nams - thx for the reply - but all you really are saying is the core skill drops and def drops are required - if you read my long post above - I am essentially saying they are not required or good for the game.

also these drops of 38 points are accompanied by an increase of 50 points in the top 5, so the gap is 80 or 90 points.

this is a fairly simply math game.  The difference between divisions for players is about 75-100 points, the gap now between elites and the next level, is now about the same abount, the elites became a new division.

It requires judgement and vision and an ability to see the whole picture to figure this stuff out, any little slice can be pulled out and then worded to justify a position, I appreciate the time you spent on the effort, but all you did is the math, then said the differences were required, that does not make you right.

just to add, then at some point I have to take off, I have 18 holes of golf to play, but in any one recruit, a 30 or 40 point loss is not a big deal, if we look at say the chart you are working off of, but when taken in conjunction with more red pot, and 50 points higher ratings in the elite players, the change is indeed substantial.

Overall, recruiting does not work well enough (either in process or in dristirbution of recruits throughout the nation, as well as the random population of real coaches vs sim coaches) to have some coaches have near unlimited access to the 88 point higher rated guys, and others have to battle 2 or 3 other coaches for, or have no access at all.

in a nutshell, there is lots I don't like about seble's new recruit generation scheme, but I think the points under debate are

1 - the top 5 is too high
2 - the next 95 (at each pos) are too low
3 - there is too much red

If the issue is the new elite recruit I don't have a problem with that either.  I guess I am used to a world of haves and have nots and the different strategies that have to be played out at each.  I think most of the disagreement boils down to preference.  I know and accept that if i coach at a mid-level conference with mostly sim AI in my conference then my goal is different than if i am at a BCS school.  I don't have a problem with that in this game.  That supplies my motivation to try and win 20 games, upset some better programs, and work my way up to getting to a prestige where i can change my goals and go after the big fish and compete on a national stage.  We will have to agree to disagree on this point.  I don't think there is a right and wrong answer on how one thinks the game should be set up.  I'll revisit this issue in 4 seasons when my frosh class of "mid-major talent" works its way through at Vanderbilt.  If I can compete for a NT bid at that time then I will deem the change a success.  I am the guinea pig right now.

p.s. would rather be golfing myself.  back to work for me though.

Posted by oldresorter on 8/17/2010 11:40:00 AM (view original):
nams - thx for the reply - but all you really are saying is the core skill drops and def drops are required - if you read my long post above - I am essentially saying they are not required or good for the game.

also these drops of 38 points are accompanied by an increase of 50 points in the top 5, so the gap is 80 or 90 points.

this is a fairly simply math game.  The difference between divisions for players is about 75-100 points, the gap now between elites and the next level, is now about the same abount, the elites became a new division.

It requires judgement and vision and an ability to see the whole picture to figure this stuff out, any little slice can be pulled out and then worded to justify a position, I appreciate the time you spent on the effort, but all you did is the math, then said the differences were required, that does not make you right.

Not only that, but you can't forget that there are more low potential categories, and skill development has been slowed down as well.

So it's not just the lower starting ratings, these have to be factored in as well. (Particularly categories like sp and ath for guards have massively more low potentials and way fewer high potentials than before.)

I have simply not found that to be true, moy-- most times when i put 10 minutes into a low-pot category, i get 0-2 points per season, and then 0 after the first season (though i'll usually dump the minutes mid-way through that season unless there's nowhere else to put them).

Posted by moy23 on 8/17/2010 12:36:00 PM (view original):
I know this will not be popular opinion but I think potential is overrated. I took over a team in tark and the previous owner was putting 15-20 mins in high potential and 0-5 in low attributes. The whole team was strengths and weaknesses. For instance a pg would be 85 bh and 50 pass by Jr year... a center would be 45 lp and 90 reb. I don't use fss and haven't since the first few seasons it was released. I don't even read the emails for potential. Id rather spend that money on landing recruits since $2000+ could be the difference in me getting a recruit or losing him. Simply putting 10 minutes in a low potential category lifts that category 3-5 points per season. Those pgs the other coach left me would have been 80 bh and between 65-70 with my practice min distro. I just think some people put too much emphasis on potential. More than is needed to be successful.

Moy, you're really showing your age with this one. ;-)

The notion of recruiting without FSS is insane to me. If it was a 5-star type recruit then it wouldn't be a big deal, but for almost anything else, it's crazy. At DII/DIII or low DI ... I can't quite emphasize how critically important it is.

When you say "simply putting 10 mins in a low potential category lifts that category 3-5 points per season", that's just dead wrong. A guy with low potential will only improve 3-5 points over his entire career.

Other than high DI, this is just ... wrong.

ok. i didn't ready everything from my last post to this one so i apologize if i'm repeating info.  i researched scout.com.  there are currently 445 starred players as rated by scout.com (20 - 5 stars; 83 - 4 starts; 125 - 3 starts; 217 - 2 stars; 0 - 1 stars).  I then went to see how many starred players there are currenlty in my rupp league recruiting database.  there are 37 - 5 stars; 36 - 4, 3, and 2 stars; and 33 - 1 star players for a grand total of 178 starred players.  I realize that we have been talking a difference in ratings on players, but i think this can accurately show the shallowness of the depth in recruiting for the mid majors and low conferences.  just to clarify one other point: there are 324 WIS D1 teams and 347 real life D1 teams.  so this should give factual evidence to the shallowness of the recruiting.

The 3-5 pts for low is a fact (your favorite word again) ... sometimes you do get a point right away, doesn't change the end result.

Posted by moy23 on 8/17/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/17/2010 2:22:00 PM (view original):
The 3-5 pts for low is a fact (your favorite word again) ... sometimes you do get a point right away, doesn't change the end result.

I just took a quick look at Gerald Simmons on your UNC team - all categories are pretty much at least a 3 point increase - you can't tell me a JR is not already at limited/low potential. I bet its the same for all JRs/SRs on the team. Am I overlooking something?

Yes, you are.

Gerald Simmons:
low post moves: limited upside
rebounding: limited upside
shot blocking: limited upside
ft shooting: limited upside

Those were his only categories on the Player Thoughts email, everything else was normal. And no progress in those categories.

Moy, you gotta stop picking fights with me, despite the fact that I know you enjoy it.

Posted by girt25 on 8/17/2010 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/17/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/17/2010 2:22:00 PM (view original):
The 3-5 pts for low is a fact (your favorite word again) ... sometimes you do get a point right away, doesn't change the end result.

I just took a quick look at Gerald Simmons on your UNC team - all categories are pretty much at least a 3 point increase - you can't tell me a JR is not already at limited/low potential. I bet its the same for all JRs/SRs on the team. Am I overlooking something?

Yes, you are.

Gerald Simmons:
low post moves: limited upside
rebounding: limited upside
shot blocking: limited upside
ft shooting: limited upside

Those were his only categories on the Player Thoughts email, everything else was normal. And no progress in those categories.

Moy, you gotta stop picking fights with me, despite the fact that I know you enjoy it.

Oh.


Let's be honest... this last one was hardly a fight ;)

moy, you're tilting at the wrong windmill here. daalter has truth on his side on this one.

Little-known fact ... that is actually moy's Native American name: "Tilting Windmill".