Posted by oldresorter on 12/8/2010 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sully712 on 12/8/2010 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Wow...dont think I ever said that OR single handedly caused DI to lose coaches.  I said that your "the sky is falling" routine led to people to exit DI without giving it a chance.  Before one season of the new recruits had gone through, you stated that DI was going to suck and people would leave.  As mmt has said, your success in this game makes other players take notice of your stance.  Lots of people quit before even giving the new recruits a chance.

And, I dont think that Seble's recruit generation was ill-conceived.  I think it could use a couple of minor tweaks but I still think it is much better than what we had before. 

I actually said the recruit generation would make the game less fun 6 months before it was introduced, if you want to be technically correct

Oh, ok thats what I wanted to know...posted my response as well, before reading all the replies...

Well then we really do disagree I am having more fun now...than Ive had in over a year...and recently added two new teams.

OK - I will humor you guys - we really are going back a year ago with this, the beta test time, by the way, I am not the one putting out 3 word quips like the sky is falling, I have been putting out info like what follows for 8 years - not always accurate, but some of the theories that this game is played with have come from things I have written

if all teams were perfect 1200 players, with A+ IQ's, either winning would be totally random or coach gameplanning would be all that matters, in my opinion, rails, LM, all of you guys, myself, we would do quite well if everyone had the same team

What you guys confuse with coaching, is recruiting.  In the new game, recruiting matters too much

Recruiting was already too important in the old game, since it is the most flawed part of the game, recruits are geographically distributed in a flawed manner, money is doled out flawed, the potential for collusion is always out there, etc, etc

The less recruiting matters, the fairer the game is.

The more equal recruits available in greater qty, the less recruiting matters,

The problem is the huge differentiation in total rating making recruiting too important, not per se the 99 across the board, or the high differentiation in ind skills.

I agree that high diff in ind skills makes coach gameplanning more important by the way & I have found that part of the new game to be both fun and a big advantage for me, as I have a pretty good idea which skills help win games

But the lack of recruits is what has sapped the fun out of the game, not so much for me, or for most of you guys, but for those who have lesser prestige and lesser conf budgets, they are being squeezed out.

The game just needs more recruits with 4/5 star ratings.  This will also keep the d1 coaches off of the d2 recruits, which is something I never would have thought would happen, but appears to be the case quite often in the new game. 

The fix for this is quite simple, and would make for even more differentiation in d1, but would also fix the d1/d2 interference.

OR - It seems our opinions on the recruit generation are not that different.  The difference is that I do not think there needs to be tons more 4/5 star guys.  I think there needs to be more 3/4 star guys.  I think there also needs to be a little more potential in some players.

However, I do think that changing the hiring process would allow mid-major teams to compete better.

Posted by jetwildcat on 12/7/2010 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/7/2010 10:22:00 PM (view original):
Having coached as many D1 BCS seasons as anyone in this thread (with the exception of OR and maybe Moy), I sure would like to know where all these 99 Ath/99 Spd/99 Def, maxed out in the cores guards have been for all the time I've been coaching.  My BCS teams are usually always high to very high prestige teams and in all my seasons at that level, I've managed to recruit TWO guards who would have fit that description.  And for what it's worth, neither one of them could shoot.  And fellas, I try my best to bring in the stud players (often times to the detriment of my teams).

I'm gonna leave my opinions about recruit generation and the job process out of this, but to any coach who has yet to make it to a BCS conference, please don't believe the statements that every team in a BCS conference had/has one or two of these guards because it is complete and utter nonsense.  In fact, it may be the single biggest "forum fact" I've seen in my 4 and 1/2 years of playing this game.

That's all I have to say on this issue, but I'm sorry, every time I read about every BCS team having a roster of maxed out players, it makes me sick to my stomach.....back to the original topic.

i just pulled an old list i used in recruiting one of the last seasons before the new recruit generation...

its a list of 148 SF/PF/C d1 recruits and their FSS potentials. using 25 estimated improvement for a player with "high" potential:

3 players projected above 93 in ATH/2 projected to 100
2/0 in SPD
29/15 in REB (remember, that's 15 projected to hit 100 using 25 for a high potential estimate. ridiculous.)
43/13 in DE
25/12 in LP
2/1 in PE

i didnt bother to rank guards in excel that year.

when you take into account TREMENDOUS potential you can probably add a few to each list for players that had the potential to hit 100 in each category.

again, that's just 148 d1 prospects for SF/PF/C from New England or something like that.

