Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/16/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 9/16/2016 1:43:00 AM (view original):
Hey spudtard, do your research next time before you open your moronic mouth that all of us in the beta had to deal with. I knew I was avoiding these forums for a reason...

Number of recruits generated - see original post (excluding internationals + Puerto Rico because not sure how that is working in the new system)

Crum DI recruits (2.0): 1801
Crum # of openings: 1036
Difference: 765
Recruits per opening: 1.738

Smith DI recruits (3.0): 1205
Smith # of openings: 1028
Difference: 177
Recruits per opening: 1.172

Look at these #'s and tell me something isn't wrong?!?!

Do the same thing with DII and DIII. What I found in beta, and pointed out to selbe, was that the program was designating (projecting) recruits to lower divisions in 3.0 as compared to 2.0. The numbers were not dramatically different but where they were projected was.

For example, Hawaii has 1 DI school, 4 DII schools and 0 DIII schools. In one of the beta seasons, Hawaii generated 1 DI recruit, 10 or so DII recruits and a bunch of DIII players. The overall Hawaii numbers were roughly the same but the way the program was assigning them by division was all wrong. 2.0 would almost never generate DIII recruits in a state that had no DIII school. selbe admitted there was a disconnect between recruit generation and division assignment. I thought he said he fixed it.

What gomiami points out is the better question here.

In Crum right now, across all three divisions there are a total of 4034 openings but if I were to FSS every state, then add Internationals at all three levels and add PR, there were 4549 recruits generated, or about 1.13 per opening. If 1800 of those recruits were "assigned" to D1 in Crum as skinz points out, that would leave about 2750 recruits for D2 and D3. Yet, in Crum there are almost 3000 openings in D2 and D3.

What that tells me is that in 2.0 there was a lot more overlap of players showing up as D1 recruits that in 3.0 have been better classified as D2 players.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/16/2016 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/16/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 9/16/2016 1:43:00 AM (view original):
Hey spudtard, do your research next time before you open your moronic mouth that all of us in the beta had to deal with. I knew I was avoiding these forums for a reason...

Number of recruits generated - see original post (excluding internationals + Puerto Rico because not sure how that is working in the new system)

Crum DI recruits (2.0): 1801
Crum # of openings: 1036
Difference: 765
Recruits per opening: 1.738

Smith DI recruits (3.0): 1205
Smith # of openings: 1028
Difference: 177
Recruits per opening: 1.172

Look at these #'s and tell me something isn't wrong?!?!

Do the same thing with DII and DIII. What I found in beta, and pointed out to selbe, was that the program was designating (projecting) recruits to lower divisions in 3.0 as compared to 2.0. The numbers were not dramatically different but where they were projected was.

For example, Hawaii has 1 DI school, 4 DII schools and 0 DIII schools. In one of the beta seasons, Hawaii generated 1 DI recruit, 10 or so DII recruits and a bunch of DIII players. The overall Hawaii numbers were roughly the same but the way the program was assigning them by division was all wrong. 2.0 would almost never generate DIII recruits in a state that had no DIII school. selbe admitted there was a disconnect between recruit generation and division assignment. I thought he said he fixed it.

What gomiami points out is the better question here.

In Crum right now, across all three divisions there are a total of 4034 openings but if I were to FSS every state, then add Internationals at all three levels and add PR, there were 4549 recruits generated, or about 1.13 per opening. If 1800 of those recruits were "assigned" to D1 in Crum as skinz points out, that would leave about 2750 recruits for D2 and D3. Yet, in Crum there are almost 3000 openings in D2 and D3.

What that tells me is that in 2.0 there was a lot more overlap of players showing up as D1 recruits that in 3.0 have been better classified as D2 players.

Hey, fellas, thanks for helping skinz understand we are talking about recruits and openings in the World. He seemed to miss that and considered only D1.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/16/2016 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/16/2016 8:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 9/16/2016 1:43:00 AM (view original):
Hey spudtard, do your research next time before you open your moronic mouth that all of us in the beta had to deal with. I knew I was avoiding these forums for a reason...

