Posted by furry_nipps on 8/15/2010 10:28:00 PM (view original):
I like it. I was tempted to leave a few weeks, maybe months ago. With the new recruits and team building I'll likely stay a little longer. I enjoy the challenge the new recruits bring. 

This is a DI issue.

Posted by furry_nipps on 8/15/2010 10:28:00 PM (view original):
I like it. I was tempted to leave a few weeks, maybe months ago. With the new recruits and team building I'll likely stay a little longer. I enjoy the challenge the new recruits bring. 

I vote FOR

Posted by antonsirius on 8/15/2010 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Walk-ons mean no carryover though. And anyone rolling sixes is going to be planning on signing cheap role players behind their two studs to fill out the class.

I'm thinking that money will be used to land better recruits  - not to roll over.  me personally I'd rather go after the top three 700 plus local players every season than get one class of three 700s, 1-2 mid to high 600s and a "role player".  skipping a year means leaving top local talent up for grabs for my competition.  jmo.

Posted by isack24 on 8/15/2010 9:52:00 PM (view original):
For.

I'm a little shocked that anyone can justify the super low D1 cores.  We really shouldn't see any D1 PF/C with sub-20 reb or guards with sub-20 pass/bh.

I was all for variation/decreasing the amount of 100s.  But I think the top tier/second tier gap is too large and, overall, the ratings are just odd.

then don't recruit the 20 reb guy.  its that simple.  there are others available - if I look at your teams am I going to see you recruited a player like that?  or are you jumping to extremes here?

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 8/15/2010 10:28:00 PM (view original):
I like it. I was tempted to leave a few weeks, maybe months ago. With the new recruits and team building I'll likely stay a little longer. I enjoy the challenge the new recruits bring. 

This is a DI issue.

And I have no issue with it at any level. I've played everywhere with the new recruits, with the exception of high end bcs school which people are not saying its an issue there. It is different at every level, I'll say that, but it I like it. You got crazy recruits at all the levels, but now you got to team build. You get some 80 ath/80 reb/30 LP bigs coming in. Who cares? not all bigs can score. Not all can rebound - think lamarcus aldridge or al harrington. I have yet to see what it looks like 4 seasons into any level, but so far its been a challenge and has made me pick up more teams. At least to me it hasn't been an issue. This could change eventually, but as of right now the game has been the best I've dealt with in a while.

Posted by furry_nipps on 8/15/2010 10:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 8/15/2010 10:28:00 PM (view original):
I like it. I was tempted to leave a few weeks, maybe months ago. With the new recruits and team building I'll likely stay a little longer. I enjoy the challenge the new recruits bring. 

This is a DI issue.

And I have no issue with it at any level. I've played everywhere with the new recruits, with the exception of high end bcs school which people are not saying its an issue there. It is different at every level, I'll say that, but it I like it. You got crazy recruits at all the levels, but now you got to team build. You get some 80 ath/80 reb/30 LP bigs coming in. Who cares? not all bigs can score. Not all can rebound - think lamarcus aldridge or al harrington. I have yet to see what it looks like 4 seasons into any level, but so far its been a challenge and has made me pick up more teams. At least to me it hasn't been an issue. This could change eventually, but as of right now the game has been the best I've dealt with in a while.

I completely agree for lower divisions with one exception. The only problem I have is the large amounts of low potential in so many areas for so many players. For me this creates only a few recruitable local players. I don't believe that in RL this many players would have maxed out in high school and cannot improve more than 2-3 points in core areas over 4-5 years in college. Simply seeing more average potential in place of low would make recruiting so much better.

I don't see all this low potential stuff. I signed 3 guys on caldwell and they could have went to div I for dirt cheap. This is there potentials...

John Nealon:
athleticism: limited upside
ball handling: big upside
defensive fundamentals: big upside
durability: big upside
low post moves: limited upside
passing: big upside
perimeter shooting: big upside
rebounding: big upside
shot blocking: big upside
speed: big upside
stamina: big upside


He was my prized guy. He could end up 80/90/80/80/80 and like 80 def if I work on it. Rebounding could get up to 30 or so too if everything else maxes out in time to work on it more. Easily could make an impact in the low end of div I.


