I don't see how you want to change D1 recruit generation without changing D2 and D3.  As I always suspected and now has been officially confirmed, there is only 1 player generation process/engine.  Do you want him to include a whole new sequence that, following recruit generation, goes back and somehow identifies the mid-major recruits and arbitrarily bumps them up?  Because the changes you seem to be suggesting don't see plausible in the current scheme beyond what was just done.  If you're going to generate a group of recruits that will apply to all levels the deviations are going to need to be significant enough that there will be some outliers on the tails.  What you want is more outliers.  The only way to do that without messing with the distribution for all levels (which I don't think we want to do for D2/D3) is to arbitrarily select projected D1 players to "bump up."  That would probably be a significant change in the sense that in this complex of an engine any time you add an entirely new piece of logic you run the risk of it not fitting in cleanly and producing unexpected ramifications elsewhere...

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/3/2011 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 2/3/2011 4:51:00 PM (view original):
I have to say it....

I told you so!

Maxes did not change (except FTs). Basically game play stays the same but the 'doomsday crowd' feels better because mid-major recruits will 'appear' to be better during recruiting. Thats my take. Its a good tweak - but thats all it is, a tweak.

i don't see how this makes the doomsday crowd feel better. mid major recruits, as upperclassmen, did not improve in any way. except those rare players with a ridiculous amount of potential, they will be a little closer to hitting it. roughly, this should be negligible on mid majors. the only way i can see this change helping mid majors is possibly by knocking the elite players down a notch.

Or by improving the 'perception' of mid major recruits at the recruiting stage... which is all this move does. All data calculated in these forums is compiled at recruiting... not at recruiting +3 seasons.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/3/2011 4:58:00 PM (view original):
i still think it is retarded to mess with d2/d3 recruit generation to fix a d1 problem. also, i fee like one of the biggest problems was not that there weren't enough players who could come in and compete with high end big 6 school on day 1... its that there aren't enough of these players who can come in and compete with high end big 6 schools as juniors and seniors. so, guys will start better and will max out earlier. i just don't see the benefit there... we can all go back to putting a little more practice time into team practice and a little less of our own time worrying about practice plans? but meanwhile, upperclassmen, which are what make teams great, really haven't gotten any better.

i do think this could impact the elite players - sounds like they got worse, with more potential. so, they are probably going to contribute even less when they leave early, which sucks. but, they might stay longer, which is good i guess, maybe. im not sure what the net result will be on top teams, guess we will have to wait and see.

all in all, it seems like this change is just an attempt to reverse what seble sought out to do in the first place - which was to create elite incoming players and create more room for growth for players. these are concepts that i supported, but it just went from elite players to mediocre players with very little in between, and that was the problem. so it seems like to me, instead of making those not elite but not mediocre players more plentiful, seble is reducing incoming elite players and creating less room for growth for players. just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

From what seble said, they generate all the recruits at the same time.  So unless he is going to single out D-1 recruits with some "after generation" processing, then it is modify all recruits or modify no recruits.  Right???

wronoj - seble and i are talking in some tickets so we have his attention at least and i know some pretty well respected coaches echo our sentiments.  don't give up yet! :)

this is the Q&A for the 5th ?, seems to be a much more major change than the rhetoric might imply, currently if I am reading this right, 9 thru 11 average 715, 24 thru 26 average 614, a 101 difference, and 174-176 average 516, a 98 difference.

Under the new system, seble says the same differences will be 39 and 154, assuming the 9 thru 11 hasn't changed, this is how that would like side by side:

rank          old          new
9-11          715          715
24-26        614          676
174-176  516          522

those changed appear substantial, and very much in the right direction - I don't understand what the problem is, to me, seble fixed the issue - what am I missing?  

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? (reinsel - All-Star - 2:48 PM)

This change should address that issue. In the test world where I generated new recruits the difference between #9-11 and #24-26 is about 39 pts and the difference between #24-26 and #174-176 is 154 pts. Of course the rankings don't go strictly by overall rating, so there will be some variance to these numbers from world to world and season to season.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/3/2011 4:58:00 PM (view original):
i still think it is retarded to mess with d2/d3 recruit generation to fix a d1 problem. also, i fee like one of the biggest problems was not that there weren't enough players who could come in and compete with high end big 6 school on day 1... its that there aren't enough of these players who can come in and compete with high end big 6 schools as juniors and seniors. so, guys will start better and will max out earlier. i just don't see the benefit there... we can all go back to putting a little more practice time into team practice and a little less of our own time worrying about practice plans? but meanwhile, upperclassmen, which are what make teams great, really haven't gotten any better.

i do think this could impact the elite players - sounds like they got worse, with more potential. so, they are probably going to contribute even less when they leave early, which sucks. but, they might stay longer, which is good i guess, maybe. im not sure what the net result will be on top teams, guess we will have to wait and see.

all in all, it seems like this change is just an attempt to reverse what seble sought out to do in the first place - which was to create elite incoming players and create more room for growth for players. these are concepts that i supported, but it just went from elite players to mediocre players with very little in between, and that was the problem. so it seems like to me, instead of making those not elite but not mediocre players more plentiful, seble is reducing incoming elite players and creating less room for growth for players. just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

My thoughts exactly.

