Depends on what you mean by recruit generation.

Are you talking about the locations a recruit generates, or their ratings?

I actually disagree with the majority about recruit generation. The majority opinion, I think, is that there are to few high quality (90+ core players) d1 players. I think there are to many. If there was less than 10 guys each season that maxed out in their cores at 90+ Then those guys would truly dominate. It used to be that there were way more, which gave midmajors a chance, and they tried to reduce them but I don't think they went far enough.

It's one way or the other Trenton but at La Salle, I could not recruit the talent to compete... I was surrounded by higher prestige teams and talented mid-majors. In this game, you have to feel you can improve and do something to win.

That's why I like the beta, the top recruits are no longer guaranteed to the highest, local prestige school.

Posted by zorzii on 7/25/2016 7:56:00 AM (view original):
It's one way or the other Trenton but at La Salle, I could not recruit the talent to compete... I was surrounded by higher prestige teams and talented mid-majors. In this game, you have to feel you can improve and do something to win.

That's a tough location, but recruit inflation isn't an answer.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/25/2016 6:44:00 AM (view original):
I actually disagree with the majority about recruit generation. The majority opinion, I think, is that there are to few high quality (90+ core players) d1 players. I think there are to many. If there was less than 10 guys each season that maxed out in their cores at 90+ Then those guys would truly dominate. It used to be that there were way more, which gave midmajors a chance, and they tried to reduce them but I don't think they went far enough.

agreed the game needs waaaaaay less top quality recruits a majority of rercuits should have cores in the upper 70's and low 80's. Make those upper 80 low 90 guys extremely important and valuable. right now having a stud means nothing because you need a starting lineup and bench of studs to be good. guys with 95+ cores everywhere should appear like once ever 10 seasons or so

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/25/2016 6:44:00 AM (view original):
I actually disagree with the majority about recruit generation. The majority opinion, I think, is that there are to few high quality (90+ core players) d1 players. I think there are to many. If there was less than 10 guys each season that maxed out in their cores at 90+ Then those guys would truly dominate. It used to be that there were way more, which gave midmajors a chance, and they tried to reduce them but I don't think they went far enough.

trent the beta changes will help a great deal

But, worse case, if all recruits, all levels were identical (again, worse case) and there were as many out there as teams needed, then recruiting would matter zero.

On the other end of the spectrum, is how the game is now vs when the game was closer to the other extreme defined in the sentence above. This made recruiting more important.

IMO the game would be stronger, if recruiting mattered less, such that when a coach missed on a special recruit, a recruit at 80% - 90% of special still was there, rather than 50-75% of special, which is how it now seems.

Again, the change to recruit generation was too severe last time. It's funny, I think the reduction in recruit values was a decent enough idea last time in hindsight (still too severe, but not as awful as it seemed at the time). What really sucked was the substantial increase on the top end and the unintended consequence of how the super teams in the super conferences would be able to get, often with no competition, 3 or 4 of the top 10-50 recruits nationally. And to finish, the beta engine appears to now spread those top end guys around, such that a few teams in 1-2 conferences won't get 75% of the top players, or the super players. Hence the new beta should fix some of the recruit generation issues.

The big problem with the new beta, it is quite confusing, clunky to enact transactions, like atten points, which of ten need to be changed each cycle, and is overall quite time consuming, as plan A,B and C need to be in place, and one has to follow recruiting quite closely, as guys will sign at any cycle, which can completely change the strategy for the coach. But on the flip side, for those who like to spend time on this game, there is lots of opportunity to do so, as the new game has several layers of the onion added, some of which may not even be apparent yet to those playing the beta game.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/25/2016 6:44:00 AM (view original):
I actually disagree with the majority about recruit generation. The majority opinion, I think, is that there are to few high quality (90+ core players) d1 players. I think there are to many. If there was less than 10 guys each season that maxed out in their cores at 90+ Then those guys would truly dominate. It used to be that there were way more, which gave midmajors a chance, and they tried to reduce them but I don't think they went far enough.

Can I agree with this?

Posted by oldresorter on 7/25/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/25/2016 6:44:00 AM (view original):
I actually disagree with the majority about recruit generation. The majority opinion, I think, is that there are to few high quality (90+ core players) d1 players. I think there are to many. If there was less than 10 guys each season that maxed out in their cores at 90+ Then those guys would truly dominate. It used to be that there were way more, which gave midmajors a chance, and they tried to reduce them but I don't think they went far enough.

trent the beta changes will help a great deal

But, worse case, if all recruits, all levels were identical (again, worse case) and there were as many out there as teams needed, then recruiting would matter zero.

On the other end of the spectrum, is how the game is now vs when the game was closer to the other extreme defined in the sentence above. This made recruiting more important.

IMO the game would be stronger, if recruiting mattered less, such that when a coach missed on a special recruit, a recruit at 80% - 90% of special still was there, rather than 50-75% of special, which is how it now seems.