Lawrence Dumond:
athleticism: limited upside
durability: limited upside
low post moves: big upside
passing: big upside
perimeter shooting: big upside
rebounding: big upside
shot blocking: big upside
speed: big upside
stamina: big upside
ft shooting: big upside


I was torn on him. With his top 100 ranking, I was worried I couldn't land him with only 1 'ship worth of money. He is skys the limit in reb, passing, speed, sb and def. High in the rest. He will end up above average speed for a big, 90+ reb, 80 ish sb/lp and could end up 60+ passing. Pretty much a solid combination of ath/speed for a big, a guy who can rebound against the best, and a decent defender/scorer who can pass. I signed him for dirt cheap.


Lastly,

Robert Hibbert:
athleticism: big upside
ball handling: big upside
defensive fundamentals: big upside
durability: limited upside
passing: big upside
perimeter shooting: big upside
shot blocking: limited upside
speed: big upside
stamina: big upside


He has skys the limit in per, and maybe 1 other area. He is a redshirt type guy for a low end div I school, but no reason he wont end up a 70/80+ ath/speed guy, with like 70+ def, 90+ per, 80+ bh/passing. He is also an A+ FT shooter to boot. He was signed for a promised start and a couple calls and a ship. All of these guys could have been to div I for the bare minimum and been solid players who could have been impact type players within a few seasons. All have decent starting cores and high potentials everywhere. These were not even the best players I found for div II. No excuse for div I coaches to be not going after these guys.

Posted by moy23 on 8/15/2010 3:06:00 PM (view original):
Rupp - A + Prestiges

Rank	School	Prestige	Coach	Conference	Record	Strength of Schedule	SOS Rank	RPI
282.	UCLA	A+	oldman_sons	PAC 10	0-0	.0000	0	.0000
129.	Kansas	A+	gordonbops	Big 12	0-0	.0000	0	.0000
86.	Florida	A+	porkpower	SEC	0-0	.0000	0	.0000
251.	St. Johns	A+	jake_marley	Big East	0-0	.0000	0	.0000
255.	Stanford	A+	oldresorter	PAC 10	0-0	.0000	0	.0000
132.	Kentucky	A+	kjufbg	SEC	0-0	.0000	0	.0000
161.	Michigan St.	A+	metsmax	Big 10	0-0	.0000	0	.0000

UCLA - Did Ok (Filled all 4 schollies)
KU - 1 Walk-on (probably planned - 2 open schollies last season)
Florida - 1 Walk-on, 1 rated 637, 1 rated 574 (6 open schollies)
St Johns - Did OK (Filled all 5 schollies)
Stanford - 1 Walk-on, 1 rated 570 (3 open schollies)
UK - 3 Walk-ons (5 open schollies)
MSU - 1 Walk-on, 1 rated 641 (5 open schollies)

My guess here is Florida was in a position where they were going to lose hard fought battles and dipped down to sign those 2 shall we say "role" players. 
UK got slammed as well - over $100k recruiting cash and only signed 2 mid 600s and left 3 open schollies. I did the same at U of I the season before (5 walk-ons).
Stanford had to spend so much on one elite that they signed a 570 and left one schollie unfilled (which was probably planned)


A Prestiges:

'Bama - 4 Walk-ons (4 open schollies)
U of I -  Did Ok
Oklahoma - 4 Walk-ons (6 open schollies)
Miss St - 1 rated 575 (2 open schollies)
Texas A&M - 3 Walk-ons (8 open schollies)  
'Rado - Did Ok (Filled 1 open schollie)
Tennessee - Did Ok (Filled 2 open schollies)
'Cuse - Did Ok (2 open schollies)
UNC - 2 Walk-ons (3 open schollies)
Pitt - 1 rated 583  (5 open schollies)
Vandy - 1 Walk-on, 2 rated 629, 1 rated 598, 1 rated 572 (6 open schollies)

In the A-

LSU - 1 rated 628 (probably planned as role player - 6 open schollies)
'Zaga - 3 Walk-ons, 1 rated 644 (4 open schollies)
Cal - 1 rated 519 (4 open schollies)
Texas Tech - 1 rated 641, 1 rated 551 (2 open schollies)
Iowa St - 4 Walk-ons, 1 rated 623, 1 rated 517  (6 open schollies) 
Nebraska - Did Ok (Filled 2 open schollies)




Looks like some teams had to spend almost 3 schollies money to land one big player (i.e. Stanford, UNC)
Others ended up taking on absurd amounts of walkons or signing filler players for bodies (i.e. UK, Bama, Okla, zaga, Iowa St)
Then there are the teams that had to keep aiming lower to sign guys (i.e. Vandy, Texas Tech)

Other teams did well - some really well.  

