Posted by aejones on 8/14/2010 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wronoj on 8/14/2010 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by aejones on 8/14/2010 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dbalog on 8/14/2010 3:17:00 PM (view original):
aejones, you have all non-DI teams. Spend your time and money building up a non-BCS team in DI and then see how you like taking a dick in the *** with this change.

Hey dbalog,

I do have all non-D1 teams, but I also have all A+ prestige teams (or a season away because I haven't been there long enough). It would be easy to have success to non-BCS D1 schools. You just have to adjust.

Instead of going after a class of 3-4 guys, you might have to focus on only 1 guy who is stud and fill in a class of role players behind him. Or, you might not be able to balance your classes, you might have to go after two big classes so that when they are upperclassmen (you'll have the benefit of less EEs) you'll be a top 10 team in the country. Now, once you have this success you might jump to an A prestige, at which time you'll be able to recruit 'em up with the big boys (at least protecting the best local talent). Alternatively, you could move up to a BCS school after some success.

ae, i think any coach who has ever coached at d1 will tell you that recruiting there is a different world than at the lower divisions.

and your latter plans all sound lovely, and most used to be available to people at lower levels. but the stud won't talk to the C=prestige guys (even worse, they might talk to the C BCS-level schools, but not the mid-majors), and the role players are all d2-level.

and jumping to an A prestige is LITERALLY impossible at most non-BCS schools. Check out brianp's N. Arizona dynasty on Wooden, or girt/daalt's Montana team (can't remember world)-- great programs, awesome results at the highest levels, both capped out at A-.

that seems absurd, but i guess that is what people talk about with baseline prestige?

that is the primary reason i have no real ambition to get to d1. seems like the variance at d2 is a lot more fun.

aejones, no disrespect because you are obviously a good, coach, but your not realizing that about DI baseline prestige is a perfect example of my point -- that coaches who don't know DI well can't really have a good take on this issue. Even if you're a smart guy and a good coach, knowing DI is necessary to really understand and weigh in on what's going on there right now.

Posted by girt25 on 8/14/2010 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/14/2010 7:11:00 PM (view original):

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.

Mid majors should not be able to consistently compete with BCS schools. But the fact is the guys I point to should not be in D2, they will all end up with 90+ speed and 90+ per with solid ratings elsewhere. You're telling me those guys aren't good enough to be starters on a good mid major team in their junior and senior years?

Well, first of all, if your premise is that "mid majors should not be able to consistently compete with BCS schools" then we can end this conversation right here, because I think that's patently absurd for HD, not to mention extremely harmful to the well-being of HD.

But to answer your question, no, the guys you posted would not be good starters for mid-major teams who had any aspirations of doing anything significant. (For instance, Fluker is a guard with 20-something ath and 20-something def; you're just choosing to point out good sp and pe ... he's not a guy I would've even put on my watch list at Montana.) 

I'd like to first say I hate how you can't delete part of the quoted string, it gets way too long.

As for Fluker you're looking at his right now ratings, he's high potential in both areas. While his athleticism and defense won't get to an area that is good for a D1 guard it will be useful he'll likely get to the mid 40s in both. He also has the potential to get into the mid to upper 20s in rebounding I'm just not practicing in that area. My point still stands as far as the other 2 go especially McConigal who will end up in the upper 70s in defense high 30s in rebounding and 60s in athleticism. He's a guy I got with only scouting trips. You're telling me he couldn't be a good mid major guy? 

Also about mid majors competing with BCS schools, it's impossible even in HD because of the huge difference in money the BCS schools get and built in prestige advantages many have. Mid majors should be able to compete with the best BCS schools 2 out of every 4 years or so, not every season, if that were the case what would the appeal of being in a BCS conference? But I think it's fairly ridiculous to state that recruit generation sucks because it's not possible for mid major schools to get players just as good as BCS schools which seems to be the argument you're making.

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Also about mid majors competing with BCS schools, it's impossible even in HD because of the huge difference in money the BCS schools get and built in prestige advantages many have. Mid majors should be able to compete with the best BCS schools 2 out of every 4 years or so, not every season, if that were the case what would the appeal of being in a BCS conference? But I think it's fairly ridiculous to state that recruit generation sucks because it's not possible for mid major schools to get players just as good as BCS schools which seems to be the argument you're making.

Look at the guys recruited to my old Montana team, to Southern and Cleveland State:

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=6995
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7162
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=6878

Your first sentence says "it's impossible for mid majors to compete with BCS schools due to the money and prestige advantages". Well, you're wrong. These are just three examples from Allen, we competed every season.

Your next sentence says "mid majors should be able to compete with BCS schools 2 of every 4 years or so". Why on earth would that be? Because that sounds about right to you? This is HD. If you have the skill to make Cleveland State or Southern into a perennial contender, you should be able to. Taking away this ability to compete and neutering non-BCS schools is really the death knell for DI. You need to understand that it's about what is good for HD, not how things operate in real life.

That same sentence concludes with "what would be the appeal of the BCS conference?" Which you answered in your first sentence -- built-in prestige advantages and more money (as well as the fun of coaching a big-name school). So the advantages are still significant and plentiful.

