Posted by kmasonbx1 on 12/5/2010 5:50:00 PM (view original):
So you're comparing a C+ prestige to Duke? If Duke has had to do it in the past what do you think teams who are a comparable C+ school in real life have to do? Stop this silly complaining, it happens get over it. I have both D1 and D2 schools and think it's silly when either lower level D1 schools or high level D2 schools complain about D1 schools taking "their" recruits. It happens, get over it.

Posted by emy1013 on 12/6/2010 1:14:00 AM (view original):
Just re-read your initial post/request and now I'm not sure if "baby" is a strong enough word.  I almost think that this has to be some kind of a joke-type thread because no one could actually write something like that and be serious about it.

By the way, if this thread IS actually serious, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see everyone of your recruits next season "poached" by a D1 team just to see how bad they could **** you off.  And you'll have to admit, you opened yourself up for it by posting this "interesting" request.  Best of luck next recruiting cycle, have to admit, if I had a D1 team in Phelan I'd target one of your recruits just to be a ***** about the whole thing.

Posted by cthomas22255 on 12/5/2010 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 12/5/2010 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Sadly, this thread is more about the shi**y talents of the #50-#100 players than anything else.  2/3rds of the top 100 centers don't have LP and rebounding over 60.

If so, that's pretty sad.  #160 C was available because everyone else at D2 had passed on him.  He wasn't nearly as good as others that had been available (and centers drop quickly relative to other positions, so by the time signing period had started he was pretty much available to all).  

I think the other thread on monster D3 recruits does illustrate a problem with recruit generation.  There are high potential D3 players with really high caps such that they look like D1 players by the time they're done.

To use an example from my own team, this PG was the #200, I pulled him down with C- prestige.  
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1645628
He had high potential in just about every key category and still has room to grow.  I look at some top-100 PGs in that class playing in D1 and see that he has now outpaced them.  That just shouldn't happen as often as it appears to be doing now. 

Posted by cthomas22255 on 12/6/2010 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/6/2010 1:14:00 AM (view original):
Just re-read your initial post/request and now I'm not sure if "baby" is a strong enough word.  I almost think that this has to be some kind of a joke-type thread because no one could actually write something like that and be serious about it.

By the way, if this thread IS actually serious, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see everyone of your recruits next season "poached" by a D1 team just to see how bad they could **** you off.  And you'll have to admit, you opened yourself up for it by posting this "interesting" request.  Best of luck next recruiting cycle, have to admit, if I had a D1 team in Phelan I'd target one of your recruits just to be a ***** about the whole thing.

Thanks, Emy.  Glad to see your opinion the matter.  If you think a request is unreasonable, then don't comply by it.  My post was mostly meant to be funny (ie: lighten up) and to raise a question -- why are D1 coaches with decent prestige going after mediocre D2 players that D2 coaches have passed on?    The #160 C was mediocre for D2, that was the point.  He was a leftover, available 24 hours after signings had started.  I got him committed with the last of my funds after losing battles for better Cs, who the C+ prestige D1 school could have easily had instead. 

It was just bad luck on my part--wrong player at the wrong time. And I'll have a walkon, no big deal.  If you take my post utterly seriously then that's your problem. 

But some of us are bewildered by coaches going after mediocre D2 players that D2 coaches have decided to pass on.  They could do better.  The #200 PG that I used for an example of a different phenomenon had "high high" potential in most categories-- he was heavily sought after, so you're comparing apples and rotten apple cores. 

Posted by fd343ny on 12/6/2010 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cthomas22255 on 12/5/2010 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 12/5/2010 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Sadly, this thread is more about the shi**y talents of the #50-#100 players than anything else.  2/3rds of the top 100 centers don't have LP and rebounding over 60.

If so, that's pretty sad.  #160 C was available because everyone else at D2 had passed on him.  He wasn't nearly as good as others that had been available (and centers drop quickly relative to other positions, so by the time signing period had started he was pretty much available to all).  

I think the other thread on monster D3 recruits does illustrate a problem with recruit generation.  There are high potential D3 players with really high caps such that they look like D1 players by the time they're done.

To use an example from my own team, this PG was the #200, I pulled him down with C- prestige.  
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1645628
He had high potential in just about every key category and still has room to grow.  I look at some top-100 PGs in that class playing in D1 and see that he has now outpaced them.  That just shouldn't happen as often as it appears to be doing now. 

is it bad that some D3 players have the potential to develop and be really good players?  this is bad because?

I can guarantee every season there are quite a few D3 players in real life who could be productive D1 players. They range from guys who didn't play much before college but have natural talent to guys who should've been at least D2 players straight out of high school but didn't play the summer circuit and went to a school where the coach doesn't have connections to guys who just had crappy coaching and finally got good coaching and their games just blossomed.

