In the past, I've been agnostic to recruit gen arguments. This year's generation in Tark has made me a convert.

From my spot in Fresno, there are:

0 Top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, or Washington
3 Top 100 recruits within 400 miles of Fresno
7 Top 100 recruits within 750 miles
14 Top 100 recruits within 1000 miles (that is essentially the entire US West)

After sending a ticket, the response was a predictable "gosh, we're sorry it's so bad, that's the way it goes" kind of deal. Whatever, those guys are clueless, old news. Here's the interesting thing. The claim is that it's programed to be tied to how many scholarships are open in the region, which I knew; this was why I was sending the ticket asking them to look into it. I knew our conference had plenty of open scholarships - I had 6 graduating seniors myself. So I looked into it, and the Pac10 has more graduating seniors than all but one power conference, with 33. To add to this, the WCC has 37, the Big West has 34. We are not short for open scholarships due to seniors in this region.

The one conference that is above us? The SEC, with 44. That's a TON of graduating seniors for high level D1. Apparently, that anomaly is tricking the system into an absurd amount of high level recruits into that region for everyone else. I know people have complained about some bad crops before, but I've never seen anything close to this bad, and I've spent a lot of time in Pac-10 teams. It doesn't feel like a coincidence to me that it corresponds with that anomalous class.

I sent a ticket on recruit gen several years ago and was told the # of recruits is directly tied to how many open scholarships are available at each level (D1, D2, and D3) but where the recruits are generated is completely random. Only mentioning because I don't think quality or quantity is tied to a specific region based on number of open scholarship.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/18/2023 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I sent a ticket on recruit gen several years ago and was told the # of recruits is directly tied to how many open scholarships are available at each level (D1, D2, and D3) but where the recruits are generated is completely random. Only mentioning because I don't think quality or quantity is tied to a specific region based on number of open scholarship.

i am not positive but my understanding has been that the # of openings affects the # of recruits in that division and regionally, mostly based on states and bordering states or something along those lines.

but then where the actually good recruits come from, i think is random - i think each recruit is basically its own randomization which creates the national and local variations in how many good recruits there are in a season. but under that scheme, there should be a loose correlation - a region with more guys, is naturally going to have more good players, on average - but not necessarily. i don't think there's anything that 'places' good recruits in a state or region.

not sure if we are saying the same thing?

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/18/2023 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I sent a ticket on recruit gen several years ago and was told the # of recruits is directly tied to how many open scholarships are available at each level (D1, D2, and D3) but where the recruits are generated is completely random. Only mentioning because I don't think quality or quantity is tied to a specific region based on number of open scholarship.

I don't think you're wrong regarding how it has worked in the past, but I do think some things have been changed a bit in the past 5-7 years. Here's the applicable part of my ticket response that contradicts that thought:

"The generation of recruits goes through cycles on geographical areas where some will have a lot of talent one season and then potentially at some point be pretty "barren". There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality. I'm sorry to hear this year is a barren year in your recruiting area."

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:13:00 PM (view original):
In the past, I've been agnostic to recruit gen arguments. This year's generation in Tark has made me a convert.

From my spot in Fresno, there are:

0 Top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, or Washington
3 Top 100 recruits within 400 miles of Fresno
7 Top 100 recruits within 750 miles
14 Top 100 recruits within 1000 miles (that is essentially the entire US West)

After sending a ticket, the response was a predictable "gosh, we're sorry it's so bad, that's the way it goes" kind of deal. Whatever, those guys are clueless, old news. Here's the interesting thing. The claim is that it's programed to be tied to how many scholarships are open in the region, which I knew; this was why I was sending the ticket asking them to look into it. I knew our conference had plenty of open scholarships - I had 6 graduating seniors myself. So I looked into it, and the Pac10 has more graduating seniors than all but one power conference, with 33. To add to this, the WCC has 37, the Big West has 34. We are not short for open scholarships due to seniors in this region.

The one conference that is above us? The SEC, with 44. That's a TON of graduating seniors for high level D1. Apparently, that anomaly is tricking the system into an absurd amount of high level recruits into that region for everyone else. I know people have complained about some bad crops before, but I've never seen anything close to this bad, and I've spent a lot of time in Pac-10 teams. It doesn't feel like a coincidence to me that it corresponds with that anomalous class.

my guess is, on your last line - that it is a coincidence. i don't think the # of recruits or quality of recruits in the SEC area in any way relates to the number or quality of recruits in the PAC 10 area.

i also think projected open scholarships is the thing, not graduating seniors, so i am guessing it counts walkons, but i don't know sort of what version of projected open scholarships is used. like, if its the same as the recruiting projected openings, which ignores 1yr transfers and openings past 6, or if its a count of its own, that has not been impacted by the changes to the projected # of openings used for recruiting budget.

Posted by gillispie on 7/18/2023 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:13:00 PM (view original):
In the past, I've been agnostic to recruit gen arguments. This year's generation in Tark has made me a convert.

