Thought I would look at this and grab some data(only did 5 past years so it didn't take too long)

LINK

Some informative stuff, will only make brief statements since its only a 5 year window(I would've done a 10 if I had time)

But:

It seems like non big 6 teams just really don't get those T25 positional players(while looking I did notice there were a lot of lower big 6 schools signing well), but non big 6 weren't really that great signing.  UNLV is pretty amazing at recruiting, but doesn't seem to transition into wins and deep NT runs.

I assume this means a few things.

The current update trying to make it so non big 6 schools can compete is actually not making it more realistic, it seems the non big 6 schools just develop well or find what the forums like to call "hidden gems", 

So I think that means recruit generation is then actually a bigger fix to what the the problem with non competitive non power schools(I won't go into that here since I'm not trying to talk about that yet)  I would also like to see the # of top ranked players, 5,4, 3 star etc the game generates to what real life has had previously but thats again a recruit generation topic and I'm not going there yet.

what world is this data from?

Posted by carl3298 on 9/21/2015 8:38:00 AM (view original):
what world is this data from?

looks like the REAL world

Posted by the0nlyis on 9/20/2015 11:25:00 PM (view original):
Thought I would look at this and grab some data(only did 5 past years so it didn't take too long)

LINK

Some informative stuff, will only make brief statements since its only a 5 year window(I would've done a 10 if I had time)

But:

It seems like non big 6 teams just really don't get those T25 positional players(while looking I did notice there were a lot of lower big 6 schools signing well), but non big 6 weren't really that great signing.  UNLV is pretty amazing at recruiting, but doesn't seem to transition into wins and deep NT runs.

I assume this means a few things.

The current update trying to make it so non big 6 schools can compete is actually not making it more realistic, it seems the non big 6 schools just develop well or find what the forums like to call "hidden gems", 

So I think that means recruit generation is then actually a bigger fix to what the the problem with non competitive non power schools(I won't go into that here since I'm not trying to talk about that yet)  I would also like to see the # of top ranked players, 5,4, 3 star etc the game generates to what real life has had previously but thats again a recruit generation topic and I'm not going there yet.

Absolutely agree!  Recruit generation is what created the huge split between DI elites and everyone else.  Before it became the ACC's playground, Allen was one of the best places to be at a mid-major.  Between seasons 29-40 (so when DI had been well established, we're not talking the first humans getting to DI and being able to beat Sim run Big 6 schools), Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale, and Southern all won national titles.  Weber State, Utah, UNLV, and Morris Brown all made the NT game and lost, and Montana had a run out of the Big Sky where they went Elite 8, Elite 8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet 16, Elite 8.

Then recruit generation changed to make the best recruits better and the rest of the recruits worse, and now it is the poster child for a top heavy world. 

It is recruit generation that caused the problems at high DI.  Tournament money has been the same forever, but it was never a huge problem until recruit generation was changed.

Posted by acn24 on 9/21/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 9/20/2015 11:25:00 PM (view original):
Thought I would look at this and grab some data(only did 5 past years so it didn't take too long)

LINK

Some informative stuff, will only make brief statements since its only a 5 year window(I would've done a 10 if I had time)

But:

It seems like non big 6 teams just really don't get those T25 positional players(while looking I did notice there were a lot of lower big 6 schools signing well), but non big 6 weren't really that great signing.  UNLV is pretty amazing at recruiting, but doesn't seem to transition into wins and deep NT runs.

I assume this means a few things.

The current update trying to make it so non big 6 schools can compete is actually not making it more realistic, it seems the non big 6 schools just develop well or find what the forums like to call "hidden gems", 

So I think that means recruit generation is then actually a bigger fix to what the the problem with non competitive non power schools(I won't go into that here since I'm not trying to talk about that yet)  I would also like to see the # of top ranked players, 5,4, 3 star etc the game generates to what real life has had previously but thats again a recruit generation topic and I'm not going there yet.

Absolutely agree!  Recruit generation is what created the huge split between DI elites and everyone else.  Before it became the ACC's playground, Allen was one of the best places to be at a mid-major.  Between seasons 29-40 (so when DI had been well established, we're not talking the first humans getting to DI and being able to beat Sim run Big 6 schools), Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale, and Southern all won national titles.  Weber State, Utah, UNLV, and Morris Brown all made the NT game and lost, and Montana had a run out of the Big Sky where they went Elite 8, Elite 8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet 16, Elite 8.

