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.

So are you saying that there are no problems with low potential in the new recruits, or are you just pointlessly complaining that daalter is able to make legitimate arguments?

Posted by ryanderson on 8/16/2010 12:51:00 AM (view original):

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.

So are you saying that there are no problems with low potential in the new recruits, or are you just pointlessly complaining that daalter is able to make legitimate arguments?

Fact.... clearly you're an idiot.

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 quote of Moys may actually make me think that this change is good.  For many seasons, all of the elite teams could fill on elite players because no one else could really compete, maybe one here or there but that was about it.  The new competitive level for the highest ranked players may actually level some of the playing field.  There are so many problems in here as an ongoing game that I cannot enumerate them and it is not the point of this thread but always giving the same teams an advantage every year does nothing to make this a dynasty game, rather a lottery game.  This may actually be a step in the right direction but it is awfully early to tell.

 I will say this on the other side, I am tired of the idea that we must poke and crawl through all of the players to find the right ones.   I know that some coaches live for it but the farther that it goes that way, the less I will play, not because of anger or inability to discern good recruits but because of time.  If that is the way it goes, that is fine, it will just have to go there without me and players like me that enjoy the game but do not devote too many hours a week to it.  The idea of the top 200 is to help sort not to hinder discernment.

I feel that my time in this game is coming to an end not because of any paticular change or even a combination.  It is because I am no longer able to be agitated by the changes or the opinions.  It is clear that the game is set up for one thing and that is not what I want to play for.  I want for a low D1 conference to be able to become a power conference or a dominate team arise in the WAC.  With the way this is set up it will never happen.  Sorry if I got a bit off to the side of this topic, but that is where ti ultimatley ends up, what does this recruiting do to the game.  In the end, it appears that it leaves it just about in the same place with a view through a different window onto the same yard.

Posted by cbriese on 8/16/2010 12:13:00 AM (view original):
There other common misconception is that this is purely a D1 issue. It's not. The changes have has an effect on the recruits available to DII teams, and in turn, they have likely had an effect on DIII teams also. Nobody has mentioned what effect the changes have had on the competitiveness of DII or DIII. Maybe it is exactly as WIS intended.

The last I looked, DIII and DII coaches pay the same amount per season as D1 coaches. They should, therefore, have the same amount of say in the matter. To denigrate them by saying they've never played in D1, and are therefore unfit to comment on recruit diversity changes, is simply not right.

And I am sure the self-righteous among you will respond about how D1 is more important. But you'll be wrong. And you'll explain that it disproportionately affects low-level D1 teams. But, given the responses here, you can't get more than half of the people who have commented to agree with you. You might say, well, the more informed coaches agree with you. But again, they pay the same amount of money as everyone else.

WIS has always maintained the point of HD is advancing to d1.

Posted by cbriese on 8/16/2010 12:13:00 AM (view original):
There other common misconception is that this is purely a D1 issue. It's not. The changes have has an effect on the recruits available to DII teams, and in turn, they have likely had an effect on DIII teams also. Nobody has mentioned what effect the changes have had on the competitiveness of DII or DIII. Maybe it is exactly as WIS intended.

The last I looked, DIII and DII coaches pay the same amount per season as D1 coaches. They should, therefore, have the same amount of say in the matter. To denigrate them by saying they've never played in D1, and are therefore unfit to comment on recruit diversity changes, is simply not right.

And I am sure the self-righteous among you will respond about how D1 is more important. But you'll be wrong. And you'll explain that it disproportionately affects low-level D1 teams. But, given the responses here, you can't get more than half of the people who have commented to agree with you. You might say, well, the more informed coaches agree with you. But again, they pay the same amount of money as everyone else.

My comment was specifically for DIII. We're either stuck with DII dropdowns full of low potential, or recruiting what is already available in DIII. Last season, I only found 1 guy who I actually loved after I knew potentials and I ended up losing him in a $7500 (+all promises) recruiting battle to another DIII school with a 1/3 letter prestige advantage. I ended up settling with a couple guys with average potential and decent ratings or high potential with below average ratings.

