0)
Hall of Famer
40
Prospect
Posted by reinsel on 8/2/2010 8:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chewchad on 8/1/2010 11:44:00 PM (view original):
ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS!  For small Di schools, we have no shot of getting good enough players to compete to move up the coach ing ladder.  Im definitely dropping a team, maybe 2.  The only ones Im going to keep are the ones that already have a high prestige. 

In my opinion, the quest to make HD as close to real life as possible has sacrificed alot of fun.  I remember being able to get a recruit and "mold" him into the type of player I wanted.  It wasnt as realistic, but it was a helluva lot more fun to see what he would look like by his senior year.  Now I have a D1 guy with a 90+ WE that is a sophomore and only improving in like 4 or 5 categories (which actually isnt realistic at all)

Now that we are 30-45 days into the new engine, does anyone see what I see or am I in the minority?

I guess I keep hanging on because I used to absolutely LOVE HD.  I couldnt wait to read my play by play/boxscore.  I keep hoping it will be as fun as it once was, but it just simply isnt anymore. 
Right, because having a prospect that works hard that just isn't very talented never happens right? 

I mean, I worked hard, played HS basketball, if you would have recruited me to a D1 team, I'm afraid I would have been pretty much maxed out, just not going to get much faster/stronger/better shooter etc.  Shaq never got better at shooting 3s or Fts. 

Recruit players with 90 WE and they reach their ceilings pretty fast.
reinsel, the issue isn't that there might be a player somewhere who maxes out and doesn't really improve.

The issue is that there are an enormous # of players like this now because there are way too many low potential categories.

And that is neither good for HD nor realistic.
8/3/2010 12:39 PM
ardthomp
Posts: 210 (0)
Hall of Famer
417 24 77
Prospect
Posted by arssanguinus on 8/3/2010 7:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chewchad on 8/3/2010 12:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 8/2/2010 8:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chewchad on 8/1/2010 11:44:00 PM (view original):
ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS!  For small Di schools, we have no shot of getting good enough players to compete to move up the coach ing ladder.  Im definitely dropping a team, maybe 2.  The only ones Im going to keep are the ones that already have a high prestige. 

In my opinion, the quest to make HD as close to real life as possible has sacrificed alot of fun.  I remember being able to get a recruit and "mold" him into the type of player I wanted.  It wasnt as realistic, but it was a helluva lot more fun to see what he would look like by his senior year.  Now I have a D1 guy with a 90+ WE that is a sophomore and only improving in like 4 or 5 categories (which actually isnt realistic at all)

Now that we are 30-45 days into the new engine, does anyone see what I see or am I in the minority?

I guess I keep hanging on because I used to absolutely LOVE HD.  I couldnt wait to read my play by play/boxscore.  I keep hoping it will be as fun as it once was, but it just simply isnt anymore. 
Right, because having a prospect that works hard that just isn't very talented never happens right? 

I mean, I worked hard, played HS basketball, if you would have recruited me to a D1 team, I'm afraid I would have been pretty much maxed out, just not going to get much faster/stronger/better shooter etc.  Shaq never got better at shooting 3s or Fts. 

Recruit players with 90 WE and they reach their ceilings pretty fast.
Reinsel, you are probably a 5'8, 190 pound white guy with no core skills.  i would guess a 22 in speed and 9 in ath.  Of course, you can work your butt off and never improve. 

And you bring the 'ol overused Shaq analogy.  What about Charles Oakley, Barkley, Sam Perkins, Karl Malone?  I have 5 guys that worked over and over on their game for every 1 you throw out.  Those guys developed great jumpers by practicing every day.

Here is my point.  Certain things will not improve much (ATH, SPD, BLK, FT).  But are you telling me a guy with a 90 WE wont improve his low post moves over 3 seasons of work?  What about BH?  Defense?  PE?  Those are all skills that DO get better with practice.  So for a guy with a 90+ WE with HIGH potential in those categories to stop improving after 1 season is just plain STUPID. 

I loved the idea of potential, but they arent using common sense with it. 

And of course, the guys who never improve will be listed as "Joe Schmoe"  Who never went to the NBA because he didn't improve every single year in most aspects" How about you list five non NBA players - who are most definitely NOT typical college players.  Assuming 55 - 60 going into the NBA each year - and then subtract out international players - and there are perhaps 15% of division one players TOTAL that get drafted.  Then you know that a good percentage of those show they can't significantly keep improving and wash out of the NBA.  Then, of those that DO make it.   .your examples are four star players, including at least two hall of famers..

