Recruiting Improvements Topic

At least he's on the court.  Fab Melo was a complete waste of space as a freshman, yet he still played 10 minutes per game.  Meanwhile, one of the top PF's available in HD hasn't played a minute in 14 games and won't be redshirted.  There's a disconnect there, IMO. 

ETA that the point here is that Fab Melo stunk and still played ten minutes per game.  Why?  Because he had raw talent, low basketball IQ, and Boeheim probably figured sitting him on the bench may have led Mr. Melo to take his services elsewhere.  In HD, he can play zero minutes as a freshman despite having several teams josteling for his services and there is absolutely zero ramifications for his current program.  Similarly, Dion Waiters also mostly sucked last year, but was highly recruited, had an atittude problem, and ended up playing over 16 minutes per game (when he wasn't getting benched or otherwise ending up in the Boeheim doghouse).  

2/1/2012 4:31 PM (edited)
Posted by jslotman on 2/1/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):

At least he's on the court.  Fab Melo was a complete waste of space as a freshman, yet he still played 10 minutes per game.  Meanwhile, one of the top PF's available in HD hasn't played a minute in 14 games and won't be redshirted.  There's a disconnect there, IMO. 

ETA that the point here is that Fab Melo stunk and still played ten minutes per game.  Why?  Because he had raw talent, low basketball IQ, and Boeheim probably figured sitting him on the bench may have led Mr. Melo to take his services elsewhere.  In HD, he can play zero minutes as a freshman despite having several teams josteling for his services and there is absolutely zero ramifications for his current program.  Similarly, Dion Waiters also mostly sucked last year, but was highly recruited, had an atittude problem, and ended up playing over 16 minutes per game (when he wasn't getting benched or otherwise ending up in the Boeheim doghouse).  

Fab was pulled 16 seconds into a game as a freshman and sat the rest of the night. When the tempo of the game was slowed for whatever reason, he saw some minutes. His conditioning was so bad he couldn't keep up with the rest of the team at speed.
2/1/2012 5:43 PM
OK, jslotman, but we're talking a different issue now. You've gone from giving high importance to starts (which I agree we need to give more importance to, just not over-correcting), to elite players expecting 10 minutes/game (something that is reasonable and which I'm not opposed to). Maybe there's not that much daylight between our two views, after all.
2/1/2012 5:46 PM
I think that top recruits should expect significant playing time, and they should transfer or jump to the NBA if the don't get it.  The engine already is set-up for upper-classmen to have expectations of playing time -- I think top recruits should have those kinds of expectations.  And I think there should be some variation -- most top players will be happy with 10-15 minutes, others will expect to start, while some will be happy no matter what.  I don't think you should have to promise them starts/minutes to recruit them, but if you get one of those guys you should not be surprised when they expect to play.

And I disagree that elite recruits should be even more effective as freshmen.  Right now super elite teams have wild advantages over everyone else, if their 5-star freshmen are even better, it'll turn D1 into a 10-12 team division with 300+ also-rans.
2/1/2012 5:57 PM
Posted by professor17 on 2/1/2012 5:46:00 PM (view original):
OK, jslotman, but we're talking a different issue now. You've gone from giving high importance to starts (which I agree we need to give more importance to, just not over-correcting), to elite players expecting 10 minutes/game (something that is reasonable and which I'm not opposed to). Maybe there's not that much daylight between our two views, after all.
Starts, playing time, whatever.  My position is flexible on that point. 
2/1/2012 5:59 PM
Base the playing time they expect on a combination of rating and class year rather than just rating.  If they have ratings commensurate with a division one sophomore in their freshman year, they are going to expect sophomore minutes.

2/1/2012 6:41 PM
Posted by arssanguinus on 2/1/2012 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Base the playing time they expect on a combination of rating and class year rather than just rating.  If they have ratings commensurate with a division one sophomore in their freshman year, they are going to expect sophomore minutes.

That assumes that they could craft a system that could properly recognize that ... and the notion they could so is dubious at best.

Again, I agree that promises should be worth more. And I'd be OK with a personality thing where some recruits really want minutes, etc**. But if this is done, you need to make freshmen have the ability to be more impactful.