Essentially, in DIII it seems that decent/good players are scarce and heavily fought over - and with only $3000 a schollie the winner is usually the team with most open scholarships (most available cash) or higher prestige. Some lucky higher prestige DIII teams are able to recruit a great DII prospects full of high potential before they drop to the rest of the field. However, a good majority of players have low potential in core areas and go either unrecruited or to an unlucky coach who probably didn't buy FSS but liked his initial ratings. Most teams end up having to choose what categories they could afford to take low-potential hit in, with a couple high or average, and the rest low.

My only beef is there is too much low potential (if you couldn't get that from my above explanation )

is there a 'jump to first unread' button on these forums? i can't keep up with this thread

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/16/2010 12:49:00 AM (view original):
Breezy and I were in the SEC together for several seasons in Tark (under my emy ID) and were also in the CACC in D2 Rupp for a few seasons if I'm not mistaken.  We also had several nice battles when he was in D2 Tark at UCSD under his other ID and I under this one.

Oddly enough, when he was at Bama and I at Ole Miss, we rarely ran into each other during recruiting.  I've never had a problem with him and consider him to be one of the coaches I respect most in HD.  Just wanted to put that out there.

D2 Tark (CAA) and D2 Rupp (CACC) were perhaps my two favorite conferences/worlds.

Posted by vandydave on 8/16/2010 1:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/16/2010 12:13:00 AM (view original):
There other common misconception is that this is purely a D1 issue. It's not. The changes have has an effect on the recruits available to DII teams, and in turn, they have likely had an effect on DIII teams also. Nobody has mentioned what effect the changes have had on the competitiveness of DII or DIII. Maybe it is exactly as WIS intended.

The last I looked, DIII and DII coaches pay the same amount per season as D1 coaches. They should, therefore, have the same amount of say in the matter. To denigrate them by saying they've never played in D1, and are therefore unfit to comment on recruit diversity changes, is simply not right.

And I am sure the self-righteous among you will respond about how D1 is more important. But you'll be wrong. And you'll explain that it disproportionately affects low-level D1 teams. But, given the responses here, you can't get more than half of the people who have commented to agree with you. You might say, well, the more informed coaches agree with you. But again, they pay the same amount of money as everyone else.

WIS has always maintained the point of HD is advancing to d1.

When they reworked the reward structure they essentially admitted that was no longer the case.

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 12:52:00 AM (view original):
So called fact#1

-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.

**** running a small sample is not fact. Just because Obama might be a 51% approval rating from usa today polls does not factually mean Obama has the approval of 51% of all Americans. It's an estimate... not a fact. I will not go ask seble since its a waste of his and my time.

So called fact #2

-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.

*****the caliber of recruits went down for bcs schools 'as well'. That was the whole point of the change. Of course they went down for non-bcs but you are presenting half truths. The caliber of recruits is significantly lower for both bcs and non-bcs schools would be a more accurate statement. Now whether its gone too far.... there are no facts to support that- only opinions. I personally would like to see this play out.

#1: The numbers I ran weren't a 51-49 type of thing. It was over 2x as many low potentials. But as I've said, if you don't believe me, ask seble, he's confirmed on numerous occasions. I've even talked with him about why he felt like this made sense. So yeah, it's a fact. That's like saying, "why is it a fact that there are issues in the sim?" Well, because the guy running the game has said so.

#2: The notion that some BCS teams may also take some lower tier guys, doesn't for one moment make my statement -- that the caliber of recruits for non-BCS teams went down dramatically -- anything but factual.. The top 50 or so recruits are as good or better than before, and they'll be carved up almost exclusively by the big boys. But the drop in the quality of recruits that the second- and third-tier conferences have available to them has been incredibly precipitous, to the point where there's just no comparison.