Posted by reinsel on 12/5/2010 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Sadly, this thread is more about the shi**y talents of the #50-#100 players than anything else.  2/3rds of the top 100 centers don't have LP and rebounding over 60.

Posted by cthomas22255 on 12/6/2010 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/6/2010 1:14:00 AM (view original):
Just re-read your initial post/request and now I'm not sure if "baby" is a strong enough word.  I almost think that this has to be some kind of a joke-type thread because no one could actually write something like that and be serious about it.

By the way, if this thread IS actually serious, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see everyone of your recruits next season "poached" by a D1 team just to see how bad they could **** you off.  And you'll have to admit, you opened yourself up for it by posting this "interesting" request.  Best of luck next recruiting cycle, have to admit, if I had a D1 team in Phelan I'd target one of your recruits just to be a ***** about the whole thing.

Thanks, Emy.  Glad to see your opinion the matter.  If you think a request is unreasonable, then don't comply by it.  My post was mostly meant to be funny (ie: lighten up) and to raise a question -- why are D1 coaches with decent prestige going after mediocre D2 players that D2 coaches have passed on?    The #160 C was mediocre for D2, that was the point.  He was a leftover, available 24 hours after signings had started.  I got him committed with the last of my funds after losing battles for better Cs, who the C+ prestige D1 school could have easily had instead. 

It was just bad luck on my part--wrong player at the wrong time. And I'll have a walkon, no big deal.  If you take my post utterly seriously then that's your problem. 

But some of us are bewildered by coaches going after mediocre D2 players that D2 coaches have decided to pass on.  They could do better.  The #200 PG that I used for an example of a different phenomenon had "high high" potential in most categories-- he was heavily sought after, so you're comparing apples and rotten apple cores. 

Posted by cthomas22255 on 12/6/2010 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/6/2010 1:14:00 AM (view original):
Just re-read your initial post/request and now I'm not sure if "baby" is a strong enough word.  I almost think that this has to be some kind of a joke-type thread because no one could actually write something like that and be serious about it.

By the way, if this thread IS actually serious, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see everyone of your recruits next season "poached" by a D1 team just to see how bad they could **** you off.  And you'll have to admit, you opened yourself up for it by posting this "interesting" request.  Best of luck next recruiting cycle, have to admit, if I had a D1 team in Phelan I'd target one of your recruits just to be a ***** about the whole thing.

Thanks, Emy.  Glad to see your opinion the matter.  If you think a request is unreasonable, then don't comply by it.  My post was mostly meant to be funny (ie: lighten up) and to raise a question -- why are D1 coaches with decent prestige going after mediocre D2 players that D2 coaches have passed on?    The #160 C was mediocre for D2, that was the point.  He was a leftover, available 24 hours after signings had started.  I got him committed with the last of my funds after losing battles for better Cs, who the C+ prestige D1 school could have easily had instead. 

It was just bad luck on my part--wrong player at the wrong time. And I'll have a walkon, no big deal.  If you take my post utterly seriously then that's your problem. 

But some of us are bewildered by coaches going after mediocre D2 players that D2 coaches have decided to pass on.  They could do better.  The #200 PG that I used for an example of a different phenomenon had "high high" potential in most categories-- he was heavily sought after, so you're comparing apples and rotten apple cores. 

Posted by cthomas22255 on 12/5/2010 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 12/5/2010 9:52:00 PM (view original):
Sadly, this thread is more about the shi**y talents of the #50-#100 players than anything else.  2/3rds of the top 100 centers don't have LP and rebounding over 60.

If so, that's pretty sad.  #160 C was available because everyone else at D2 had passed on him.  He wasn't nearly as good as others that had been available (and centers drop quickly relative to other positions, so by the time signing period had started he was pretty much available to all).  

I think the other thread on monster D3 recruits does illustrate a problem with recruit generation.  There are high potential D3 players with really high caps such that they look like D1 players by the time they're done.

To use an example from my own team, this PG was the #200, I pulled him down with C- prestige.  
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1645628
He had high potential in just about every key category and still has room to grow.  I look at some top-100 PGs in that class playing in D1 and see that he has now outpaced them.  That just shouldn't happen as often as it appears to be doing now. 

Posted by stinenavy on 12/6/2010 8:49:00 PM (view original):
For simplicity here...

Overall ranking isn't necessarily the best way to determine who the best player is, but let's assume the guy does happen to be the 162nd best C. There's 324 D1 schools. Shouldn't it be assumed that, based on the need of D1 schools, the fact that a D2 school landing a guy ranked this high be an outlier, rather than normal?