The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate - Page 3 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 5 (0)

Hall of Famer

45 9 1

Prospect

I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors, and I'm not forgetting about them either. But the bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit. Granted if you have a higher presitge, closer to him, etc then yes you will have to spend less, and if you have a lower prestige you will have to spend more. So it does technically come down to how much you spend on him.

I'm not trying to say that there should be a "set" certain amount that you have to spend on a recruit to offer him a scholarship. What I guess I'm trying to say is that, I still think the scholarship means alot more then how much you spend. Just like a letter of intent does for a school in real life. And right now, I do not think it holds that much of an emphasis on recruiting a kid in HD.

11/5/2009 10:24 AM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

Quote: Originally Posted By shagnew13 on 11/05/2009
I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors, and I'm not forgetting about them either. But the bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit. Granted if you have a higher presitge, closer to him, etc then yes you will have to spend less, and if you have a lower prestige you will have to spend more. So it does technically come down to how much you spend on him.

I'm not trying to say that there should be a "set" certain amount that you have to spend on a recruit to offer him a scholarship. What I guess I'm trying to say is that, I still think the scholarship means alot more then how much you spend. Just like a letter of intent does for a school in real life. And right now, I do not think it holds that much of an emphasis on recruiting a kid in HD.

It doesn't come down to how much you spend on him. It comes down to the effort involved. 1 home visit is worth much more than the same amount of money spent on phone calls.

11/5/2009 10:41 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Money is absolutely a factor in recruiting but again by saying "bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit" is 100% forgetting about all other factors.

11/5/2009 10:46 AM

shagnew13

Posts: 5 (0)

Hall of Famer

45 9 1

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By acn24 on 11/05/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By shagnew13 on 11/05/2009

I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors, and I'm not forgetting about them either. But the bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit. Granted if you have a higher presitge, closer to him, etc then yes you will have to spend less, and if you have a lower prestige you will have to spend more. So it does technically come down to how much you spend on him.

I'm not trying to say that there should be a "set" certain amount that you have to spend on a recruit to offer him a scholarship. What I guess I'm trying to say is that, I still think the scholarship means alot more then how much you spend. Just like a letter of intent does for a school in real life. And right now, I do not think it holds that much of an emphasis on recruiting a kid in HD.

It doesn't come down to how much you spend on him. It comes down to the effort involved. 1 home visit is worth much more than the same amount of money spent on phone calls.

Granted when it comes to battles for recruits, yes effort does play a huge part, but what I'm saying is that it does basically come down to how much you spend on "said recruit" I know home visit's and campus visit's outweight phone calls and letters.

Like I said I'm no expert at HD, nor do I intend to come off that way, WIS is fun for me, and I have been around for many years. But I hate to see it in the state it is in right now. If anything, my thought, or opinion's were merely me trying to help.

I guess I was way off in my thinking

11/5/2009 10:53 AM

shagnew13

Posts: 5 (0)

Hall of Famer

45 9 1

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/05/2009
Money is absolutely a factor in recruiting but again by saying "bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit" is 100% forgetting about all other factors.

I am not forgetting about the other factors, hence why my post said that if you have a higher prestige you will spend less (less effort), where as if you have a lower prestige (more effort) you will have to spend more.

My post originally wasn't about how much money you had to spend or how much effort was involved. I just wished that a scholarship offer to a recruit, held alot more value when you were recruiting.

11/5/2009 10:57 AM

dalter

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By shagnew13 on 11/05/2009
I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors, and I'm not forgetting about them either. But the bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit. Granted if you have a higher presitge, closer to him, etc then yes you will have to spend less, and if you have a lower prestige you will have to spend more. So it does technically come down to how much you spend on him.

I'm not trying to say that there should be a "set" certain amount that you have to spend on a recruit to offer him a scholarship. What I guess I'm trying to say is that, I still think the scholarship means alot more then how much you spend. Just like a letter of intent does for a school in real life. And right now, I do not think it holds that much of an emphasis on recruiting a kid in HD.

shag, it comes down to effort, not money. And that effort can be hugely multiplied by prestige. It would not be uncommon for a team to spend 2x their opponent and lose a recruit because of distance + prestige factors.

I think you're putting a huge overemphasis on the schollie offer.

11/5/2009 10:59 AM

shagnew13

Posts: 5 (0)

Hall of Famer

45 9 1

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/05/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By shagnew13 on 11/05/2009

I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors, and I'm not forgetting about them either. But the bottom line is that it does come down to how much money you spend on a recruit. Granted if you have a higher presitge, closer to him, etc then yes you will have to spend less, and if you have a lower prestige you will have to spend more. So it does technically come down to how much you spend on him.

I'm not trying to say that there should be a "set" certain amount that you have to spend on a recruit to offer him a scholarship. What I guess I'm trying to say is that, I still think the scholarship means alot more then how much you spend. Just like a letter of intent does for a school in real life. And right now, I do not think it holds that much of an emphasis on recruiting a kid in HD.

shag, it comes down to effort, not money. And that effort can be hugely multiplied by prestige. It would not be uncommon for a team to spend 2x their opponent and lose a recruit because of distance + prestige factors.

I think you're putting a huge overemphasis on the schollie offer.

Alright

11/5/2009 11:01 AM

dalter

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

It's very difficult to try to draw real-life parallels to HD recruiting. The HD system simply looks nothing like real life, because they needed to make a system that would make sense for HD.

So when you're trying to pick out one random item of real life and attempting to fit it into HD recrtuiting, it generally doesn't hold, because there are a dozen other factors from real life that don't exist in the game and sort of obsolute the one random item.