Not sure if anyone looked closely at my contributions to this thread ... which centered on UMass being outrecruited by a small conference team with a significantly lesser prestige (C+ vs a B for UMass) ... despite UMass offering a starting spot and 25 mins ... well, the Manhattan coach was kind enough to share his recruit spend with me ... not only did he spend $10k less than UMass ... but he didn't offer minutes or a starting spot ... someone explain this to me? ... I was in on this recruit in one of the first few cycles ...

Posted by dilo on 8/16/2010 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Not sure if anyone looked closely at my contributions to this thread ... which centered on UMass being outrecruited by a small conference team with a significantly lesser prestige (C+ vs a B for UMass) ... despite UMass offering a starting spot and 25 mins ... well, the Manhattan coach was kind enough to share his recruit spend with me ... not only did he spend $10k less than UMass ... but he didn't offer minutes or a starting spot ... someone explain this to me? ... I was in on this recruit in one of the first few cycles ...

I'm guessing that the item you're leaving out is that the other coach had a significant distance advantage.

It's about recruiting effort, not recruiting money.

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 12:37:00 AM (view original):
daalts - So if they are facts.... where can I validate them?

Ps... doc says I cant drink for 2 weeks. It's a real *****.

Just so you know, from a medical perspective, drinks consumed before noon and while watching a sporting event don't count.

That's a fact.

Posted by girt25 on 8/16/2010 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dilo on 8/16/2010 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Not sure if anyone looked closely at my contributions to this thread ... which centered on UMass being outrecruited by a small conference team with a significantly lesser prestige (C+ vs a B for UMass) ... despite UMass offering a starting spot and 25 mins ... well, the Manhattan coach was kind enough to share his recruit spend with me ... not only did he spend $10k less than UMass ... but he didn't offer minutes or a starting spot ... someone explain this to me? ... I was in on this recruit in one of the first few cycles ...

I'm guessing that the item you're leaving out is that the other coach had a significant distance advantage.

It's about recruiting effort, not recruiting money.

The distance advantage was nominal.  it was a NY-state recruit, I can't recall if was within 100 miles of UMass, but it was certainly within 200 miles.

Posted by girt25 on 8/16/2010 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/16/2010 12:52:00 AM (view original):
So called fact#1

-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.

**** running a small sample is not fact. Just because Obama might be a 51% approval rating from usa today polls does not factually mean Obama has the approval of 51% of all Americans. It's an estimate... not a fact. I will not go ask seble since its a waste of his and my time.

So called fact #2

-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.

*****the caliber of recruits went down for bcs schools 'as well'. That was the whole point of the change. Of course they went down for non-bcs but you are presenting half truths. The caliber of recruits is significantly lower for both bcs and non-bcs schools would be a more accurate statement. Now whether its gone too far.... there are no facts to support that- only opinions. I personally would like to see this play out.

#1: The numbers I ran weren't a 51-49 type of thing. It was over 2x as many low potentials. But as I've said, if you don't believe me, ask seble, he's confirmed on numerous occasions. I've even talked with him about why he felt like this made sense. So yeah, it's a fact. That's like saying, "why is it a fact that there are issues in the sim?" Well, because the guy running the game has said so.

#2: The notion that some BCS teams may also take some lower tier guys, doesn't for one moment make my statement -- that the caliber of recruits for non-BCS teams went down dramatically -- anything but factual.. The top 50 or so recruits are as good or better than before, and they'll be carved up almost exclusively by the big boys. But the drop in the quality of recruits that the second- and third-tier conferences have available to them has been incredibly precipitous, to the point where there's just no comparison.

daalt-

as to point #1 - by that logic - if Tarek said everything is fine then it would be fact, right?


as to point #2 - the top 50 recruits are not better. They are the same and there are less of them. top 50 recruits are being fought over by at least 27 A- to A+ prestiges and an unknown amount of B/B+ prestiges. now add in the possibility that many of these top 50 guys will go EE after 1-3 seasons. I think it will be interesting to watch.

I don't know if this is a case of somebody moving my cheese, and me getting upset that things changed, but I agree some adjustment needs to be made--- there don't seem to be enough quality recruits at the mid levels of recruiting.