Then recruit generation changed to make the best recruits better and the rest of the recruits worse, and now it is the poster child for a top heavy world. 

It is recruit generation that caused the problems at high DI.  Tournament money has been the same forever, but it was never a huge problem until recruit generation was changed.

it frustrates me how obviously accurate this is to so many of us... but not to the one person who matters :(

also, it isn't response here, but many people have said seble's aim is really at d1 recruiting. i don't think thats the case. i think he is targeting d2/d3 just as much, or at least close to as much, as he is d1. he wouldn't do all this for 1 division. part of his frustration is the ceiling of 100, he doesn't see a good way to redo recruit gen, and i actually think he has a fair point - if you go back to how it was, everyone ******* that there are way too many teams with 90 in everything, i mean that was the case for a long time before his change. the problem is the rating basis has to drop, but d3/d2 coaches (and d1 coaches, really) will struggle to adjust to a paradigm where a current good player, minus 10 in all cores, is the equally good player of the future. i think the best approach might be to open to 125 or 150 caps and then you have room to work. but this would be a major change. i guess its not fair to say seble doesn't realize the situation... i think he at least half realizes it... but its also trying to find a solution where there's a struggle.

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 9/21/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 9/20/2015 11:25:00 PM (view original):
Thought I would look at this and grab some data(only did 5 past years so it didn't take too long)

LINK

Some informative stuff, will only make brief statements since its only a 5 year window(I would've done a 10 if I had time)

But:

It seems like non big 6 teams just really don't get those T25 positional players(while looking I did notice there were a lot of lower big 6 schools signing well), but non big 6 weren't really that great signing.  UNLV is pretty amazing at recruiting, but doesn't seem to transition into wins and deep NT runs.

I assume this means a few things.

The current update trying to make it so non big 6 schools can compete is actually not making it more realistic, it seems the non big 6 schools just develop well or find what the forums like to call "hidden gems", 

So I think that means recruit generation is then actually a bigger fix to what the the problem with non competitive non power schools(I won't go into that here since I'm not trying to talk about that yet)  I would also like to see the # of top ranked players, 5,4, 3 star etc the game generates to what real life has had previously but thats again a recruit generation topic and I'm not going there yet.

Absolutely agree!  Recruit generation is what created the huge split between DI elites and everyone else.  Before it became the ACC's playground, Allen was one of the best places to be at a mid-major.  Between seasons 29-40 (so when DI had been well established, we're not talking the first humans getting to DI and being able to beat Sim run Big 6 schools), Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale, and Southern all won national titles.  Weber State, Utah, UNLV, and Morris Brown all made the NT game and lost, and Montana had a run out of the Big Sky where they went Elite 8, Elite 8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet 16, Elite 8.

Then recruit generation changed to make the best recruits better and the rest of the recruits worse, and now it is the poster child for a top heavy world. 

It is recruit generation that caused the problems at high DI.  Tournament money has been the same forever, but it was never a huge problem until recruit generation was changed.

it frustrates me how obviously accurate this is to so many of us... but not to the one person who matters :(

also, it isn't response here, but many people have said seble's aim is really at d1 recruiting. i don't think thats the case. i think he is targeting d2/d3 just as much, or at least close to as much, as he is d1. he wouldn't do all this for 1 division. part of his frustration is the ceiling of 100, he doesn't see a good way to redo recruit gen, and i actually think he has a fair point - if you go back to how it was, everyone ******* that there are way too many teams with 90 in everything, i mean that was the case for a long time before his change. the problem is the rating basis has to drop, but d3/d2 coaches (and d1 coaches, really) will struggle to adjust to a paradigm where a current good player, minus 10 in all cores, is the equally good player of the future. i think the best approach might be to open to 125 or 150 caps and then you have room to work. but this would be a major change. i guess its not fair to say seble doesn't realize the situation... i think he at least half realizes it... but its also trying to find a solution where there's a struggle.

the only and I sat in that chatzy chat room for about 4 hours the other night sort of discussing this (and then it grew into other stuff, cuz I kept asking painful questions), but I tried to make that point (and not sure I did) where if all the players in the game use the same 1-100 point scale how low do D3 starters start to get in things if we make it so the average D1 starter only has mid to upper 80s in cores? 

Maybe there's a way to "normalize" the ratings by division somehow - which to happen would lock players into a division and eliminate pull or drop downs (and the fact that higher prestige D3 and D2 teams see "higher" players on their respective lists) - so its probably not a good solution...

