Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009I think fewer studs will not be the fix everyone thinks it is going to be, much like potential, we will adapt. I might have about 5 reasons why I think this, I will start with one easy pair of ?'s - anyone really think LostMyth ain't getting the best players anyhow, if those players are even better relative to everyone else, what exactly will the reduction fix

Relative to the overall game? I think it will help fix a lot of things. If someone continues to get the best players, then they will be even more dominate than before, as they should be with the best players. As others mention, more variation in players should increase competition level for those players at the top end , making it more difficult for one school/coach to field all the best players. In theory, I think that's logical. In practice, it will be up to the coaches in that world. In my world, I have A+ prestige and I still face battles pretty often, so I don't think it will change much there.

Relative to this discussion? More varied players and less stud players will make the stud players more obviously identifiable. If they are easier to identify by ratings alone, it makes it easier for WIS to change the EE logic to make it more logical.

Sorry, I see absolutely no logical reason why the competition for recruits will be any different, unless recruiting is changed, it is the same coaches, and good vs bad players are pretty obvious in today's game, resulting in a level of competition, that I believe will still be present 90 days from now when the change is in place?

I also see no reason why the game will sim any different than d2 currently does, because in the long run, that really is the proposal. I think one of the beauties of the d1 game, is how hard it is to coach the minute differences among d1 players, d2 / d3 is far easier and obvious?

I know I am playing a devil's advocate role here - I understand the frustrations that have caused the request for more differentiation - I just am not sure there is any tangible result the fix is going to give us.

OR you really don't think that if the recruits that max out at the top (high 90s) are limited to a handful a year that they will not be sought after?

I feel that the main reason why some coaches are able to draft their recruits is because there are another 100 players that are very similar and 1/10 of the cost.

Don't get me wrong OR I do not believe this will solve all of the problems but I do feel it is a step in the right direction.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009
Sorry, I see absolutely no logical reason why the competition for recruits will be any different, unless recruiting is changed, it is the same coaches, and good vs bad players are pretty obvious in today's game, resulting in a level of competition, that I believe will still be present 90 days from now when the change is in place?

I also see no reason why the game will sim any different than d2 currently does, because in the long run, that really is the proposal. I think one of the beauties of the d1 game, is how hard it is to coach the minute differences among d1 players, d2 / d3 is far easier and obvious?

I know I am playing a devil's advocate role here - I understand the frustrations that have caused the request for more differentiation - I just am not sure there is any tangible result the fix is going to give us.

The difference between good and bad players is pretty obvious, sure. But since there are plenty of good players to go around, there isn't much reason to fight over any of them. If there are fewer good players, it seems logical to think that coaches that intend to field good teams would rather risk fighting for those that exist than settle for bad players. Right now, it's a matter of fighting for a player that is great right now or taking one of several other players that will be just as good 2 seasons from now. Either way, you end up with a maxed out player. If you build your team smartly, you can end up with a team just as talented as any other wthout taking much risk during recruiting. There is not much incentive to take on any risk. I don't see how it's logical to think a greater disparity amongst recruits won't increase competition, unless you think a lot of coaches will just accept the fact that they will always get bad recruits and never fight for better ones. I don't think that's how it would play out.

I don't know how D2 works now, but I think DI will play out a lot more true to form than it does now if the player disparity is greater. I think the challenge DI offers is competition against coaches that generally know what they are doing. If the player disparity is larger, I think it offers more opportunity to influence the game through coaching. As is, I think luck plays more of a factor than coaching when it comes down to which team of 5 maxed-out starters is going to win in any given game (obviously using an extreme example, but just trying to illustrate my point).

As with zhawks, I don't think it's going to fix everything wrong with the engine, but I do see it as the fundamental step that absolutely needs to happen for the game to improve. I think it will provide the foundation to see what types of other recruiting/game engine tweaks might need to be made.

lets hope you guys are right

OK = I'll take one more shot, although I think seble is so brainwashed on this issue it won't matter anyhow

lets assume 5 top recruits are all 750's and 5 star in today's terminology, the 6th thru 20th are right around 600 and 4 star, and the remaining players are identical to d2 without dropdowns 400 to 520 rated.

that might be a reasonable implementation - right? give or take - reasonable????

so lets assume the 20 A / A+ schools fight for the 5 750 kids, and spend all their money, so they don't get any 4 star players. The remaining elite conf schools and a handful of midmajors split up the 4 stars, and everyone else recruits just like d2.

why will that be fun for anyone other than the 5 who happen to get the 5 star kids? why is that more realistic than the current system? why will that bring out the best coaching, will it not just bring out the best recruiters?????

EDIT - or worse yet, the guys with 6 open scholies will get the 5 star everytime, won't even really take much recruiting skill.

and if the gap were even greater, say 850 guys vs 600 guys, well, I think it just get stupider!

