Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/14/2010 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Funny, I agree with what Dave is saying, but I also agree with Cbriese.  What we really need to know (with actual numbers, not blanket statements) is how many D1 schools have lost human coaches in the last couple of seasons (BCS, mid-major, and low level).  My gut says that Dave is correct, but without actual numbers to back it up (this is where I agree with Breezy), we're all just whistling in the wind.

Personally, I have 3 ID's and between the 3, I'll be dropping 4 teams in the next month or so.  That's not a guess or an estimate, that's a fact.  Of the 4, 1 is a BCS school, 1 would be considered a mid-major, and 2 are low level.  I have varying reasons for dropping the teams, but I can assure you the reasons have all been listed somewhere in this thread.

I seem to remember a thread somewhere that tracked this type of info year-over-year. Is it still around?

I think it was either Mully or Fussyd who was keeping track of it, but I haven't seen that thread in a loooooong time.  It's probably gone by now.  Almost sure it was Mully who was updating it.  I don't even know if he's still around.

Posted by girt25 on 8/14/2010 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/14/2010 1:38:00 PM (view original):
OMG, people just need to adjust. People are too caught up in comparing new recruits to the old recruits, you guys need to realize old recruits do not matter anymore. A good recruit in the old engine is not the same as a good recruit now. Lower your standards, 80 passing point guards in D1 are now not terrible, and you aren't at a disadvantage by having them because everybody else will have them also. Change your standards, I know people hate change but it's for the better. I remember when everybody complained that every top team had guys with 99 in every important category and now that that will no longer be the case people want to complain that the recruits aren't good enough. I guess instead of 99s people wanted the recruits to be 95s across the board. The fact is guys with 95+ ratings should be elite players not dime a dozen players and now we have that. People wanted the chance to have elite guys well now you do, if you're lucky enough to get a guy who ends up being 95+ in a few categories he will stand out rather then just be 1 of the guys on your team with great ratings.

blazor, this post is why the title of the thread and your initial post badly need to be cleaned up and corrected.

kmason, his point is not that recruits have lower starting values across the board. I have seen very few people upset about that fact, and many people, myself included, who think it's good (for the reason you mentioned).

The problem isn't the lower starting ratings. The problem is the fact that there is now an incredibly large gulf between the really good recruits and everyone else. The drop is extremely precipitous. And when you couple that with the fact that there are now more than 2x as many low potential categories as before, which prevents the inferior recruits from catching up, it is leading to a major problem in DI.

(This is very clearly manifesting itself already in Allen. Over the last three seasons, an average of 11.5 non-BCS teams were in the top 25 in rpi. This season there are just six. Bad, bad news.)

I don't think the gap the you and others have spoken of exists. I think the problem is people don't look hard enough. You don't need to sign a top 200 player, you can get a guy who is ranked 120th at his position and he can turn out to be very good. The lower ranked guys have a ton of potential, they may take a couple of years to become quality D1 players but they will still become that.

Because the D1 schools seem not to look that low at recruits D2 schools like the one I have in Phelan are getting the chance to grab some serious studs. On that Bryant team I have 2 freshman and a sophomore who will all likely end up with or close to 90+ speed and 90+ per with solid ratings in other areas. Those are D1 quality players but because D1 coaches have grown accustomed to only looking at the top 50 or so players at each position I got these guys without any opposition.

These are the 3 players I'm referring to:
http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1597797

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1622292

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1597796

These guys are out there you just have to be a bit more poractive in your search.

Posted by aejones on 8/14/2010 4:42:00 PM (view original):
The bottomline is that no one here is going to agree with you because this is the change that everyone was clamoring about (variance in recruit generation).

I actually think there are a number of folks that will agree that a change needs to be made. I don't happen to be among them, but I respect that they hold those views. like, dcy has said, just show me the data. I can bring in anecdotal evidence like the latest recruiting round in X world included 23 (of 25) teams from Big 6 conferences. But that is a single data point. To truly evaluate the change, you have to be patient. If you try to make too many changes too fast, you have no way of telling which ones work and which ones fail.