**That said, I think it should be a recruiting preference. I don't think, for instance, that there should be recruits who literally won't sign with you unless they're starting. I think that would be ridiculous. And if they even entertained something close to that, you have to make them real impact players and severely increase IQ.
2/1/2012 11:12 PM (edited)
Posted by l_eustachy on 2/1/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
As many have chimed in, this is not real life.  The IQ of incoming freshmen makes it so few can truly contribute immediately (unless you somehow manage to land a kid who is otherwise talented far above his peers at your school and your conference mates), which is obviously unrealistic.  But we also have a recruiting system that tries to emulate real life but is forced to do so by allocation of dollars, which causes some problems as well such as not being able to simulate a charismatic coach or a coach who is able to "relate" to kids, upsell his program, or other things that allow a coach to attract kids in that could play elsewhere.

So we realize it is unrealistic in one area (recruiting) and yet won't tolerate unrealism in another (incoming IQ).  We recognize that having schools able to sign players for a song and sit them on the bench is a problem, but won't tolerate proposed solutions because it means we'd need to sacrifice team performance for at least 2/3 of a season while that shiny new 5-star came up to tolerable speed.  It's simply a game, and in real life freshmen make mistakes and miscues at critical moments--especially perhaps at critical moments.  That is why seasoned teams can sometimes prevail over greater talent in real life, so why can't we tolerate that in HD?

There are a number of possible resolutions (partial or complete) that could improve the situation.  It will probably never be perfect.  But it is just a game.  If it must be a perfect reflection of real life, well then I think we should avoid holding our breath and look for a new time waster.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before, but in D1 what if a coach could make pitches (like recruiting in NCAA games,on eg: coach prestige, academics, program prestige, early playing time) this would be really cool (hard to program, but cool) and it might give small schools a chance to make big snags (ivy league comes to mind). This would also make recruiting more strategic, you would give your HV a pitch, your CV a pitch and it would make recruiting more than about money.
2/1/2012 9:19 PM
Posted by girt25 on 2/1/2012 9:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by arssanguinus on 2/1/2012 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Base the playing time they expect on a combination of rating and class year rather than just rating.  If they have ratings commensurate with a division one sophomore in their freshman year, they are going to expect sophomore minutes.

That assumes

Again, I agree that promises should be worth more. And I'd be OK with a personality thing where some recruits really want minutes, etc**. But if this is done, you need to make freshmen have the ability to be more impactful.

**That said, I think it should be a recruiting preference. I don't think, for instance, that there should be recruits who literally won't sign with you unless they're starting. I think that would be ridiculous. And if they even entertained something close to that, you have to make them real impact players and severely increase IQ.
Personally, I would be including IQ in that equation. . .and personally, I would kinda like more variability in freshman IQ's.  
2/1/2012 9:42 PM
Posted by girt25 on 2/1/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by arssanguinus on 2/1/2012 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Base the playing time they expect on a combination of rating and class year rather than just rating.  If they have ratings commensurate with a division one sophomore in their freshman year, they are going to expect sophomore minutes.

That assumes that they could craft a system that could properly recognize that ... and the notion they could so is dubious at best.

Again, I agree that promises should be worth more. And I'd be OK with a personality thing where some recruits really want minutes, etc**. But if this is done, you need to make freshmen have the ability to be more impactful.

**That said, I think it should be a recruiting preference. I don't think, for instance, that there should be recruits who literally won't sign with you unless they're starting. I think that would be ridiculous. And if they even entertained something close to that, you have to make them real impact players and severely increase IQ.
I don't think it should be common, but I have no problem if a small percentage of elite recruits would require a promised start in order to sign with a school.  If that means that a 5 star drops to a B prestige BCS teams or mid-majors, so be it.  That could be part of adding more texture and layers to recruiting - guys require a start, guys require x minutes, guys who really want to play in the tournament and would only sign with schools that went to the NT last season, guys who take education seriously and only want to sign with a school where the bbteam has a GPA > 3.0 (I would make it determined on the kids there, rather than simply on reputation, although as the coach at Duke and Georgetown the reputation would work better for me), etc. 

