kind of like making mass murder legal, then asking for evidence that people don't love it because 10 mass murders post on a website where they have killed everyone else how great legalized mass murder is - there just is not all that much interest left out there gang to fight back - I love all these rationalizations, to ask for anything other than anecdotal evidence, you have to provide some, is the game more popular as result of the change?  is the game fairer than before?  is the game more fun to more coaches than before?  come on big talkers, bring out your data, show me yours and I will show you mine?

funny thing, are you guys really saying you don't want recruiting fixed anymore, that this is perfect right now?  I am near 100% sure, I could get seble to change recruiting, then would you guys be against seble because he changed recruiting?  You really think the differentiation between elite and near elite recruits is adjusted 100% correctly as is?  you really think the gap between mid d1 and high d2 is correct?  You really think 3 top ten PG's in hawaii and none within 500 miles of UCLA is the best this game has to offer?  You like that some A+ UNC coach recruits classes that averages near 800 while banking 25% of 60k for next season, while the A+ kentucky coach is bragging about how smartly he filled 4 of his 6 scholies with hi pot 565 guys and how much fun he is having?  That is what you want from this game?  It is not what I want and I will continue to fight back versus what quite honestly feels like insanity.

Im with the king.  Or has spoken listen to him.

The only thing I really agree with about recruit generation being off is the point OR makes about recruit locations. I think it should reflect real life more. The vast majority of great west coast recruits should be in California there should rarely be studs in the small states. It seems every year there is a stud in a state like Montana or Wyoming. But as far as the supposed gap between the tier of recruits I disagree whole heartedly.

So either we feel like its perfect, or fwe feel like its a disaster of biblical proportions.  Lovely.

Definitely for. Recruiting is a real problem at DI. Waiting 3-4 seasons to see what happens is a real bad idea. They got way too cutesy with the recruit generation and are being stubborn about it.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/14/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dilo on 8/14/2010 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/14/2010 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Fact: these mid to low D1 recruits are much much worse than previous recruits at the same level

Fact: coaches are dropping teams or dropping divisions because of these new recruits

Fact: the majority of Hd coaches articulate they prefer less sim teams rather than more sim teams

Couldn't agree more.  One compelling data set should be: how many coaches do not like the changes?  how many are leaving?  how many are switching teams/divisions?  And how many have 20+ seasons of experience?  If I was WIS, that would be the primary data set I would examine.  When you churn a quorum of loyal customers, that's of concern.

Hey, new Coke may not have tasted badly ... but people preferred the old recipe.

What makes you think you have a quorum?  Hell, you don't even seem to have a quorum of those responding on this THREAD, and people who aren't upset generally don't tend to respond on message boards as much as those who do(Edit)(As those who are upset.), so things like this are biased to make passions look greater than they really are,.

Most of the people responding against have little-to-no DI experience. What they have to say on this issue is basically irrelevant.

There's a thread on the first page right now with a question about DIII. I thought about responding, but haven't played DIII in many years and wouldn't really be able to give a qualified, informed opinion. Same thing. I think it's hysterical that a coach who doesn't know DI well (in general, not pointing the finger at you) would respond to this thread, let alone strenuously argue for something they don't know much about.

There are some people with good DI experience on the other side ... cbriese (whose opinion I certainly respect) chief among them. But even he has been away from HD for quite awhile and isn't fully settled back in. The people who you see arguing strenuously that this needs to be fixed are, by-and-large, vets w. a lot of DI experience who really understand the game. That doesn't automatically mean they're right, but it should tell you something.

And those same people are saying this could potentially have a more detrimental impact than any of those things.

Lovely.  The "My opponents arguments are defacto wrong I win RAWR!: argument.,

Posted by oldresorter on 8/14/2010 6:38:00 PM (view original):
kind of like making mass murder legal, then asking for evidence that people don't love it because 10 mass murders post on a website where they have killed everyone else how great legalized mass murder is - there just is not all that much interest left out there gang to fight back - I love all these rationalizations, to ask for anything other than anecdotal evidence, you have to provide some, is the game more popular as result of the change?  is the game fairer than before?  is the game more fun to more coaches than before?  come on big talkers, bring out your data, show me yours and I will show you mine?

funny thing, are you guys really saying you don't want recruiting fixed anymore, that this is perfect right now?  I am near 100% sure, I could get seble to change recruiting, then would you guys be against seble because he changed recruiting?  You really think the differentiation between elite and near elite recruits is adjusted 100% correctly as is?  you really think the gap between mid d1 and high d2 is correct?  You really think 3 top ten PG's in hawaii and none within 500 miles of UCLA is the best this game has to offer?  You like that some A+ UNC coach recruits classes that averages near 800 while banking 25% of 60k for next season, while the A+ kentucky coach is bragging about how smartly he filled 4 of his 6 scholies with hi pot 565 guys and how much fun he is having?  That is what you want from this game?  It is not what I want and I will continue to fight back versus what quite honestly feels like insanity.

