Posted by CoachSpud on 10/21/2016 10:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by CoachSpud on 10/21/2016 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by mullycj on 10/21/2016 4:52:00 PM:
"Consider a poll: for new D3 coaches only:
(1) do you want (A) good players or (B) lousy players on your roster compared to other teams in YOUR DIVISION
(2) Which is more fun, (A) playing with good players on your roster, or (B) playing with lousy players on your roster compared to other teams in your division?"
(3) Which is more fun, (A) playing in a league with a mix of good and lousy players, or (B) playing in a league with all lousy players?
Fixed that for you. But ... you didn't answer. Since you pose as an expert, (1A) or (1B) ... (2A) or (2B) ???
I think we need to get back to the relativity thing here. Based on the questions, I'm not sure you understand the concept... I will take you through it step by step.
1. Do you agree that all players have varying levels of quality? So, even among the "lousy players" group, there are players who are less lousy and there are player who are more lousy. A guy with 20s all across the board is better than a player with 10s all across the board, however both are still lousy.
2. Do you agree that rules that apply to one D3 team also apply to all of the other D3 teams? If Colorado College cant recruit D1 players, then neither can Palm Beach Atlantic. Thus, the coach at Colorado College and the coach at Palm Beach Atlantic have the same set of possible players that they can recruit from.
3. Now, lets say that we constrain the possible number of recruits to be just D3. And for the purposes of this exercise, lets assume that there are only 100 recruits in this pool. So, by point #2 above, both Colorado College and Palm Beach Atlantic have 100 total possible recruits that they can pick. Right?
4. By point #1 above, we know that although they may all be "lousy" relative to the top 150 at D1, the players still have varying degrees of ineptitude. So, lets bucket them into "ineptitude buckets". The best players in this set get an A, the worst players in this set get an F. Lets say the distribution is 3xA's, 25x B's, 25x C's, 25x D's, 22x F's
5. For the purposes of this exercise, lets assume that both Palm Beach Atlantic and Colorado College only have 3 openings. Now, lets say the coaches at Palm Beach Atlantic get all 3 players with A's. Thus, Colorado College's recruits must have ineptitude grades of B or worse, right?
6. So, Palm Beach Atlantic has an advantage, right? they have the least lousy players from among the possible set. They are in for a really successful season!
Now, i will take a second to answer your questions above:
Question 1 - I pick A. obviously i would rather have good players on my roster relative to the other teams in my division. but that is not influenced by the cap on possible players who you can recruit. As shown by the example above, although Palm Beach Atlantic's players are lousy due to the cap, they are not lousy relative to the division that they play in.
Question 2 - I pick A. Obviously it is more fun to win, and you are more likely to win with good players. However, that is also not influenced by the cap on possible players who you can recruit. Palm Beach Atlantic would probably win, and they have "lousy" players.
Do you see why the relativity matters here? And thus why questions 1 and 2 dont make sense
Question 3 - I pick B. Id like to hear what a wide range of people want, though. I wonder what the legends (jsajsa, brianxavier, and tarvolon for example) think should happen at D3 - they are probably the ones who would eventually separate themselves from the pack with the wider range in caliber of recruit. Would this make it less fun for them? How about the new folks- would limiting the subset of players that they can recruit make the recruiting process less overwhelming? I could see it being really frustrating if you spend all your cash on a D1 guy and lose out and then have a bunch of walk-ons in your first year because you dont know what the reasonable boundaries are for your scouting searches.