Posted by fmschwab on 2/3/2011 8:30:00 AM (view original):
Message from seble:

Frank,

"When we generate recruits, we don't do it by division or range. We generate a big pool of players and then let them fall where they should based on their ratings. So yes, this change will impact all recruits."

Boo! This could've been a changed that helped the game, if they'd followed the coach_billyg/girt25 (and numerous others) plan. Could've solved a very bad problem. Now it appears it's more likely to make things worse vs. better. Yuck.

I think this is super important and seble needs to take his time to figure this one out so it can be done correctly.

Posted by reinsel on 2/3/2011 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem is the RELATIVE strengths of the recruits not the OVERALL strengths.

This is my feeling of how it is now:

Ranking at position         Rating
#1                                       825
#5                                       775
#10                                     650
#25                                     560
#50                                     550
#75                                     540
#100                                   530
#125                                   520
#150                                   510
#200                                   500

The problem is there is more difference between the #5 recruit and the average #25 recruit than between #25 and #200.  I pulled this numbers out of the air, but that is my feeling.  Raising this scale by 5/10/20 points doesn't really help the situation at all.

Posted by reinsel on 2/3/2011 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem is the RELATIVE strengths of the recruits not the OVERALL strengths.

This is my feeling of how it is now:

Ranking at position         Rating
#1                                       825
#5                                       775
#10                                     650
#25                                     560
#50                                     550
#75                                     540
#100                                   530
#125                                   520
#150                                   510
#200                                   500

The problem is there is more difference between the #5 recruit and the average #25 recruit than between #25 and #200.  I pulled this numbers out of the air, but that is my feeling.  Raising this scale by 5/10/20 points doesn't really help the situation at all.

Posted by gillispie on 2/3/2011 12:12:00 PM (view original):
recruit generation is one of the most important parts of this game. the players you create totally change the way this game works. making changes with anything but an extremely clear vision and a very precise handle on what needs to change is just crazy. the above post illustrate what happens the LAST time you messed with recruit generation. i would hope you have learned from that experience.

if you can't explain clearly and concisely what you are trying to fix here, and just as importantly, how this change addresses the problem, well, you shouldn't be making the change then. that should be pretty obvious by now. so i'd really like to hear how you think this change is going to help, because right now, i can't think of a damn thing, and i would like to think you at least have one good reason for doing this. i think everyone here deserves to hear it, considering the way the last change to recruit generation went.

Posted by reinsel on 2/3/2011 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem is the RELATIVE strengths of the recruits not the OVERALL strengths.

This is my feeling of how it is now:

Ranking at position         Rating
#1                                       825
#5                                       775
#10                                     650
#25                                     560
#50                                     550
#75                                     540
#100                                   530
#125                                   520
#150                                   510
#200                                   500

The problem is there is more difference between the #5 recruit and the average #25 recruit than between #25 and #200.  I pulled this numbers out of the air, but that is my feeling.  Raising this scale by 5/10/20 points doesn't really help the situation at all.

Posted by reinsel on 2/3/2011 12:59:00 PM (view original):
So I actually decided to do this based on C/PF in Allen.

Positions          Ave of Total
#1-#5                   775
#9-11                   715
#24-26                 614 +35  = 649
#48-50                 581 +30  = 611
#74-76                 564 +25  = 589
#98-100               555 +20  = 575
#124-126            533 +15  = 548
#149-151            525 +10  = 535
#174-176            516 +5    = 521
#198-200            508

So I was kinda close.  And my thesis of more diffeence from top (775) to #25 (614) vs. #25 to #200 is correct. 

Considering D2 schools are starting these #125-200 guys while D1 teams put the #75 guys on the bench, its not surprising D2 teams look like D1 mid majors.


Want needs to be done is something like I outline above helping the #25-#175 guys and creating a system were the #50 guys don't get confused with the #150 guys.

Billyg's proposal is fine with me too...I don't have a D2 team so I don't have a good feel for the #100-#200 guys.  It is just obvious to me that what is best for the game is increasing the ratings of the top 100 players, excluding the 700 rated 5 star guys that most teams don't have much hope of getting.

I put this in.

Regarding D1 recruiting,

Recruit Ranking   Ave of Total Rating
#1-#5                   775
#9-11                   715
#24-26                 614
#48-50                 581
#74-76                 564
#98-100               555
#124-126            533
#149-151            525
#174-176            516
#198-200            508

The problem I see is there is the same difference #25 and #175, as #10 and #25.  What is your view of this situation and how will the new recruits look?