Oldresorter, ladies and gentlemen. Give him a hand.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/14/2010 6:54:00 PM (view original):
So either we feel like its perfect, or fwe feel like its a disaster of biblical proportions.  Lovely.

or reply straight up tell us what you think, I have never said biblical porportions and have been brutally frank with what I think spelling out the X's and O's, all I get back is this kind of stuff?  Man up - what do you think?  Tell me all about your experiences as a d1 recruiter?  All the tradeoffs you now make that yoiu enjoy so much, versus how easy it used to be for you, give me some specifics how much better the experience is now for you.  Leave the biblical proportions out of this, what do you actually know about d1 recruiting at the elite level as it now stand, as it was, versus recruiting at the low level d1, how it now works, how it used to?

Well, I don't think anything is perfect, and the recruit geographical distro has been an issue for years, since Rails was leading the charge.

I think OR makes a whole bunch of valid points, and there may be some adjustment in order. But until WIS can see how the current changes play out, and if they have resulted in desired or undesired effects, they have to remain patient.

Note that I am in no way defending the extreme cases of the guys with the ATH of 1. I am instead talking about the 560 overall guys that are being snatched up by Big 6 schools, and the effect that has on down the line. The 1 ATH guy is annoying, but no one is recruiting him, so he has little effect on competition. If you want to argue that the 1 ATH guy reduces the pool of truly available recruits, well, maybe. But it only means there are recruits that used to be dropdowns in D2 now being recruited in D1. My D2 dropdowns used to regularly top 700 by their senior years, so it is not as if they cannot compete at the D1 level.

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/14/2010 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 1:38:00 PM (view original):
OMG, people just need to adjust. People are too caught up in comparing new recruits to the old recruits, you guys need to realize old recruits do not matter anymore. A good recruit in the old engine is not the same as a good recruit now. Lower your standards, 80 passing point guards in D1 are now not terrible, and you aren't at a disadvantage by having them because everybody else will have them also. Change your standards, I know people hate change but it's for the better. I remember when everybody complained that every top team had guys with 99 in every important category and now that that will no longer be the case people want to complain that the recruits aren't good enough. I guess instead of 99s people wanted the recruits to be 95s across the board. The fact is guys with 95+ ratings should be elite players not dime a dozen players and now we have that. People wanted the chance to have elite guys well now you do, if you're lucky enough to get a guy who ends up being 95+ in a few categories he will stand out rather then just be 1 of the guys on your team with great ratings.

blazor, this post is why the title of the thread and your initial post badly need to be cleaned up and corrected.

kmason, his point is not that recruits have lower starting values across the board. I have seen very few people upset about that fact, and many people, myself included, who think it's good (for the reason you mentioned).

The problem isn't the lower starting ratings. The problem is the fact that there is now an incredibly large gulf between the really good recruits and everyone else. The drop is extremely precipitous. And when you couple that with the fact that there are now more than 2x as many low potential categories as before, which prevents the inferior recruits from catching up, it is leading to a major problem in DI.

(This is very clearly manifesting itself already in Allen. Over the last three seasons, an average of 11.5 non-BCS teams were in the top 25 in rpi. This season there are just six. Bad, bad news.)

I don't think the gap the you and others have spoken of exists. I think the problem is people don't look hard enough. You don't need to sign a top 200 player, you can get a guy who is ranked 120th at his position and he can turn out to be very good. The lower ranked guys have a ton of potential, they may take a couple of years to become quality D1 players but they will still become that.

Because the D1 schools seem not to look that low at recruits D2 schools like the one I have in Phelan are getting the chance to grab some serious studs. On that Bryant team I have 2 freshman and a sophomore who will all likely end up with or close to 90+ speed and 90+ per with solid ratings in other areas. Those are D1 quality players but because D1 coaches have grown accustomed to only looking at the top 50 or so players at each position I got these guys without any opposition.

These are the 3 players I'm referring to:
http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1597797

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1622292

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1597796

These guys are out there you just have to be a bit more poractive in your search.

kmason, those are some nice DII players. But are you seriously offering up the guys above as your examples as to players that mid-majors could grab that would allow them to compete with BCS teams?

That's insane.

Posted by moy23 on 8/14/2010 6:59:00 PM (view original):
I think the only fact here is:

Those same people who disliked:

-potential
-the -5
-the slowdown
-the magic press
-too many 90+ attribute players
-baseline prestige
-job process
-recruiting pools
-etc

...are still posting in these forums.  

WIS must be doing something right if you all are still here.

Moy, I love your list. Let's go through it:

-Potential: People were irate with it, and they were correct. Thankfully they put in a serious fix before it totally f'd the game.
-Press: Ditto. It's now fixed so it is no longer a super defense.
-Too many 90+ players. Ditto again. This has been addressed and fixed as well.
-Baseline prestige: Most people still feel that this work poorly, and seble is looking at it.
-Job process: Something else that seble is looking at fixing and has publicly acknowledged needs to be better.

So most of the items on your list are actually parts of HD that legitimately needed to be fixed and have, or are being considered for such action at this very moment. So it's pretty clear that the people who had issues with these items had legitimate beefs, huh?

And yes, some people are still around. Many others have left. The fact that some people are still willing to stay around and play a flawed game isn't a justification to keep it flawed, we should always be working to improve it.