Terrific data, iguana. Thanks.

thanks iguana.  my analysis of the data shows that the dropping of recruit starting numbers isn't as bad as has been anectdotally portrayed.  so maybe, just maybe, the sky isn't really falling.

Posted by namshub on 8/16/2010 10:16:00 PM (view original):
thanks iguana.  my analysis of the data shows that the dropping of recruit starting numbers isn't as bad as has been anectdotally portrayed.  so maybe, just maybe, the sky isn't really falling.

26-50                 621        583      -38
51-100               578       551       -27

Well, the top 25 players are better than before. Players 26-100 are basically the same. And the next two tiers are about 25-40 pts worse per man, plus there are a bunch more low potentials, plus improvement is slower than before.

That pretty much bears out exactly what some people have been saying.

Thanks for the info as always, iguana. Interesting stuff. Definitely thought that the drop in stamina was greater than it actually is (I must be recruiting the wrong guys).

Posted by namshub on 8/16/2010 10:16:00 PM (view original):
thanks iguana.  my analysis of the data shows that the dropping of recruit starting numbers isn't as bad as has been anectdotally portrayed.  so maybe, just maybe, the sky isn't really falling.

actually the drop off is almost identical to what I would have thought - you guys love making stuff up, the problem is neither of biblical proportions nor is the sky is falling  - make your case others will listen - quit denigrating people on the other side - anectdotally seems to be the fav word - try using some facts yourself - IG's data almost identical to what we have been saying - but the sky is not falling - the moment this conversation starts to get somewhere - some do not want the facts to come out so one starts spouting off quips and anectdotally portrayed comments - anectdotally speaking that is

I really don't understand what the problem is with someone posting on the main board and determining real nature of what amount to a substantial number of complaints, as many as any issue I ever can recall.  Trying to get to the bottom of the root cause makes sense, why cloud the issue with quips and anectdotally portrayed comments like you have been?  Don't you want the game to get better and grow?

OR, did you think STA was this close to previous levels? I'd have thought it was a little lower.

Posted by grecianfox on 8/17/2010 7:48:00 AM (view original):
Thanks for the info as always, iguana. Interesting stuff. Definitely thought that the drop in stamina was greater than it actually is (I must be recruiting the wrong guys).

+1

Posted by wronoj on 8/17/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
OR, did you think STA was this close to previous levels? I'd have thought it was a little lower.

I did, stamina in the old game seemed (I suppose this is anectdotally speaking, but I have recruited quite a few players) to almost always be high pot, now it is more red and black, so I'm guessing the stamina of teams will be somewhat less after 4 seasons of recruiting the seble system recruits.  anectdotally speaking, I look for around a team total of 83 or 84 stamina in elite d1 teams, I am guessing that number will be less going forward.  I already have probably about one player per team (I have 8 teams) that has stamina in the 50/60 range and is playing, anectdotally speaking, in the past, I would not play guys with that low of stamina, seems to be little choice from what I have been able to recruit, again anectdotally speaking.  Did I mention the sky is not falling nor is the stamina issue of biblical proportions, but it will be very interesting when the engine starts running in a few seasons, if elite teams are closer to the mid 70's stamina team total, anectdotally speaking I think we will see more tiredness up and down the box score.

moy - you listed my A+ stanford team in the list as struggling, that I had a walkon and I had to take a 570 guy, I left it go, but recruiting went somewhat according to plan for me.

The 570 guy (rank #53)was the best PG within 340 miles of me and was my top priority based on need - green in just about everything.  He is a regular rotation backup player.

The elite sf was ranked high (I can't recall, but top 5) and although I already had two SF type guys, he was the only real elite within 340 miles of me, so I felt obliged to go for him even though he was mid 50's stamina.  I am starting him, he does not play many minutes due to stamina, and many of his ratings are really good.

I then battled after signings for a elite pg international with my remaining funds, must have gotten close, as he did not sign until the last day

this would be very much normal for me at stanford, sometimes california (both b4 and after seble's recruiting system) just is not very good for recruiting, sometimes in is really, really great.  When it is bad, one just has to settle, again to repeat, this is pretty typical of prior to the change, the only thing I would add, the 570 guy would have been a #53 ranked 610 guy prior to the change and the 735 SF would have been a 685 guy with higher stamina and considerably less ready to play - anectdotally speaking as I don't know that for a fact, I am guessing?

moy - I try to not list what I spend ever, I have enough problems recruiting without giving out competitive info - although depending on the circumstances I will sometimes trade info after recruiting is over with a coach I am battling with, I am certainly all over the map, have already spent 70 or 80k and both won and lost, with having 8 d1 teams for as long as I have had them, I probably have both won and lost more battles for recruits than anyone.  I am a very conservative recruiter compared to many coaches, and as you said, I often have a role player from each class, in lots of ways, the new recruiting system is very suited to my style of recruiting, as I seldom was the type of coach who would go after 5 #1's with 5 scholies, with the level of coaches in the conferences I play in, I would have gotten murdered, both in the past and moving forward if I would have gotten too aggressive.

one of the big concerns of the new system, there are some conferences where the A/A+ guy just takes whoever he wants, still is, with those top 5 type players rated 50 pts higher on average and with correspondingly all the other recruits dropping, it will make it very unfair to compete, not impossible, but unfair.  If my 570 PG improves to 620-640 by NT time, he would have to play 15 minutes against potentially a 800 frosh from one of these other teams, that is a pretty bad beat - isn't it?

one fix is to make the engine not differentiate between the ratings (seble is messing around right now with things to keep games closer I think he said so at least???), but I think that is the opposite of what the 'change' guys wanted, they wanted high differentiation - high differentiation leads to higher margins.