Interesting list Jet, but I was talking about guards in my post, not bigs.  And was specifically talking about 99 Ath/99 Spd guards and not so much about their cores.  Sorry if I was confusing. 

Posted by moy23 on 12/8/2010 12:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 12/7/2010 10:22:00 PM (view original):
Having coached as many D1 BCS seasons as anyone in this thread (with the exception of OR and maybe Moy), I sure would like to know where all these 99 Ath/99 Spd/99 Def, maxed out in the cores guards have been for all the time I've been coaching.  My BCS teams are usually always high to very high prestige teams and in all my seasons at that level, I've managed to recruit TWO guards who would have fit that description.  And for what it's worth, neither one of them could shoot.  And fellas, I try my best to bring in the stud players (often times to the detriment of my teams).

I'm gonna leave my opinions about recruit generation and the job process out of this, but to any coach who has yet to make it to a BCS conference, please don't believe the statements that every team in a BCS conference had/has one or two of these guards because it is complete and utter nonsense.  In fact, it may be the single biggest "forum fact" I've seen in my 4 and 1/2 years of playing this game.

That's all I have to say on this issue, but I'm sorry, every time I read about every BCS team having a roster of maxed out players, it makes me sick to my stomach.....back to the original topic.

emy - I think my talent has always been acquiring top players when recruiting in HD.   I used to get a lot of 90/90 BH/PAS frosh PGs, 90/90 REB/LP Bigs.... out of the gate. The cores were pretty high.... so much that all the cores would be maxed by soph year.  I'm not talking about ATH/SPD since I personally value those skills slightly less than the aforementioned.  The biggest diff I see now is that these cores for 'elites' start lower (which means they max out at 99s later in their career) and I can't for the life of me recruit a 12 man team (and if I do - I can't get enough PT for all 12).  With less 'elites' more teams have been targeting my players which has really limited my ability to fill the roster.  My days of signing a top 5 position player for $5k are over.  i'm now spending about $20-30k minimum to get these guys.  just my experience - I'm not saying you are wrong.  Also - I do agree not all bcs had these maxed out frosh players.... maybe most A prestiges did.  I've always believed the hardest place to coach is the C prestige bcs schools because they can't keep up with the joneses in their own conf.  

Moy, I'm not arguing that it was hard to find guards with maxed out cores, what I was arguing was the statement about every BCS team having guards with Ath and Spd maxed out at 99.  Sorry guess I should have made that clearer.

Posted by sully712 on 12/8/2010 11:51:00 AM (view original):
OR - It seems our opinions on the recruit generation are not that different.  The difference is that I do not think there needs to be tons more 4/5 star guys.  I think there needs to be more 3/4 star guys.  I think there also needs to be a little more potential in some players.

However, I do think that changing the hiring process would allow mid-major teams to compete better.

3/4 star recruits with more pot sounds good, I like that more than 4/5 star recruits under the same system, the lack of pot has not been a winner in my eyes for this game, I think player improvement is one of the things that keeps guys interested and renewing.

The hiring process, not sure, generally I have an opinion right or wrong, and although the process is flawed, my problem is I see guys in d1 who have not mastered even the simple recruiting basics, but I 100% agree that  these top notch mid majors need to get filled.  The recent problem is those same mid majors were the first coaches to abandon ship when the new recruit gen was introduced, my son, myself, and daalter all left mid's in allen for example, I don't think any filled immediately.

My reason, my B school in wisc horizon league was always marginal anyhow, wisc is a very poor place to recruit even with the badgers, let alone GB, but when I am trying to win a NT with 525 rated PG's that have 50 PA and 550 rated PF's with 10 speed, I know I can't compete with teams getting 750 rated players, say your average georgetown team sully - coaching and potential can only take one so far. 