Posted by waykbordr on 9/21/2015 10:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by carl3298 on 9/21/2015 8:38:00 AM (view original):
what world is this data from?

looks like the REAL world

Ah that's funny...  I was looking at Xavier (my favorite team) and thinking - "that seems like too many 3/4 star guys for them in real life" -- but it's probably right as I think about it.  Part of it depends on what recruiting service you use to evaluate.  This one looks a little high but they definitely have gotten a bunch of 3 star and a few 4 star guys lately. 

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 9/21/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 9/20/2015 11:25:00 PM (view original):
Thought I would look at this and grab some data(only did 5 past years so it didn't take too long)

LINK

Some informative stuff, will only make brief statements since its only a 5 year window(I would've done a 10 if I had time)

But:

It seems like non big 6 teams just really don't get those T25 positional players(while looking I did notice there were a lot of lower big 6 schools signing well), but non big 6 weren't really that great signing.  UNLV is pretty amazing at recruiting, but doesn't seem to transition into wins and deep NT runs.

I assume this means a few things.

The current update trying to make it so non big 6 schools can compete is actually not making it more realistic, it seems the non big 6 schools just develop well or find what the forums like to call "hidden gems", 

So I think that means recruit generation is then actually a bigger fix to what the the problem with non competitive non power schools(I won't go into that here since I'm not trying to talk about that yet)  I would also like to see the # of top ranked players, 5,4, 3 star etc the game generates to what real life has had previously but thats again a recruit generation topic and I'm not going there yet.

Absolutely agree!  Recruit generation is what created the huge split between DI elites and everyone else.  Before it became the ACC's playground, Allen was one of the best places to be at a mid-major.  Between seasons 29-40 (so when DI had been well established, we're not talking the first humans getting to DI and being able to beat Sim run Big 6 schools), Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale, and Southern all won national titles.  Weber State, Utah, UNLV, and Morris Brown all made the NT game and lost, and Montana had a run out of the Big Sky where they went Elite 8, Elite 8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet 16, Elite 8.

Then recruit generation changed to make the best recruits better and the rest of the recruits worse, and now it is the poster child for a top heavy world. 

It is recruit generation that caused the problems at high DI.  Tournament money has been the same forever, but it was never a huge problem until recruit generation was changed.

it frustrates me how obviously accurate this is to so many of us... but not to the one person who matters :(

also, it isn't response here, but many people have said seble's aim is really at d1 recruiting. i don't think thats the case. i think he is targeting d2/d3 just as much, or at least close to as much, as he is d1. he wouldn't do all this for 1 division. part of his frustration is the ceiling of 100, he doesn't see a good way to redo recruit gen, and i actually think he has a fair point - if you go back to how it was, everyone ******* that there are way too many teams with 90 in everything, i mean that was the case for a long time before his change. the problem is the rating basis has to drop, but d3/d2 coaches (and d1 coaches, really) will struggle to adjust to a paradigm where a current good player, minus 10 in all cores, is the equally good player of the future. i think the best approach might be to open to 125 or 150 caps and then you have room to work. but this would be a major change. i guess its not fair to say seble doesn't realize the situation... i think he at least half realizes it... but its also trying to find a solution where there's a struggle.

I think there is a lot of truth here but don't you also think that one of the issues recruit generation doesn't touch and that tourney $ absolutely affects is the nature of recruiting itself within the game? It seems to me one of the realism factors that seble wants to address, given he has the opportunity to do so, is the competition for recruits among conference rivals. That element is missing from the game today. There is simply too much cooperation among rivals that doesn't exist in the real world. It seems to me seble's intent here is to eliminate the gentleman's agreement in recruiting and replace it with a method that will be more blind in process and not foster the bad blood that can develop in the open auction recruiting that happens today. I think the plan is for the new system to keep schools from fielding a 12 man roster of superstars and provide more of a trickle down effect of talent. Based on how those results play out I think seble will be open to modifying recruit gen.

I am in Allen D1, D- and I feel like I need to build a DII top team, A+ prestige... The talent is so thin, it's scary. I can't find enough players to fill my schollies and hope to be competitive. I know we will all battle for the same bad players...

Recruit generation needs to be fix, but post season cash, only in D1, needs to be brought down.

