I scout heavily in order to recruit as many high potential ratings as possible. The problem with this is that each rating has a ceiling. For ex..a pg with 60 bh as fresh may have high potential but may have an unknown cap of 80. I am considering going back to recruiting for overall ratings...picking a point guard who starts off at 85 perimeter for ex. My question is do you believe that potential is being overvalued due to the unknown caps (unless lucky enough to buy a bunch of evals and hoping it mentions skys the limit which is very very rare) or is going deep in tourney still all about having 80-90 in core ratings.

potential is the way the game tells you how much room there is to the cap 

I'm confused, what are you debating?  What are the two recruiting strategies you are trying to decide between?

Far as I can tell, he wants to just recruit based on the players current ratings and not on potential:  For example, pick the fifty per over picking the thirty five  with high potential?

 

My question is...how high of a recruiting value do you place on potential over everything else. If you have a non scouted pf with 80 lp 80 def good we and a scouted pf with 50 lp, 50def. Would the potential trump the superior numbers. Not all high potential areas will reach the 30 points it would take player a to reach 80 lp or def since there is a cap. High potential does not mean they keep improving to 100.

I was under the impression that there was no difference between 'sky's the limit' and for instance the coach saying he has MASSIVE room for improvement, or something similar. In other words, both examples are high high potential. Is that not correct?

Posted by pedroia on 11/28/2010 2:57:00 PM (view original):
My question is...how high of a recruiting value do you place on potential over everything else. If you have a non scouted pf with 80 lp 80 def good we and a scouted pf with 50 lp, 50def. Would the potential trump the superior numbers. Not all high potential areas will reach the 30 points it would take player a to reach 80 lp or def since there is a cap. High potential does not mean they keep improving to 100.

I'll take the 80-80 everytime and it's not close.  The other guy probably won't get there and if he does get there it will be in his jr or sr season while i
ll have the 80s from the first guy his whole career.  When trying to figure out who to recruit, I project out the ratings of the recruits based on potential.  If the guy is low potential, I won't assign any improvement.  If the guy has average potential, I'll give him 12 points of improvement, and if he's high potential, I'll assign 25 points of improvement (unless I get a scouting visit message that says he has high-high potential, in which case I'll assign him 30 points of improvement).  I thinks that's what you're asking...

Posted by tkimble on 11/28/2010 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pedroia on 11/28/2010 2:57:00 PM (view original):
My question is...how high of a recruiting value do you place on potential over everything else. If you have a non scouted pf with 80 lp 80 def good we and a scouted pf with 50 lp, 50def. Would the potential trump the superior numbers. Not all high potential areas will reach the 30 points it would take player a to reach 80 lp or def since there is a cap. High potential does not mean they keep improving to 100.

I'll take the 80-80 everytime and it's not close.  The other guy probably won't get there and if he does get there it will be in his jr or sr season while i
ll have the 80s from the first guy his whole career.  When trying to figure out who to recruit, I project out the ratings of the recruits based on potential.  If the guy is low potential, I won't assign any improvement.  If the guy has average potential, I'll give him 12 points of improvement, and if he's high potential, I'll assign 25 points of improvement (unless I get a scouting visit message that says he has high-high potential, in which case I'll assign him 30 points of improvement).  I thinks that's what you're asking...

Agreed, and I don't know anyone who would argue with that. That's why I don't think it's an apt or relevant example.

It becomes a debate when the starting rankings are in the same stratosphere. I don't really think many/any people are out there trying to take guys who are 50/50 high potential over guys who are 80/80 with unknown potential. A real question would be 50 with high potential vs. maybe 60 w. unknown.

And tkimble, exactly what you said -- try and project where the guy will end up based on his potential. If you haven't done evals it may not be 100% perfect, but you have a very good idea.

i'll take the 80/80 guy no question.

but if it's 80/80 with low potential and 70/70 with high ii'll take the guy with potential.

you must be using FSS.... I don't.

Moy. Could you expand on why you don't use scouting, thanks.

Posted by pedroia on 11/28/2010 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Moy. Could you expand on why you don't use scouting, thanks.

Because that 3-4k for FSS could be used to land a recruit rather than to see how good he can be.  I always go for best available based on what they are rated at during recruiting - I'd rather fill my recruiting class than know what I could have had... thats just me.

good example - I almost lost a center to B prestige Indiana - but I had just enough $ to get him this season.   I definitely would have lost the guy had I spent on FSS.  I thought I lost him with the money I spent but somehow he signed with me on the second day of signings.

When you're recruiting a top prospect at a high end D1 program, with many ratings over 80,  I don't think the FSS is very important.  In D1 I may scout 1-2 states while I rarely scout less than 5-8 states in D2.

Posted by Iguana1 on 11/28/2010 8:02:00 PM (view original):
When you're recruiting a top prospect at a high end D1 program, with many ratings over 80,  I don't think the FSS is very important.  In D1 I may scout 1-2 states while I rarely scout less than 5-8 states in D2.

probably true for me. the guys I go after are pretty good already.