I liked the low core skill differentiation d1 game, which made the d1 game about the secondary skills (ath/sp/def/stam/IQ) & coaching. If there is any doubt about this, think of it this way, if all 360 d1 teams were filled with 12 perfect players, 100 each skill, rated 1200 with identical off / def / iq / ft% - either noone would have an edge - all the results would be random or the best coach would have an edge.  I tend to strongly think the latter, that some coaches would win 65-70% of the time if everything were equal, hence in low rating diff settings, coaching takes precedence over recruiting or ratings.

Right now, the game is going to be about primary skills and recruiting again, much like d2 / d3 always have been, but that is water over the damn now, that old game is gone and all I can say is lets try to address the concerns of many coaches and get this thing fixed. 

By the way, this is not biblical proportions, exagerations, anectdotally contrivances, or sky is falling stuff, this is all fairly real, based on now years of observation about how this game has worked and does work, those same observational skills that have allowed me to have a fair amount of success at this.

Heh, a "fair" amount of success.  Always humble.......

Posted by Iguana1 on 8/16/2010 7:49:00 PM (view original):
here's a closer look at those mid to lower level D1 recruits; those ranked from # 26-100 at their positions.

the blue number is Allen seasons 40-41 (pre engine switch).  The black number underneath is the combined seasons 43-44 (post-switch).
 
                   ATH    SPD   REB   DEF   BLK    LP   PER     BH   PAS    WE   STA   DUR   FT   TOTAL  
PG              48        77      15       67       9        6      44      79     75      51      73     51     71      594
                    57        69       6        53        2     11      61      63     60      59      72     53     72      565      -29

---

SG              52        66       20      69      10     19     63       64     63     56       72     52     69      607
                   52        55       17      50        6      26     60       52     51     58       69     52     70      548      -59

---

SF               49        55      38      72       24     49     50      38      38     55       67     48     68       584
                    55        45      37      52      25      46     46      43      44     56       68     53     69       570     -14

---

PF               51        44      61      66       62     64     26       18     25     56       67     51     65       590
                    56        34      54      53      46      59     32       34     39     57       65     53     68       581     - 9

---

 C                45        33      75      69       72     77      6          7      36     50       64     54     66       587
                    54        20      72      51       67     61    12        22     29     57       64     52     66       559     -28

Ok OR, I'll bite.  These are the only hard numbers I can find in this thread dealing with typical mid-major, lower prestige BCS recruits and their starting values both pre and post recruit generation changes.  These are the recruits you refer to consistently as a main problem with the new recruit generation.  I understand that you have a problem with potential for improvement also but that can't be analyzed in these numbers.  Iguana has stated that there are more low potential categories but there are also more high-high. These are the main numbers I based my maybe the sky isn't falling comment.  Let's look at them in depth.

PG - 29 point drop with 9 attributed to REB (which is pretty uneventful), 8 in SPD (which was needed), 14 in DEF and a 16 and 15 point drop in BH and PAS which would allow an avg. potential rated PG to be mid 70's in BH and PAS  with speed in the 80's at the end of their progression.  See no major issues with the drop in starting values for these PG recruits.

SG -  59 point drop (biggest of the categories) with 19 attributed to DEF and 12 and 11 attributable to BH and PAS (these drops put the starting values below the PG which is needed imo).  Smaller regression in other categories.  Don't see any unintended consequence of the change which was to lessen the abilities of the recruits below a certain level or ranking.  That was the purpose of the change as i understood it.

SF - outside of DEF (20 point drop) the other drops are in line with the purpose of the change and there actually were increases in BH and PAS which is beneficial to the SF slot.  don't see any issue with this position.

PF - once again, most of the drop is in the DEF category (13 points) and there are significant increases in BH and PAS (16 and 14) which i believe is a better representation of a PF vs. the 18 and 25 pre change.

C - DEF is once again the biggest drop (18 points), REB remained pretty static.  I have an issue with the big drop in LP and its comparison to PF as i believe that the LP value of the C should be higher to start as he is supposed to be the main post player on the team.  also, like the increase in BH as the 1 BH under the old engine was simply unbelievable.

Overall, i think that the new recruit numbers validate that there wasn't the significant over correction.  The problem that was espoused with the old engine was that to many teams had the same roster and you never really had any idea who was going to win and the results didn't make much sense as both teams were pretty identical with super players at every position no matter what level of school.  This especially made NT games more unpredictable.  That was the issue in "dumbing down" recruits.  Of course, a more in-depth analysis would need to be made of all of the potential of these players but i don't think that is feasible unless someone wants to spend the time to do it, which i don't think is going to happen.  Also, with the slight decrease in offensive cores, you have a significant decrease in DEF so there should be some balance achieved here. 

The above represents 375 players below the "elite" or "above average" category (which represent the top 125 players).  These are the players mid-majors or lower level BCS teams (like my C+ prestige team at Vandy - Wooden) are going to need to recruit to build our programs.  That is what i did this past season.  The hope is to build a team that can compete in 3 seasons so i can knock off some of the big dogs, increase prestige and go after better players.  That's the point of this game for me. 

Query:  What are the direct issues one who is against the change to recruiting values have with the above chart?  Please be specific. 

I am willing to engage in debate about this and be constructive when i have the time.  My sky is falling comment was a little tongue in cheek due to the tenor of some that the game would die a slow death due to the recent changes.  I think that is over the top and if this game goes to the wayside it shouldn't be blamed on a fix that was wanted and needed by the HD community.