Posted by seble on 5/17/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
As far as recruit generation goes, I still don't believe that the quality of players is the problem.  I believe the problem is how recruiting works. 

The elite schools have a powerful advantage, due to prestige and money.  That could work ok in theory if those elite schools were battling hard for the elite players.  The result is that a lot of resources would be spent on those battles, making the second-tier guys vulnerable to the lower level schools.

What has actually happened is that those battles seem to be rare.  So the elite schools can lock up those players relatively easily, allowing them to have plenty left over for the second-tier players. 

I know there are a lot of people that enjoy the current recruiting system, but I personally think it could be a lot more fun, and a lot less frustrating in general.  It's also not very realistic at all. It's essentially an auction system, nothing close to a process of convincing a person to come play at your school.  So we're discussing a number of paths that we can take to improve recruiting, ranging from minor tweaks to a complete overhaul.  Obviously an overhaul is a major undertaking and we would not take that on without being sure it was the right path.

seble, there is a little problem with your theory/explanation.

For a long time, the low/mid teams were extremely healthy and successful (far more successful than their real life counterparts). Then you made a change to recruit generation, and the difference/change was sharp and immediate.

So in short, the same recruiting system that exists now, with the same advantages/disadvantages linked to money/prestige, existed before. And using that same exact system that's in place now, the non-BCS teams were extremely successful. What's changed is the recruit generation.

So it's clearly not the system. Suggesting otherwise is just not factually accurate.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/17/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 5/17/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
girt, responding to a couple of your comments: 

2. I'll be reviewing the logic that ranks players for the NBA draft.  It's been pointed out that big guys are generally ranked higher than guards, so I'll balance things out more.
That's fine, I suppose. A small thing in a sea of more significant ones though. 

What this is really addressing is the fact that twice as many big men go EE as guards, since the ranking logic impacts not only NBA draft position, but also who goes EE. Since so many big men go EE, non-elite teams are getting hit with big men EE's, while elite teams are keeping their 950+ guards for 3-4 seasons. 

Oh -- and you definitely need to make it less likely that an EE leaves from a non-BCS school. Probably way less likely. It's crippling to those schools.

Jumping in late on this one, but I think I agree with oldresorter's general idea that the highest rated players are the ones who should be going EE... regardless of what school they happen to play for. It's simple and easy to understand, and there's no trying to figure out which schools/conferences should be more or less likely to lose EE's. If you're a mid-major and you sign the #4 guard in the country... well, you're taking the risk of losing him early. Period. Eliminate the borderline late 2nd round 745-type players going EE, make it truly the best players, eliminate the bias towards big men going EE, and I think you'll see a corresponding drop in crippling EE's to mid-majors.

agree with both. 

prof, re: the 2nd point -- I'm not talking about if you've got a mid-major signing a bonafide stud.

I'm talking about non-BCS schools losing guys who are marginal.

And seble --

Could you please address the much-maligned "five max" EE rule? It's nearly universally derided at this point? Can we admit it wasn't the best way to address the issue and hit reboot?

And at the absolute, bare minimum -- why are you allowing people to take advantage and game the system by signing senior transfers? If nothing else, at least scrap that component.

Seble- get rid of the ridiculous 5 player rule

Posted by stinenavy on 5/17/2012 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Seble- get rid of the ridiculous 5 player rule

+1

I don't play D1, but the 5 player rule really seems like a chainsaw where a butter knife would do just fine.

The suggestion to change scouting trips seems like it wouldn't be a beast to implement.  You don't have to go all the way and allow us to customize our scouting trips, but there is one seemingly-simple change that would knock out about half the issues.

If an attribute starts under 10, never return information in the scouting report.

If my PG recruit has a 1 in rebounding, blocks, and low post, it's crazy to ever report on potential.  If my C has a 1 in PE, it's crazy to report that.

Posted by llamanunts on 5/17/2012 8:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't play D1, but the 5 player rule really seems like a chainsaw where a butter knife would do just fine.

The suggestion to change scouting trips seems like it wouldn't be a beast to implement.  You don't have to go all the way and allow us to customize our scouting trips, but there is one seemingly-simple change that would knock out about half the issues.

If an attribute starts under 10, never return information in the scouting report.

If my PG recruit has a 1 in rebounding, blocks, and low post, it's crazy to ever report on potential.  If my C has a 1 in PE, it's crazy to report that.

wow, awesome idea, and i agree 100%

I think they should up the rewards for making NT!