From my spot in Fresno, there are:

0 Top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, or Washington
3 Top 100 recruits within 400 miles of Fresno
7 Top 100 recruits within 750 miles
14 Top 100 recruits within 1000 miles (that is essentially the entire US West)

After sending a ticket, the response was a predictable "gosh, we're sorry it's so bad, that's the way it goes" kind of deal. Whatever, those guys are clueless, old news. Here's the interesting thing. The claim is that it's programed to be tied to how many scholarships are open in the region, which I knew; this was why I was sending the ticket asking them to look into it. I knew our conference had plenty of open scholarships - I had 6 graduating seniors myself. So I looked into it, and the Pac10 has more graduating seniors than all but one power conference, with 33. To add to this, the WCC has 37, the Big West has 34. We are not short for open scholarships due to seniors in this region.

The one conference that is above us? The SEC, with 44. That's a TON of graduating seniors for high level D1. Apparently, that anomaly is tricking the system into an absurd amount of high level recruits into that region for everyone else. I know people have complained about some bad crops before, but I've never seen anything close to this bad, and I've spent a lot of time in Pac-10 teams. It doesn't feel like a coincidence to me that it corresponds with that anomalous class.

my guess is, on your last line - that it is a coincidence. i don't think the # of recruits or quality of recruits in the SEC area in any way relates to the number or quality of recruits in the PAC 10 area.

I mean... they very nearly straight up told me it was not a coincidence.

"There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality"

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/18/2023 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I sent a ticket on recruit gen several years ago and was told the # of recruits is directly tied to how many open scholarships are available at each level (D1, D2, and D3) but where the recruits are generated is completely random. Only mentioning because I don't think quality or quantity is tied to a specific region based on number of open scholarship.

I don't think you're wrong regarding how it has worked in the past, but I do think some things have been changed a bit in the past 5-7 years. Here's the applicable part of my ticket response that contradicts that thought:

"The generation of recruits goes through cycles on geographical areas where some will have a lot of talent one season and then potentially at some point be pretty "barren". There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality. I'm sorry to hear this year is a barren year in your recruiting area."

if you are saying - that the # of recruits in a state/region is based on openings - and that is the contradiction - i agree. i am virtually positive on that front.

i think the note about the cycles in areas is just them commenting on the random nature of... randomness. i don't think it tries to make it good one year and barren the next.

this is interesting though 'There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality.' - i wonder if that just relates to the # of openings vs # of recruits in the region, or if its also looking at listed position there, that sort of thing? i wouldn't be surprised if its looking at listed position in its # of openings checks, but, i don't think i've ever heard anything along those lines before. the # of openings is definitely supposed to factor in to the # of recruits in a way that sort of relates to same-state and bordering state counts or something like that.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 7/18/2023 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:13:00 PM (view original):
In the past, I've been agnostic to recruit gen arguments. This year's generation in Tark has made me a convert.

From my spot in Fresno, there are:

0 Top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, or Washington
3 Top 100 recruits within 400 miles of Fresno
7 Top 100 recruits within 750 miles
14 Top 100 recruits within 1000 miles (that is essentially the entire US West)

After sending a ticket, the response was a predictable "gosh, we're sorry it's so bad, that's the way it goes" kind of deal. Whatever, those guys are clueless, old news. Here's the interesting thing. The claim is that it's programed to be tied to how many scholarships are open in the region, which I knew; this was why I was sending the ticket asking them to look into it. I knew our conference had plenty of open scholarships - I had 6 graduating seniors myself. So I looked into it, and the Pac10 has more graduating seniors than all but one power conference, with 33. To add to this, the WCC has 37, the Big West has 34. We are not short for open scholarships due to seniors in this region.

The one conference that is above us? The SEC, with 44. That's a TON of graduating seniors for high level D1. Apparently, that anomaly is tricking the system into an absurd amount of high level recruits into that region for everyone else. I know people have complained about some bad crops before, but I've never seen anything close to this bad, and I've spent a lot of time in Pac-10 teams. It doesn't feel like a coincidence to me that it corresponds with that anomalous class.

my guess is, on your last line - that it is a coincidence. i don't think the # of recruits or quality of recruits in the SEC area in any way relates to the number or quality of recruits in the PAC 10 area.

I mean... they very nearly straight up told me it was not a coincidence.

"There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality"

i think you are reading too much into that. first, your count on # of openings for SEC is not in line with how it actually works, i think. and second, i don't think they very nearly straight up told you anything along the lines of, the SEC count impacted your region. i don't think the SEC region has anything to do with the PAC 10 region, and i don't infer a contradiction from what you posted there.

To me, the only question is really whether that anomalous class effectively gamed the system, and if so, how that might affect recruiting in the future. Because hopefully everyone can agree - 0 top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, and Washington is 100% stoooopid.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:53:00 PM (view original):
To me, the only question is really whether that anomalous class effectively gamed the system, and if so, how that might affect recruiting in the future. Because hopefully everyone can agree - 0 top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, and Washington is 100% stoooopid.

i do agree thats stupid but i don't think SEC has anything to do with your situation. well, except that you are counting by top 100 recruits. and more recruits is relevant in a top 100 way, because that is a relative measure. in an absolute sense, i think the quality of recruits in the pac 10 area is unrelated to the quality of recruits or quantity of recruits in SEC region.