Lastly, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what OR/VD/myself/etc are arguing and what you're understanding. The argument I'm making isn't that all mid-majors should be able to sign players as good as BCS schools. My argument is that the recent change to recruiting has made the gap between BCS recruits and the rest way too large. They don't have to be the same, but the current format stacks the deck way, way too heavily in favor of the big boys. Hopefully you can appreciate the difference.

cb - yep

vandy - yep too - was that ever in doubt - the press that is - although the jerk part is probably pretty accurate, oh well

against. i want to see early entries go first then i will reevaluate

I understand what you're saying girt but everybody agreed the old recruit generation was bad and too many players had elite rankings. What other way of eliminating that is there other than making all recruits a bit worse which then affects mid majors. I still feel the biggest problem is that people still can't differntiate from old recruits and new recruits. You no longer need big men with 99 ath/50sp/99reb/99lp to compete, in fact these guys rarely exist anymore. You can sign guys who max out at 90ath/30sp/90reb/80lp and have a contender. So if the recruits that are attainable to mid majors look like they will max out at 80ath/40sp/85reb/75lp that isn't a player that doesn't allow them to compete with BCS schools. Especially when you consider EEs and the guy the mid major signs will be able to get A+ IQs while a lot of times the studs on the majors will only have B+/A- IQs.

Posted by jetwildcat on 8/14/2010 8:44:00 PM (view original):
against. i want to see early entries go first then i will reevaluate

That's generally where I come down right now, too. If all these super-elite recruits are staying an average of 1.5 seasons or so before going pro, then I don't think we have that big a problem, in terms of competitiveness. If they're staying on average closer to 3 seasons or so, then that's a different story.

Either way, though, I do think the dropoff between the elites and next tier of recruits is somewhat precipitous, and a more gradual dropoff would be more realistic. Other than that, though, I do like the new recruit generation, at all levels... DIII, DII and D1.

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 8:48:00 PM (view original):
I understand what you're saying girt but everybody agreed the old recruit generation was bad and too many players had elite rankings. What other way of eliminating that is there other than making all recruits a bit worse which then affects mid majors. I still feel the biggest problem is that people still can't differntiate from old recruits and new recruits. You no longer need big men with 99 ath/50sp/99reb/99lp to compete, in fact these guys rarely exist anymore. You can sign guys who max out at 90ath/30sp/90reb/80lp and have a contender. So if the recruits that are attainable to mid majors look like they will max out at 80ath/40sp/85reb/75lp that isn't a player that doesn't allow them to compete with BCS schools. Especially when you consider EEs and the guy the mid major signs will be able to get A+ IQs while a lot of times the studs on the majors will only have B+/A- IQs.

A bit worse, yes. Absolutely.

They made them a ton worse -- tragically worse. The players available to the BCS schools are as good or better than before. The players available to the other teams are much, much worse. It's a simple premise. It makes it impossible for everyone else to compete.

As OR said, it would be easy to fix. Ease up on some of the low potentials, make the recruits in the mid-major and low major range a little better, and we're just about there. That would not result in anything close to a bunch of 90+ like we had before. It would be the appropriate middle ground.

People didn't like the old recruit generation for the reason you mentioned. They needed to change it, and they did. But the change went way overboard and they need to correct it before it has a terrible effect on DI.

I'm with kmason 100% on this.  I dont see a problem with how recruits are now.  Maybe a slight tweak but nothing major.  People need to adjust what they think a "good" recruit is.

Girt I don't agree at all that the recruits available to BCS schools are as good as before. I'm in one of the few A- prestige conferences in HD and I see the elite schools singing PGs that won't ever get to 90 passing, bigs that won't get to 70 LP that never happened before. The UCONN's of the HD world may sign 1 guy a year that looks like an old engine recruit but it's not common. You will not see BCS schools littered with guys with 99/100 ratings like you do now.

Against - funny how coaches are ******** about the exact thing they had been pleading WIS to do for several years ......add impact freshmen to DI. 
ie - players above and beyond the normal recruits.

WIS has done this by both creating studs while also rolling back the skills of everyone else.   Now WHO did you think would get these players?   So now the Big Six schools have the players that everyone was pleading for and  people are complaining it's not fair to everyone else.   Doesn't that little ironic?

I'm currently in DII in two worlds and other than the issue with tyoo much skill randomness (ie low post players with 6 rebounding) I dont see huge problems.

i never once campaigned for impact freshmen by tweaking ratings, but rather by tweaking entering IQs

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.

Are you available to do all of my speaking gigs from here on out?

I am with girt25 and OR on this is topic. The new recruit generation is not horrible it just needs some serious tweaking. Kmason points out the players he recruited with his division II team well congrats to him. Sadly the better mid-tier D1 teams were left to recruit these phenomenal D2 players or be left going all in on 1 or 2 big time D1 recruits sometimes landing them and sometimes not even though they had 4 or 5 scholarships open. I made due with my St. Bonaventure team and settled for mostly the almost D2 stud types but when you are debating on battling D2 teams for recruits when you have a C prestige or better at D1 then there is a problem with the recruits available. As others have stated the good coaches/recruiters will succeed in the end but let's respect the difference in what is a mid level or better D1 recruit and a D2 recruit. Heck look at the lack of difference between the freshmen on my D3 Colorado team and the freshmen recruits I just picked up in D1 with St. Bonaventure, it is a bad joke.

On a side not I noticed blazor mentioned some low/mid tier D1 coaches are deciding to join some of the of the more full conferences as to save their RPI and likely to be competitive when it comes to recruiting money. I think these coaches are forward thinking and the 3 or 4 conferences such as the A-10 they would gravitate to will be fine in fact probably better than ever. This will come at the cost ruining most of the lower D1 schools as some of the vets have been warning about.