So I have coached a mid major in the past 12 months, I wonder if everyone in this conversation has?  It really isn't bad at all if your market has lots of recruits to find that ideal hi potential guy, but if not, it sucks.  Hence, the game is not as fun for mid majors.

I think if you said what you said in your last 2 posts from the beginning you wouldn't have received much opposition. Originally you made it seem like everything about the new recruit generation was off. I see your point now and pretty much agree.

Another problem with mid majors in less populated areas is the fact that recruiting in D1 pretty much has to be down within a 360 mile radius. So if you have a team in a place like Wisconsin you never even look at northeast, westcoast or southern recruits simply because you assume it's too far and if you jump on a recruit you'll just have them taken away by a closer school. This ends up having a lot of guys slip through the cracks and go JUCO or get scooped up by a sim AI instead of going to human coached teams.

Posted by kmasonbx on 12/8/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I think if you said what you said in your last 2 posts from the beginning you wouldn't have received much opposition. Originally you made it seem like everything about the new recruit generation was off. I see your point now and pretty much agree.

Another problem with mid majors in less populated areas is the fact that recruiting in D1 pretty much has to be down within a 360 mile radius. So if you have a team in a place like Wisconsin you never even look at northeast, westcoast or southern recruits simply because you assume it's too far and if you jump on a recruit you'll just have them taken away by a closer school. This ends up having a lot of guys slip through the cracks and go JUCO or get scooped up by a sim AI instead of going to human coached teams.

+1

Posted by mmt0315 on 12/8/2010 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Gil - I didnt copy your last reply to me as it wouldve taken the entire page. I guess I misunderstood the position you were coming from as it seemed you were longing for the days of old, when in fact you are not. Maybe the solution to your issue is as you said adding some more players in the middle tier. However, I do think any tweak should be minor indeed.

Also, the context in which I said DI Fed up was simply reusing the opinion given by OR. I think DI is fine personally.

My entire point of job hiring, is that if it were changed in a manner which allowed midmajors who are built up to remain there - DI as a whole would be exponentially more competitive, regardless of what type of recruit generation were used. In a world with less recruits and less high end recruits it becomes that much more important to the overall competitive balance and is really overlooked.

yeah, i am definitely not longing for the days of old. i would love to make my own HD because there are enough areas i feel could be improved a lot. also its totally mismanaged from a business perspective.

I think you can be a successful mid-major, but not in places like Wichita.  You have to be in places like LA, North Carolina, Florida, NY, etc.  Where there are a ton of recruits to sift through.

Posted by reinsel on 12/8/2010 3:45:00 PM (view original):
I think you can be a successful mid-major, but not in places like Wichita.  You have to be in places like LA, North Carolina, Florida, NY, etc.  Where there are a ton of recruits to sift through.

I actually don't think that's the case. Being in a desolate location means you can basically tell who's going to take your guys and adjust your targets accordingly. I'm at Alcorn State in Phelan and there are a rather large amount of D1 users around here that have a higher prestige than me that take my top targets. I think both types of mid majors have their advantages. Obviously, there's a lot more kids to pick from here, but with the horrible future stars for a lot of the 550-600 overall rating kids, it can be difficult. 

i also think the change to open d2 schools to double digit rated d1 players was a ridiculously bad one. regardless of the "quality curve", if you will, of the recruits - when you have d2 schools able to recruit dozens of double digit rated d1 players, you clearly are going to have serious overlap with d1 schools. add in the fact that seble generates a solid 25% of recruits as 100% unusable in any situation, and it gets worse. i think the ceiling for d2 and d3 schools is too high. there just is not enough room between the best d2 players you can find (which, 10 of, would make a fine d1 team) and the non-elite d1 recruits. i don't want more elite recruits. that sucked a lot. i just want more 2-3 stars - but they have to really be 2-3 stars, i.e. better than the 0 stars d2 school sign and worse than the 5 stars.

edit: i would also like to see elite recruits be truly elite. give the top 3-5 guys at each position b range iq across the board (or similar), force them to leave after 1 year, and call it a day. recruit a great guy for 1 year of greatness, that is fun. recruit a great guy for 1 year of riding the pine because his iq is unfit for d1 play, and then he leaves, that is no fun for anyone.

