Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/27/2011 6:50:00 AM (view original):
We've talked a lot about the mass exodus of coaches from the low- and mid-major ranks because of the impact of the crap-tastic recruits but we're starting to see another issue crop up that's maybe just as ugly for the future of the game:  High prestige Big-6 teams finishing recruiting with 3-5 (or more) walk-ons on their roster.

We used to see 1-2 walkons in high(er) prestige schools' rosters pretty regularly and that's fine; it doesn't really damage a great team's ability to win with 1 or 2 guys that suck.  But now, with coaches at A-range schools having just a handful of decent players available to target (and I'm being generous by saying a handful), we're seeing coaches go all-in for those few players, leaving no ability to sign other, lesser guys to fill out a roster.

And what's worse is that, honestly, I understand that mindset, because adding these other guys to your roster as scholarship players is a complete waste.  You're better off tanking for a year, hoarding the 'ships, hoping for a more advantageous local recruit distro the next year, and making a run at a few guys with a full 6 'ships' worth of money.  There's no point to signing the 40th best guy at any position anymore because he's terrible and takes up a roster spot for four years.

The net/net of all this is more coaches losing interest - look at Wake last year in ACC-Allen - and letting their teams become ghost ships for a year or getting fed up with chasing a dozen players worldwide with the talent to compete at the A-range prestige D1 level...

But sure, seble, go ahead and create a custom-formula doo-hickey.   

cheez, some agreement and some disagreement.

I honestly don't think this is a new phenomenon, and I don't think it happens now more than it did before the recruits were changed. Before there may have been more acceptable 2nd/3rd tier players, but they were locked up by other schools, and once you lost multiple battles for high-end players, you didn't have money for anyone else regardless.

(I also want to note that Wake isn't a fair example, as he came back this year and signed a big place with a nice mix of big names, jucos and role players, so he didn't just quit.)

So I agree with you that this is a problem, I just don't really agree on the origin of it.

And I wholeheartedly agree that this is one of the many more substantive issues that seble needs to be focusing on rather than his custom formula doo-hickey. (Well said.)

Posted by creilmann on 1/27/2011 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I see the point.  There are definitely a lot more 3-4 walkon teams out there, at least in Iba.  I don't think the answer is that we need more blue chips, but more high potential players in the 500 to low 600 range would work.  

Since I don't have to worry about the top 10....I think the middle is where recruit generation has fallen off. We need more solid players, not these 65LP guys with 1 speed and 15 ATH. I don't have any problem building a player up, but give us something besides DII & DIII rejects to start with. The recruit generation is filled with PG with no ball handling skills, guards who can't shoot and bigs that have no LP or rebounding ability. I don't expect Kevin Durant but at least giv e me someone who has played organized ball if they are to be a D1 prospect. That and a slight tweak to freshman IQ to make them relevant on offense during their freshman year and I would be good.   

So here is my take on this whole situation. The main problem being voiced by most people, and not necessarily in this thread, is that there are not enough big recruits at the top end of the spectrum, and that the drop off is way to great from top level to the 2nd tier. 
While I agree that this may be the case (I don't have any first hand experience only just getting into a low DI school) but in the end it does not really matter. All that matters is how your team compares to the team that you are playing. If there are only a handfull of top recruits and the top teams are all fighting over then and end up taking 3-4 walkons then it give the savvy coach an opening. If you can recruit the right roll players and pick up some nice high potential guys, it seems to me that you can have a very good team.
Like has been stated not every team can now have 95/95/95/95 guys across the board, and in my opinion a coaches gameplanning and team planning/building skills are more important than ever.
We have to get out of this mindset that you can only be successful if you have the best of the best players. In real life not everyone gets a John Wall or a Greg Oden or a Sullinger, and yet they still manage to compete for the league championship and NT every season.

Posted by girt25 on 1/27/2011 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/27/2011 6:50:00 AM (view original):
We've talked a lot about the mass exodus of coaches from the low- and mid-major ranks because of the impact of the crap-tastic recruits but we're starting to see another issue crop up that's maybe just as ugly for the future of the game:  High prestige Big-6 teams finishing recruiting with 3-5 (or more) walk-ons on their roster.

