D1 Recruit: Acceptable? Topic

kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by cornfused on 12/17/2010 3:13:00 AM (view original):
Well, for starters, he's got 2 years left, not three.  Still a nice d3 signing, though.
Not when you get him to accept a RS, which is a whole other problem.
12/17/2010 3:46 AM
tikinyg
Posts: 7 (0)
Prospect
2 1
Prospect
You don't seem to have a D1 team, at least under that ID. 
Was the question just a joke because you're that good?
Hope you weren't using an upperlevel team under a different ID to FSS for CMHMS.  That would be kind of bogus.
12/17/2010 2:00 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by tikinyg on 12/17/2010 2:00:00 PM (view original):
You don't seem to have a D1 team, at least under that ID. 
Was the question just a joke because you're that good?
Hope you weren't using an upperlevel team under a different ID to FSS for CMHMS.  That would be kind of bogus.
Nice accusation
12/17/2010 3:14 PM
aejones
Posts: 457 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 374
Veteran
tikiny look in this thread, i signed the guy at my d3 school

i actually used enough money on him to get the *very* tight FSS message, which is the first time i've ever gotten that in probably 100 d3 seasons.
12/17/2010 3:55 PM
tikinyg
Posts: 7 (0)
Prospect
2 1
Prospect
Posted by aejones on 12/17/2010 3:55:00 PM (view original):
tikiny look in this thread, i signed the guy at my d3 school

i actually used enough money on him to get the *very* tight FSS message, which is the first time i've ever gotten that in probably 100 d3 seasons.
Exactly my point... You're thread starts out asking if he is good at D1 and that you aren't very experienced at D1.  Then you signed him at D3.  It seems that either you were just goofing around and bragging that you could sign a D1 caliber player at D3 (perfectly fine to brag, it was a great signing) or you though about signing him to your D1 team, then changed your mind and got him with your D3 team, which is a bit questionable.
12/17/2010 4:10 PM
aejones
Posts: 457 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 374
Veteran
if you were ever in one of my conferences, you'd know it was starting this thread to brag...
12/17/2010 5:17 PM
brip87
Posts: 421 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1
Prospect
Posted by aejones on 12/17/2010 5:17:00 PM (view original):
if you were ever in one of my conferences, you'd know it was starting this thread to brag...
12/17/2010 6:10 PM
tikinyg
Posts: 7 (0)
Prospect
2 1
Prospect
Ok then :-)  I'm all for creative bragging.
12/17/2010 6:45 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
i take it another way. to me, if a d3 is signing a player people think is acceptable for a mid major, then clearly, the player differentiation between levels is not nearly severe enough. not even close. but, i guess ive harped on that enough lately, so ill stop now.
12/18/2010 12:23 PM
aejones
Posts: 457 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 374
Veteran
yea, i guess that might be true... but, is it?

i have had a few d3 players that could have played d1. i mean maybe not starters at big6 schools, but really good players at mid majors. i have one on my d3 phelan team right now that (next year, when he's a senior) can really start for 85% of d1 schools and be a productive player. 

so, how far off is that in real life? i don't think it's that far. 

my buddy coaches in d2, they lost to an NAIA school the other day, and he said they had a kid who could play just about anywhere-- d2, some mid majors in d1, etc. there are kids in d2 who could play d1 but wind up going d2 for PT or whatever. a little more rare at d3, but there are a ton of late bloomers or guys that fall through the cracks (maybe off the court issues, grades, etc.).

basically, nowadays more kids are playing basketball at high levels for longer. everyone is playing aau for their entire career, playing bball year round, prep high schools are basically recruiting kids... it's a bit deal. so, there's a TON of parity. i don't think it's absurd to think that a solid d1 starter winds up playing d3. 



