Posted by acn24 on 8/4/2010 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/4/2010 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 8/4/2010 11:40:00 AM (view original):
Review of Crum (2 seasons into new recruits; 3 conference games into season) has 12 teams with C or lower prestige in the top 50 RPI and 22 non-Big 6 conference teams in the top 50 RPI.  seems like a pretty good distribution to me if that holds.

Shhhh! You're screwing up their narrative with actual facts rather than speculation.

As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  That is a pretty cursory examination above - while what he says is true - the if in the last sentence is a pretty giant IF. 

This doesn't really provide any information unless you dig in some more.  The non-major/C or worse prestige schools in the Top 25 are:

Buffalo, #2 RPI, more than 75% of minutes, 80% of points,  and 85% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors (read - old recruits)
UTEP, #5 RPI, more than 80% of minutes, 80% of points, and 80% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors
Drake, #7 RPI, more than 50% of minutes, 70% of points, and 50% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors
Lipscomb, #16 RPI, more than 75% of minutes, 80% of points, and 85% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors
Texas Southern, #23 RPI, more than 55% of minutes, 75% of points, and 40% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors
Rice, #24 RPI, more than 70% of minutes, 70% of points, and 75% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors
Austin Peay, #25 RPI, more than 50% of minutes, 60% of points, and 55% of rebounds are contributed by Juniors/Seniors.

All those teams are getting sizable contributions from recruits generated under the old engine.  We have absolutely no idea if they will be able to sustain their success.  We have no idea if the elite recuits will all start being early entries, and the top schools will start being comprised of primarily underclassmen going forward.  We have no idea if an IQ difference will allow smaller schools to overcome the 10-15% skill advantage that major schools will have.  We have no idea if big schools will begin dipping into the 75-125 at their position pool to snag the players with good or better potential.

I agree with daalter and others who think WIS overcorrected and that the situation for low/mid DI schools is looking much bleaker post-new engine than pre-new engine.  I would argue that this process really started with the advent of potential and this is simply a continuation of beating up on those schools.  However, I can't say for certain this is the case.  Neither can anybody else say definitively that this isn't the death knell of low/mid DI schools.  I do know that several coaches I respect and whose opinions I value are bailing on low/mid DI teams, and I know that if I had schools in that situation, I would be doing the same thing.

Seems like its bound to be a bit of a circle. . .top coaches leave low d1 teams, low d1 teams fail because the top coaches aren't there, then the top coaches say that they leave low d1 teams because they can't win using as evidence that the low d1 teams they left aren't winning.

I don't see anyone who's made that argument.

It would still be a good time to renew the CAA experiment, daalter. I know there's a voice in the back of you're head saying, "Do it..." Though the Allen Big Sky seems to be doing well right now also.

these new recruits are full-on Monet.
Tai: What's a monet?
Cher: It's like a painting, see? From far away, it's OK, but up close, it's a big old mess.
-clueless

Posted by cbriese on 8/4/2010 4:23:00 PM (view original):
It would still be a good time to renew the CAA experiment, daalter. I know there's a voice in the back of you're head saying, "Do it..." Though the Allen Big Sky seems to be doing well right now also.

I was the architect of Allen-Big Sky (@ Montana) until I left after last season (since I used my girt ID to grab UNC, lol). Over the last five seasons, we put the second-most teams in the NT (behind the mighty ACC) and were top 3-5 in conference rpi basically every season. Definitely became a de facto power conference. Overall I would say probably overall we were a step ahead of CAA-Rupp, although we only had one NT winner (Southern), and I think in the CAA both you and combalt took one down.

Urban legend has it that you only recruited ineligibles @ UNCW ...

Lets just say that I am glad dilemmas were turned off.

Posted by daalter on 8/4/2010 4:20:00 PM (view original):
I don't see anyone who's made that argument.

They can't have made it yet, as it hasn't happened yet.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/4/2010 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/4/2010 4:20:00 PM (view original):
I don't see anyone who's made that argument.

They can't have made it yet, as it hasn't happened yet.

Then you're just creating a straw man with your whole (non-)point. (Which is what my comment was trying to get across.)

Posted by daalter on 8/4/2010 11:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/4/2010 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/4/2010 4:20:00 PM (view original):
I don't see anyone who's made that argument.

They can't have made it yet, as it hasn't happened yet.

Then you're just creating a straw man with your whole (non-)point. (Which is what my comment was trying to get across.)

A hypothetical future situation itself not attached to any argument is by definition not a strawman.  Not even saying per se youare 'wrong' because of the argument (Although I do disagree for other reasons)  I can just se the situation where it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

First, I don't even think what you're predicting makes sense. But more importantly, let's stick to what's actually happening, rather than what you think might perhaps happen at some point down the road.

I realize that you're pretty much going to side with WIS no matter what, but I have to ask: Have you played much in DI? Reading your comments, it doesn't seem like you have a real feel for how DI works, the delicate hierarchy, etc. And if that's the case, you can't really appreciate the effect these changes have had and will continue to have there.

And if you do have DI experience, do you disagree with the notion that these changes -- the wide chasm between the good recruits and everyone else, a lack of proper mid/high-mid players and a sea of low potential categories -- will hurt everyone outside of the top teams? And if you do disagree, I'm wondering why?

i think the safest bet is let's wait and see.  there are just so many variables.  it may have a catastrophic effect on the lower level DI teams or it may not.  that's all this thread is really saying.  there are decent arguments on both sides but no on knows for sure because there isn't enough data.  the sky is falling argument just gets played so much in these forums its nauseating at times

Frankly, I woudl say you and others seem to be jumping the gun severely.  Its WAY too early to be leaping to these conclusions before the old recruits have even cleared out of the system.

ANd you want to talk about "Straw men"

 

"I'm sure you are going to side with WIS no matter what"  And calling people "WIS apologists" most certainly qualify.
 

The problem with the wait and see approach, is we are at least 3 seasons away from knowing, and probably more than that to good a decent sample to see the effect.  So that means $40-70 per team to wait and see.  and if you have multiple teams even more.  So we continue to pay to be BETA testers.

Posted by cburton23 on 8/5/2010 9:56:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the wait and see approach, is we are at least 3 seasons away from knowing, and probably more than that to good a decent sample to see the effect.  So that means $40-70 per team to wait and see.  and if you have multiple teams even more.  So we continue to pay to be BETA testers.

Heh. People in the GD forums have been complaining for years that there have been no updates to their game.