Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jslotman on 11/30/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Nobody wants to hurt "elite coaches."  I think most people would just like the playing field to be a little more equal, and that starts with the gaping holes in prestige. 

It is worth pointing out that baseline prestige has been as it is forever, but the super conferences didn't start showing up until the change in recruit generation. 

Understood, but just because something has been around forever doesn't mean it is working.  I actually think conference prestige and its effect on the prestige of an individual school is just as big an issue as recruit generation.  If a school can miss out on the NT for a dozen straight seasons and never go below a B+, a problem exists that can't be corrected by fixing recruit generation. 

Getting back to the early entry thing, how many non-NT winning teams are getting killed by losing five EE's these days anyway?   Putting a cap on early entries seems to be a solution for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist (but should in more frequency, IMO). 

But js, it was working before -- everything (besides recruit generation was the same) and the non-BCS success was terrific ... far, far exceeding real life. You saw it first hand in Allen. So yes, it was working before -- and prestige worked exactly the same as it does now.

(And I already said above that I think baseline prestige should play less of a role, so I agree with you on that, too ... but I think if you've watched how things unfolded, it's pretty obvious where it fell apart -- the one area that changed.)

Posted by therewas47 on 11/30/2011 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I don't know much about D1 so this might be a stupid idea or it could already be in place, but could the top 200 players have different standards for playing time. Say 10% of the top 200 wants 15+ mins a game and 5% of that 10% wants at least 20 mins a game. Also, some players would be OK with not playing at all their first couple yrs. Coaches could get this information from conducting scouting trips. Maybe if a player signs with their favorite school they would accept a couple fewer mins a game than they would otherwise to make that more important. That could make it so maybe a top flight BCS program passes on a 5 star because he would require too many minutes and that recruit ends up at a mid to low level BCS school or a top mid-major. It could make it so that a 3 or 4 star  gets passed over by some schools and goes to a smaller school we're he can get his minutes. Also, it would cause top programs to scout more players because they could take some lower ranked players that would be willing to bide their time. 

The request of minutes to 'caliber' to me has been the best suggestion in a while.  I don't want to punish Duke for getting the #5 overall player every season, I just don't want them to sit the guy and play 4 MPG.

But I know that isn't a quick program on Seble's part.  You have to look at the caliber of player vs. school vs. playing time (on the same token, if a DII team gets a ranked player, he won't be too happy with the 4 MPG, but if they got a mid-pack DII player, they're fine with it).

The fix for this should be two-fold...

1. Have those Top 40 type players demand starts and minutes - This should cause a theoretical Duke to be forced to only go after guys who will be immediate rotation players for them or to develop lesser talent. 

2. Potential needs to change. There should be underdeveloped players IE: Not top 40 guys, with "super-potential" so to speak, in much of the same was that DITR work in HBD, but maybe less random. This would allow mid-majors to go after your real life Dwayne Wades or Stephen Currys. Guys who can't get a shot at a top school because they're not an 800+ ranked player, but develop into a National All-American type. 

Well, to be fair, Dwyane Wade didn't have a lot of college options because his academics stunk, not because teams weren't recruiting him.  Stephen Curry is obviously a good example. 

Posted by dw172300 on 11/30/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
The fix for this should be two-fold...

1. Have those Top 40 type players demand starts and minutes - This should cause a theoretical Duke to be forced to only go after guys who will be immediate rotation players for them or to develop lesser talent. 

2. Potential needs to change. There should be underdeveloped players IE: Not top 40 guys, with "super-potential" so to speak, in much of the same was that DITR work in HBD, but maybe less random. This would allow mid-majors to go after your real life Dwayne Wades or Stephen Currys. Guys who can't get a shot at a top school because they're not an 800+ ranked player, but develop into a National All-American type. 

I don't think you can do both of those at once.  On the one hand, you are trying to create a pool of lower rated recruits with NPOY potential for low BCS/mid-major teams to sign (since they won't be looked at by elites because they aren't 770+ as Frosh) while simultaneously restricting the number of 770+ freshmen that elites can sign.