Posted by vandydave on 8/14/2010 3:25:00 PM (view original):
obviously im for. i really dont get how anyone who cares about the good of the game as a whole could be against fixing this. for all those who are arguing that we all just need to wait and adapt, are you going to be happy with even more empty mid and low level d1 conferences because the change was made so drastically that coaches leave the game in droves? im not arguing for all 90+ players as it was before the change, but i am arguing for a mid point between where we were before and where we are now. to fail to do so will be the single most negative impact on d1 in the history of HD.

FOR
I'm genuinely surprised at how many are against.  My brethren have enunciated many reasons for change, but I'm most taken by the lack of talented players (in the NYC, New England area) and the point about highly ranked big men with ridiculously low key skills, like 54 REB or 46 LP.  That's just silly.

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by blazor on 8/14/2010 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Against, of course. The new recruit diversity at D1 is, in my opinion the best thing that has happened to HD in a long time. I love it. It is why I am actually adding teams, after having dropped all of them.

Cbriese, if you prefer the change, of course that's fine.  But remember, you may not think very much of it if too many of your fellow owners keep folding up shop and quitting.  Have you stopped to look at some of the other conferences in D1 other than your own?  Far too many of them are almost completely empty.  A trend that very well may not stop if a change is not made.  Just saying.

Please provide the statistical evidence to support the theory that the recent change in recruit generation has already contributed to reduced numbers in various conferences across divisions in all WIS worlds. Please extrapolate the data to show the results in three month periods if a change is not made. Please differentiate the effects from this change as compared to the effects from other changes in the game. Please account for seasonal fluctuation, adjustments in marketing strategies, and historical retention rates. And, as any high school math teacher will remind you, please show your work.

When you have done that, then we can have an intelligent discussion. Until then, everything anyone (including me) says will happen is merely speculation. If you are good at that, please tell me what the DJIA will finish at next Friday, August 20. That's only a week away; you should have most of the data already.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

First of all rocket scientist, I did not create this thread in an attempt to try and start a ******* contest.  If that's what you're interested in, I suggest you pull the car over at the next convenience store and ask the attendant for the key to the men's room.

But if it is truly facts that you crave, here are some "facts" for you...

In Rupp alone...

Atlantic 10 (7 Coaches, 5 SIMS)
Big Sky (6 coaches, 6 SIMS)
Big South (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Big West (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Colonial (1 coach, 11 SIMS)
Conference USA (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Horizon (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Ivy League (8 coaches, 4 SIMS)
MAC (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Metro-Atlantic (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Mid-Eastern (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Missouri Valley (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Mountain West (6 coaches, 6 SIMS)
Northeast (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Ohio Valley (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Patriot League (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Southern (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Southland (5 coaches, 7 SIMS)
SUMMIT (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Sun Belt (5 coaches, 7 SIMS)
WCC (7 coaches, 5 SIMS)

I have left the elite conferences off for obvious reasons, as they will be the very last to suffer from this occurance.
Any long time HD coach can tell you that this NEVER used to be the case!
Can you guys remember the days of being in DII and choosing to stay because there were no decent DI jobs available?  I know I can and I haven't been here as long as many of you.

Is that enough "statistical data" for you Cbriese, or do we need someone to do the math for you too?  Or perhaps you'd rather just wait for even MORE coaches to quit, WIS to start shutting down or consolidating worlds before you're satisfied.  Because if you can't see the problem with these simple numbers, there's nothing else I can do for you.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/14/2010 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/14/2010 4:36:00 PM (view original):
Funny, I agree with what Dave is saying, but I also agree with Cbriese.  What we really need to know (with actual numbers, not blanket statements) is how many D1 schools have lost human coaches in the last couple of seasons (BCS, mid-major, and low level).  My gut says that Dave is correct, but without actual numbers to back it up (this is where I agree with Breezy), we're all just whistling in the wind.