Posted by girt25 on 5/17/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 5/17/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):
As far as recruit generation goes, I still don't believe that the quality of players is the problem.  I believe the problem is how recruiting works. 

The elite schools have a powerful advantage, due to prestige and money.  That could work ok in theory if those elite schools were battling hard for the elite players.  The result is that a lot of resources would be spent on those battles, making the second-tier guys vulnerable to the lower level schools.

What has actually happened is that those battles seem to be rare.  So the elite schools can lock up those players relatively easily, allowing them to have plenty left over for the second-tier players. 

I know there are a lot of people that enjoy the current recruiting system, but I personally think it could be a lot more fun, and a lot less frustrating in general.  It's also not very realistic at all. It's essentially an auction system, nothing close to a process of convincing a person to come play at your school.  So we're discussing a number of paths that we can take to improve recruiting, ranging from minor tweaks to a complete overhaul.  Obviously an overhaul is a major undertaking and we would not take that on without being sure it was the right path.

seble, there is a little problem with your theory/explanation.

For a long time, the low/mid teams were extremely healthy and successful (far more successful than their real life counterparts). Then you made a change to recruit generation, and the difference/change was sharp and immediate.

So in short, the same recruiting system that exists now, with the same advantages/disadvantages linked to money/prestige, existed before. And using that same exact system that's in place now, the non-BCS teams were extremely successful. What's changed is the recruit generation.

So it's clearly not the system. Suggesting otherwise is just not factually accurate.

This. ^^^^^
         
Oh, and no more five player rule. The post above from llama that said it was like using a chain saw when a butter knife would do (or something more eloquent than that) is putting it exactly right. Basically the negatives far outweighed anything it tried to help, especially with people totally abusing the senior transfer loophole.

Posted by llamanunts on 5/17/2012 8:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't play D1, but the 5 player rule really seems like a chainsaw where a butter knife would do just fine.

The suggestion to change scouting trips seems like it wouldn't be a beast to implement.  You don't have to go all the way and allow us to customize our scouting trips, but there is one seemingly-simple change that would knock out about half the issues.

If an attribute starts under 10, never return information in the scouting report.

If my PG recruit has a 1 in rebounding, blocks, and low post, it's crazy to ever report on potential.  If my C has a 1 in PE, it's crazy to report that.

I disagree with your point on the Scouting report for several reasons.
1) What if I find an offensive dynamo is 9 at DEF, if he's high-high he's gonna be at least 38 DEF which is passable.
2) What if a find a PG who is 5 REB and he's high-high potential he'll end up 33 REB which means he could play SF.
3) What if 2 players are very similar and I just want an attrbute like SPD for a big man, which I would use as my tiebreak for choosing between the players.

What I've seen suggested about the Scouting report issue is- a single attribute scouting trip (you would have to pay more) but for example if you want to find whether your PG is high-high in passing or not, you send a specific scouting trip and it tells you only that attributes potential.

Yes, I understand that the recruit generation changes affected the balance of power.  I'm not disputing that.  But that change was made for a reason.  My belief that coaches would battle more for those elite players did not come to fruition. 

Still, that doesn't mean the change to recruit generation was not the correct decision.  The recruiting system has always been overly tilted toward elite schools, the change to recruits just brought that flaw to the surface. 

Plain and simple, before the change to recruits there were far too many elite players, so the end result is that there were no elite players.  If anything I would have liked to go even further, creating some truly dominant recruits.  That isn't really possible to do while still supporting three divisions of talent in a 100 point scale.

To distribute talent as many of you are suggesting is going to lead us back to where almost every good team is loaded with equivalent players. 

Posted by m4284850 on 5/17/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 5/17/2012 8:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't play D1, but the 5 player rule really seems like a chainsaw where a butter knife would do just fine.

The suggestion to change scouting trips seems like it wouldn't be a beast to implement.  You don't have to go all the way and allow us to customize our scouting trips, but there is one seemingly-simple change that would knock out about half the issues.

If an attribute starts under 10, never return information in the scouting report.

If my PG recruit has a 1 in rebounding, blocks, and low post, it's crazy to ever report on potential.  If my C has a 1 in PE, it's crazy to report that.

