Great posts by jetwildcat and summerteeth. I think the new release has been more famine than feast, and I bet the numbers say the same thing...

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/3/2010 1:52:00 PM (view original):

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.

fair enough.  what i should have said was that you were able to control how your players turned out (since no 2 coaches utilize the exact same practice plan), and now we don't have that.  the current recruits are essentially pre-planned.  sure, one coach may max out REB & and another LP first given identical players, but they'll end up in roughly the same spot.  i think i tended to focus on some different practice set ups than other coaches with the old recruiting set up, and my teams reflected it.

Posted by 4green2 on 8/3/2010 12:02:00 PM (view original):

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?

 

The point is, a PG with a higher LP than PASS being rated the #17 PG in D1 is rather preposterous. I don't know about his potentials.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/3/2010 1:52:00 PM (view original):

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.

I don't see what the problem with that format was...sure it was predictable, but who cares...you got the player that YOU wanted and consequently had absolute control of your team, building it PRECISELY to your specs...again I don't see the problem here. Potentials are arguably too limiting as is.

I have been an outspoken opponent of the new recruit generation since day one. While it probably did need to be tweaked slightly (there were WAY too many top-notch D1 players, draft prospect-types, who weren't close to their capabilities because so many other players were comparable in SOME way), I feel like they overcorrected the issue.

If there weren't as many top-notch recruits, but were more mid-level "sleeper" types, I'd have been okay with the change. Figure a 15% top-level ceiling, 60% sleeper/mid-level, 25% dud, which is still better than it was before. Now, I'd say they went 15% top-level, 15% mid-level, maybe a 15-20% low-level/mildly useful group, and 50% dud. They went too far with the adjustment, and there's no way to say it otherwise.

Posted by bomberball on 8/3/2010 2:57:00 PM (view original):
I have been an outspoken opponent of the new recruit generation since day one. While it probably did need to be tweaked slightly (there were WAY too many top-notch D1 players, draft prospect-types, who weren't close to their capabilities because so many other players were comparable in SOME way), I feel like they overcorrected the issue.

If there weren't as many top-notch recruits, but were more mid-level "sleeper" types, I'd have been okay with the change. Figure a 15% top-level ceiling, 60% sleeper/mid-level, 25% dud, which is still better than it was before. Now, I'd say they went 15% top-level, 15% mid-level, maybe a 15-20% low-level/mildly useful group, and 50% dud. They went too far with the adjustment, and there's no way to say it otherwise.

Of course there is a way to say otherwise. I'm saying otherwise. I think the current mix of recruits is terrific. I think that there is no way to predict the effect of these changes upon HD as a whole until you have at least four seasons with this mix of recruits. And I am looking forward to it. Then again, I am not looking for an excuse for failure.

Posted by colonels19 on 8/3/2010 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by 4green2 on 8/3/2010 12:02:00 PM (view original):

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?

 

The point is, a PG with a higher LP than PASS being rated the #17 PG in D1 is rather preposterous. I don't know about his potentials.

Once again, no position penalty, so recruit him as a SF or better yet don't recruit him at all

Posted by bomberball on 8/3/2010 2:57:00 PM (view original):
I have been an outspoken opponent of the new recruit generation since day one. While it probably did need to be tweaked slightly (there were WAY too many top-notch D1 players, draft prospect-types, who weren't close to their capabilities because so many other players were comparable in SOME way), I feel like they overcorrected the issue.

If there weren't as many top-notch recruits, but were more mid-level "sleeper" types, I'd have been okay with the change. Figure a 15% top-level ceiling, 60% sleeper/mid-level, 25% dud, which is still better than it was before. Now, I'd say they went 15% top-level, 15% mid-level, maybe a 15-20% low-level/mildly useful group, and 50% dud. They went too far with the adjustment, and there's no way to say it otherwise.

bomber i agree somewhat with your post.  i was never against potential all the way.  i also agree there were too many 90/90/90/90 guys. 

Why cant we just start their cores lower and have them max out a little lower?  As constructed, the only players with potential to be studs will land in the hands of the "haves".  The ":have nots" will never really have a chance now.  At least at one time, the "have nots" had a chance to succeed with a strong senior class but i dont see that happening anymore.

Those 'Studs' will also most likely be heavy EE's.

There are still a lot of "great" players.  Some are the #1 PF that is already a stud, and some are the #50 PF that has a ton of high potential categories.  That #50 PF isn't being recruited by the A prestige schools, but he is drawing interest from the B-/C+ schools.

I agree the D/D+ schools have it harder, but that is how it should be.  I was able to win NT games with players recruited by a team with prestige of D-/D/D+.  That should be almost impossible now, and that is ok.

Posted by reinsel on 8/3/2010 5:26:00 PM (view original):
There are still a lot of "great" players.  Some are the #1 PF that is already a stud, and some are the #50 PF that has a ton of high potential categories.  That #50 PF isn't being recruited by the A prestige schools, but he is drawing interest from the B-/C+ schools.

I agree the D/D+ schools have it harder, but that is how it should be.  I was able to win NT games with players recruited by a team with prestige of D-/D/D+.  That should be almost impossible now, and that is ok.

But when those D-/D/D+ recruits do win a CT and make the NT, the school will become a C-/C/C+ school, and be able to recruit better, and maybe get to the second round... and keep repeating the cycle of improvement. I always said before that it took at least eight seasons to go from a D team to being a force in the tournament. So now maybe it takes 12. But that is pure speculation, because no one can be sure until we see 4 to 8 to 12 seasons with new recruits.

Still think the new recruits need to have their stamina adjusted upwards. Seen lots oh high level guys in the 40s and 50s.

I think what we will need to see with the newer stamina, long run, is what happens when low stamina guys are playing low stamina guys - in other words when the old "Tons of people with 90+ stamina" goes away.

This was my concern when I filled out that survey. I only played a few seasons before potential was brought in, so I wont speak as to whether potential itself was a good idea (i like it. Not everyone improves at everything). However, these recruits are ridiculous. Colonels example with that PG is perfect. I like this new recruit generation in theory, trying to differentiate players so not every halfway decent team can get maxed out recruits, but I feel like Im going off the deep end trying to find guys I want in Naismith. No PF/C should be going D1 with a 12 LP let alone having low potential. How could you ever put that guy on the floor? There seems to be and endless number of ridiculous examples. It's frustrating to say the least.

Another thing is the evaluations. Why do they continue to give the same info over and over. This is not hard to fix. Literally a few lines of code, and that's it. I dont mind a few repeats, but if I do 5 evals I should get more than 6 combined attributes. 

Again though;  the position names on the recruits is purely cosmetic.