Personally, I have 3 ID's and between the 3, I'll be dropping 4 teams in the next month or so.  That's not a guess or an estimate, that's a fact.  Of the 4, 1 is a BCS school, 1 would be considered a mid-major, and 2 are low level.  I have varying reasons for dropping the teams, but I can assure you the reasons have all been listed somewhere in this thread.

I seem to remember a thread somewhere that tracked this type of info year-over-year. Is it still around?

I think it was either Mully or Fussyd who was keeping track of it, but I haven't seen that thread in a loooooong time.  It's probably gone by now.  Almost sure it was Mully who was updating it.  I don't even know if he's still around.

You're right -- it was mully.

By the way, even though the "Major" conferences will be the last to be hit by a large number of SIMs, they will be afftected by this situation sooner rather than later. 

And that will come when they start to attempt to create their non-conference schedules.  Some big time teams are going to have their RPIs destroyed if they wait too long to schedule, as there will not be enough human coached opponents to go around.  And I believe, once that starts to happen, you'll begin to see guys from the big conferences start to quit as well.

Mully still has teams in Smith and Naismith. I sent him a sitemail to see if he still has the data.

Posted by blazor on 8/14/2010 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by blazor on 8/14/2010 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Against, of course. The new recruit diversity at D1 is, in my opinion the best thing that has happened to HD in a long time. I love it. It is why I am actually adding teams, after having dropped all of them.

Cbriese, if you prefer the change, of course that's fine.  But remember, you may not think very much of it if too many of your fellow owners keep folding up shop and quitting.  Have you stopped to look at some of the other conferences in D1 other than your own?  Far too many of them are almost completely empty.  A trend that very well may not stop if a change is not made.  Just saying.

Please provide the statistical evidence to support the theory that the recent change in recruit generation has already contributed to reduced numbers in various conferences across divisions in all WIS worlds. Please extrapolate the data to show the results in three month periods if a change is not made. Please differentiate the effects from this change as compared to the effects from other changes in the game. Please account for seasonal fluctuation, adjustments in marketing strategies, and historical retention rates. And, as any high school math teacher will remind you, please show your work.

When you have done that, then we can have an intelligent discussion. Until then, everything anyone (including me) says will happen is merely speculation. If you are good at that, please tell me what the DJIA will finish at next Friday, August 20. That's only a week away; you should have most of the data already.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

First of all rocket scientist, I did not create this thread in an attempt to try and start a ******* contest.  If that's what you're interested in, I suggest you pull the car over at the next convenience store and ask the attendant for the key to the men's room.

But if it is truly facts that you crave, here are some "facts" for you...

In Rupp alone...

Atlantic 10 (7 Coaches, 5 SIMS)
Big Sky (6 coaches, 6 SIMS)
Big South (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Big West (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Colonial (1 coach, 11 SIMS)
Conference USA (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Horizon (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Ivy League (8 coaches, 4 SIMS)
MAC (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Metro-Atlantic (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Mid-Eastern (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Missouri Valley (2 coaches, 10 SIMS)
Mountain West (6 coaches, 6 SIMS)
Northeast (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Ohio Valley (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Patriot League (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Southern (4 coaches, 8 SIMS)
Southland (5 coaches, 7 SIMS)
SUMMIT (3 coaches, 9 SIMS)
Sun Belt (5 coaches, 7 SIMS)
WCC (7 coaches, 5 SIMS)

I have left the elite conferences off for obvious reasons, as they will be the very last to suffer from this occurance.
Any long time HD coach can tell you that this NEVER used to be the case!
Can you guys remember the days of being in DII and choosing to stay because there were no decent DI jobs available?  I know I can and I haven't been here as long as many of you.

Is that enough "statistical data" for you Cbriese, or do we need someone to do the math for you too?  Or perhaps you'd rather just wait for even MORE coaches to quit, WIS to start shutting down or consolidating worlds before you're satisfied.  Because if you can't see the problem with these simple numbers, there's nothing else I can do for you.

