Posted by Iguana1 on 7/28/2010 7:24:00 PM (view original):
what's the sadsack SF's WE?

because he may end up somewhere around these numbers.
85-90    ATH
40-50+  SPD
55-65+  REB
63-68    LP
21-31+  PER
15-22    BH
 1- 5      PAS
60-70+  STA

could be a decent PF ( if he has a decent DEF?)  if some of those "high" potential categories are "really-high" which would allow him to gain 30-40 points. 
I have a D2 PF with numbers close to this putting up 10+ pts a game.

I think for a DII team this is a really good PF.  With his ATH/SPD, if he has good DE/SB, he could win CDPOY a couple of times, especially on a DII press team.  From what I've seen recruiting at high DII schools, he's probably already on a DII screen, which seems right.

This is a classic, typical WIS overcorrection. My main point was, I'm not sure I'll ever stop comparing these recruits to the ones that used to be in the game before.

Why?

because the old recruits were so much more talented than a lot of the dreck that's out there now. There are very few quality players now, for many of the aforementioned reasons in this thread. I'm at D1 now...I couldn't imagine playing D2/D3 under the current recruit format.

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 10:59:00 AM (view original):
because the old recruits were so much more talented than a lot of the dreck that's out there now. There are very few quality players now, for many of the aforementioned reasons in this thread. I'm at D1 now...I couldn't imagine playing D2/D3 under the current recruit format.

I'm coaching D2 right now, and based on what I've read on the forums I can't imagine coaching D1 under the current recruit generation (just saying)

I'm at a D prestiged D1, but I got much better recruits under the old format when I was a C/C+ at D2. Going from what it was to what it is was a HUGE step and will take a lot of time to get used to. If anyone wanted to quit because the recruits are "too different" I wouldn't blame them. FWIW, I also think that D2 is the best division to play this game at as well, given my experience.

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 10:59:00 AM (view original):
because the old recruits were so much more talented than a lot of the dreck that's out there now. There are very few quality players now, for many of the aforementioned reasons in this thread. I'm at D1 now...I couldn't imagine playing D2/D3 under the current recruit format.

i think issues with the new recruits are far worse at DI than in DII/DIII -- at least in DIII, all the recruits are equally crappy (and in my one season of DIII recruiting since the changeover, i actually liked a lot of guys). 

the problem in DI is that there a pool of about 50/75 studs (tops), and everyone else sucks -- once the old recruits cycle out, there is going to be a tremendous gap between the haves and the have-nots.  under the old regime, everyone was rated 90+, but there was a reasonable amount of parity -- i'm afraid that with the new recruit generation, that parity will be long gone.

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I'm at a D prestiged D1, but I got much better recruits under the old format when I was a C/C+ at D2. Going from what it was to what it is was a HUGE step and will take a lot of time to get used to. If anyone wanted to quit because the recruits are "too different" I wouldn't blame them. FWIW, I also think that D2 is the best division to play this game at as well, given my experience.

judging by the one guy you recruited, people are still getting equal/better at C+ d2 teams

Posted by pinkeye on 7/29/2010 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I'm at a D prestiged D1, but I got much better recruits under the old format when I was a C/C+ at D2. Going from what it was to what it is was a HUGE step and will take a lot of time to get used to. If anyone wanted to quit because the recruits are "too different" I wouldn't blame them. FWIW, I also think that D2 is the best division to play this game at as well, given my experience.

judging by the one guy you recruited, people are still getting equal/better at C+ d2 teams

I get better guys with my d3 team.

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 10:59:00 AM (view original):
because the old recruits were so much more talented than a lot of the dreck that's out there now. There are very few quality players now, for many of the aforementioned reasons in this thread. I'm at D1 now...I couldn't imagine playing D2/D3 under the current recruit format.

'Talented' and 'quality players'; are relative terms.

What constituted a quality player among the old recruits is completely, utterly and in all ways irrelevant in the new recruits.  It has no bearing.  None at all.

Posted by tkimble on 7/29/2010 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 7/29/2010 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I'm at a D prestiged D1, but I got much better recruits under the old format when I was a C/C+ at D2. Going from what it was to what it is was a HUGE step and will take a lot of time to get used to. If anyone wanted to quit because the recruits are "too different" I wouldn't blame them. FWIW, I also think that D2 is the best division to play this game at as well, given my experience.

judging by the one guy you recruited, people are still getting equal/better at C+ d2 teams

I get better guys with my d3 team.

He's got high potentials everywhere and I spent a ton of money on a SR transfer that I didn't get, but yes, he's rather subpar...I hope he shapes up...the 99 WE was attractive with all the high potentials. We'll see.

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 10:59:00 AM (view original):
because the old recruits were so much more talented than a lot of the dreck that's out there now. There are very few quality players now, for many of the aforementioned reasons in this thread. I'm at D1 now...I couldn't imagine playing D2/D3 under the current recruit format.

it just so happens every team had a bunch of blake griffins and ray allens.

I'd rather play a game with too many talented players than not enough.

THat is only true if you define talente3d as "Having the numbers they had under the old system" rather than "Better than the norm of ratings"

 

Posted by colonels19 on 7/29/2010 1:50:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather play a game with too many talented players than not enough.

sure, except the definition of "talented" has changed, obviously.