What is to stop a coach at UNC from looking at his 4 open scholarships and saying "I'll have 2 number 1s and 2 number 2s" 

Posted by dw172300 on 11/30/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
The fix for this should be two-fold...

1. Have those Top 40 type players demand starts and minutes - This should cause a theoretical Duke to be forced to only go after guys who will be immediate rotation players for them or to develop lesser talent. 

2. Potential needs to change. There should be underdeveloped players IE: Not top 40 guys, with "super-potential" so to speak, in much of the same was that DITR work in HBD, but maybe less random. This would allow mid-majors to go after your real life Dwayne Wades or Stephen Currys. Guys who can't get a shot at a top school because they're not an 800+ ranked player, but develop into a National All-American type. 

Yeah, anyone who saw Wade practice as a freshman at MU knew that he was a superstar in the making.  Hell, try to find a youtube of Midnight Madness his freshman year.  He was an academic non-qualifier.

As for DITRs, there are plenty of guys playing D2 who should be playing mid-majors D1.  Hell, there D3 players who could contribute at many mid-major teams.  These types of players already exist, many coaches just don't want to take the time to look for a 510-rated player with high potentials. 

I'm not totally opposed to some type of change, but keep in mind that DITRs could (and likely would) fall to D2 and D3 teams, making those levels significantly less realistic (I know great players play D2 and D3, but there aren't high-level D1 players scattered throughout D2 and D3 every year).

Posted by hughesjr on 11/30/2011 4:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pjbrankin on 11/29/2011 7:57:00 PM (view original):
I'm wondering if anyone agreed with my complaints about redshirting or whether I'm being dramatic? For some reason I haven't had any success at all trying to redshirt a player unless I used the option during recruiting(which sometimes I forget). It just seems silly that a zero star recruit would pitch a fit about being redshirted IMO

How many Red Shirts do you see in real life now?

I know Kentucky is not a Good example, but they have not had a Red Shirt in all of Calipari's 3 seasons.

I understand that having a Red Shirt is good for the team, but in Basketball it is not something that every team does now.  And you "forget" to use the option that the game created so you can do it if you want to?  Isn't that like complaining  that you got bad players because you "forgot" to recruit?

I don't coach Kentucky, I coach Sacramento freaking State. Zero star recruits. Maybe a couple 1-star recruits. I'm not exactly John Calipari.

Duke, by the way, is redshirting freshman Alex Murphy this season.

For what it's worth, there are currently three players on Sac State's roster who are or have redshirted.  Seems HD-ish to me.

Diamonds in the rough do exist, one of the problems, is the top schools tend to get them too.  Here are two from the same class from my team in Tark, with their starting numbers below where they are at right now.  Brimer is a senior who is averaging 15 ppg, Ward took a redshirt and started two seasons already, and is still improving.  Wqrd I got local to me, but Brimer I found after not only the initial signings, but after the next day signings.

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Jonathan Brimer	Sr.	SF	89	54	47	86	42	85	41	74	60	89	93	100	C+	860
			64	46	44	76	21	32	17	37	24	82	70	63	C-	576
Charles Ward	Jr.	C	81	41	98	89	82	77	23	33	30	70	79	99	B-	802
			78	12	72	61	58	40	10	14	28	60	57	72	D	563

I will be following what you did a few seasons back this season OR. When you didn't go after any stud types, and signed a bunch of high potential guys that have you in the top 10. It's definitely possible, just takes some work to find those DITRs.

I also think that the next release needs to focus on some long standing issues. I started playing in early 2009 and have seen comments ever since I joined that the fastbreak offense was going to be replaced or modified. This is something that has almost unanimous support, but hd hasn't done anything about it yet. This is just one long standing issue and i'm sure there are other examples. I like what Seble's done, but we can't just be told that "someday we'll get to it" with these issues.