12/19/2010 12:18 AM
gillispie
Posts: 1766 (0)
Hall of Famer
116
Rookie
aejones - i can see what you mean, but i think recruit generation is far enough away from real life that i am not too concerned with if it is realistic. seble's whole deal with the recruit generation was to create separation in the recruiting pool, to create more potential, and to create a wider variation in players. i am fine with that goal, i just feel it is poorly executed. the only separation created was between the very best players that elite schools target and the next tier down, like the top 3-5 players nationally per position. then its just a madhouse after that.

i also think it is bad for the game to have a situation where there are X players who could go to d3 who could be ridiculously good there (i.e. acceptable d1 players) and have a 95% chance on each of them that a higher division school takes them. similarly with d2. it seems stupid to have that much luck involved, from the perspective of the lower division school. if 5 d2 schools each had 1 such player in their area and 4 went to d1, the other guy basically just got really lucky. sure, he has to recognize it and execute, but it is just not a system that appeals to me in the slightest to have so much of the outcome of a school's success based on the actions of the local higher division schools.
12/20/2010 11:29 AM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I think the reason this happens now is because of the emptiness of some of the worlds. So you get more guys than you should that end up at lower levels because good coaches took a chance. Where if every division in every world was 100% full you wouldn't see a guy like this in D3, he'd either be at a low D1 or D2. Because D2 in Knight is probably less than 50% and D1 is probably only slighltly fuller and probably only about 20% at the lower levels you get a an aggressive recruiter like Jones at a D3 school who takes the risk and puts half his budget into this guy and gets him.

The divide you are asking for billy doesn't exist in real life and I don't think should exist in this game, it seems silly to have low D1 players look a ton better than high D2 players (which it seems is what you want) when there shouldn't be a major difference considering it's only a small step up. Really good D2 teams in real life are often filled with guys who either had D1 offers but because of grades or personal issues went D2 or were in D1 schools and transferred to D2 or had injuries at D1 that forced them down to D2. There are many high level D2 schools that are better than lower D1 schools for this very reason. What I get from your post is that you want the worst D1 team to be clearly better than the best D2 team and the worst D2 team to be clearly better than the best D3 team. Correct me if I'm wrong.
12/20/2010 6:40 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect

I also think your example of 4 players of comparable talent going to D1 while 1 goes to a lower level is something that should absolutely happen in recruiting. If there are 5 players who are deemed a low level player at D1 but an elite player at D2 who is to say everytime all 5 should go D1? It's incredibly unrealistic to think otherwise. Sometimes of that 5 only 2 may go D1, team needs also factor into things. Luck is a part of recruiting saying that it shouldn't be is wrong. Take Elliot Williams for example after his freshman year he left Duke because his mother was sick he got an exemption because of that and was able to play right away at Memphis and his mother recovered. How lucky was Memphis that this happened? There are many more examples of a sequence of events leading to 1 school signing a player that could be looked at as lucky like Player A really wants to go to UNC but Player B commits to UNC and plays the same position so UNC stops pursuing Player A and because of that Wake Forrest signs him but had Player A had gone to UNC Wake Forrest would've had to settle for a player who wasn't nearly as good because Player B had 0 interest in Wake.

12/20/2010 7:03 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Sure, but you're talking about going from Duke to Memphis, not Duke to DIII.

I don't think billyg is suggesting that thing have to be exactly linear, and that the worst DI team has to be better than the best DII team. I don't get that from his post at all.

He's commenting on an overall situation where there is very, very little overall separation from mid-level DI recruits on down. It's absolutely realistic and sensible for occasional guys to slip through the cracks, and for occasionally there to be legit DI players at the lower levels. But right now in HD it's incredibly commonplace and at times the two are virtually indistinguishable. That's not only unrealistic and undesirable, but it's not even what seble's intent was.
12/20/2010 7:29 PM
gillispie
Posts: 1766 (0)
Hall of Famer
116
Rookie
kmason - i don't think that it needs to be linear, i would always expect the best d2 teams to be better than crappy d1 teams. and i don't expect that d2 teams won't end up with guys who could play on mid major d1 teams - especially when they get lucky on high/high potentials.

but if you think about all the examples you gave - injury, grades, probation, etc. the reality of the situation is that the guy wound up not being able to go to the d1 school he wanted and for whatever reason fell back on a d2 school. its not like from the get go, a serious d1 school was battling a d2 school for the guy. extraneous issues exempted, you pretty much would never expect to see something like that. but in HD, you do. that is the problem i have. i don't like to regularly see guys considering a d2 school and sign at a b to a- prestige big 6 school. the overlap in targets does not exist anything like that in real life.
12/20/2010 8:27 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
D1 Recruit: Acceptable? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.