Posted by oldresorter on 2/3/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):
this is the Q&A for the 5th ?, seems to be a much more major change than the rhetoric might imply, currently if I am reading this right, 9 thru 11 average 715, 24 thru 26 average 614, a 101 difference, and 174-176 average 516, a 98 difference.

Under the new system, seble says the same differences will be 39 and 154, assuming the 9 thru 11 hasn't changed, this is how that would like side by side:

rank          old          new
9-11          715          715
24-26        614          676
174-176  516          522

those changed appear substantial, and very much in the right direction - I don't understand what the problem is, to me, seble fixed the issue - what am I missing?  

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? (reinsel - All-Star - 2:48 PM)

This change should address that issue. In the test world where I generated new recruits the difference between #9-11 and #24-26 is about 39 pts and the difference between #24-26 and #174-176 is 154 pts. Of course the rankings don't go strictly by overall rating, so there will be some variance to these numbers from world to world and season to season.

OR - i think what you might be missing is that there isn't a corresponding change to the maximum ratings. so before, at 24-26 position, if you had 614 players with an average of 100 points of improvement, then those players would turn into 714 players. now, it would be 676 players, turning into 714 players, instead of the intuitive, 776 players. i think the problem is not that freshman and sophs on mid majors aren't good enough - i argue that the problem is really with the juniors and seniors of those programs. if you are relying on freshman, you are dead anyway. so, mid majors will have better freshman, a little bit better sophs, and roughly the same juniors and seniors as before. i don't see how that fixes much of anything?

Posted by oldresorter on 2/3/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):
this is the Q&A for the 5th ?, seems to be a much more major change than the rhetoric might imply, currently if I am reading this right, 9 thru 11 average 715, 24 thru 26 average 614, a 101 difference, and 174-176 average 516, a 98 difference.

Under the new system, seble says the same differences will be 39 and 154, assuming the 9 thru 11 hasn't changed, this is how that would like side by side:

rank          old          new
9-11          715          715
24-26        614          676
174-176  516          522

those changed appear substantial, and very much in the right direction - I don't understand what the problem is, to me, seble fixed the issue - what am I missing?  

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? (reinsel - All-Star - 2:48 PM)

This change should address that issue. In the test world where I generated new recruits the difference between #9-11 and #24-26 is about 39 pts and the difference between #24-26 and #174-176 is 154 pts. Of course the rankings don't go strictly by overall rating, so there will be some variance to these numbers from world to world and season to season.

EDIT: You beat me to it Jeff

This "looks" good but it was my understanding  that these are only starting ratings not where the player will finish his career, and those "max" ratings were left unchanged. I don't know how many Hig potential ratings the top players have but it seems to me this change, while it will look good during recruiting (or maybe not if these players have lowered potential) will still be lacking, as Jeff said when they get to be Jr's and Sr's. Maybe i am off, I hope I am, but that is my understanding.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/3/2011 5:11:00 PM (view original):
I don't see how you want to change D1 recruit generation without changing D2 and D3.  As I always suspected and now has been officially confirmed, there is only 1 player generation process/engine.  Do you want him to include a whole new sequence that, following recruit generation, goes back and somehow identifies the mid-major recruits and arbitrarily bumps them up?  Because the changes you seem to be suggesting don't see plausible in the current scheme beyond what was just done.  If you're going to generate a group of recruits that will apply to all levels the deviations are going to need to be significant enough that there will be some outliers on the tails.  What you want is more outliers.  The only way to do that without messing with the distribution for all levels (which I don't think we want to do for D2/D3) is to arbitrarily select projected D1 players to "bump up."  That would probably be a significant change in the sense that in this complex of an engine any time you add an entirely new piece of logic you run the risk of it not fitting in cleanly and producing unexpected ramifications elsewhere...

when seble changed recruit generation in the first place, he changed the shape of the curve. this created more elite type players. i fail to see why he can't change the shape of the curve again, to create more very good type players.

i don't expect seble to split recruit generation in the way you, or the other person who made a similar comment about not changing d2/d3, might be thinking. i am just saying, today, he is somehow specifying the shape of the curve. he should have some control over that, in a way that allows him to *largely* leave d2/d3 unchanged. if there are minor, meaning he tested and checked to make sure they are minor, ramifications on d2/d3, i am mostly ok with that. but as a programmer of many years, i cannot believe his control is so unflexible like you guys are suggesting. remember what he did the last time he changed recruit generation, he obviously has a decent level of control.