We used to see 1-2 walkons in high(er) prestige schools' rosters pretty regularly and that's fine; it doesn't really damage a great team's ability to win with 1 or 2 guys that suck.  But now, with coaches at A-range schools having just a handful of decent players available to target (and I'm being generous by saying a handful), we're seeing coaches go all-in for those few players, leaving no ability to sign other, lesser guys to fill out a roster.

And what's worse is that, honestly, I understand that mindset, because adding these other guys to your roster as scholarship players is a complete waste.  You're better off tanking for a year, hoarding the 'ships, hoping for a more advantageous local recruit distro the next year, and making a run at a few guys with a full 6 'ships' worth of money.  There's no point to signing the 40th best guy at any position anymore because he's terrible and takes up a roster spot for four years.

The net/net of all this is more coaches losing interest - look at Wake last year in ACC-Allen - and letting their teams become ghost ships for a year or getting fed up with chasing a dozen players worldwide with the talent to compete at the A-range prestige D1 level...

But sure, seble, go ahead and create a custom-formula doo-hickey.   

cheez, some agreement and some disagreement.

I honestly don't think this is a new phenomenon, and I don't think it happens now more than it did before the recruits were changed. Before there may have been more acceptable 2nd/3rd tier players, but they were locked up by other schools, and once you lost multiple battles for high-end players, you didn't have money for anyone else regardless.

(I also want to note that Wake isn't a fair example, as he came back this year and signed a big place with a nice mix of big names, jucos and role players, so he didn't just quit.)

So I agree with you that this is a problem, I just don't really agree on the origin of it.

And I wholeheartedly agree that this is one of the many more substantive issues that seble needs to be focusing on rather than his custom formula doo-hickey. (Well said.)

I'm not saying everyone would quit outright but I do know that you guys dealt with an RPI-anchor in your own conference (and still did disturbingly well, imo) which literally no one wants - not farmlife...not the rest of the ACC. 

And to those saying that we all want 95/95/95/95 guys...that's such a disingenuous argument.  Look at any of the A-range prestige teams - usually like half the roster have keys skills above 90 and half the roster are more of the role-player types.  Yes, the role players are still very good but its not like there are 15 teams that are totally tricked out.  Problem is that you either get the 95+ guys or guys that are mid-70s.  And that's unsustainable if you want to have a competitive balance. 

This is turning from "Hoops-Dynasty" into "If-You-Have-One-Of-The-Top-Baseline-Prestiges-Then-You-Have-A-Chance-At-Building-A-Dynasty".  Which, hey, if WIS wants <50 human coaches in D1 in all their worlds...they're on the right track.

Posted by dacj501 on 1/27/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm siding with jeff and moy, I don't have a ton of D I exp yet, but I always did think it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything...how is that fun?

"it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything"

Show me one example where this is happening.  Just one.

Posted by moy23 on 1/27/2011 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 1/27/2011 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 1/27/2011 9:47:00 AM (view original):
if you can't take the heat - get out of the kitchen.

You are a high prestige big 6 coach - you either perform or get fired. There is no guarantee those coaches who flop one season will get those coveted top recruits the next season when their prestige falls.

and yes - its frustrating. on a brighter note.... at least big name schools are opening up for jobs.

I agree, moy ... except for the small detail that no one gets fired.

If there were real repercussions (and I don't mean just fewer wins for a season), this would be legit. But right now there isn't.

true about the firings daalt. They are there but are pretty lax imo.

none the less - the OP said these coaches are losing interest in HD (which I assume means 'quitting').... thus it's back to "if you can't take the heat...."

I didn't say quitting.  I said losing interest which is very different.  Hell, I made made specific reference to Wake going ghost ship and dropping an 0-27 RPI bomb on the rest of the ACC.  Which, pretty obviously, makes the game less interesting for everyone. 

I disagree with the whole notion that aren't mid tier guys. I have said over and over again that people just don't look hard enough. So many people are stuck in the old mold of "if the guy isn't top 50 at his position he can't play in a BCS conference" and that's just not the case. Take 2 examples from my WVU team, Richard Minor and Christopher Harward, 2 of my top 4 scorers were ranked in the mid 100s at their position and were originally being recruited by D2 schools. These are guys that 100% should've been snatched up by low level or mid teir D1 schools. You can look at any top D2 school and will find at least 1 or 2 players on all of them that can pla at a BCS.

