Posted by blazor on 8/15/2010 10:02:00 AM (view original):
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.

i can't believe this post is real. 

did you just say that people who play HD are too stupid to realize when the #5 Center in the country actually sucks-- so you're saying that people who have made it to high level D1 and are supposed to be good talent evaluators by extension of that are suddenly not going to realize how to evaluate talent because they have wives and girlfriends?

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 9:49:00 AM (view original):

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.

completely agree - Its only become harder to sign large 5 star classes at the elite prestiges because there are less 5 star recruits available.  I landed 1 of my 6 open schollies last season at U of I (A+ prestige - Final 4 to Sweet 16 to 7-20 record last season) because all the higher prestiges were spending a ton of money fighting for the same elite recruits.  There are less of them to go around increasing competition amongst the A prestiges.  Now add in EE - many of these players will leave early.  

I'd like to see how this pans out before tweaking anything.  It really makes A prestige recruiting difficult and I love a challenge.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/15/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Colonels, I have a habit I am trying to acquire:  One which your threads have more or less instilled in me;  If I am in a debate and it doesn't look like at least one of us is going to be open to changing their mind, then its really pointless to continue the debate until it looks like something changes on one side or the other;  I disagree with his central points, he disagrees with mine.  I see no realistic chance that his is going to change his mind, and I see no realistic chance that mine is going to change in the short term, at least until I see more data.  Those being true, I see little reason to post again at the moment.

 All the points that, so far, I would make in response have already since been made by other people anyway.  (Specifically, Professor17/Kmason/Jet(And I am sure I missed others)   Also, given pages and pages have already gone by since the post  . . .  I'll chime in again when something new, which hasn't in the interim been said by someone else, occurs to me.  I don't, unlike you, need to be in this for the purpose of 'counting coup'.  I don't need to post just for the sake of posting.  Unlike you, my ego isn't all tied up in it.  Its just a diversion.  Colonels. . lighten up and go get a cup of coffee or something.

Thank you for proving my point, lol.  This portion has now been appropriately covered and addressed.

Posted by aejones on 8/15/2010 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by blazor on 8/15/2010 10:02:00 AM (view original):
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.

i can't believe this post is real. 

did you just say that people who play HD are too stupid to realize when the #5 Center in the country actually sucks-- so you're saying that people who have made it to high level D1 and are supposed to be good talent evaluators by extension of that are suddenly not going to realize how to evaluate talent because they have wives and girlfriends?

Huh?  What the hell are you talking about?  All I did was make a proposal for something that might allow allow all levels of players to play the game, compete with one another and have fun.  I have no idea where you got THAT tangent you just went off on from.

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 10:39:00 AM (view original):
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.

daalt - 

when you or anyone else use language like "clearly this is the case" and "HD will be barren wastelands" and "fact - vets are quitting because of this change"  it becomes a black and white issue at the extremes - not a middle ground issue needing a few tweaks.  Thats where I think ddingo gets the idea of people quitting because of the change.  I originally read the initial pages in this thread just like he did thus "the list" i posted as a joke earlier. 

Posted by colonels19 on 8/15/2010 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/15/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Colonels, I have a habit I am trying to acquire:  One which your threads have more or less instilled in me;  If I am in a debate and it doesn't look like at least one of us is going to be open to changing their mind, then its really pointless to continue the debate until it looks like something changes on one side or the other;  I disagree with his central points, he disagrees with mine.  I see no realistic chance that his is going to change his mind, and I see no realistic chance that mine is going to change in the short term, at least until I see more data.  Those being true, I see little reason to post again at the moment.

 All the points that, so far, I would make in response have already since been made by other people anyway.  (Specifically, Professor17/Kmason/Jet(And I am sure I missed others)   Also, given pages and pages have already gone by since the post  . . .  I'll chime in again when something new, which hasn't in the interim been said by someone else, occurs to me.  I don't, unlike you, need to be in this for the purpose of 'counting coup'.  I don't need to post just for the sake of posting.  Unlike you, my ego isn't all tied up in it.  Its just a diversion.  Colonels. . lighten up and go get a cup of coffee or something.

Thank you for proving my point, lol.  This portion has now been appropriately covered and addressed.

OK Colonels.  Sure.    Still suggest that cup of coffee for you though.
.

I'm not convinced that there is data to support most of the assertions in this thread about failures of the new recruit generation

a.  lots of claims, little data

b. some data, little data over a period of time

c.  we still have a year or two of old scheme recruits - once fully phased in, we will learn a lot more about the performance of these players

d. any change gets some folks unhappy, not clear to me that this is more than that

e.  all we are saying, is give peace a chance

f. never give up, never surrender

Posted by moy23 on 8/15/2010 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 9:49:00 AM (view original):

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.

completely agree - Its only become harder to sign large 5 star classes at the elite prestiges because there are less 5 star recruits available.  I landed 1 of my 6 open schollies last season at U of I (A+ prestige - Final 4 to Sweet 16 to 7-20 record last season) because all the higher prestiges were spending a ton of money fighting for the same elite recruits.  There are less of them to go around increasing competition amongst the A prestiges.  Now add in EE - many of these players will leave early.  

