For one, there were a lot more realistic battles in this set up.  I saw tons high major teams duking it out for players.  I think this is a realistic thing.

I see this having an effect in 2 ways: First, I'd like to see if more major teams are carrying more walkons, like it seems like they are to me.  Secondly, if this is the case, will fatigue be more of an issue due to a shortened bench?

In terms of recruit creation logic.. maybe a small increase towards better potential players? I like that there were varied types of players.. but it was hard to find guards that had good potentials. Maybe other people had better luck?

Picking players to compliment what your team needed if you had a few openings seemed to be ok though.

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 4:48:00 PM (view original):

For one, there were a lot more realistic battles in this set up.  I saw tons high major teams duking it out for players.  I think this is a realistic thing.

I see this having an effect in 2 ways: First, I'd like to see if more major teams are carrying more walkons, like it seems like they are to me.  Secondly, if this is the case, will fatigue be more of an issue due to a shortened bench?

In terms of recruit creation logic.. maybe a small increase towards better potential players? I like that there were varied types of players.. but it was hard to find guards that had good potentials. Maybe other people had better luck?

Picking players to compliment what your team needed if you had a few openings seemed to be ok though.

+1.  Let the big boys have at it for the Carmelo Anthony's of the world.

Posted by namshub on 7/13/2010 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 4:48:00 PM (view original):

For one, there were a lot more realistic battles in this set up.  I saw tons high major teams duking it out for players.  I think this is a realistic thing.

I see this having an effect in 2 ways: First, I'd like to see if more major teams are carrying more walkons, like it seems like they are to me.  Secondly, if this is the case, will fatigue be more of an issue due to a shortened bench?

In terms of recruit creation logic.. maybe a small increase towards better potential players? I like that there were varied types of players.. but it was hard to find guards that had good potentials. Maybe other people had better luck?

Picking players to compliment what your team needed if you had a few openings seemed to be ok though.

+1.  Let the big boys have at it for the Carmelo Anthony's of the world.

Posted by furry_nipps on 7/13/2010 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you need to increase potentials. The days of the 100/100/100 core rating guys are over for all the top BCS schools. Some still will have some at 100, but at the same time an important one might be maxed out at 70. I think this is a good change. It was hard in div II to recruit just because I was so use to getting great players so easy. They still will be great players, but they will have some weaknesses. I will have to have another one have a strength as his weakness and so on. You finally have to build an actual team.

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 4:48:00 PM (view original):

For one, there were a lot more realistic battles in this set up.  I saw tons high major teams duking it out for players.  I think this is a realistic thing.

I see this having an effect in 2 ways: First, I'd like to see if more major teams are carrying more walkons, like it seems like they are to me.  Secondly, if this is the case, will fatigue be more of an issue due to a shortened bench?

In terms of recruit creation logic.. maybe a small increase towards better potential players? I like that there were varied types of players.. but it was hard to find guards that had good potentials. Maybe other people had better luck?

Picking players to compliment what your team needed if you had a few openings seemed to be ok though.

Posted by ARomano on 7/13/2010 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I think the lack of good guards for mid-majors is troublesome.  There are just none left that are worthy of actually being recruited by a B- or so prestige school in a weak conference.  Too many SG's with poor Ball handling, speed and perimeter and too many with high potential in rebounding, shot blocking at low post when their initial ratings are in single digits.  Pretty useless to have high potential in shot blocking at the guard position when your starting at 1...

Posted by jetwildcat on 7/13/2010 6:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ARomano on 7/13/2010 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I think the lack of good guards for mid-majors is troublesome.  There are just none left that are worthy of actually being recruited by a B- or so prestige school in a weak conference.  Too many SG's with poor Ball handling, speed and perimeter and too many with high potential in rebounding, shot blocking at low post when their initial ratings are in single digits.  Pretty useless to have high potential in shot blocking at the guard position when your starting at 1...

what used to be "poor" ball handling is most likely not "poor" anymore

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 7/13/2010 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 7/13/2010 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bscoresby on 7/13/2010 4:48:00 PM (view original):

For one, there were a lot more realistic battles in this set up.  I saw tons high major teams duking it out for players.  I think this is a realistic thing.

I see this having an effect in 2 ways: First, I'd like to see if more major teams are carrying more walkons, like it seems like they are to me.  Secondly, if this is the case, will fatigue be more of an issue due to a shortened bench?

In terms of recruit creation logic.. maybe a small increase towards better potential players? I like that there were varied types of players.. but it was hard to find guards that had good potentials. Maybe other people had better luck?

Picking players to compliment what your team needed if you had a few openings seemed to be ok though.

+1.  Let the big boys have at it for the Carmelo Anthony's of the world.

Too bad in WIS's recruit generation, there are no Carmelo Anthony's. Just a bunch of Daniel Ortons and Dexter Stricklands.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 7/13/2010 7:58:00 PM (view original):
Seems to me everyone will just have to lower their expectations.  Heck, the #1 recruit in Smith is a SF with a speed maxed out in the 60s.  I'm looking forward to the day when I don't just assume all my guards will have 99 SPD/PA/BH/DEF, and the only question is whether their PER is > or < 75.  Sure the mid-level teams won't find the diamond-in-the-rough center who eventually hits the 90s in ATH/REB/DEF/BLK/LP.  But the new diamonds in the rough will be 87/82/94/68/75, and they'll still be better than the non-diamonds.  Meanwhile, the superstars will actually be superstars, and then take off after 2 seasons.

The real story now is, a 95 LP might mean something again, and coaches will have to get used to starting an SG with 65 PER.  And that will, in the end, be fun.