First, I like the new changes.  I think it places a premium on strategy.  The variance in recruits and their current ability v future potential is going to make for an interesting change to the HD metagame.  Obviously, it'll require a paradigm shift to remain successful (and it sounds like several coaches aren't willing to make that shift). 

Second, I think its important that the ragequitters move along in an expeditious manner.  Please don't loiter.  If you quit in 6 months, we'll just assume you were a poor college student who ran out of money rather than a ferociously ****** off coach of a virtual basketball team.  If all the ragequitters leave immediately, we can gather a solid datapoint for how destructive this change has been on the HD landscape.

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 2:53:00 AM (view original):

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?

anton, give me a break. He's pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek on that to make a point. You're intelligent enough for that to be completely obvious to you.

The talent available to the mid and low teams went down substantially. The talent available to the better teams stayed the same or improved. That's a a fact. Do you not see it? Does the fact that you have barely played HD for the last year or so and don't know the current game as well cloud your judgment here? 

I just re-read OR's post, thinking maybe I missed something being bleary-eyed at three in the morning. That still doesn't read as sarcasm to me.

Posted by oldresorter on 8/15/2010 6:26:00 AM:
anton - no I actually do not contradict myself much, but thanks for asking.  I wrote the d2 example specifically the way I did to show a point.  I am not sure you really want a reply, but here goes.   Somebody is going to have to be ranked 20-25 in d1.   Most of the time a few (but not real many) mid or low level d1 teams still should be able to rise that high.

Why?

If the argument is that mids and lows can no longer acquire the talent to compete with Big 6 schools then they won't be rising high enough to be ranked. Six times 12 is 72 - even dropping out the bottom-feeders like Baylor there are still plenty of Big 6 schools to fill up the top 25.

The argument here is whether there is enough talent among non-elite recruits for the mids and lows to field a competitive roster. Predicting that some of them will still crack the top 25 is a claim that there is enough talent, not that there isn't.

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 2:53:00 AM:
The talent available to the better teams stayed the same or improved.

By the way, daalter, this is nonsense.

Posted by ddingo on 8/15/2010 9:17:00 AM (view original):

First, I like the new changes.  I think it places a premium on strategy.  The variance in recruits and their current ability v future potential is going to make for an interesting change to the HD metagame.  Obviously, it'll require a paradigm shift to remain successful (and it sounds like several coaches aren't willing to make that shift). 

Second, I think its important that the ragequitters move along in an expeditious manner.  Please don't loiter.  If you quit in 6 months, we'll just assume you were a poor college student who ran out of money rather than a ferociously ****** off coach of a virtual basketball team.  If all the ragequitters leave immediately, we can gather a solid datapoint for how destructive this change has been on the HD landscape.

these posts just get odder and odder, ragequitters??????  most of the coaches leading the charge here are the opposite, are the coaches who have stuck thru the game thru thick and thin, I am pretty sure I am in the top ten now for games played,  games won, and national titles won all time.

ragequitters - that POV is baffling to me??????

so your solution to this controversy is everyone who doesn't like it should quit?  And that is supposed to be better for the game exactly how?  I am pretty sure seble and most coaches would prefer to have players continue playing and also for the game to grow?

As for the game being more of a challenge this way, a case could be made for such, kind of like Goliath was a challenge for David.  Would not a fairer system to all coaches be a more constructive approach for the metagame you profess to understand?  What makes you think that those who support the change will be more capable to embrace the paradigm shift you refer to than those who are trying to fix the change?

By the way, if you want to switch sides, I will argue for the change for more eloquently than you have, without resorting to the $10 words you espouse.

Sounds to me like you are afraid of some honest discussion about the recruit generation / since you don't like the message, you revert to calling those who don't agree with your POV names?  There are some pretty basic 'cheap' words to describe that way of dealing with others in open forums.

So the new recruits came out last night in Rupp.  Here is just one example of why I think the new recruit generation engine makes no sense.  The #5 Center in the entire nation has a LP rating of 42 and a WE of 27.  People, a 42?  You should be able to give this guy a ladder, have him position the ball 12 inches above the cylinder and STILL he would struggle to shoot 50% from the field.  And with a WE of 27, depending on how much PT he gets early in his career, he might barely get over 60 for LP by the time he's a Senior.  So how is it that he's ranked and the #5 Center in the Entire Friggin' Nation?  It just makes no sense.

