Early Entries, Injuries and Blind Luck - Page 5 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 263 (0)

Hall of Famer

21 193 13

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009

Sorry, I see absolutely no logical reason why the competition for recruits will be any different, unless recruiting is changed, it is the same coaches, and good vs bad players are pretty obvious in today's game, resulting in a level of competition, that I believe will still be present 90 days from now when the change is in place?

I also see no reason why the game will sim any different than d2 currently does, because in the long run, that really is the proposal. I think one of the beauties of the d1 game, is how hard it is to coach the minute differences among d1 players, d2 / d3 is far easier and obvious?

I know I am playing a devil's advocate role here - I understand the frustrations that have caused the request for more differentiation - I just am not sure there is any tangible result the fix is going to give us.

As a coach on an extended bye week, this is an enjoyable thread. I agree with dalter (did I say that?). Bobby Knight was intereviewed last season about recruiting and basically came out and said everyone knows who is going to leave early. Mayo, Oden etc. Having a two star leave early is absurd. That issue is probably the result of "potential" if his ratings all go from 50 to 90, and now is equal to a lot of 4-5 star players.

Good thoughts on the midmajors too. And I agree for the most part there too. The only exeception is that we need to redefine midmajor in HD compared to RL since in theory it's possible for certain midmajors in HD to excel past their RL counterparts due to certain circumstances.

Last, and the reason I copied ORs comment is that I agree that "recruiting won't change unless recruiting changes." In other words, FSS has become a huge part of recruiting and it's mostly a local activity with costs of the service based on state, not number of recruits. And it's no secret that recruiting costs also favor local schools. The combination of those two things will still be the biggest threat to unseat lack of competition unless the overall structure of recruiting changes from the top down.

I don't know who it was that I was debating that distance plays a large role irl. I was arguing that it doesn't. That talent level, not geography is the biggest role. His argument was primarily that any good local Florida basketball player will want to stay in Florida because of the "great weather and hot women." I showed him numbers that suggested most Florida DI players in fact the state and his argument quickly changed to "most players will want to stay in the same general region." I presume even if people in other states are fatter and uglier. {He could have zoomed out a few levels and claimed that most would want to stay in the U.S. and been 100% correct.}

The point is that teams will recruit just as players have preference. Teams have a say too, probably the biggest say. Yes, teams will want to stay as local as possible if there are players that can help them compete (Judd Heathcoate said as much in his coach interview that he did with WIS). If you are a Big 6 school you need to compete with UNC, Duke, UCLA, Florida, Kansas, etc., not just the teams in your conference. I'll also say that in HD since economics are the same, it's probably not that fun at Montana to beat other midmajors as much as it is to compete with the Pac 10.

And if UCLA, Duke and Florida have more local players they can recruit than Kansas, then Kansas needs to go out as far as necessary to get them. A quick check of Rivals and you'll see that Kansas is or was considering 18 players in 2010. Five are 5-star players and hail from Oregon, Virginia, Maryland Washington and Iowa. Kansas in 2009 landed three 4/5 star recruits. The five stars were from Nevada and Oklahoma and the 4 star was from New Hampshire. New Hampshire?

My point is this. We live in a global society where the distance between states is not as prohibitive as it once was. I remember when I thought the fax machine was a big deal--couldn't believe you could send a piece of paper and have another person 600 miles away get a copy of it immediately. Email, internet and video conferencing have made this world tiny. The NBA is routinely scouting in Europe as are many colleges. It's a tiny world, folks.

In this game it's easier to recruit internationally regardless of the cost because your "cost" is the same as your competition. IRL, if Kansas wanted to recruit a kid in New Hampshire they would do so and wouldn't be scared off because another one of their Big 6 competitors was within 240 miles of the kid. They'd probably think it'd be better to recruit that kid in NH than a kid in the Congo. The risk in HD is not only the cost, but also FSS.