I also have no problem that elite recruits generally assume they would be a rotation player, and expect say, 8+ minutes per game.  To piggyback on the original player discussed in this thread, UNC's Kevin Robinson, I do think it is absolutely ridiculous that ANY player, whether it is a 5-star signing with an A+ elite or a 380 overall signing at a C prestige DIII school, is fine that 14 games into the season they haven't seen the court at all.

Let's not overstate the dangers of playing or even starting elite freshman.  Yeah, they can't step in a be a Durant or Carmelo - but the way HD is set up there aren't too many Durants or Carmelos anyway.  You can certainly start a 5-star, have them as your 5th option and still be a NT contender.
2/2/2012 8:30 AM
off the top of my head, highly recruited UNC players the last 15-20 years who didn't start as freshmen:

Jerry Stackhouse
Rasheed Wallace
Vince Carter
Ron Curry (i know, i know, but he was the #1 overall recruit)
Brandan Wright (top-10 pick as frosh, 0 starts)
Marvin Williams (#2 pick as frosh)
Tyler Zeller
JM McAdoo (USA Bball player of the year last year)

almost all of these guys were 6th or 7th men, but I guarantee you none of them were "promised" a second on the court.

The problem with the RL comparison is manifold, but part of it that's been ignored here is that RL players can see depth charts and who's in front of them; coaches worry about seniority and chemistry; some players are complete (and unpredictably so) busts. 

also, i like acn's idea above, with the caveat that I would want it to be pretty explicitly stated by these players-- "I'm not coming here unless I get X PT or a start." It would require re-working some of the language on recruit emails that already exist, i think.

and groomsie, isn't Tokoto a guy that UW really wanted who's leaving for UNC and no guarantees?
2/2/2012 9:09 AM
Kevin Robinson has now played zero minutes in 15 games.  His IQ is up to C+, so one would think on most teams he could contribute (especially considering his relatively ridiculous attributes for a freshman).   

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2059622
2/2/2012 9:33 AM
JP Tokoto was a recruit  Bo Ryan was after for years.  Lives within an hour of Madison.  If memory serves around a top 20-30 player at the time.
But then Roy Williams shows up at an open practice, then a couple games, then pulls the trick of walking into the high school cafeteria to see his man JP. 
I could picture Girt doing the same thing.  Even sharing a Dr Pepper, or some Sweet Tea, with Robinson.

With the coaching change at Marquette it really came down to staying local with Wisconsin, or go for the glam of being a Tarheel.

Tokoto did choose UNC but gave the primary reason as style of play.  He felt UNC and their uptempo play would get him to the next level better prepared, rather than being a part in the Bo Ryan offense.  So at least from what he's publicly said, it sounds like if the offenses were reversed, he may have stayed locally rather than heading to the ACC.

then you have this guy that passed on Clemson because he didn't see a Chick-fil-A on campus.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/cassanova-mckinzy-spurned-clemson-because-didn-t-chick-015506961.html

or the guy that passed on Baylor because he didn't like the color combination of green & gold. 
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/elite-recruit-eliminates-baylor-because-he-doesnt-like-its-colors?urn=ncaab,wp4726
2/2/2012 2:25 PM (edited)
Yep, Tokoto was a guy I had in my head but couldn't remember his name (actually texted a friend last night to ask him).
2/2/2012 2:21 PM
js, as I've stated, I do agree that some tweaks could/should be made. But your example here isn't even a very good one. It's really not a stretch that a kid would be willing to sit for a year at A+, Sweet 16 or better every season, elite UNC in the ridiculous conference setting vs. going to the OU squad with this four-year window (and this is not meant as a knock on nick, just a statement of fact):

53 nickjyd 14-14 8-6 6-7 0-1 4-12   79 B+ PI (1st Round)
52 nickjyd 8-20 4-9 3-10 1-1 3-13   136 B+  
51 nickjyd 26-7 10-3 10-3 6-1 11-5 14 18 A- CT Champion
NT (Sweet 16)
50 nickjyd 14-14 9-6 4-7 1-1 4-12   94 B+  
2/2/2012 2:24 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Recruiting Improvements Topic

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.