I think part of the problem is that people get caught up in begin ratings and worrying about if the player can play right away instead of thinking down the road. How will he be in his junior and senior seasons, not just his freshman and sophomore years. I think this is a big reason why I've been able to have consistent solid success at WVU despite not being able to consistently get the 4 and 5 star type guys because I'm not so stubborn that I won't sign the 143rd PF.

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/27/2011 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/27/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm siding with jeff and moy, I don't have a ton of D I exp yet, but I always did think it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything...how is that fun?

"it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything"

Show me one example where this is happening.  Just one.

I saw plenty of teams like that before the switch to the new engine...  Teams where just about everybody who played significant minutes had 90+ in every really important skill for their position and sometimes others as well were the norm, not the exception, at the decent Big 6 schools.  I didn't play D1, so I didn't see every mid-major and what their guys turned into, but I do keep something of an eye on the top teams in every division in the worlds I play in...

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/27/2011 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/27/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm siding with jeff and moy, I don't have a ton of D I exp yet, but I always did think it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything...how is that fun?

"it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything"

Show me one example where this is happening.  Just one.

click on my team. I am attempting to get all 11 scholly players over 800 overall by the NT. Like dahs said - much more commonplace in the past... now more the exception.

Now, that said, I expect to lose in the E8 again.

I WISH I had the money for multiple teams like I used to. Back when I had a DI team pre-update I found it soooo boring how similar the talent was. Looking at all of the BCS teams and several mid-majors, they were practically identical. The DI game seems to require a lot more strategy now and I hope to pick up a second team and get to DI as soon as possible. Embrace the changes and adapt.

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/27/2011 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/27/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm siding with jeff and moy, I don't have a ton of D I exp yet, but I always did think it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything...how is that fun?

"it was kinda bs that the big teams all had 10 guys that were 99 everything"

Show me one example where this is happening.  Just one.

its not anymore - and frankly, that is probably an exaggeration, but before the new recruits most of the "power" teams had multiple players that were just about 100 everything. I believe you mis-interpreted my post perhaps?

No, I know what you meant, it was just an exaggeration of how things used to be.  And its really far from how things are now.

I think of the top teams in three tiers:  1) the awesome squads usually at high baseline schools that, when they have a bad year, only make the 2nd round of the NT (about 8-10 of them), 2) the 2nd tier which generally make the NT but need a little luck to make a deep run (maybe 20 of them), and 3) the fringe teams that are either up-and-coming or had a big class of seniors (say another 30 or so) and are high seed cannon-fodder in the NT.

Back in the day everyone had a guard that was 99/99 in bh/pass.  That's totally true - but it was only one guy for the 2nd tier and the fringe teams.  The top teams may have had 2 or 3.  Now, the top teams may have a guy that's something like 95/95 or so.  The 2nd tier has guys that are like 85/85.  And the fringe guys are battling with guys in the 75/75 range.

You can at least compete if you're not one of the top teams when you have similar talent.  But the gap has gotten massive these days.  Which means that if you entertain any hope of being competitive you have to go all-in on the few guys that have a chance at getting to 85/85 by their senior year.  

No doubt, we can all change our recruiting strategies to not take walk ons but in doing so, the teams not in the top tier are forfeiting any chance they have to realistically compete.  

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/28/2011 8:08:00 AM (view original):
No, I know what you meant, it was just an exaggeration of how things used to be.  And its really far from how things are now.

I think of the top teams in three tiers:  1) the awesome squads usually at high baseline schools that, when they have a bad year, only make the 2nd round of the NT (about 8-10 of them), 2) the 2nd tier which generally make the NT but need a little luck to make a deep run (maybe 20 of them), and 3) the fringe teams that are either up-and-coming or had a big class of seniors (say another 30 or so) and are high seed cannon-fodder in the NT.

Back in the day everyone had a guard that was 99/99 in bh/pass.  That's totally true - but it was only one guy for the 2nd tier and the fringe teams.  The top teams may have had 2 or 3.  Now, the top teams may have a guy that's something like 95/95 or so.  The 2nd tier has guys that are like 85/85.  And the fringe guys are battling with guys in the 75/75 range.

You can at least compete if you're not one of the top teams when you have similar talent.  But the gap has gotten massive these days.  Which means that if you entertain any hope of being competitive you have to go all-in on the few guys that have a chance at getting to 85/85 by their senior year.  

