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.

Posted by jpritchard on 8/14/2010 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 7:06:00 PM (view original):
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.

cbriese, I agree with your points earlier in the thread about datasets and whatnot. (I don't know statistics, but I'm pretty sure that stuff is important.) But whether this poster or that poster has made some graphs or whatever shouldn't be the point. The middle paragraph of this post is the real problem IMO--WIS shouldn't have to wait "until the current changes play out". Shouldn't they already know?

Open a playtest world. Sim 10 seasons. Then slot in playtesters and let them recruit. Sim a season. Rinse and repeat for a few "years". In about 2 real-time weeks we'd have some answers.

Instead, we have the permanent pay-to-beta-test approach. Whether "for" or "against", is there any serious doubt that they are going to make some changes to player creation? I only have one team at this point and it's in Rupp so I only have one recruiting cycle's worth of experience to go on here, but I would be flabbergasted if there's not a tweak soon to deal with all the post players who can't rebound and/or score. Which will be great except for the teams that got stuck with the "bad" players in the season(s) where they had to fill a lot of spots and thus are later at a disadvantage. But it's the same old story--just pay for four more seasons and it will all cycle through.

I appreciate the poll they did. I appreciate when they've screwed the pooch in the past, they've given us $5 credits or whatever. But I've never been convinced that WIS has given a rip about playtesting. If they did, maybe we wouldn't have to debate whether we're going to love or hate this...we'd already know. Until then, since it hasn't been seriously done, we'll just continue to pay and see what happens.

Or not.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/15/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):
Mason, I've gotta disagree with you also about the elite recruits.  From what I've seen and recruited, the top of the line players, the elites if you will, are significantly better now then they were before and I honestly don't even think it's that close.

By the way, I'm in total agreement with OR and Daalter (Girt to you guys who didn't know Girt was Daalter) about the huge gap between the elite recruits and the second tier guys.  As I said in an earlier post, we need to see some actual numbers, but my instinct tells me that if the recruits being generated don't get "fixed", we're gonna see a large number of coaches leaving D1 in a few seasons.  They may not totally quit HD, some may drop to D2 and continue to play, but it'll probably be the death of low level d1 and it'll put D1 mid-majors on life support.

I mean really, besides someone coaching their alma mater, why would anyone want to keep a school were they knew they had NO chance at all to compete?  D2 is the place to be gentlemen.  Much easier for EVERYONE to have a chance to compete and you can still get really good players to round out your squad.  Oops, shouldn't have let the cat outta the bag........

Last thing.  I've been bringing up for months the same thing Jpritchard said in his post above.  When are we going to be properly compensated for playing beta tester with our teams (our PAID FOR teams)?  It went way past being a joke a long time ago.  And the worst part is, when changes are made either during or right before the NT.  Anyone whose been around for awhile has seen it and knows what I'm talking about.  Talk about screwing a season up.  Coaches work hard to get to where they were at in the postseason and then WIS up and changes the game during the most important part of the season.  That, my friends, is totally wrong, is not justifiable, and is a pretty good indicator of how this company views their customers.

Posted by girt25 on 8/14/2010 7:03:00 PM (view original):

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 oldresorter on 8/14/2010 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 8/14/2010 7:01:00 PM (view original):
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.

that is what I think too, the cutesy thing, this really would not have been that hard to pull off, few less red potentials here and there, a little less high on elites, a little more high on the guys rated 10-50, and 50-150, and everthing would be good to go.

by the way, right now d2 recruiting is a blast (kmason knows this), some smart coach like him is going to recruit a team that would be ranked 20-25 in d1 one of these days.  there just is no gap between players in d1/d2 after you get past the elite players, and I have found a couple unranked guys, who I would take before guys ranked 20-25 .... very time consuming, but a blast, I just am not sure we have 10,000 teams worth of coaches willing to spend that amount of time?

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 8:04:00 PM:
I'd like to first say I hate how you can't delete part of the quoted string, it gets way too long.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 2:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/14/2010 7:03:00 PM (view original):

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.

Why, does he need help building even bigger straw men?

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 2:34:00 AM (view original):

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

Posted by grecianfox on 8/14/2010 7:01:00 PM (view original):
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.

that is what I think too, the cutesy thing, this really would not have been that hard to pull off, few less red potentials here and there, a little less high on elites, a little more high on the guys rated 10-50, and 50-150, and everthing would be good to go.

by the way, right now d2 recruiting is a blast (kmason knows this), some smart coach like him is going to recruit a team that would be ranked 20-25 in d1 one of these days.  there just is no gap between players in d1/d2 after you get past the elite players, and I have found a couple unranked guys, who I would take before guys ranked 20-25 .... very time consuming, but a blast, I just am not sure we have 10,000 teams worth of coaches willing to spend that amount of time?

Awesome. On one hand, you're arguing that low DI teams don't have access to talent that would allow them to compete with Big 6 schools. Then on the other, you argue that a skilled DII coach would be able to assemble a team that would be ranked in DI.

Contradict yourself much?