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 9/21/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 9/20/2015 11:25:00 PM (view original):
Thought I would look at this and grab some data(only did 5 past years so it didn't take too long)

LINK

Some informative stuff, will only make brief statements since its only a 5 year window(I would've done a 10 if I had time)

But:

It seems like non big 6 teams just really don't get those T25 positional players(while looking I did notice there were a lot of lower big 6 schools signing well), but non big 6 weren't really that great signing.  UNLV is pretty amazing at recruiting, but doesn't seem to transition into wins and deep NT runs.

I assume this means a few things.

The current update trying to make it so non big 6 schools can compete is actually not making it more realistic, it seems the non big 6 schools just develop well or find what the forums like to call "hidden gems", 

So I think that means recruit generation is then actually a bigger fix to what the the problem with non competitive non power schools(I won't go into that here since I'm not trying to talk about that yet)  I would also like to see the # of top ranked players, 5,4, 3 star etc the game generates to what real life has had previously but thats again a recruit generation topic and I'm not going there yet.

Absolutely agree!  Recruit generation is what created the huge split between DI elites and everyone else.  Before it became the ACC's playground, Allen was one of the best places to be at a mid-major.  Between seasons 29-40 (so when DI had been well established, we're not talking the first humans getting to DI and being able to beat Sim run Big 6 schools), Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale, and Southern all won national titles.  Weber State, Utah, UNLV, and Morris Brown all made the NT game and lost, and Montana had a run out of the Big Sky where they went Elite 8, Elite 8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet 16, Elite 8.

Then recruit generation changed to make the best recruits better and the rest of the recruits worse, and now it is the poster child for a top heavy world. 

It is recruit generation that caused the problems at high DI.  Tournament money has been the same forever, but it was never a huge problem until recruit generation was changed.

it frustrates me how obviously accurate this is to so many of us... but not to the one person who matters :(

also, it isn't response here, but many people have said seble's aim is really at d1 recruiting. i don't think thats the case. i think he is targeting d2/d3 just as much, or at least close to as much, as he is d1. he wouldn't do all this for 1 division. part of his frustration is the ceiling of 100, he doesn't see a good way to redo recruit gen, and i actually think he has a fair point - if you go back to how it was, everyone ******* that there are way too many teams with 90 in everything, i mean that was the case for a long time before his change. the problem is the rating basis has to drop, but d3/d2 coaches (and d1 coaches, really) will struggle to adjust to a paradigm where a current good player, minus 10 in all cores, is the equally good player of the future. i think the best approach might be to open to 125 or 150 caps and then you have room to work. but this would be a major change. i guess its not fair to say seble doesn't realize the situation... i think he at least half realizes it... but its also trying to find a solution where there's a struggle.

Why can't we just adjust player ratings it shouldn't be that hard haven't the ideals changed before?  Is it really that big a deal that at D3 you are now looking for a 40 ath 70 spd stud compared to 60 ath 90 spd guy as a stud.

I've mentioned this multiple times but really there should never be a team with a starting lineup of 90+ ath/def

Team ath/def is very misleading because the top teams generally never see higher than 91/92 ath/def but they're starting lineups are all 95+ guys.

A big thing sort of unrelated is the decorrelation between ath and defense personally or at least make it much much less common.  Ath and def should not correlate 100% of the time.  there's a lot of highly athletic guys who are not good defenders and a ton of non athletic guys who are elite D1 defenders.

Honestly another big complait at mine(very assumtionized?[is that a word) but it really feels as if at the lower levels its find a few guys good enough on offense to go with a defensive focused team.  Idk how it is in real life but I feel as if its the other way around at lower levels more offensive players that are bad defenders compared to a ton of players good at defense and bad at offense.

Honestly I think Per needs to be adjust guards should rarely ever dip below 50 per(except for the tony allen/mkg player).  I'd like to see a lot more 50-70 per guys.  and less 90+ guys.  make those 90+ guys a big deal.  It's hilarious that you can build a NC team without hitting a single 3PA, its super unrealistic.

This has been my primary argument from day one.
You want more parity and equity? In a game that is supposed to mirror real life?

Fix recruit generation... and encourage battles for high recruits to produce a trickle down effect...

But in real life, UNC, KS, and KY don't lose recruiting battles to anyone in the horizon conference. That's not how you fix it.
In real life, mid majors become competitive through finding hidden gems, developing players well, and competing when they're upper class men. Punishing great teams is not the fix... Making them compete for top players and having lessees Defelop better is.