Posted by zorzii on 7/29/2015 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Rogelio : what is the problem with D1 recruit generation? D1 job logic and the other change, I am all in favor.
If you look through the top D1 teams, you'll find that there are WAY too many elite post players generated in the game. Think about IRL and how you would place players on a scale of 1-100 in each category. How many 90+ across the board PFs & Cs would you figure? There may be 3 on Kentucky each year (if they stuck around for a couple seasons to develop), but otherwise there might be 6 or 7 total.
What would Jahlil Okafor be? 85 ATH, 80 REB, 75 DEF, 70 SB, 100 LP? Each Big 6 conference has about 10 guys better than that. How many M2M defensive teams have all players with 96+ DEF ratings and 96+ ATH IRL??? Any? In HD there are like 5 or 6 in each world.
Obviously the numbers don't mean much except in relation to each other, but too many recruits are elite. If the game ratings were distributed properly, then, for instance, you might have good D3 players with overall core ratings (ATH, DEF) ~= 50; D2 ~= 65; D1 ~= 80, but there would be a few players that are separate. There would never be whole teams in the 95+ range. Further, remember that if the recruits start very high, then who cares about scouting! FSS is plenty if the initial rating is over 73. Scouting is irrelevant!
So, that's just one take on it. The engine wouldn't need to be fixed, but there needs to be a lot fewer elite level recruits. The simulation would handle it and the recruiting budgets of top-tier schools would get blown fighting over that scarce resource. If players looked relatively similar, then a few with dramatic potential could be hidden in among them as well. Those might get overlooked (maybe) and go to mid-major schools. You never know.