I asked CS how often Big 12, or any other conferences have no top 100 recruits in any of their states (to be fair, AZ does have one single top 100 recruits - and he's ineligible, lol). This was CS response:

"I don't have those generation numbers. The WIS staff is a small team who has to try to appease customers across all of the platforms, not just GD. We are also focusing on areas we feel the community as a whole has expressed they would like addressed and the recruit generation is not something that comes up very much compared to other issues with this 20+ year old game."

(This was second time he thought I was referring to GD - I even corrected him the first time).

*****************

I'll just leave it at this - If no top 100 recruits generated at all on the west looks dumb to you, if the system of rotating musical chairs of barren years doesn't sound realistic or fun, if you think recruit generation is a problem, even a little bit, SEND A TICKET. They apparently don't think we really care about this.

Did they really say "not just GD?"

That is one attention to detail oriented dude.

recruit generation has been the biggest issue entirely with the game since i first started almost 10 years ago.

Posted by R0pey on 7/19/2023 9:48:00 AM (view original):
recruit generation has been the biggest issue entirely with the game since i first started almost 10 years ago.

I don't know if I would say recruit generation is the problem. The entire process of recruiting is the problem.

This interesting because my first impression, recuriting from Alabama, was that this was not a great recruit gen for our area.

Posted by Baums_away on 7/19/2023 12:57:00 PM (view original):
This interesting because my first impression, recuriting from Alabama, was that this was not a great recruit gen for our area.

FWIW, the SEC states - AR, LA, KY, TN, AL, MS, GA, SC, and FL - have 23 recruits in the top 100. They're always quite a bit higher than the Pac 10 states, for a few different reasons, which is a separate issue I suppose. But 23-1 is very extreme.

Yeah, I mean this is just an insane anomaly. Not sure I've ever seen CA with <3 before.

And obviously, recruit gen is the problem. But it's combined with opening up jobs and having too many D1 coaches at the mid prestige levels.

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/19/2023 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I mean this is just an insane anomaly. Not sure I've ever seen CA with <3 before.

And obviously, recruit gen is the problem. But it's combined with opening up jobs and having too many D1 coaches at the mid prestige levels.

That last part - nah. I have no problem at all with lots of coaches around me, if the recruit generation is rational. And until this year, I've never seen a serious problem. Like I've said, I've played dozens of seasons across two worlds in the Pac 10. I know lean years, but this is absurd. Before, recruit gen issues were framed (as I saw them) like "why are there never any good recruits in Kentucky?" stuff like that. And I understood that, I coached in Kentucky, it was frustrating, but not super high priority. But this is different. This feels broken.

I'm not saying anything about recruiting beyond what is plainly visible in the Top 100 for obvious fair play reasons, and I won't until after the season is all done. But this is plenty for right now. So again, I just encourage anyone who sees any problem at all with a system that can produce no Top 100 players on the West Coast at all, and only 7 within 750 miles of southern Cal, send those tickets. CS apparently doesn't know the history of people having an issue with this.

I don't think this is a big problem. The game has better and worse locations. I consider the 4 Cali Pac 12 schools to be well above average locations and Wash/WSU/Oregon/Oregon State to be well below average locations.

Of course, the Cali schools are going to be more variant and gen dependent than schools everywhere else. Recruits are less dense but also there is less competition for them. Gens matter more and that's part of the deal. Does the community as a whole consider UCLA/Cal/Stanford/USC to be below-average locations?

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 5:17:00 PM (view original):
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.

sorry, not stuck on anything you said, or the idea that it contradicts something i said - just was trying to be clear myself. quantity is tied to open scholarships and that has been pretty known for ages. quality, i don't think so. i do think you may be reading too much into their ticket, though.

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/19/2023 11:10:00 PM (view original):
I don't think this is a big problem. The game has better and worse locations. I consider the 4 Cali Pac 12 schools to be well above average locations and Wash/WSU/Oregon/Oregon State to be well below average locations.

Of course, the Cali schools are going to be more variant and gen dependent than schools everywhere else. Recruits are less dense but also there is less competition for them. Gens matter more and that's part of the deal. Does the community as a whole consider UCLA/Cal/Stanford/USC to be below-average locations?

i doubt it. i agree its a bit more situational though. it seems like the lower pop areas (humans, recruits) can vary more world over world than places that are always packed (east coast), in terms of how 'plum' the job happens to be at that time / world. but i think some of this has leveled out, with the reduction of bonus money and by making dice rolls on recruits. the low majors and mid majors seem much more capable of competing now than previously, which i think kinda rounds out some of the natural fluctuation you'd get from having a few key empty or weakly-coached BCS jobs in a smaller pop area.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 5:07:00 PM (view original):

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. :)

i have not looked at florida a&m recruiting for even 1 second nor would doing so impact how i look at such a topic. frankly, its not even relevant. we were talking about how the system works mechanically - at least, i think we were?