Um, no, that is not enough data. That is a one year snapshot in a single world. One data point, essentially, You cannot tell short-term nor long-term trends, There is one point upon which I agree with you: the numbers are simple. Consider the source.

kmasonbx makes a very good point. With each change WIS introduces, coaches need to adapt. For example, as a D1 coach with teams with good prestige, I would previously never, ever consider recruiting a player outside the top 100. I didn't even bother to search beyond there. Now, to remain successful in D1, you have to dip into the 100+ pool. And it is very, very possible, with potential, that the #137 PG could be better than the #37 PG as a junior. 

Coaches will adjust, just like they did with potential, with changes in recruiting pricing, with internationals, etc... The latter two elicited complaints about low D1 teams not being able to compete also, because their only advantage was proximity. 

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 5:10:00 PM

Um, no, that is not enough data. That is a one year snapshot in a single world. One data point, essentially, You cannot tell short-term nor long-term trends, There is one point upon which I agree with you: the numbers are simple. Consider the source.

Did you miss the part where I said all you have to do is ask long time coaches of the game if this was the case in the past, or are you choosing to simply ignore that fact because it won't help your argument?

I took a look at Crum and the numbers are only slightly better than in Rupp.  The one difference I did notice there is some coaches have been smart and are  abandoning dying conferences to go join healthier ones in an attempt to prevent killing their RPIs.

Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 5:14:00 PM (view original):
kmasonbx makes a very good point. With each change WIS introduces, coaches need to adapt. For example, as a D1 coach with teams with good prestige, I would previously never, ever consider recruiting a player outside the top 100. I didn't even bother to search beyond there. Now, to remain successful in D1, you have to dip into the 100+ pool. And it is very, very possible, with potential, that the #137 PG could be better than the #37 PG as a junior. 

Coaches will adjust, just like they did with potential, with changes in recruiting pricing, with internationals, etc... The latter two elicited complaints about low D1 teams not being able to compete also, because their only advantage was proximity. 

no one is saying that adapting isnt what we are being forced to do here, anyone who stays with the game will obviously adapt. The issue is whether this change was good for the game and whether coaches will choose to adapt or simply dislike the new recruit generation badly enough to just leave the game or at least d1.

once again, those who stay will have to adapt, but is what we are being forced to adapt to what is really good for the health of HD as a whole? do we need to adapt, or does wis need to recognize this has been a potentially overly strong correction and find a midpoint which would still require some adapting? I would speculate, but obviously that would make you angry and be irrational to you, because apparently waiting and seeing solves all the worlds problems.

PS - I dropped my Tark team a month or two ago, first time I havent had an HD team in every world in literally years. I'll be dropping or dropping divisions in Knight soon as well. I'm not just talk, this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me in starting to let teams go, the coach who I believe has the most HD games played in HD history...

Posted by blazor on 8/14/2010 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 8/14/2010 5:10:00 PM

Um, no, that is not enough data. That is a one year snapshot in a single world. One data point, essentially, You cannot tell short-term nor long-term trends, There is one point upon which I agree with you: the numbers are simple. Consider the source.

Did you miss the part where I said all you have to do is ask long time coaches of the game if this was the case in the past, or are you choosing to simply ignore that fact because it won't help your argument?

I took a look at Crum and the numbers are only slightly better than in Rupp.  The one difference I did notice there is some coaches have been smart and are  abandoning dying conferences to go join healthier ones in an attempt to prevent killing their RPIs.

Hey! IBM is trading at $128! A few of my friends say that's really low! We need to buy it up now!

I just finished recruiting with an A prestige Big 6 team and a C- prestige low tier D1 teams in Rupp, and I thought the experience was fine from both sides of the coin.  Yeah, I spent 45K on a 3 star recruit and lost out to Baylor with my C- team, but that would easily happen in real life too.  I gambled and paid the price.  Its life.  I thought, on the whole, I was abled to fill the 7 spots on my C- team pretty well, with lots of bigs that will end with 80+ rebounding and 80+ LP, in addition to decent ATH and SPD.  And the 113th ranked SG will probably end up with 85+ speed, decent ath, 80+ish PE and 80ish BH.  That's what I could have got before....  The recruits are there...

See for yourself... ( I didn't code FT, WE, ST, DU)