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2010 5:27:00 PM (view original):
i also think the change to open d2 schools to double digit rated d1 players was a ridiculously bad one. regardless of the "quality curve", if you will, of the recruits - when you have d2 schools able to recruit dozens of double digit rated d1 players, you clearly are going to have serious overlap with d1 schools. add in the fact that seble generates a solid 25% of recruits as 100% unusable in any situation, and it gets worse. i think the ceiling for d2 and d3 schools is too high. there just is not enough room between the best d2 players you can find (which, 10 of, would make a fine d1 team) and the non-elite d1 recruits. i don't want more elite recruits. that sucked a lot. i just want more 2-3 stars - but they have to really be 2-3 stars, i.e. better than the 0 stars d2 school sign and worse than the 5 stars.

edit: i would also like to see elite recruits be truly elite. give the top 3-5 guys at each position b range iq across the board (or similar), force them to leave after 1 year, and call it a day. recruit a great guy for 1 year of greatness, that is fun. recruit a great guy for 1 year of riding the pine because his iq is unfit for d1 play, and then he leaves, that is no fun for anyone.

i've been under the impression that they're good enough that lack of IQ isnt too big of a deal

Posted by jetwildcat on 12/8/2010 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2010 5:27:00 PM (view original):
i also think the change to open d2 schools to double digit rated d1 players was a ridiculously bad one. regardless of the "quality curve", if you will, of the recruits - when you have d2 schools able to recruit dozens of double digit rated d1 players, you clearly are going to have serious overlap with d1 schools. add in the fact that seble generates a solid 25% of recruits as 100% unusable in any situation, and it gets worse. i think the ceiling for d2 and d3 schools is too high. there just is not enough room between the best d2 players you can find (which, 10 of, would make a fine d1 team) and the non-elite d1 recruits. i don't want more elite recruits. that sucked a lot. i just want more 2-3 stars - but they have to really be 2-3 stars, i.e. better than the 0 stars d2 school sign and worse than the 5 stars.

edit: i would also like to see elite recruits be truly elite. give the top 3-5 guys at each position b range iq across the board (or similar), force them to leave after 1 year, and call it a day. recruit a great guy for 1 year of greatness, that is fun. recruit a great guy for 1 year of riding the pine because his iq is unfit for d1 play, and then he leaves, that is no fun for anyone.

i've been under the impression that they're good enough that lack of IQ isnt too big of a deal

They are still not THAT good w/o IQ that they would be worth signing for loads of cash just for 1 season when you could sign a #5-10 player for 3-4 seasons and have that player end up much better overall.  jmo.

Posted by moy23 on 12/8/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 12/8/2010 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2010 5:27:00 PM (view original):
i also think the change to open d2 schools to double digit rated d1 players was a ridiculously bad one. regardless of the "quality curve", if you will, of the recruits - when you have d2 schools able to recruit dozens of double digit rated d1 players, you clearly are going to have serious overlap with d1 schools. add in the fact that seble generates a solid 25% of recruits as 100% unusable in any situation, and it gets worse. i think the ceiling for d2 and d3 schools is too high. there just is not enough room between the best d2 players you can find (which, 10 of, would make a fine d1 team) and the non-elite d1 recruits. i don't want more elite recruits. that sucked a lot. i just want more 2-3 stars - but they have to really be 2-3 stars, i.e. better than the 0 stars d2 school sign and worse than the 5 stars.

edit: i would also like to see elite recruits be truly elite. give the top 3-5 guys at each position b range iq across the board (or similar), force them to leave after 1 year, and call it a day. recruit a great guy for 1 year of greatness, that is fun. recruit a great guy for 1 year of riding the pine because his iq is unfit for d1 play, and then he leaves, that is no fun for anyone.

i've been under the impression that they're good enough that lack of IQ isnt too big of a deal

They are still not THAT good w/o IQ that they would be worth signing for loads of cash just for 1 season when you could sign a #5-10 player for 3-4 seasons and have that player end up much better overall.  jmo.

Gotta agree with Moy on this one.