mcauley - your thinking is correct, however, it is a little like drinking jack daniels to try and heal a gunshot wound - far better for our resident surgeon to cut the patient open, find the bullet, remove it, and stitch the patient back up.  What we need out of seble is a rationale and epic surgery like he performed on the ill fated FSS change.  We need it soon as HD is bleeding to death, not 100% of the coaches are affected, but a fairly substantial portion of the game players are very unhappy with recruiting as it now plays.

OR - I'm on board with you on this one.  I'm not much of a forum poster, but I've been reading for a few years and have a little bit of experience and I agree that the system as it is is screwed up.  But I like there being a thin crop of elite players at the top.  Honestly, the second tier guys frequently never get as good as seniors as the impact freshman are during their first years.  It's the outcome I'm trying to change, we just disagree on the method.  I'm not saying that my way is better, I'm just looking for other options.

And when you say "a fairly substantial portion of the game players are very unhappy with recruting," wouldn't a better way to say that be "a fairly substantial portion of the game players are very unhappy with the recruiting at Low DI?"  High DI is easier than ever (people are just having to adjust to slightly lower ratings, which isn't an actual problem - it's the ratings difference between teams that's important) and I'm really enjoying the DII and DIII recruiting experience right now.

Several great points you made Mac, in no particular order

1 - I worded the unhappy the way I did because the % of unhappy coaches to happy coaches is as high on this issue as any issue I ever saw in the game, even though d1 coaches may be the most unhappy segment of the population, overall the population is more unhappy than usual over the change.

2 - One reason for d2/d3 unhappiness is how time consuming finding those 'gem' recruits is.  Now for addicts to the game, that is fine, but there are about 1000 teams per world and ten worlds, which means the games needs 10,000 coaches to fill up.  Many average committed coaches are leaving due to the time consuming nature of recruiting, and the fact that near 100% of team success is due to recruiting now.  But yes, mid level and low level d1 coaches are getting the short end of the straw right now.  Even saying that, I think high level d1 coaches are the most vocal about the change, I am not sure why, I think many of them (us) know what it is like to try and build a team up, and also see how pockets of unfairness exist all over the recruiting maps.  This has always been an issue, but the introduction of elite level players has just made it worse.

3 - Your idea will work, but will fix a small part of the problem and would attempt to fix a problem by addressing something else, and until a larger qty of capable recruits who are more closely related to each other exist and a larger qty of high potential guys exist, this will not get fixed.  These two fixes are quite simple.

3a - mac don't know if you have been around for a long time or not, but tarek tried to fix FCP using stamina is an example of fixing the rating system by changing the post season bonus system.  What tarek should have done is changed FCP to cause fewer turnover and give up and higher shooting % way back when, rather than make FCP players more tired.  In this case, seble needs to fix the rating system.

To point 2 OR, I think the reason so many high level DI coaches are speaking out is twofold.  On one hand, they are really the only ones who know what it takes to be successful at low and mid DI schools because they have done it.  And 2, the high level coaches tend to be ones that have been around longer, and care more about the game, plus selfishly, if there are fewer successful mid DI coaches who will fill up the Big 6 when a coach leaves?

OR/cburton - I actually think the fact that the coaches that stand most to gain from it are the ones trying to fix it is actually really noble and in the spirit of the best possible competition.  It's nice to see that, even if there are disagreements about HOW to fix things :)

Posted by mcauley on 8/10/2010 1:18:00 PM (view original):
OR/cburton - I actually think the fact that the coaches that stand most to gain from it are the ones trying to fix it is actually really noble and in the spirit of the best possible competition.  It's nice to see that, even if there are disagreements about HOW to fix things :)

Agreed.

Posted by mcauley on 8/10/2010 9:16:00 AM (view original):
ardthomp - maybe I'm imaging this wrong, but I think the difference would be bigger for the big conferences.  Let's take (hypothetical) Big Conference A vs. Small Conference B.  If Big A plays 20 NT games and Small B plays 3, the current system gives 400k to Big A and 60k to Small B.  If you cut it to 10k, it goes to 200k vs 30 k while the money per open scholarship stays the same so the difference actually gets smaller.

Is this thinking wrong?  (not a rhetorical question)

I see it as this...a small school with 60K has a better shot (although slim) at landing a recruit by outspending.  A small school with 30K has to really pinch pennies.  I get what you are saying and at the end of the day it is probably splitting hairs really!

Posted by indyjag on 8/10/2010 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mcauley on 8/10/2010 9:16:00 AM (view original):
ardthomp - maybe I'm imaging this wrong, but I think the difference would be bigger for the big conferences.  Let's take (hypothetical) Big Conference A vs. Small Conference B.  If Big A plays 20 NT games and Small B plays 3, the current system gives 400k to Big A and 60k to Small B.  If you cut it to 10k, it goes to 200k vs 30 k while the money per open scholarship stays the same so the difference actually gets smaller.

Is this thinking wrong?  (not a rhetorical question)

I see it as this...a small school with 60K has a better shot (although slim) at landing a recruit by outspending.  A small school with 30K has to really pinch pennies.  I get what you are saying and at the end of the day it is probably splitting hairs really!

ardthomp ^^^

It also depends on how populated a world is...trying to remain competitve in the ACC in Knight at Georgia Tech has gotten to be nearly impossible for me at the moment with the changes to recruit generation...if I get involved in a high end battle it's costing at least 100K plus promises to land any guy of enough quality to make a difference (even then it's no guarentee). I can't even land SR transfers and local "role' players like I once did, since the talent level is so low now THOSE guys are going for 10k to 20k.

While recruiting battles are interesting, and the decision making process is interesting...being eviscerated like a bleeding seal in shark infested waters two years in a row is not so much :(

I've pretty much resigned myself to taking on two walk-ons a year, plus two formerly D2 quality players for four years, and TRYING to get 8 decent enough players to hopefully win 4 to 6 ACC games, and with these new recruits that's probably the best I can even hope for looking forward.

Sure, I could drop to D2 and probably dominate but...I used to love trying to compete in the ACC, now it's I "like" trying to win 4 to 6 ACC games...when that gets old I will just drop the team (like I probably should have done after that replaying games fiasco) and try and find another basketball sim :p


While I enjoy "realism" in my games, this has gotten to the point where "realism" is trumping fun and at the end of the day...GAMES SHOULD BE FUN :)

Posted by g0at on 8/11/2010 10:08:00 AM (view original):
It also depends on how populated a world is...trying to remain competitve in the ACC in Knight at Georgia Tech has gotten to be nearly impossible for me at the moment with the changes to recruit generation...if I get involved in a high end battle it's costing at least 100K plus promises to land any guy of enough quality to make a difference (even then it's no guarentee). I can't even land SR transfers and local "role' players like I once did, since the talent level is so low now THOSE guys are going for 10k to 20k.

While recruiting battles are interesting, and the decision making process is interesting...being eviscerated like a bleeding seal in shark infested waters two years in a row is not so much :(

I've pretty much resigned myself to taking on two walk-ons a year, plus two formerly D2 quality players for four years, and TRYING to get 8 decent enough players to hopefully win 4 to 6 ACC games, and with these new recruits that's probably the best I can even hope for looking forward.

Sure, I could drop to D2 and probably dominate but...I used to love trying to compete in the ACC, now it's I "like" trying to win 4 to 6 ACC games...when that gets old I will just drop the team (like I probably should have done after that replaying games fiasco) and try and find another basketball sim :p


While I enjoy "realism" in my games, this has gotten to the point where "realism" is trumping fun and at the end of the day...GAMES SHOULD BE FUN :)

Give that man a cigar...