Question about new system Topic

trobone
Posts: 615 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 12 10
Rookie

I started here after the change.

I see lots of people angry/complaining about the change in recruits. From my point of view it seems people are angry about two things. First, recruits are not as good coming out of high school. Two, it is harder to get top recruits at mid-major and low D-1 schools.

my question is - are the same problems happening in DIII. Not knowing what was happening before I don't know if i just have horrible vision, suck at recruiting, or DIII players have just gotten worse with the new engine.

8/4/2010 8:38 AM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
I think its a combo of both. When I first started it took a lot of watching vets recruit, team build etc and just overall experience to figure out the guys I were going after were not as good as I thought. Throw in the mix that there is less quality recruits and it isn't very easy for the new guys to get as lucky as before. 
8/4/2010 8:48 AM
tkimble
Posts: 1347 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 335 1 1
Rookie
I disagree, I really like the new recruit at d3. Some of the d3 guys I've been getting are far superior to the ones I had been getting in the old engine and I think right now there are just as many or maybe more guys at d3 who are at the previous recruits level. Also, in d3, you are finding a lot of guys that aren't good with initial ratings, but have high potential in nearly all categories. A C- team in my conference signed a guy who sucked, but had high potential in every category and a 90 WE. He redshirted him and now by his senior season he will be a stud SF and a possible CPOY candidate. IMO, the recruit changes probably hurt d1(I don't have a team there), but for the lower levels I think the recruit changes make the game more enjoyable.
8/4/2010 1:43 PM
nachopuzzle
Posts: 1427 (0)
Hall of Famer
105 2
Prospect
I'm not a fan of the snail pace at which recruits now improve. It seems like a player has to have high WE, high potential, good amount of playing time, and a starting skill amount of at least 15 in order to improve by six points during the season. A player should be practically maxed-out (all things considered, like pt and WE) by the beginning of their senior year. Its gonna suck sitting around and hoping that a senior will be where he needs to be by the end of the regular season. I think its good that improvement has slowed, but not at the rate in which it currently functions.  
8/4/2010 2:41 PM
rednu
Posts: 2673 (0)
Hall of Famer
185 2 5
Pro
I'm still making up my mind...

I noticed what I felt was a significant decrease in PF and C recruits that met the minimums I've used in past seasons. On the flipside, I saw little change with the PG and SG recruits and I  actually thought the SF's were better under the new engine at D-III than they were under the old. Maybe this was just a good SF year and this will all change with the next recruiting cycle.

That said, since there are no position penalties, I was actually able to expand my search options across all positions at D-III. I found an SG that would have stunk up the joint at SG, but will make a very serviceable (not outstanding, but good enough not to be a liability) PF with above average perimeter ability (by D-III PF standards) by the time he's a senior. I also found a SF that someone could have taken and converted to use as a PF or C (the latter would have been an out of position previously). Again, won't be an all-star at the position, but will develop solid enough to not be a liability and sometimes that's all you need as a coach.
8/4/2010 4:12 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
I think D3 recruits have stayed around the same under the engine change.
8/4/2010 4:15 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/4/2010 2:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not a fan of the snail pace at which recruits now improve. It seems like a player has to have high WE, high potential, good amount of playing time, and a starting skill amount of at least 15 in order to improve by six points during the season. A player should be practically maxed-out (all things considered, like pt and WE) by the beginning of their senior year. Its gonna suck sitting around and hoping that a senior will be where he needs to be by the end of the regular season. I think its good that improvement has slowed, but not at the rate in which it currently functions.  
I completely disagree with this. 

At D3 I have a center that has a 49 WE that is redshirted that has improved 9 points in low post and 4 points in ath, def, blk and stm through 13 games.  So he has zero Playing time and a very average WE and will get more than 6 points in half a dozen categories.
8/4/2010 4:18 PM
rnevel
Posts: 58 (0)
All Star
36
Prospect
Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/4/2010 2:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not a fan of the snail pace at which recruits now improve. It seems like a player has to have high WE, high potential, good amount of playing time, and a starting skill amount of at least 15 in order to improve by six points during the season. A player should be practically maxed-out (all things considered, like pt and WE) by the beginning of their senior year. Its gonna suck sitting around and hoping that a senior will be where he needs to be by the end of the regular season. I think its good that improvement has slowed, but not at the rate in which it currently functions.  
Not sure what you're seeing, but 13 games into the season I have 2 freshmen improving by 41 and 38 overall. Also 3 sophs in the mid 20's.
8/4/2010 5:08 PM
nachopuzzle
Posts: 1427 (0)
Hall of Famer
105 2
Prospect
Two examples:

(1) freshman PF, averaged 11.8 minutes per game and appeared in each game, 33 WE with average potentials in roughly everything.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1586295

Increased overall by 19, with only 7 in core ratings.

(2) redshirt C, 48 WE with mostly average potentials.

 http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1586296

Increased overall by 26, with 11 going towards core ratings.

I didn't do anything different than I've done in the past. I know the first player has a ****** WE, but only 19 is quite unspectacular to say the least. I'm not really that concerned with the redshirt player, but would have been nice to see a little more. I gave a little bit more time to SH than normal because now the kids are functionally illiterate and I wanted to possibly boost off. & def. IQ's without sacrificing an extra chunk of time. 
8/4/2010 5:44 PM
tkimble
Posts: 1347 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 335 1 1
Rookie
um SH doesnt affect off& def IQs.  How much time are you putting into team practice and SH?
8/4/2010 6:43 PM
nachopuzzle
Posts: 1427 (0)
Hall of Famer
105 2
Prospect
20 for off. & def., and just a few extra (maybe 3 or 4) for SH. I should have been more clear, it wasn't purely my intent to boost off. & def. IQ's. I've had some really stupid recruits so I wanted to be sure that I didn't lose anybody since I was carrying a walk-on and a redshirt. However, I did see a post from a legend (iguana1) concerning GPA and the advancement of IQ's, whereby higher GPAs required less overall team practice minutes to improve. So, I gave it a little try, but couldn't notice any substantial advantages.
8/4/2010 6:55 PM
cornfused
Posts: 1492 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 235 11
Prospect
Higher high school GPAs require less overall team practice minutes to improve.  College GPA doesn't matter.
8/4/2010 7:33 PM
Question about new system Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.