Now before you naysayers get your panties all up in a bunch, my point is this.  This is SUPPOSED to be a GAME people!  And some of us actually have lives, wives, girlfriends, kids and the like to also give our attention to.  Are you trying to tell me people in that situation shouldn't be able to play and have a chance to actually COMPETE, at least on occasion?  Or are you saying that everyone that plays this game should have to be some kind of nerdy, "I do nothing but sit in front of my computer all day and crunch numbers and create spreadsheets" idiot in order to play this game?

Of course you shouldn't.  And for those that don't want to do that, a simple thing like what a player is ranked makes a HUGE difference.  A lot of these people will recruit a kid like this because the WIS recruit ranking say he's the #5 Center in the country.  Whereas a lot of the rest of us know that there are better choices for a LP player out there.  So when you make the game THAT complicated to play, of course some people are going to quit.  If only because they would like to be able to play this game without it meaning having to sacrifice any semblence of a life or graduating with a degree in mathematics.

And for you who think that IS what you should have to do to have a chance to win at this game, maybe THAT's the real problem.  No I don't mean with you personally.  Maybe what needs to happen is there should be different Levels of worlds.  You know, like "join HD and sign up for one of our Beginner, Intermidiate or Expert Leagues".  Maybe that is actually the way to go.  That way the casual player can play, compete and have fun, without giving up having a life.  While the number crunching "coaches just need to adapt" contingent can be kept unto themselves to find out who is the King of the Spreadsheet.  Just a thought.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 8/15/2010 6:26:00 AM:
anton - no I actually do not contradict myself much, but thanks for asking.  I wrote the d2 example specifically the way I did to show a point.  I am not sure you really want a reply, but here goes.   Somebody is going to have to be ranked 20-25 in d1.   Most of the time a few (but not real many) mid or low level d1 teams still should be able to rise that high.

Why?

If the argument is that mids and lows can no longer acquire the talent to compete with Big 6 schools then they won't be rising high enough to be ranked. Six times 12 is 72 - even dropping out the bottom-feeders like Baylor there are still plenty of Big 6 schools to fill up the top 25.

The argument here is whether there is enough talent among non-elite recruits for the mids and lows to field a competitive roster. Predicting that some of them will still crack the top 25 is a claim that there is enough talent, not that there isn't.

anton,  exactly 6X12=72, but there only are about 50 recruits worth having, and after that they are all the same, and from what I have seen, UNC still is getting 4 or 5 of those 50 whenever they want, so is texas, uconn, duke, syracuse, kentucky, whatever california school is A+, whatever school in the mountain west region is A or A+, etc, so 10-15 schools are gobbling up 30-40 of the top recruits, leaving the other 350 d1 schools and another 30 or 40 d2 schools to fight over the pool.  Hence, there is a top 10-20 d1 team pool playing elite ball, and everyone else is playing the same recruiting game, with the top d2 coaches, like kmason, who is really kicking butt right now with the recruits he is getting.  Out of that pool someone has to get good enough to make the 20-25 range - don't they?

It is not immediately obvious to many coaches which of those remaining players is better, and that indeed is a challenge, I admit ..... but it is only a challenge in that it allows one to then play david vs the golliath's who have relatively free access to the top 50. 

We'll see, maybe indeed I am missing something, but so far, that is how this is playing out.

Yeah, blazor, lets have a world of all 90/90/90 guys! Then everyone has an equal chance to compete! Just like at the Y! There are no losers!

Posted by seabreeze on 8/15/2010 10:14:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, blazor, lets have a world of all 90/90/90 guys! Then everyone has an equal chance to compete! Just like at the Y! There are no losers!

cb, I think/hope you're being facetious, and that you know that's not being championed here.

I applaud the overall lowering of recruiting ratings, for all of the obvious reasons. It's just unfortunate that they made the change so unbelievably dramatic that they created an enormous gap between the haves and have nots.

An unofficial tab...

15 FORs (not including marica and jpritchard, who you could make the argument are FORs)
18 AGAINSTs

So the HD population looks like it might halve itself...that's cool

Posted by oldresorter on 8/15/2010 9:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ddingo on 8/15/2010 9:17:00 AM (view original):

First, I like the new changes.  I think it places a premium on strategy.  The variance in recruits and their current ability v future potential is going to make for an interesting change to the HD metagame.  Obviously, it'll require a paradigm shift to remain successful (and it sounds like several coaches aren't willing to make that shift). 

