Posted by pjbrankin on 8/19/2010 12:49:00 AM (view original):
it's fairly realistic. How many PF's develop good jump shots after they get to college?
By far my biggest contention with this game is the caps which is making me more and more likely to give up playing and find something else to do with my time - as much as I do enjoy the rest of the game. It's just not realistic and CS has run this into the ground IMO. Now I get when bigs capout on FT's, perimeter shooting, ball handling, etc and I get PG's never not being able to improve on their LP moves and overall players not able to get much faster or durable, BUT caps on key areas specific to positions is ridiculous. We are seeing top 50 players maxed out in their core areas before they even step foot on campus. How is it even remotely realistic that a PG isn't going to improve his passing or ball handling when he goes off to UNC, Kentucky, UCLA, etc. unless he is 90+? It's almost the norm now to have a player maxed out in more categories than they can improve on.
I don't care how bad a player is in a particular area, if you put 90 minutes of workout into a particular area a player is going to improve. "Low" in a category should mean that if you put 20 minutes into an area you may see 3-8 improvement points over the course of a players career. Average should mean 8-15 and high should be 15+.
The way this is set up is killing low mid majors especially. There are less quality recruits overall which isn't aweful in terms of the top schools getting the best recruits and everyone else getting "project players". In RL mid majors are taking guards with 55 BH and Passing cores and improving them to 75-80 on average. This set-up doesn't allow for most players to get into that range anymore, and often even any higher than a 55 rating. You are going to see more Big 6 schools making the post-season than before, which means less mid majors. Yet the crazy thing is that the standards for success haven't changed in the sense that everyone is weighted the same. You see a Kentucky coach who didn't make 1 NT appearance in 14 years but kept his job because of PT appearances most likely. And I have a CS Northridge team that despite winning a CC missed the post season 4 straight years (after going to 3) and boosters start complaining which starts my "win or else" clock. I'm likely fired if I don't make the post-season in the next two years and the way recruiting has changed the mid major conferences with lots of SIM coaches if you don't win the CT you likely aren't getting a NT or PT bid. Unless coaches basically rotate who wins each year a lot of coaches are going to be fired unless something changes. A good place to start is letting coaches be able to (here's a novel idea) COACH players into the guys they want on their team and mold them to what they want out of them.