I disagree with your point on the Scouting report for several reasons.
1) What if I find an offensive dynamo is 9 at DEF, if he's high-high he's gonna be 38 DEF which is passable.
2) What if a find a PG who is 5 REB and he's high-high potential he'll end up 33 REB which means he could play SF.
3) What if 2 players are very similar and I just want an attrbute like SPD for a big man, which I would use as my tiebreak for choosing between the players.

What I've seen suggested about the Scouting report issue is- a single attribute scouting trip (you would have to pay more) but for example if you want to find whether your PG is high-high in passing or not, you send a specific scouting trip and it tells you only that attributes potential.

I'm not sure if I'm making this up or not, but I don't remember seeing anyone with a single-digit rating being high, let alone high-high.

Posted by seble on 5/17/2012 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I understand that the recruit generation changes affected the balance of power.  I'm not disputing that.  But that change was made for a reason.  My belief that coaches would battle more for those elite players did not come to fruition. 

Still, that doesn't mean the change to recruit generation was not the correct decision.  The recruiting system has always been overly tilted toward elite schools, the change to recruits just brought that flaw to the surface. 

Plain and simple, before the change to recruits there were far too many elite players, so the end result is that there were no elite players.  If anything I would have liked to go even further, creating some truly dominant recruits.  That isn't really possible to do while still supporting three divisions of talent in a 100 point scale.

To distribute talent as many of you are suggesting is going to lead us back to where almost every good team is loaded with equivalent players. 

That's not true.

What we need is simply a happy medium between the old system (agreed, not enough differentiation between players) and the new one, which is horribly skewed to the elite teams. (And by the way, you're wrong, the old system was most decidedly not tilted toward elite schools ... as you unwittingly pointed out, if anything it was overly tilted to the non-elites, because so many teams, BCS and non-BCS had teams filled with 90+ ratings.)

People are not advocating a return to that old system, just some tweaks to this one -- which has really crippled DI. It should be priority #1. Just bumping up the potential in guys ranked, say, 20-50 or 20-100 at their position would pretty much take care of things.

The recruit generation fix you put into play was overkill, similar to how the five man limit rule was overkill -- and the net result of both was hurting the game.

Girt, regarding the recruit generation, you are correct in that the overhaul a few seasons back hampered mid-majors a great deal. I agree, all else equal recruits need to be fixed. BUT, if you decrease the baseline/conference prestige benefit for a BCS team, won't it help to even out the field do some degree? Maybe even out the $/NT game to be on par with a scholarship (whether its 15K or 20K). Over a few seasons, the BCS v. non-BCS prestige gap will decrease, thus so will the NT money gap (albeit maybe not too far), and allow the better non-BCS teams to sign higher rated recruits?

It may not be noticeable the first season, but after 2-3 years I would think it will start to have an effect.

Plus, if it doesn't, then maybe the recruiting overhaul Seble mentioned today will be ready and can fix any remaining complaints we all have.

I worried that if there is a change to baseline prestige, conference prestige, maybe money, plus recruit generation........then we will go back too far to where we used to be when the BCS teams complained they didn't have enough advantage.

Posted by backboy13 on 5/17/2012 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by m4284850 on 5/17/2012 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 5/17/2012 8:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't play D1, but the 5 player rule really seems like a chainsaw where a butter knife would do just fine.

The suggestion to change scouting trips seems like it wouldn't be a beast to implement.  You don't have to go all the way and allow us to customize our scouting trips, but there is one seemingly-simple change that would knock out about half the issues.

If an attribute starts under 10, never return information in the scouting report.

If my PG recruit has a 1 in rebounding, blocks, and low post, it's crazy to ever report on potential.  If my C has a 1 in PE, it's crazy to report that.

I disagree with your point on the Scouting report for several reasons.
1) What if I find an offensive dynamo is 9 at DEF, if he's high-high he's gonna be 38 DEF which is passable.
2) What if a find a PG who is 5 REB and he's high-high potential he'll end up 33 REB which means he could play SF.
3) What if 2 players are very similar and I just want an attrbute like SPD for a big man, which I would use as my tiebreak for choosing between the players.

What I've seen suggested about the Scouting report issue is- a single attribute scouting trip (you would have to pay more) but for example if you want to find whether your PG is high-high in passing or not, you send a specific scouting trip and it tells you only that attributes potential.

I'm not sure if I'm making this up or not, but I don't remember seeing anyone with a single-digit rating being high, let alone high-high.

This guy came in with a 2 REB rating and was a high-high and now has a 31 REB rating.
http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2099241