Should recruiting internationally be easier than recruiting a kid 250 miles away. Easier for Minnesota to recruit a kid in Siberia than one in Iowa? It doesn't make sense. The risk in doing so, once again, is FSS and cost.

10/21/2009 12:09 PM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Very nice post Rails.

10/21/2009 12:36 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

it just seems all the major coaches want d1 to become d2, maybe because we all had much more success in d2, we group the entire request under the term player differentiation.

I recently went back and started playing 1 d2 team, I also will probably pick up one d3 team in the next week or so, just because I feel that is what we all are going to be playing in 2-3 months.

But, for all of you guys, most of whom are the best and most respected players in this, please entertain the possibility that d2 / d3 would not be so easy if it were full, if everyone had more money, and if there were not drop downs that only about 20 coaches per world know how to recruit.

10/21/2009 12:38 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

oh, and I apologize for hijacking your thread daalter, but seemed like the 'right' guys were chimning in, it happens so rarely, that I thought I would take a crack at casting out the player differentiation daredevil, as you might have guessed, I myself don't even know exactly where I stand on it, I just think it is a discussion worth having in depth, especially if there is time to affect the decision?????

10/21/2009 12:40 PM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/21/2009
it just seems all the major coaches want d1 to become d2, maybe because we all had much more success in d2, we group the entire request under the term player differentiation.

I recently went back and started playing 1 d2 team, I also will probably pick up one d3 team in the next week or so, just because I feel that is what we all are going to be playing in 2-3 months.

But, for all of you guys, most of whom are the best and most respected players in this, please entertain the possibility that d2 / d3 would not be so easy if it were full, if everyone had more money, and if there were not drop downs that only about 20 coaches per world know how to recruit.

OR i completely understand what you are saying and if that happens to be what it is going to look like I hope that it can be caught in beta testing.

10/21/2009 12:45 PM

Fregoe

Posts: 1043 (0)

Hall of Famer

70 34 11 15 504 106 160 12

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/21/2009
it just seems all the major coaches want d1 to become d2, maybe because we all had much more success in d2, we group the entire request under the term player differentiation.

I recently went back and started playing 1 d2 team, I also will probably pick up one d3 team in the next week or so, just because I feel that is what we all are going to be playing in 2-3 months.

But, for all of you guys, most of whom are the best and most respected players in this, please entertain the possibility that d2 / d3 would not be so easy if it were full, if everyone had more money, and if there were not drop downs that only about 20 coaches per world know how to recruit.

very interesing!!!!

10/21/2009 1:00 PM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

rails is rails

10/21/2009 1:02 PM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

OR, i have allways said that i like the game better at D3 where there is more player differentiation. Obviosuly there are things that I like about D1 also. but the primary reason I play in D1 is that it is where the highest level of human competitors is.

Is this a case of "be careful what you wish for... you just might get it"? possibly.

i will acknowledge that OR makes some valid points. but, honestly, that only serves to heighten my excitement about the possibility that the one of the key features of HD3 might be player differentiation more like we see now in D3 (maybe even better as different player types might emerge.

If i were to pinpoint the one issue about HD3 that OR and others have raised that concerns me the most, it would have to be the contention that "recruiting wont change unless recruiting changes". while i love the idea of fewer superstars and more varied player weaknesses and strengths, i gotta admit that if recruiitng is not changed (for instance: make distance recruiting more feasible), then this could end really badly.

why? well, think about it, if there are only a handful of superstars, then one of the most important parts of the game will be developing strategies to land these sueprstars consistently. in fact, one could argue that recruiting these superstars consistently will be THE key to the whole game. But, look at how recruiting works now. They are either in your backyard, or they are not. if they are not, your chances of landing them will be mighty slim. also, will we see a proliferation of 6man classes? (or at least 6open schollies) as schools try to build up as much cash as possible in the fight for these stars.