Posted by gillispie on 2/3/2011 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 2/3/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):
this is the Q&A for the 5th ?, seems to be a much more major change than the rhetoric might imply, currently if I am reading this right, 9 thru 11 average 715, 24 thru 26 average 614, a 101 difference, and 174-176 average 516, a 98 difference.

Under the new system, seble says the same differences will be 39 and 154, assuming the 9 thru 11 hasn't changed, this is how that would like side by side:

rank          old          new
9-11          715          715
24-26        614          676
174-176  516          522

those changed appear substantial, and very much in the right direction - I don't understand what the problem is, to me, seble fixed the issue - what am I missing?  

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? (reinsel - All-Star - 2:48 PM)

This change should address that issue. In the test world where I generated new recruits the difference between #9-11 and #24-26 is about 39 pts and the difference between #24-26 and #174-176 is 154 pts. Of course the rankings don't go strictly by overall rating, so there will be some variance to these numbers from world to world and season to season.

OR - i think what you might be missing is that there isn't a corresponding change to the maximum ratings. so before, at 24-26 position, if you had 614 players with an average of 100 points of improvement, then those players would turn into 714 players. now, it would be 676 players, turning into 714 players, instead of the intuitive, 776 players. i think the problem is not that freshman and sophs on mid majors aren't good enough - i argue that the problem is really with the juniors and seniors of those programs. if you are relying on freshman, you are dead anyway. so, mid majors will have better freshman, a little bit better sophs, and roughly the same juniors and seniors as before. i don't see how that fixes much of anything?

You can't have elite players and a ton of stud mid major type players and still have the elites players perform at elite levels in the sim... there has to be some sort of gap to make it happen. Otherwise it will be like before where all teams have strong 90+ core rosters and elites just look good on paper.

moy, i agree with what you said in principle. but having the gap from 10-25 equal the gap from 25-175 is not required to keep players elite, IMO. how about 10-50 and 50-175? that would sure be a start. i think the real answer is to BOTH improve mid major type players, all the way down to 80 or 100 by position (just out of d2 range), and to improve the top 10 at each position's iq on a sliding scale from what it is now to something decent, like b/b+ at the high end. and include IQ in early entry decisions. then, you have elite young players, and you have enough players who can come close to competing with them when they have a couple years experience and growth on their side.

anyway, i know that will never happen. but can you at least agree there is a happy medium between having elite players, with little to nobody who can come close to competing, and having 100 players every year who are all 90+ in every core?

Posted by moy23 on 2/3/2011 6:09:00 PM (view original):
Personally I would have just steepened the recruit generation curve at the front end so there are way less elite recruits and kept the curve the same in the middle to back end. Thus less elites to go around and more players with larger core attribute and potential variance. I.e. teams would have to choose between an 85 lp/65 reb post player or a 65 lp/85 reb post player.... rather than having more 85/85 post players.

you would have done that when, to recruit generation before seble's new engine, or just now (just before his last change yesterday)?

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/3/2011 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 2/3/2011 6:09:00 PM (view original):
Personally I would have just steepened the recruit generation curve at the front end so there are way less elite recruits and kept the curve the same in the middle to back end. Thus less elites to go around and more players with larger core attribute and potential variance. I.e. teams would have to choose between an 85 lp/65 reb post player or a 65 lp/85 reb post player.... rather than having more 85/85 post players.

you would have done that when, to recruit generation before seble's new engine, or just now (just before his last change yesterday)?

Just now. I think there are too many elite players as it is right now (just check out my u of I team - 9 points away from 11 players over 800 with some 10 games to go). Edit.... I don't even use fss and pretty much put 10 practice mins on each category so its not like I'm some practice minutes guru. I don't have to when I'm 'only' going after elite recruits. Bringing the # of elites down would force me to use fss like everyone else and to master practice mins.

You guys keep talking about this recruit generation "curve."  I thought it was made clear in this dev chat that no such thing exists.  Recruits appear to be generated by having a mean and a variance applied individually to each one with everybody starting from the mean.  It looks like all that Seble probably did to change the generation was to perhaps increase the variance a bit, leading to more and bigger outliers.  There doesn't appear to be any funtion defining the number of players with any given overall talent range.  I'm rather glad that there isn't...  that would probably end up making recruit generation much more predictable over the long term.  But assuming that this is the way it functions, the only way to "change the shape" would be to totally overhaul the recruit generation process or insert an extra step to arbitrarily improve players seen as potential mid-major recruits as I described briefly above.  The "curve" currently associated with recruit generation is inevitably a bell curve and there's no simple way to change that.