Second, I think its important that the ragequitters move along in an expeditious manner.  Please don't loiter.  If you quit in 6 months, we'll just assume you were a poor college student who ran out of money rather than a ferociously ****** off coach of a virtual basketball team.  If all the ragequitters leave immediately, we can gather a solid datapoint for how destructive this change has been on the HD landscape.

these posts just get odder and odder, ragequitters??????  most of the coaches leading the charge here are the opposite, are the coaches who have stuck thru the game thru thick and thin, I am pretty sure I am in the top ten now for games played,  games won, and national titles won all time.

ragequitters - that POV is baffling to me??????

so your solution to this controversy is everyone who doesn't like it should quit?  And that is supposed to be better for the game exactly how?  I am pretty sure seble and most coaches would prefer to have players continue playing and also for the game to grow?

As for the game being more of a challenge this way, a case could be made for such, kind of like Goliath was a challenge for David.  Would not a fairer system to all coaches be a more constructive approach for the metagame you profess to understand?  What makes you think that those who support the change will be more capable to embrace the paradigm shift you refer to than those who are trying to fix the change?

By the way, if you want to switch sides, I will argue for the change for more eloquently than you have, without resorting to the $10 words you espouse.

Sounds to me like you are afraid of some honest discussion about the recruit generation / since you don't like the message, you revert to calling those who don't agree with your POV names?  There are some pretty basic 'cheap' words to describe that way of dealing with others in open forums.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ragequit 

I've never stated (or implied) that I had a better understanding of the changing HD metagame.  You've taken my post and perverted the basic meaning.  The game HAS evolved.  Either adapt or don't.  Frankly, I don't care.  If anyone wants to grandstand about quitting, I don't care.  If you want to discuss reasonable improvements to the new system, I think that's great.

I'm just tired reading posts from people who feel the need to mention quitting like some attention-starved little girl.  If you have to decide between a Whopper and a Big Mac and you choose the Whopper, I don't think you walk into McDonald's and notify everyone that you've decided to go with the Whopper.  Why not?  Because people would look at you like a complete moron (rightfully so).

If you've decided to go, then GTFO.  Post it on your conference coaches corner so everyone can weep with you.  Maybe you can draw the sympathy out for another season or 10 ("I'm only playing until my current season's run out .... even though I hate this game and it isn't remotely enjoyable").

Oldresorter --- I have NO idea why you choose to take my post and direct it at yourself.  I'm clearly directing the second paragraph at the emo-HD crowd who need to be coaxed into playing the game again.  If the shoe fits .... ?

colonels, you're by far the weakest debater here. It's not close.

You have this incredible fixation on everyone always responding to every post and every point that no one else shares. First, this is just plain stupid and unrealistic. Second, most people here aren't blessed with as much free time as you are. Third, OR posted this last night at 7pm. It's now only the next morning. Did it cross your mind that someone might perhaps have other things they were doing, and from Sat night to Sun morning might not even be on here to post, even if he wanted to?

A real "debater" doesn't constantly harp on these tangential non-points. He's interested in the heart of the matter.

But as always, thanks for contributing in your usual self-serving way that does not add anything to the otherwise substantive conversation. You already hijacked the other useful thread we had going (on the development blog), please don't ruin this one as well.

ddingo, your post takes a swing and completely misses. The crux of this thread has nothing to do with people quitting, it's dealing with a significant issue that a bunch of coaches are having a pretty meaningful dialogue about.

Now, you may or may not think that the problem is legitimate. But if you think it's about an ability or inability to adapt to the change, then you're missing the point completely. For the most part, the loudest voices letting people know there is a problem have adapted spectacularly well to the new engine. It's not about their ability to adapt. It's about what is perceived as a deep and troubling new problem in DI.

dd - there you go again, calling people names, there is an abundance of good in the world, there are winnable positions that do not require others to be denigrated or called names, you can choose to use your considerably honed act toward making things better rather than worse.

The I am gong to take my ball and go home spirit has not overwhelmed this particular thread in my opinion, maybe I am missing that part, I agree with you, I don't like that either, I have posted on and debated through some of the hottest topics in HD over the years, as far as I know -  quitting has not been a real common theme in my approach.

Those who have competed with me at this, know I love the change selfishly, I have almost 100% of the time capitalized on it, that doesn't mean I can't make honest evaluation opinions and statements about the change, and enter debate on ways of making it better.

Not sure what your object in all of this is, that is mine - I would prefer each and every person I engage in this forum would leave better for having dealt with me, but the truth is some of the overall tone used here makes that a difficult position to maintain.

I do my best.