No doubt, we can all change our recruiting strategies to not take walk ons but in doing so, the teams not in the top tier are forfeiting any chance they have to realistically compete.  

I suppose you are right - you realistically have no chance to compete if you think that even with a recruiting strategy change you have no chance of realistically competing. Might as well go up to the plate knowing you will strike out with that attitude.

On the flipside - Those coaching Charlotte and Utah in Rupp would beg to differ. Or recent Rupp NC runner-ups Loyola Marymont and UCF. Or current Rupp teams like American U, Charleston, Drexel, Princeton, High Point, and Dartmouth that are just off the top 25 w/ 14 games played. Thats not too shabby considering the immense density of human coaches in the bcs confs vs all other confs.

Posted by moy23 on 1/28/2011 8:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/28/2011 8:08:00 AM (view original):
No, I know what you meant, it was just an exaggeration of how things used to be.  And its really far from how things are now.

I think of the top teams in three tiers:  1) the awesome squads usually at high baseline schools that, when they have a bad year, only make the 2nd round of the NT (about 8-10 of them), 2) the 2nd tier which generally make the NT but need a little luck to make a deep run (maybe 20 of them), and 3) the fringe teams that are either up-and-coming or had a big class of seniors (say another 30 or so) and are high seed cannon-fodder in the NT.

Back in the day everyone had a guard that was 99/99 in bh/pass.  That's totally true - but it was only one guy for the 2nd tier and the fringe teams.  The top teams may have had 2 or 3.  Now, the top teams may have a guy that's something like 95/95 or so.  The 2nd tier has guys that are like 85/85.  And the fringe guys are battling with guys in the 75/75 range.

You can at least compete if you're not one of the top teams when you have similar talent.  But the gap has gotten massive these days.  Which means that if you entertain any hope of being competitive you have to go all-in on the few guys that have a chance at getting to 85/85 by their senior year.  

No doubt, we can all change our recruiting strategies to not take walk ons but in doing so, the teams not in the top tier are forfeiting any chance they have to realistically compete.  

I suppose you are right - you realistically have no chance to compete if you think that even with a recruiting strategy change you have no chance of realistically competing. Might as well go up to the plate knowing you will strike out with that attitude.

On the flipside - Those coaching Charlotte and Utah in Rupp would beg to differ. Or recent Rupp NC runner-ups Loyola Marymont and UCF. Or current Rupp teams like American U, Charleston, Drexel, Princeton, High Point, and Dartmouth that are just off the top 25 w/ 14 games played. Thats not too shabby considering the immense density of human coaches in the bcs confs vs all other confs.

+1

Posted by cheeznsweet on 1/28/2011 8:08:00 AM (view original):
No, I know what you meant, it was just an exaggeration of how things used to be.  And its really far from how things are now.

I think of the top teams in three tiers:  1) the awesome squads usually at high baseline schools that, when they have a bad year, only make the 2nd round of the NT (about 8-10 of them), 2) the 2nd tier which generally make the NT but need a little luck to make a deep run (maybe 20 of them), and 3) the fringe teams that are either up-and-coming or had a big class of seniors (say another 30 or so) and are high seed cannon-fodder in the NT.

Back in the day everyone had a guard that was 99/99 in bh/pass.  That's totally true - but it was only one guy for the 2nd tier and the fringe teams.  The top teams may have had 2 or 3.  Now, the top teams may have a guy that's something like 95/95 or so.  The 2nd tier has guys that are like 85/85.  And the fringe guys are battling with guys in the 75/75 range.

You can at least compete if you're not one of the top teams when you have similar talent.  But the gap has gotten massive these days.  Which means that if you entertain any hope of being competitive you have to go all-in on the few guys that have a chance at getting to 85/85 by their senior year.  

No doubt, we can all change our recruiting strategies to not take walk ons but in doing so, the teams not in the top tier are forfeiting any chance they have to realistically compete.  

I don't have data saved from back then, so I cannot disprove anything you say, but it sure seems like there were more. And it wasn't just 99 in bh/pas, it was 95+ in ath, spd, def, bh, pas, per for guards and 95+ ath, reb, def, sb, lp for bigs...the top teams in the big 6 conferences were lousy with these guys. Having fewer of them is ok with me. Maybe we need more 85 guys to fill out everyone, I don't know...