 


 

Scottie Reynolds, Bobby Hurley, AJ Guyton, Damon Bailey, Ed Cota, Curtis Staples...I can keep going on and on with guys that improved during their four years and didn't make the NBA.
8/3/2010 1:03 PM
nachopuzzle
Posts: 1427 (0)
Hall of Famer
105 2
Prospect
I don't have a billion seasons under my belt, but I've played enough with the old and new sims to feel like I have an informed opinion. Firstly, I understand the complaints about the weird mix of recruits in the new engine, but I think this problem will be addressed with as much hype as its getting. Second, the new engine is the only real thing that kept me around. In the old engine, it didn't matter how good you got a player to become or what you molded him into because he was still going to average the typical 10 to 13 points a season and (for the most part) it was almost pointless trying to exploit individual match-ups. There is no point in being able to create great players (through recruit generation and coaching) if you can't consistently exploit those strengths you've developed, which the new engine is exponentially better at doing. All of this is my very humble, humble, humble, humble, humble, humble opinion.
8/3/2010 1:44 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro
Posted by ardthomp on 8/3/2010 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by arssanguinus on 8/3/2010 7:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chewchad on 8/3/2010 12:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 8/2/2010 8:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chewchad on 8/1/2010 11:44:00 PM (view original):
ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS!  For small Di schools, we have no shot of getting good enough players to compete to move up the coach ing ladder.  Im definitely dropping a team, maybe 2.  The only ones Im going to keep are the ones that already have a high prestige. 

In my opinion, the quest to make HD as close to real life as possible has sacrificed alot of fun.  I remember being able to get a recruit and "mold" him into the type of player I wanted.  It wasnt as realistic, but it was a helluva lot more fun to see what he would look like by his senior year.  Now I have a D1 guy with a 90+ WE that is a sophomore and only improving in like 4 or 5 categories (which actually isnt realistic at all)

Now that we are 30-45 days into the new engine, does anyone see what I see or am I in the minority?

I guess I keep hanging on because I used to absolutely LOVE HD.  I couldnt wait to read my play by play/boxscore.  I keep hoping it will be as fun as it once was, but it just simply isnt anymore. 
Right, because having a prospect that works hard that just isn't very talented never happens right? 

I mean, I worked hard, played HS basketball, if you would have recruited me to a D1 team, I'm afraid I would have been pretty much maxed out, just not going to get much faster/stronger/better shooter etc.  Shaq never got better at shooting 3s or Fts. 

Recruit players with 90 WE and they reach their ceilings pretty fast.
Reinsel, you are probably a 5'8, 190 pound white guy with no core skills.  i would guess a 22 in speed and 9 in ath.  Of course, you can work your butt off and never improve. 

And you bring the 'ol overused Shaq analogy.  What about Charles Oakley, Barkley, Sam Perkins, Karl Malone?  I have 5 guys that worked over and over on their game for every 1 you throw out.  Those guys developed great jumpers by practicing every day.

Here is my point.  Certain things will not improve much (ATH, SPD, BLK, FT).  But are you telling me a guy with a 90 WE wont improve his low post moves over 3 seasons of work?  What about BH?  Defense?  PE?  Those are all skills that DO get better with practice.  So for a guy with a 90+ WE with HIGH potential in those categories to stop improving after 1 season is just plain STUPID. 

I loved the idea of potential, but they arent using common sense with it. 

And of course, the guys who never improve will be listed as "Joe Schmoe"  Who never went to the NBA because he didn't improve every single year in most aspects" How about you list five non NBA players - who are most definitely NOT typical college players.  Assuming 55 - 60 going into the NBA each year - and then subtract out international players - and there are perhaps 15% of division one players TOTAL that get drafted.  Then you know that a good percentage of those show they can't significantly keep improving and wash out of the NBA.  Then, of those that DO make it.   .your examples are four star players, including at least two hall of famers..

 


 

Scottie Reynolds, Bobby Hurley, AJ Guyton, Damon Bailey, Ed Cota, Curtis Staples...I can keep going on and on with guys that improved during their four years and didn't make the NBA.
I recognize a few names in there, for example Hurley, whO DID get drafted and just didn't succeed.
And you are saying Hurley improved greatly in ALL ASPECTS of his game? Really?
8/3/2010 1:50 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro
Posted by summerteeth on 8/3/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):
jet - i've posted this in the past, but for me it's not a "natural reaction" of being change averse.  i simply think the old way was better in that recruiting (before potential) had some focus, but it was effectively counter-balanced by having practice plan matter.  now, recruiting means nearly everything and, IMHO, is too important a part of the game.

there were things not good about the growth of the players before potential that could have been tweaked, but now things are pretty cut and dry - you KNOW how your guy will end up provided his growth isn't stunted by a 10 WE.

i will say this though - the new recruit generation is, to me, better than with earlier versions of potential in that you've got to think outside of the box a little more in terms of how you want to shape your overall team.  that being said, i still prefer the old recruit generation and molding him how you want (with the caveat that player improvement could have been improved here).

YOu knew how they would turn out before. Input Original rating, Work ethic, practice minutes, project it out four years.

8/3/2010 1:52 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...15 Next ▸
RECRUIT GENERATION Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.