Posted by gillispie on 7/18/2023 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 7/18/2023 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 4:13:00 PM (view original):
In the past, I've been agnostic to recruit gen arguments. This year's generation in Tark has made me a convert.

From my spot in Fresno, there are:

0 Top 100 recruits in California, Oregon, or Washington
3 Top 100 recruits within 400 miles of Fresno
7 Top 100 recruits within 750 miles
14 Top 100 recruits within 1000 miles (that is essentially the entire US West)

After sending a ticket, the response was a predictable "gosh, we're sorry it's so bad, that's the way it goes" kind of deal. Whatever, those guys are clueless, old news. Here's the interesting thing. The claim is that it's programed to be tied to how many scholarships are open in the region, which I knew; this was why I was sending the ticket asking them to look into it. I knew our conference had plenty of open scholarships - I had 6 graduating seniors myself. So I looked into it, and the Pac10 has more graduating seniors than all but one power conference, with 33. To add to this, the WCC has 37, the Big West has 34. We are not short for open scholarships due to seniors in this region.

The one conference that is above us? The SEC, with 44. That's a TON of graduating seniors for high level D1. Apparently, that anomaly is tricking the system into an absurd amount of high level recruits into that region for everyone else. I know people have complained about some bad crops before, but I've never seen anything close to this bad, and I've spent a lot of time in Pac-10 teams. It doesn't feel like a coincidence to me that it corresponds with that anomalous class.

my guess is, on your last line - that it is a coincidence. i don't think the # of recruits or quality of recruits in the SEC area in any way relates to the number or quality of recruits in the PAC 10 area.

I mean... they very nearly straight up told me it was not a coincidence.

"There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality"

i think you are reading too much into that. first, your count on # of openings for SEC is not in line with how it actually works, i think. and second, i don't think they very nearly straight up told you anything along the lines of, the SEC count impacted your region. i don't think the SEC region has anything to do with the PAC 10 region, and i don't infer a contradiction from what you posted there.

Well first, if anything, more walk-ons just means we have more need in the Pac10 - odds are quite good that the more graduating seniors there are, the fewer the walk-ons, wouldn't you agree? I mean I could click through and count if you really want, but it seems intuitive.

And second, you're mixing my arguments. I'm not sure about the strong correlation either. That's why I said it doesn't feel like a coincidence, instead of, like "it can't possibly be a coincidence" in my OP.

But also, they did straight up tell me that "There is also a factor of what teams' overall needs in for each region that also plays a factor in the generation of the recruits and is intended functionality". That is verbatim.

And look Gil, I don't expect you to see the urgency on this, being at Florida A&M. I'm sure this crop looks fine from where you are. :)

Gil, it seems like you're getting stuck on the idea that I'm contradicting something you said. To clarify, I was responding to darnoc when posting the ticket response originally, where I mentioned contradiction in that thought. That was in response to this line: "I don't think quality or quantity is tied to a specific region based on number of open scholarship." That's why I've been pulling out the line in the response I've been pulling out. I don't want you to get stuck on that and applying that to more than what I mean. This is where I feel pretty solid that they did "straight up" contradict the old line. To some extent, at least, either quality or quantity or both (I suspect both, but at least quality because I asked in reference to Top 100 recruits) is indeed tied to region based on need - whether that's defined as open scholarships or graduating seniors, take your pick.

I wonder if the system looks into distance preference as part of the calculus? Not that it is worth looking into but how many of the Top 100 are listed as near home Very Bad? That would al least give the PAC a little bit of compensation.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/18/2023 8:48:00 PM (view original):
I wonder if the system looks into distance preference as part of the calculus? Not that it is worth looking into but how many of the Top 100 are listed as near home Very Bad? That would al least give the PAC a little bit of compensation.

No idea, and I wouldn't post it here even if I had looked into it obviously. Hypothetically, if that was the case, there might be some movement toward balance, but very little needle movement, really. Distance recruiting is only viable for one recruit per team, per class, generally. It would be a poorly designed substitute, if that was the idea. But I doubt that's even a thought. The way it was presented, it's just a rotating geographical musical chairs of "oops, you get a barren class this time, sorry," with consideration for the needs of each region based on scholarships, as discussed. But I've played many dozens of seasons of Pac 10 HD across a couple different worlds, and it's never been close to this bad. Lean yes. Like THIS? No high level recruits in any Pacific state AT ALL? Never seen that. And that anomaly just happens to land on a year when a power conference on the other side of the country has 44 graduating seniors - 3.67 graduating seniors per team. I clicked through my other worlds, and only one other power conference had more than 35, that was the ACC in Wooden, with 39. Most conferences fall in the 27-33 range. Maybe I'm the only one who appreciates this oddity, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying, suggesting, or even hinting that it's anything but a coincidence on the part of those coaches - no funny business over there. Just that it has coincided with easily the worst recruit generation I've ever seen on the other side of the country.