Here's another tidbit... given that these superstars will take huge efforts to land, wont that make the EE issue even more important? it would seem to be a given that all these elite recruits will become EE's. maybe not a huge problem if they go pro after JR year. but what if they go after Soph year... or even frosh year?

maybe that will be the challenge? to decide when to go after the 5star and when to settle for a bunch of 3stars and maybe a 4star or two and hope to find the right players to complement your system? keeping in mind that the extra money spent on the 5star might reduce your ability to find quality complimentary players. and also keeping in mind that the star might leave after a year or two.

i could see where this could be very interesting. but it seems clear to me that allowing some form of distance recruiting would really spice things up and take some of the blind luck element out of the equation.

the main thing that i would like to see in HD3 is to increase the importance of strategy. period. and it will be very interesting to see if seble can pull it off.

the funny part is that i am pretty sure i will retire from HD in about a year when the 'cuse gets to 1,000 D1 wins.

So, while others may view HD3 as "they better not screw this up or I'm quitting", my attitude is "im probly going to quit, but if Hd3 turns out to be really great... i might just stick around." probably starting over in a new world.

10/21/2009 1:48 PM

armst24

Posts: 3 (0)

Hall of Famer

261 1 38

Prospect

I realize this might be getting a bit far off the original topic, but I think there is a point that folks are missing regarding the lowering of player attributes with respect to recruiting. I am assuming that when the player attributes change to decrease the # of stud maxed out in everything players, this is going to result in not only far fewer of these types of players but more specialists (i.e. guys that have 100 in one key catergory but have several weakness.) These types of players aren't particularly useful now because they don't perform well compared to the well rounded, maxed out in nearly every attribute player. But if that changes and there are only 10-20 players in the world with say a 100 in PER; I think it adds quite a bit of strategy with regards to building your team. Like do you want a SG that is a knock down 3pt shooter or a quick guard with a good handle. I think this is really going to make recruiting more interesting because different coaches are going to value different attributes putting another level of strategy into the game (something that is greatly needed, I think we all can agree).

10/21/2009 1:50 PM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Oldave are you suggesting taking distance out of recruiting 5 stars? And allowing anyone anywhere to recruit them at the same cost?

10/21/2009 1:58 PM

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

Good post, armst.

10/21/2009 1:59 PM

jbasnight

Posts: 113 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 325 8

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 10/21/2009Good post, armst

Agree. Of course a lot depends on how this is implemented, but at this point anything that adds some strategy to the game would be welcomed by a lot of coaches.

10/21/2009 2:02 PM

dalter

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By Rails on 10/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009

Sorry, I see absolutely no logical reason why the competition for recruits will be any different, unless recruiting is changed, it is the same coaches, and good vs bad players are pretty obvious in today's game, resulting in a level of competition, that I believe will still be present 90 days from now when the change is in place?

I also see no reason why the game will sim any different than d2 currently does, because in the long run, that really is the proposal. I think one of the beauties of the d1 game, is how hard it is to coach the minute differences among d1 players, d2 / d3 is far easier and obvious?

I know I am playing a devil's advocate role here - I understand the frustrations that have caused the request for more differentiation - I just am not sure there is any tangible result the fix is going to give us.

As a coach on an extended bye week, this is an enjoyable thread. I agree with dalter (did I say that?).

Hey rails, good to see you!

Bobby Knight was intereviewed last season about recruiting and basically came out and said everyone knows who is going to leave early. Mayo, Oden etc.

That's been my contention for a couple years. Look at the mock drafts before the NT and after -- they barely change, except for a couple players who either tore it up in the NT or were terrible.

Instead, HD (mis-)uses the early entry system to artificially even the playing field (seble told me so in a ticket yesterday).

Having a two star leave early is absurd. That issue is probably the result of "potential" if his ratings all go from 50 to 90, and now is equal to a lot of 4-5 star players.

No question. That said, the #48 pg that I lost paled in comparison to a lot of the BCS pg's that stayed. UConn in particular had two pg's that stayed who were way better.

Good thoughts on the midmajors too. And I agree for the most part there too. The only exeception is that we need to redefine midmajor in HD compared to RL since in theory it's possible for certain midmajors in HD to excel past their RL counterparts due to certain circumstances.