11/5/2009 11:01 AM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By wronoj on 11/05/2009
not really sure the relevance, but if you want to see a PF who can hit some 3s:

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=2434&pid=1299711

well, yeah, okay. i guess you could say he can "hit some threes".

But, from oldavey's perspective, i say he is still underachieving and is proving my point.

freshman year - 2-22 from behind the arc, okay he's a frosh, but 2 for 22? I say there is anti-PF bias at work.

soph year - okay, now we're are talking, right? 42% means he's a sharpshooter...right? i still says no. he is making one 3pointer every other game. not exactly a game changer.

junior year - even better , 43%, and getting a few more shots. but still , making less than one trey per game. and, dont get me wrong, he is still a great player and you are probably using him the most effective way you can given the current engine. but i think if this is one of the best examples we can find... then something aint right.

i think the model that alot of us like to use (for the elite perimeter shooting bigman) is Kevin Pittsnogle, the WVU bigman sharpshooter from 2005ish era. coincidentally, he shot about 41-42% from deep during his career. but the difference is that even in his frosh year, he made nearly two 3pointers per game and by his senior year, was making nearly three treys per game. another way to look at it is that about half of pittsnogles made shots in his senior year were threes. for your guy it is more like 18%.

i guess if i were to defend HD, i gotta admit there are not alot of Pittsnoglish players out there in the real world either. and maybe there have been some here in HD who have overcome the anti-PF bias and been great perimeter players, but i, for one, havent seen such a beast here in HD.

11/5/2009 11:33 AM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/04/2009
http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=6073&pid=1286135

I cannot imagine a much better overall guy that this with some PER, notice he is shooting a fair amount of 3's, at 22%

again, I think there is more needed to be looked at than diversity of ratings, namely, the engine needs to be addressed

and, if we are comparing yokley to pittsnogle, we gotta admit that pittsnoggle is nowhere near 99ath or 70sp or 99LP or 55BH.... and all these things should have made it easier for yokley to get open looks from outside.

in fact, my guess would be that he should get quite a lot of wide open looks,

... cause if he is playing against m2m... who the heck is gonna gaurd this beast? it would almost have to be someone slower and less athletic unless you want him to kill you on the inside. and if you are playing against a zone and assuming that one or two of your gaurds/wingmen can shoot a jumper... adding one of your bigs to the mix would make it darn near impossible to try to cover all them, especially given that he moves so well too.

okay, anyways. carry on....

11/5/2009 11:41 AM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By girt25 on 11/05/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By wronoj on 11/05/2009

not really sure the relevance, but if you want to see a PF who can hit some 3s:

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=2434&pid=1299711

actually... NO YOU DI'INT!

if you look at the comparison above, Pittsnoggle made about three times as many treys as this kid.

this kid is a great all around player, who can shoot fromt he perimeter every now and then, but is mainly an inside player. Pittsnoggle was generally a perimeter player on offense, who could gaurd the interior on Defense.

11/5/2009 11:45 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

davey - i think the 'kill the d1 ratings guys' are looking for low ratings so some guy like yokey can dominate, I am a 'fix the engine guy' so a player like yokey can dominate, the forum fact way of addressing this problem is like curing cancer with open heart surgery, unfortunately, I am positive seble has listened to the vocal majority (minority?) on this issue, I hope I'm wrong

11/5/2009 11:50 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/05/2009davey - i think the 'kill the d1 ratings guys' are looking for low ratings so some guy like yokey can dominate, I am a 'fix the engine guy' so a player like yokey can dominate, the forum fact way of addressing this problem is like curing cancer with open heart surgery, unfortunately, I am positive seble has listened to the vocal majority (minority?) on this issue, I hope I'm wron

OR I completely understand where you are coming from in the sense of the engine needing to be fixed. But I don't understand why you feel so greatly that the slight lowering of player ratings will destroy the game.

11/5/2009 11:52 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

And to be clear OR I have said all along I feel a 5-10% reduction in players starting ratings, while keeping the potentials in line with the way they are today along with the diversifying of recruit generations in the sense that we will start to see guards that can rebound again or PFs that have more then 30 in PER. That way we get more player growth and more ability as coaches to develop our players.

11/5/2009 11:54 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

here is an example: just happenned in world 5, kentucky A+ prestige, 7 open scholies, fires on a near 800, 87% ft shooting big man. I have duke, 3 scholies, A+ too, I put a fairly sizeable amount into the player round 1, kentucky puts more in and player is considering us amoung others (4 teams total).

with only 3 scholies, I am out of there, licking my wounds, and sitting on my mid 20's rated guy, hanging on to my money in case anyone wants to do battle.

last night, I am still ok, so I take a look, a B school has 4 scholies, and is on the #3 and #9 rated players both local for me and him, as well as 2 other mid 30's type guys. he is in a battle for the #3, I figure, what the heck, this is about as good as I am going to get - I go for it - I poached the night before initial signings

When more players were available, it was child's play at the 7pm round 2 to find multiple guys who met your criteria if you were an A+ school - right?

point of all of this, kentucky got his, Duke got theirs, it was the B school, the same guys who thought all these battles would help them who got sqeezed out (I don't know if he will win the battle for #3, the FSS says struggling to decide yet) I have long said the ratings fix is only going to make the rich get richer, the battles everyone predicted will not happen among the A+'s, it is going to happen between the a's and the b's, and the b's and the c's, only difference is those b'c and c's aren't going to be getting 90 lp 90 reb 90 def big men to compete with like they do today

Also, noone knows how the lower ratings will affect the engine. what we do know is when ratings went thru the roof on the initial implementation of FSS, that the engine essentially blew a gasket, causing a significant reduction in the number of veteran game players

11/5/2009 12:07 PM

Forums

The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

Search Criteria