I'd like to see how this pans out before tweaking anything.  It really makes A prestige recruiting difficult and I love a challenge.

this is a huge point that needs to be given more attention.  it has a large impact on current recruiting.  the bigger battles have left some of the "haves" without solid recruiting classes.  the clashes will continue as the elite program coaches have the biggest egos of the bunch and only NT championships are the goal.

Just want to weigh in a little more at length here.  Especially since I think Blazor started this thread in part because we are both in the Rupp A-10, and because I had expressed my dissatisfaction with recruiting for this season, to the extent that I am seriously contemplating retiring because the alterations have subtracted some fun from this for me.  It is an interesting exercise for me to see the quantity and seniority of people that both agree AND disagree with me.

I consider myself an avid player, though not hardcore.  That is, I manage my team actively, try to stay current with SIM updates and the forums.  But I do not dissect box scores to identify SIM engine trends.

As a result, I have made UMass into a nice little program (generally a top-65 RPI), but one that will never seriously challenge the big boys.  That's OK, I am a UMass alum, I like the A-10, and the challenge of making the NT consistently.  I have managed to win one NT at the D-2 level.

Anyway, my discontent, specifically had nothing to do with the changed attributes of the recruits, and the role of work ethic and so-called "upside."  I am also not sure I have a problem with the gulf between the BCS schools and the rest of us.  My feeling is that mid-majors competing with the big boys should be the exception, but if a coach builds a consistently good mid-major he has a shot to move up to the BCS. 

Moreover, my actual dismay is that the volume of solid (1- 2- and 3-star recruits ... high 500s or low 600s) appears on the surface to have meaningfully diminished.  I am not basing this on a spreadsheet, only a casual observation.

Following, that, I concluded this latest recruiting season that 1) UMass' prestige played little or no role in winning 2- and 3-star recruits from other small and mid-majors with lesser prestige; and 2) given #1, I do not believe that there are enough decent recruits to adequately feed all of the human-run mid-majors and small conferences. 

As I have said (to some, at least), I spent a historically adequate amount of money on a 3-star guard, offered 25 mins (never do that) and a starting spot (NEVER do that) and lost out to a C+ Manhattan team (UMass has 3-straight NTs and is a B prestige).  OK, that can happen ... but because there was a dearth of decent alternatives, I was essentially DRAGGED into that recruiting battle (and one with another mid-major with a lesser prestige), when normally I might have cut bait (or they might have) to focus on a slightly weaker prospect, but one that would ensure that at least the scholarship was filled.

Instead, 75% of my scholarships went unfilled, which sucked. 

Regardless, this is just my OPINION ... and I am glad to see others weighing in so I can gain some clarity and perspective on this.  But it is regrettable (and nothing new in the Forums) that the discussion can't be about ideas, opinions and facts without it being reduced to personal insults.

Posted by moy23 on 8/15/2010 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 9:49:00 AM (view original):

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.

completely agree - Its only become harder to sign large 5 star classes at the elite prestiges because there are less 5 star recruits available.  I landed 1 of my 6 open schollies last season at U of I (A+ prestige - Final 4 to Sweet 16 to 7-20 record last season) because all the higher prestiges were spending a ton of money fighting for the same elite recruits.  There are less of them to go around increasing competition amongst the A prestiges.  Now add in EE - many of these players will leave early.  

I'd like to see how this pans out before tweaking anything.  It really makes A prestige recruiting difficult and I love a challenge.

I do think at DI there's going to be a trend towards 6/6/0/0 or 6/0/6/0 class distributions, or something similar. The battles are going to be intense, and maximizing your available cash crucial.

Posted by oldresorter on 8/15/2010 10:11:00 AM (view original):

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.

And I do not believe any school will continue to pull down 4-5 studs a season, even with A+ prestige, given the competition there's going to be for those studs. If coaches have gotten away with it in the last season or two, before others adjust their recruiting strategies, good for them.

I read something about Madden football that relates to this topic. In Madden 2006 they introduced QB vision which forced you to move a cone in the direction you wanted to throw before you threw it to make accuracy on throws more realistic and the size of a QBs cone was related to how good your QB was, so Peyton Manning had a huge cone and crappy QBs had tiny cones. in Madden 2010 they removed QB vision and went back to the old way because while many loved the QB vision many also hated it, and as an EA Sports programmer put it anything that is that polarizing is a failure and that's the situation we're in with the recruits. It's a polarizing issue where some like myself are in favor of it and others hate it so therefore it's probably a failure.