Again, I agree with this. My only point here is that if we are treating successful low/mids like BCS teams when it comes to early entries, then they have to be given more leeway with prestige. To yank players away because they're successful and then not reward them with prestige for that same success just isn't right.

Last, and the reason I copied ORs comment is that I agree that "recruiting won't change unless recruiting changes." In other words, FSS has become a huge part of recruiting and it's mostly a local activity with costs of the service based on state, not number of recruits. And it's no secret that recruiting costs also favor local schools. The combination of those two things will still be the biggest threat to unseat lack of competition unless the overall structure of recruiting changes from the top down.

I don't know who it was that I was debating that distance plays a large role irl. I was arguing that it doesn't. That talent level, not geography is the biggest role. His argument was primarily that any good local Florida basketball player will want to stay in Florida because of the "great weather and hot women." I showed him numbers that suggested most Florida DI players in fact the state and his argument quickly changed to "most players will want to stay in the same general region." I presume even if people in other states are fatter and uglier. {He could have zoomed out a few levels and claimed that most would want to stay in the U.S. and been 100% correct.}

The point is that teams will recruit just as players have preference. Teams have a say too, probably the biggest say. Yes, teams will want to stay as local as possible if there are players that can help them compete (Judd Heathcoate said as much in his coach interview that he did with WIS). If you are a Big 6 school you need to compete with UNC, Duke, UCLA, Florida, Kansas, etc., not just the teams in your conference. I'll also say that in HD since economics are the same, it's probably not that fun at Montana to beat other midmajors as much as it is to compete with the Pac 10.

No question. That's why I had teams like Stanford, Texas, UCLA and UGA on the sked and had the #1 non-con SOS. And no question that recruiting is much more localized in HD than in real life.

And if UCLA, Duke and Florida have more local players they can recruit than Kansas, then Kansas needs to go out as far as necessary to get them. A quick check of Rivals and you'll see that Kansas is or was considering 18 players in 2010. Five are 5-star players and hail from Oregon, Virginia, Maryland Washington and Iowa. Kansas in 2009 landed three 4/5 star recruits. The five stars were from Nevada and Oklahoma and the 4 star was from New Hampshire. New Hampshire?

My point is this. We live in a global society where the distance between states is not as prohibitive as it once was. I remember when I thought the fax machine was a big deal--couldn't believe you could send a piece of paper and have another person 600 miles away get a copy of it immediately. Email, internet and video conferencing have made this world tiny. The NBA is routinely scouting in Europe as are many colleges. It's a tiny world, folks.

In this game it's easier to recruit internationally regardless of the cost because your "cost" is the same as your competition. IRL, if Kansas wanted to recruit a kid in New Hampshire they would do so and wouldn't be scared off because another one of their Big 6 competitors was within 240 miles of the kid. They'd probably think it'd be better to recruit that kid in NH than a kid in the Congo. The risk in HD is not only the cost, but also FSS.

Should recruiting internationally be easier than recruiting a kid 250 miles away. Easier for Minnesota to recruit a kid in Siberia than one in Iowa? It doesn't make sense. The risk in doing so, once again, is FSS and cost.

Well rails, as usual, we agree on everything! In all seriousness, you know I've long been on board with your campaign on this issue.

10/21/2009 2:04 PM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

right on, arm-dude

10/21/2009 2:36 PM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/21/2009
Oldave are you suggesting taking distance out of recruiting 5 stars? And allowing anyone anywhere to recruit them at the same cost?

hmmmm... no, i didnt mean to suggest that. but now that you mention it...

hmmmmm... yes, i think i like it.

of course, i reserve the right to change my mind. but, at first glance, i really like it. i like it alot.

just the 5stars. not sure how you would implement it. and i cant think of any way to tie it into realism (which is not important to me, but some folks get hung up on that)

10/21/2009 2:46 PM

Forums

Early Entries, Injuries and Blind Luck Topic

Search Criteria