Not sure why I posted this - but after watching clone (an awesome coach imo) implode at Iowa St this season recruiting - It reminded me of my recruiting season the previous season.  It seems like the new recruiting has very much so made recruiting at A prestiges much more difficult.  Many of us at this level have to adjust our expectations much lower than that of an all-5 star class - not easy considering we've grown accustomed to those types of seasons.  

This is great.

How are the mid-majors of the world supposed to compete with the "big boys"? You know, the Kentuckys, the North Carolinas, the Okla-oh wait a minute...

I was primarily talking about DIII. I've been finding limited guys in the northeast without low potentials in core areas. The guys with any potential - high or even average - are going with huge recruiting battles. I think right now the best place to be recruiting wise, is DII.

Posted by ryanderson on 8/15/2010 11:25:00 PM (view original):
I was primarily talking about DIII. I've been finding limited guys in the northeast without low potentials in core areas. The guys with any potential - high or even average - are going with huge recruiting battles. I think right now the best place to be recruiting wise, is DII.

I didn't find much issue in div III with my C prestige, but I didn't end up with anyone above 70 in areas. I think that was fine though. A lot of guards ending up with like 30 ath/50 speed/ 30-60 cores. Not as many high potential players, but enough that you can find guys who are good in a few areas and average in the rest. Just don't expect the 80+ guys anymore.

Furry, there are some guys out there with good potential. No one is saying that there aren't. I just signed a sf @ Concordia who is high in every category but one. The point is that these guys are few and far between, and that overall, there are a lot more low potentials than before. That's just a fact. I did a sampling in Allen of the last season before the change and the first season after, and there were over 2x as many low potential categories.

And when you couple the fact that there are so many more low potentials with the fact that the caliber of recruits generally available to non-BCS DI teams have gone way, way down, it makes it nearly impossible to compete.

I guess I'm lucky then, because I've yet to have a problem with guys who have low potential. I've found more high/average potentials then before so I don't see how you can say its "fact" when I'm proving other wise. The guys I'm signing now are better then what I was getting before. They just look a little funnier. Each of my guys I've signed had at least 6 high potential areas. My search was pretty short and simple. I narrowed it down to about 10 guys, all of which were loaded with high potential. Maybe I'm just that good, or other coaches need to open there eyes a little bit and switch up what they were doing, because it must not be working.

Posted by daalter on 8/15/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):
Furry, there are some guys out there with good potential. No one is saying that there aren't. I just signed a sf @ Concordia who is high in every category but one. The point is that these guys are few and far between, and that overall, there are a lot more low potentials than before. That's just a fact. I did a sampling in Allen of the last season before the change and the first season after, and there were over 2x as many low potential categories.

And when you couple the fact that there are so many more low potentials with the fact that the caliber of recruits generally available to non-BCS DI teams have gone way, way down, it makes it nearly impossible to compete.

There you go again.... fact fact fact. Clearly I am right. Yada yada yada.

The only fact in the above post is that there are no facts in the above post.

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 12:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/15/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):
Furry, there are some guys out there with good potential. No one is saying that there aren't. I just signed a sf @ Concordia who is high in every category but one. The point is that these guys are few and far between, and that overall, there are a lot more low potentials than before. That's just a fact. I did a sampling in Allen of the last season before the change and the first season after, and there were over 2x as many low potential categories.

And when you couple the fact that there are so many more low potentials with the fact that the caliber of recruits generally available to non-BCS DI teams have gone way, way down, it makes it nearly impossible to compete.

There you go again.... fact fact fact. Clearly I am right. Yada yada yada.

The only fact in the above post is that there are no facts in the above post.

OK, please let me know which parts you disagree with.

-Is it the statement that there are more low potentials than before? If you don't believe me or the numbers I ran in Allen to back it up, just ask seble. He will happily confirm that this is correct.
-Surely you're not arguing with my statement that the caliber of recruits generally available to non-BCS teams is significantly lower than before. That's not even at issue here; the only thing that's being debated is whether it's gone too far.

So do you disagree with either of those two statements? If so, please let me know.

If not, that only leaves my conclusion (that these changes are going to make it way more difficult for low/mid DI teams to compete like they did before), which I'm obviously presenting as my opinion and is the subject of debate in this thread. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding.