Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ARomano on 7/13/2010 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I think the lack of good guards for mid-majors is troublesome.  There are just none left that are worthy of actually being recruited by a B- or so prestige school in a weak conference.  Too many SG's with poor Ball handling, speed and perimeter and too many with high potential in rebounding, shot blocking at low post when their initial ratings are in single digits.  Pretty useless to have high potential in shot blocking at the guard position when your starting at 1...

what used to be "poor" ball handling is most likely not "poor" anymore

guards with 40 bh and low potential are still "poor"     

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 7/13/2010 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/13/2010 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you need to increase potentials. The days of the 100/100/100 core rating guys are over for all the top BCS schools. Some still will have some at 100, but at the same time an important one might be maxed out at 70. I think this is a good change. It was hard in div II to recruit just because I was so use to getting great players so easy. They still will be great players, but they will have some weaknesses. I will have to have another one have a strength as his weakness and so on. You finally have to build an actual team.

I completely agree with your thoughts.

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/13/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ARomano on 7/13/2010 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I think the lack of good guards for mid-majors is troublesome.  There are just none left that are worthy of actually being recruited by a B- or so prestige school in a weak conference.  Too many SG's with poor Ball handling, speed and perimeter and too many with high potential in rebounding, shot blocking at low post when their initial ratings are in single digits.  Pretty useless to have high potential in shot blocking at the guard position when your starting at 1...

what used to be "poor" ball handling is most likely not "poor" anymore

guards with 40 bh and low potential are still "poor"     

In todays HD yeah. Keep in mind, 50 is 'average' on a scale of 1-100. So, hes slightly below average. Is it really that uncommon to have a guard who is average or slightly below average in a core? 

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/13/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ARomano on 7/13/2010 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I think the lack of good guards for mid-majors is troublesome.  There are just none left that are worthy of actually being recruited by a B- or so prestige school in a weak conference.  Too many SG's with poor Ball handling, speed and perimeter and too many with high potential in rebounding, shot blocking at low post when their initial ratings are in single digits.  Pretty useless to have high potential in shot blocking at the guard position when your starting at 1...

what used to be "poor" ball handling is most likely not "poor" anymore

guards with 40 bh and low potential are still "poor"     

In todays HD yeah. Keep in mind, 50 is 'average' on a scale of 1-100. So, hes slightly below average. Is it really that uncommon to have a guard who is average or slightly below average in a core? 

Posted by dknox on 7/13/2010 11:06:00 PM (view original):
In the upcoming Tark pool, there are 8 PGs with a rating of 80 in BH; 9 with 80 in Passing; but 27 with 80 in PERIMETER. That's just weird, not what you see in real life, and in this case I don't see where it helps the game. Most PGs being generated are in the 50-60 range in BH/PS. Overall, for a couple of seasons (until the upperclassmen graduate) the disparity is going to be very frustrating for most DI coaches. And the battle for the handful of good PGs will be bloody, leading to very poor recruiting classes with multiple walk-ons for mid-majors and also-rans in elite conferences.

Posted by daalter on 7/13/2010 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/13/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ARomano on 7/13/2010 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I think the lack of good guards for mid-majors is troublesome.  There are just none left that are worthy of actually being recruited by a B- or so prestige school in a weak conference.  Too many SG's with poor Ball handling, speed and perimeter and too many with high potential in rebounding, shot blocking at low post when their initial ratings are in single digits.  Pretty useless to have high potential in shot blocking at the guard position when your starting at 1...

what used to be "poor" ball handling is most likely not "poor" anymore

guards with 40 bh and low potential are still "poor"     

In todays HD yeah. Keep in mind, 50 is 'average' on a scale of 1-100. So, hes slightly below average. Is it really that uncommon to have a guard who is average or slightly below average in a core? 

That's terrible logic. Wow.

50 is in the middle of 1 and 100, but that doesn't mean it's average in any way, shape or form. And it's very obviously not even close to average when talking about DI guards.

Your arguing against needing fewer low potential players focuses mostly on higher DI, and that's not really where the problem is. No one is advocating that we should go back to having a bunch of 90-100 ratings everywhere. But in low/mid DI and below, it's a problem. Potential is a sea of red right now -- tons of low. There is a very obvious happy medium between this set-up and teams full of 100 ratings -- and that's what we should be striving for.

Posted by asher413 on 7/13/2010 11:24:00 PM (view original):
I just don't think you can judge recruit generation until a full 5 seasons have passed, and only NEW recruits are in the game.  The transition is very akward, yes, but until the new baselines have been established for all classes, you can't quite pass judgement on if it worked or didn't.

But that's just little ol' been to DI twice me.

Posted by coolman97865 on 7/13/2010 11:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the process of recruiting between WIS and RL can really be compared. 

Posted by hughesjr on 7/14/2010 12:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by coolman97865 on 7/13/2010 11:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the process of recruiting between WIS and RL can really be compared. 

I think the local team has too much of a money advantage.

What I think they  could do is make the cost much closer regardless of distance ... and have the recruits that balance between these:

"wants to play close to home", "wants to play for a great team", "wants playing time", "does not care about distance at all"

maybe some more categories...

I mean, there are some guys who grow up in Kentucky or North Carolina, and if the home team offers a scholly. they are taking it no matter what.  The home team money advantage is good for this kind of player.  There are others like Terrance Jones.  Local means nothing .. they want a big time program.  Prestige means everything to them.

Not sure how we take it into account, but there needs to be some variance in this IMHO.

Posted by dknox on 7/13/2010 11:06:00 PM (view original):
In the upcoming Tark pool, there are 8 PGs with a rating of 80 in BH; 9 with 80 in Passing; but 27 with 80 in PERIMETER. That's just weird, not what you see in real life, and in this case I don't see where it helps the game. Most PGs being generated are in the 50-60 range in BH/PS. Overall, for a couple of seasons (until the upperclassmen graduate) the disparity is going to be very frustrating for most DI coaches. And the battle for the handful of good PGs will be bloody, leading to very poor recruiting classes with multiple walk-ons for mid-majors and also-rans in elite conferences.

1. SG
2. SG
3. PG
4. SG
5. PG
6. PG
7. PF
8. SG
9. SF
10. SG
11. PG
12. PG
13. PF
14. PG
15. PG
16. PG
17. PG
18. PG
19. PG
20. PF
21. PG
22. PG
23. SG
24. PG
25. PG 

Posted by hughesjr on 7/13/2010 11:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by asher413 on 7/13/2010 11:24:00 PM (view original):
I just don't think you can judge recruit generation until a full 5 seasons have passed, and only NEW recruits are in the game.  The transition is very akward, yes, but until the new baselines have been established for all classes, you can't quite pass judgement on if it worked or didn't.

But that's just little ol' been to DI twice me.

I agree with you ... and it might even take a little longer than that due to prestige effects.

If there are few superstars and if lots of them leave early, and if the A+ guys are battling more for those superstars and take on more walkons, and if that allows some other recruits to drop from the top to some of the lower guys, then it can work.

Do they have the balance exactly right?  Probably not.  Is it a good concept?  I think so.  It may need some tweaks.

SBU (A+) Iowa State (A) UCLA (A) just had a spectacular recruiting battle for an overseas recruit.... that's what i like to see!