Tark number of recruits Topic

aejones
Posts: 457 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 374
Veteran
i think something that can partially account for this is the lack of balance at sim schools. sims frequently have 6-8 seniors, or an entire team of seniors and juniors. if the lack of balance is on an odd cycle like this, then it would make some sense, if the stars aligned, for this to be the case. honestly, i've got no idea. it is odd though, because as i look around the miaa and glv, i see a higher # of openings (i think, anyways). 
3/6/2011 3:54 PM
elvis87
Posts: 19 (0)
Pro
16
Prospect
Im not sure what it is but it looks way out of wack.
3/7/2011 8:53 AM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
I use a wait after signing, national recruiting strategy. It seems the pool is pretty shallow this year, with teams battling for pretty mediocre players. 
3/7/2011 12:17 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect

I suppose I would just take seble's word that they verified the numbers.  It's not like it's an unverifiable formula or code.  Take the number of anticipated open schollies and multiply it by 1.15.  Seems simple enough to me.  The whole "it doesn't look right" thing is silly.  Either do the math or forget about it and assume it's right.

3/7/2011 1:20 PM
jwilli7122
Posts: 435 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 81 2
Prospect
i agree with isack.  and i think it's probably right.  and here's why i think there are fewer than normal:  last season was the first season sims started trying to fill their entire rosters (i.e. not taking walk-ons).  thus fewer openings this season.

but i think it's dumb to base quantity of recruits on the number of openings IF quantity also affects quality.  (that is if fewer total recruits cause the top 100 to be worse). why should it? that would never happen in real life.  recruits should be on average the same quantity and quality every year.  variance is appropriate, but correlating deviation with need is not.
3/7/2011 1:52 PM (edited)
brip87
Posts: 421 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1
Prospect
I just assume that when It doesnt look right to me and then someone like jeff(bill g) says the same there might be an issue.
3/7/2011 1:41 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
I dunno, we're half a day into signings and the number of guys remaining who aren't considering anyone seems pretty normal.
3/7/2011 1:47 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
If not a little higher than usual.
3/7/2011 1:47 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by brip87 on 3/7/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
I just assume that when It doesnt look right to me and then someone like jeff(bill g) says the same there might be an issue.
No doubt that the initial reaction makes sense.  But to continue questioning it after seble says the numbers have been verified (and it's something easy enough for him to check) seems odd.
3/7/2011 1:51 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by isack24 on 3/7/2011 1:20:00 PM (view original):

I suppose I would just take seble's word that they verified the numbers.  It's not like it's an unverifiable formula or code.  Take the number of anticipated open schollies and multiply it by 1.15.  Seems simple enough to me.  The whole "it doesn't look right" thing is silly.  Either do the math or forget about it and assume it's right.

you seem to be glossing over the fact that verifying the numbers is a big pain in the ***. 
3/7/2011 2:05 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by jwilli7122 on 3/7/2011 1:52:00 PM (view original):
i agree with isack.  and i think it's probably right.  and here's why i think there are fewer than normal:  last season was the first season sims started trying to fill their entire rosters (i.e. not taking walk-ons).  thus fewer openings this season.

but i think it's dumb to base quantity of recruits on the number of openings IF quantity also affects quality.  (that is if fewer total recruits cause the top 100 to be worse). why should it? that would never happen in real life.  recruits should be on average the same quantity and quality every year.  variance is appropriate, but correlating deviation with need is not.
this is not true. sims have been trying to fill their entire rosters for quite some time now.
3/7/2011 2:05 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by isack24 on 3/7/2011 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by brip87 on 3/7/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
I just assume that when It doesnt look right to me and then someone like jeff(bill g) says the same there might be an issue.
No doubt that the initial reaction makes sense.  But to continue questioning it after seble says the numbers have been verified (and it's something easy enough for him to check) seems odd.
i guess some of us have just seen CS proved wrong too many times to take it on faith. its so easy for seble to provide the numbers, why wouldn't he? he gave the formula, 15% over. that is the only thing i can imagine him wanting to conceal. so it leaves me uneasy. and skeptical. 
3/7/2011 2:06 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by coach_billyg on 3/7/2011 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 3/7/2011 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by brip87 on 3/7/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
I just assume that when It doesnt look right to me and then someone like jeff(bill g) says the same there might be an issue.
No doubt that the initial reaction makes sense.  But to continue questioning it after seble says the numbers have been verified (and it's something easy enough for him to check) seems odd.
i guess some of us have just seen CS proved wrong too many times to take it on faith. its so easy for seble to provide the numbers, why wouldn't he? he gave the formula, 15% over. that is the only thing i can imagine him wanting to conceal. so it leaves me uneasy. and skeptical. 
Sure, on moderately subjective things.  But this is 100% objective and verifiable. 

And my point isn't that CS is right.  It's that saying, "that doesn't look right" doesn't make any sense.  You know how to figure how if it's right.  So for me, I would either figure it out or forget it, because opining makes no sense at this point, in my opinion.
3/7/2011 2:51 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
I think you need to ask how many scholarships are needed by humans.  With approx. 70% sims, it would suggest only 800 players are needed by humans.  Seems like there are plenty of recruits.  You guys are making it sound like you're wearing milkbone underwear in a dog eat dog world. 

So it's slightly less of a draft than what coaches are used to, but it's not even close to the competition it'd be with 100% humans (or even 70%).
3/7/2011 3:45 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
The thing is rails, at the highest levels D1 it's pretty close to 100% humans so there is a ton of competition for the best recruits. And if because there are less recruits created there are less high quality recruits it makes competition even tougher and forces somebody like me in a weak location who has an A- prestige reach down and grab guys who would normally go to a mid major. Now mid majors have to go after weaker recruits and so on and so on.
3/7/2011 3:50 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Tark number of recruits Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.