Number of recruits generated - see original post (excluding internationals + Puerto Rico because not sure how that is working in the new system)

Crum DI recruits (2.0): 1801
Crum # of openings: 1036
Difference: 765
Recruits per opening: 1.738

Smith DI recruits (3.0): 1205
Smith # of openings: 1028
Difference: 177
Recruits per opening: 1.172

Look at these #'s and tell me something isn't wrong?!?!

Do the same thing with DII and DIII. What I found in beta, and pointed out to selbe, was that the program was designating (projecting) recruits to lower divisions in 3.0 as compared to 2.0. The numbers were not dramatically different but where they were projected was.

For example, Hawaii has 1 DI school, 4 DII schools and 0 DIII schools. In one of the beta seasons, Hawaii generated 1 DI recruit, 10 or so DII recruits and a bunch of DIII players. The overall Hawaii numbers were roughly the same but the way the program was assigning them by division was all wrong. 2.0 would almost never generate DIII recruits in a state that had no DIII school. selbe admitted there was a disconnect between recruit generation and division assignment. I thought he said he fixed it.

What gomiami points out is the better question here.

In Crum right now, across all three divisions there are a total of 4034 openings but if I were to FSS every state, then add Internationals at all three levels and add PR, there were 4549 recruits generated, or about 1.13 per opening. If 1800 of those recruits were "assigned" to D1 in Crum as skinz points out, that would leave about 2750 recruits for D2 and D3. Yet, in Crum there are almost 3000 openings in D2 and D3.

What that tells me is that in 2.0 there was a lot more overlap of players showing up as D1 recruits that in 3.0 have been better classified as D2 players.

This is why there are no jucos! With 30 EEs, there are only 80 guys each year. Wow.

My point is, there is still a much smaller pool to recruit from. We are talking a difference of 600 recruits for the same amount of openings...if you factor in EE's that is less than 150 extra guys than there are scholly's available. Not to mention we all know that most of the guys generated are subpar talent.

The old balance facilitated the drop down system. The new balance let's D2s compete earlier for kids the D1s used to get first crack at.

Posted by skinzfan36 on 9/16/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
My point is, there is still a much smaller pool to recruit from. We are talking a difference of 600 recruits for the same amount of openings...if you factor in EE's that is less than 150 extra guys than there are scholly's available. Not to mention we all know that most of the guys generated are subpar talent.

I don't really care one way or the other, but isn't this all relative? I mean, as long as there is, at least, 1 recruit per opening, then isn't it just about adjusting our perspectives as to what makes a good recruit?

Posted by skinzfan36 on 9/16/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
My point is, there is still a much smaller pool to recruit from. We are talking a difference of 600 recruits for the same amount of openings...if you factor in EE's that is less than 150 extra guys than there are scholly's available. Not to mention we all know that most of the guys generated are subpar talent.

Not necessarily. This is pure guesswork but perhaps 3.0 eliminates duplication and the recruit pool only appears smaller. A borderline recruit (in 2.0) would appear in both the DI and DII pools (or DII and DIII pools) depending on the school you are coaching at. Now, a recruit appears in one designated pool only regardless of your school??? The only way to know for sure is to count distinct individuals in 2.0 and compare it to 3.0. Looking at raw numbers for 2.0 vs 3.0 doesn't tell us much.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/16/2016 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 9/16/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
My point is, there is still a much smaller pool to recruit from. We are talking a difference of 600 recruits for the same amount of openings...if you factor in EE's that is less than 150 extra guys than there are scholly's available. Not to mention we all know that most of the guys generated are subpar talent.

Not necessarily. This is pure guesswork but perhaps 3.0 eliminates duplication and the recruit pool only appears smaller. A borderline recruit (in 2.0) would appear in both the DI and DII pools (or DII and DIII pools) depending on the school you are coaching at. Now, a recruit appears in one designated pool only regardless of your school??? The only way to know for sure is to count distinct individuals in 2.0 and compare it to 3.0. Looking at raw numbers for 2.0 vs 3.0 doesn't tell us much.

A recruit may appear in different division pools depending upon the team looking, but they won't appear in more than one division for one person looking from one team - so the person counting recruits by division will have accurate numbers...right?