Again, the change to recruit generation was too severe last time. It's funny, I think the reduction in recruit values was a decent enough idea last time in hindsight (still too severe, but not as awful as it seemed at the time). What really sucked was the substantial increase on the top end and the unintended consequence of how the super teams in the super conferences would be able to get, often with no competition, 3 or 4 of the top 10-50 recruits nationally. And to finish, the beta engine appears to now spread those top end guys around, such that a few teams in 1-2 conferences won't get 75% of the top players, or the super players. Hence the new beta should fix some of the recruit generation issues.

The big problem with the new beta, it is quite confusing, clunky to enact transactions, like atten points, which of ten need to be changed each cycle, and is overall quite time consuming, as plan A,B and C need to be in place, and one has to follow recruiting quite closely, as guys will sign at any cycle, which can completely change the strategy for the coach. But on the flip side, for those who like to spend time on this game, there is lots of opportunity to do so, as the new game has several layers of the onion added, some of which may not even be apparent yet to those playing the beta game.

And with this as well?

Posted by the0nlyis on 7/25/2016 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/25/2016 6:44:00 AM (view original):
I actually disagree with the majority about recruit generation. The majority opinion, I think, is that there are to few high quality (90+ core players) d1 players. I think there are to many. If there was less than 10 guys each season that maxed out in their cores at 90+ Then those guys would truly dominate. It used to be that there were way more, which gave midmajors a chance, and they tried to reduce them but I don't think they went far enough.

agreed the game needs waaaaaay less top quality recruits a majority of rercuits should have cores in the upper 70's and low 80's. Make those upper 80 low 90 guys extremely important and valuable. right now having a stud means nothing because you need a starting lineup and bench of studs to be good. guys with 95+ cores everywhere should appear like once ever 10 seasons or so

This. the0nly's suggest would be a dramatic over-correction, but changing this would obviate the need to do most of the Beta changes. The need is to separate out the *Initial* & *Potential* ratings. HD could generate a handful of guys each season with the *Potential* to rise to 95+ cores, but with lower *Initial* ratings and random WE. Still, the total number with max *Potential* players is far too high. There just is no gap between the elite and the second tier players for Big6 teams.

The result...Big 6 teams do not battle one another for a recruit with sufficient frequency to drain their budgets. Thereafter, the teams that avoided battles until signing have substantial resources left to dump resources on a single recruit at the signing cycle...or...carry it over. So, the problem isn't carryover or poaching or sniping or whatever you want to call it, it's that there is no scarcity of top tier talent to compel a battle for that difference-making recruit among the top of Big 6. Admittedly, those battles, in the current climate, open you up to being destroyed. So, everyone is turned risk-averse.

The Beta is an attempt to handle this the other way, by making battles more attractive by hiding who is in what battle and limiting budgets. If you cannot see who is in a battle and calculate how much budget they have remaining, then you cannot take advantage. However, the other side is certainly to make the very top talent more scarce and making the median D1 player's *Initial* and *Potential* ratings slightly lower OVR.

So basically, I need to change my point of view. Playing in D1 made me think that I need more talent... So when I get a player who seems utterly worthless in D1, maybe he won't be in BETA.

IMO the top end of recruit generation needs to be pulled down a notch, and the rest of recruiting generation needs to be pulled up a notch. Not severely by any means, just a bit. The 800 guy needs to be 760. The 600 level guy(s)should be 636, 650 more like 670, 700 maybe stays at 700, 750 drops to 735 etc.

and the overlap in talent between D1-2-3 should be gone

you shouldn't have recruits generated at D1 that are terrible D3 players there really seems to be like 20% of recruits are absolute dogshit for a D3 team.

The whole thing of he's higher rated because he has higher cores when he has 10 ath 40 spd 50 reb 50 def 60 blk 40 lp 50 per 30 bh 30 pas 75 we 85 sta 80 dur with all red but 600 overall starting rating and then a guy with cores of 25 ath 60 spd 1 reb 40 def 1 sb 1 lp 50 per 60 bh 40 pas 60 we 70 sta 50 dur 458 overall and blues in ath/spd/def/per/pas/sta is a D3 player.

I'd really love recruit generation to be based on the combined starting/final rating because when recruits are genreated they have a "max" rating so something like a 60-40 weight on those so that we are looking more at potential and not just their starting ratings when rating.

The worst D1 recruits should be good/average D2 players and great/good D3 players no utterly terrible at every division.
D2 and D3 should have very few players that max out looking like upper division players.

It would entirely scale back ratings at D2/D3 but sims would also be more competitive as they would end up signing the said 10 ath guy whose rated #50 that no even an above average D3 coach would sign. D3 would get much more creative as you would really never get those 50 ath 80 spd guys and are looking at guys with ratings like 30 ath 60 spd being very high on the spectrum for ath/spd at that levels.