your opinions being so shifted here, by a single season... it does kind of suggest you look at these things superficially, emotionally. its not really ideal. the idea that you are wasting CS time repeatedly on this issue when you've been on the other side of it - sort of?? - is kinda whack honestly. the idea that a bunch of people should now send tickets when before they should adjust their play style... just not a great look (frankly, i have no idea what you are converted to, but it wasn't really relevant - to how things work mechanically - so i didn't bother to ask). the whole goings on here with CS, its just not sensible or constructive, in any way. it also makes no sense to try to build nuanced understanding based on a micro-analysis of an emotionally charged ticket between a frustrated user and an employee who quite possibly has no idea what they, or the other person, is talking about. these exchanges are only really useful when there is a meeting of the minds. i struggle to quality this exchange as such.

Posted by gillispie on 7/20/2023 12:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/18/2023 5:07:00 PM (view original):

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. :)

i have not looked at florida a&m recruiting for even 1 second nor would doing so impact how i look at such a topic. frankly, its not even relevant. we were talking about how the system works mechanically - at least, i think we were?

your opinions being so shifted here, by a single season... it does kind of suggest you look at these things superficially, emotionally. its not really ideal. the idea that you are wasting CS time repeatedly on this issue when you've been on the other side of it - sort of?? - is kinda whack honestly. the idea that a bunch of people should now send tickets when before they should adjust their play style... just not a great look (frankly, i have no idea what you are converted to, but it wasn't really relevant - to how things work mechanically - so i didn't bother to ask). the whole goings on here with CS, its just not sensible or constructive, in any way. it also makes no sense to try to build nuanced understanding based on a micro-analysis of an emotionally charged ticket between a frustrated user and an employee who quite possibly has no idea what they, or the other person, is talking about. these exchanges are only really useful when there is a meeting of the minds. i struggle to quality this exchange as such.

Jesus Gil you go zero to personal in like 3 seconds. I forgot how quick you are. Nice.

Gil:
You white knighting for CS is rich. GFY for real. Like what do you even know about the ticket, other than they continued to confuse HD for GD?

We are paying customers (many of us are anyway) and they are giving us answers that amount to "yes the system is bad, and we know it, but we're not going to do anything about it, because not enough people have complained about it." And now you're telling me that because of the way I've presented it in this thread (how you've read it, and the assumptions you're making about it anyway) I am "emotionally charged" and have done something like a 180 apparently because of a single season, even though that's not what I said at all.

And wasting CS time? Like... what is customer service for, do you suppose? What are their very important tasks that don't involve dealing with the dissatisfaction of customers who have complaints about the product?

If you had bothered to ask - and you should have, before you started babbling about micro-analysis bullish!t in some sort of dominance power play - I would have told you that I am a "convert" in the sense that I now understand recruit generation differently than it was explained before, or at least differently than I understood it. As I said above, I understood it more of like some areas are just generally worse than others; more along the lines of what cub is laying out. And that I can and have lived with. And I do think players generally should adapt. Again, dozens of years in the Pac 10 (including the apparently bad Oregon territory, where I won my first D1 title). But a system capable of producing *this level of barren* is something different, something broken - that's what it feels like to me. Am I being emotional? Whatever dude. I laid this out in the OP, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it. Now suddenly, you get all white knighty. Maybe it was the sativa, who knows.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/20/2023 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Gil:
You white knighting for CS is rich. GFY for real. Like what do you even know about the ticket, other than they continued to confuse HD for GD?

We are paying customers (many of us are anyway) and they are giving us answers that amount to "yes the system is bad, and we know it, but we're not going to do anything about it, because not enough people have complained about it." And now you're telling me that because of the way I've presented it in this thread (how you've read it, and the assumptions you're making about it anyway) I am "emotionally charged" and have done something like a 180 apparently because of a single season, even though that's not what I said at all.

And wasting CS time? Like... what is customer service for, do you suppose? What are their very important tasks that don't involve dealing with the dissatisfaction of customers who have complaints about the product?

If you had bothered to ask - and you should have, before you started babbling about micro-analysis bullish!t in some sort of dominance power play - I would have told you that I am a "convert" in the sense that I now understand recruit generation differently than it was explained before, or at least differently than I understood it. As I said above, I understood it more of like some areas are just generally worse than others; more along the lines of what cub is laying out. And that I can and have lived with. And I do think players generally should adapt. Again, dozens of years in the Pac 10 (including the apparently bad Oregon territory, where I won my first D1 title). But a system capable of producing *this level of barren* is something different, something broken - that's what it feels like to me. Am I being emotional? Whatever dude. I laid this out in the OP, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it. Now suddenly, you get all white knighty. Maybe it was the sativa, who knows.

I thought you laid these thoughts out (the last paragraph) in your OP rather succinctly...a warning that recruit generation is either not working as intended or has a major flaw in the logic. They are general concepts, a general warning. Perhaps you are being baited into digression about minutiae intentionally...