Posted by jetwildcat on 12/8/2010 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2010 5:27:00 PM (view original):
i also think the change to open d2 schools to double digit rated d1 players was a ridiculously bad one. regardless of the "quality curve", if you will, of the recruits - when you have d2 schools able to recruit dozens of double digit rated d1 players, you clearly are going to have serious overlap with d1 schools. add in the fact that seble generates a solid 25% of recruits as 100% unusable in any situation, and it gets worse. i think the ceiling for d2 and d3 schools is too high. there just is not enough room between the best d2 players you can find (which, 10 of, would make a fine d1 team) and the non-elite d1 recruits. i don't want more elite recruits. that sucked a lot. i just want more 2-3 stars - but they have to really be 2-3 stars, i.e. better than the 0 stars d2 school sign and worse than the 5 stars.

edit: i would also like to see elite recruits be truly elite. give the top 3-5 guys at each position b range iq across the board (or similar), force them to leave after 1 year, and call it a day. recruit a great guy for 1 year of greatness, that is fun. recruit a great guy for 1 year of riding the pine because his iq is unfit for d1 play, and then he leaves, that is no fun for anyone.

i've been under the impression that they're good enough that lack of IQ isnt too big of a deal

as sophs, mostly you are right. as freshman, no way. great freshman with b- iq are still a huge liability to the kinds of teams that recruit them. the thing about low iq is, you might get decent median performance, but the volatility will flat out kill you. considering the #1 enemy to a great team is volatility, to me, its a pretty significant issue. if you asked me to value the recruit who leaves after 1 year, in terms of recruiting dollars, some seasons id be willing to spend up to 5k on them just because i need a reasonably competent backup, but in many years, id value them at 0. so 0-5k.