OR the reduction in players is going to be across the board so D2 and D1 won't be recruiting the same level players. That said I do see what you mean but I don't think it is going to be that drastic of a change where there are only going to be 5 5 star kids.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/20/2009
OK = I'll take one more shot, although I think seble is so brainwashed on this issue it won't matter anyhow

lets assume 5 top recruits are all 750's and 5 star in today's terminology, the 6th thru 20th are right around 600 and 4 star, and the remaining players are identical to d2 without dropdowns 400 to 520 rated.

that might be a reasonable implementation - right? give or take - reasonable????

so lets assume the 20 A / A+ schools fight for the 5 750 kids, and spend all their money, so they don't get any 4 star players. The remaining elite conf schools and a handful of midmajors split up the 4 stars, and everyone else recruits just like d2.

why will that be fun for anyone other than the 5 who happen to get the 5 star kids? why is that more realistic than the current system? why will that bring out the best coaching, will it not just bring out the best recruiters?????

EDIT - or worse yet, the guys with 6 open scholies will get the 5 star everytime, won't even really take much recruiting skill.

and if the gap were even greater, say 850 guys vs 600 guys, well, I think it just get stupider!

OR - I agree that this is the nightmare scenario some of us envisioned with potential. On the other hand, it may end up making things a little easier for everyone--if the A/A+ rated teams actually have to battle to land their recruits the B/B+ guys will be better able to land decent players. Now if they could do something to make recruiting less of a local-only event...

On the original subject: Dalter, if it makes you feel any better, my Sacramento State team in Smith, coming off a 2nd round NT appearance, just lost our sophomore SG to the draft.

Making recruiting more nationalized is a very very fine line.

it is a forum fact that A schools don't battle, the schools that don't battle, tend to be those with lots of money & those without equal competitors around them, A presitge is at best a tie with those two factors for first, might even be in 3rd place.

I also consider it a forum fact that having a few studs and a bunch of also rans will hurt the A schools and help everyone else, there simply is no logical reason for it.

I think the two most likely outcomes are no change at all in competitive recruiting a strong first most likely outcome, and the second most likely outcome is the A schools will benefit the most (they will get the studs). The 3rd would be complete parity, with D schools recruiting pretty much equal classes to A's (which is what would happen in d2 without drop downs). A distance last is the B/B+ schools will benefit at the A / C / D schools expense.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 10/21/2009
it is a forum fact that A schools don't battle, the schools that don't battle, tend to be those with lots of money & those without equal competitors around them, A presitge is at best a tie with those two factors for first, might even be in 3rd place.

I also consider it a forum fact that having a few studs and a bunch of also rans will hurt the A schools and help everyone else, there simply is no logical reason for it.

I think the two most likely outcomes are no change at all in competitive recruiting a strong first most likely outcome, and the second most likely outcome is the A schools will benefit the most (they will get the studs). The 3rd would be complete parity, with D schools recruiting pretty much equal classes to A's (which is what would happen in d2 without drop downs). A distance last is the B/B+ schools will benefit at the A / C / D schools expense.

Or i don't think a few means 5-8, I would assume it means 5 (maybe a few more per position), so with 25-30 total 'studs' you really think that every single one would go to an A prestige school?

On a side note: I do hope that some of us that have been heavily participating in these debates get the chance to beta test, there has been a lot of good ideas thrown around about what to watch out for and what could be worse for HD.

jbas, it doesn't make me feel any better, lol.

OR, I'm not sure where I fall on this issue. I do think that the increased variation in recruits will be a good thing overall, although I appreciate your points.

My gut tells me that fewer stud recruits will result in more battles among the top teams. Also, if it is a truly increased differentiation in recruits, I think it opens up a lot more strategic options, such as more defensive stoppers, more bigs who can hit from the outside, more guards who can rebound, etc. etc. I think that's a good thing both from both a strategic and teambuilding stand point.

Of course, it all hinges on proper implementation ... hey seble, take as long as you need to get it right!

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/21/2009
jbas, it doesn't make me feel any better, lol.

OR, I'm not sure where I fall on this issue. I do think that the increased variation in recruits will be a good thing overall, although I appreciate your points.

My gut tells me that fewer stud recruits will result in more battles among the top teams. Also, if it is a truly increased differentiation in recruits, I think it opens up a lot more strategic options, such as more defensive stoppers, more bigs who can hit from the outside, more guards who can rebound, etc. etc. I think that's a good thing both from both a strategic and teambuilding stand point.

Of course, it all hinges on proper implementation ... hey seble, take as long as you need to get it right!

that pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/21/2009
jbas, it doesn't make me feel any better, lol.

OR, I'm not sure where I fall on this issue. I do think that the increased variation in recruits will be a good thing overall, although I appreciate your points.

My gut tells me that fewer stud recruits will result in more battles among the top teams. Also, if it is a truly increased differentiation in recruits, I think it opens up a lot more strategic options, such as more defensive stoppers, more bigs who can hit from the outside, more guards who can rebound, etc. etc. I think that's a good thing both from both a strategic and teambuilding stand point.

Of course, it all hinges on proper implementation ... hey seble, take as long as you need to get it right!

Exactly what I was told was going to be the case. Recruits ratings will be generated before their positions (Now positions are generated then ratings, the main reason all centers look the same and so on), allowing for the engine to create different types of players.