Posted by Benis on 3/17/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I think 100% of 5 stars should want success and playing time.

Like the #1 overall pick last year and the possible #1 pick this year who played for teams that didn't make the tournament?

Posted by taylorn on 3/17/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nacorwin on 3/17/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Brian Butch was a 5 star recruit at Wisconsin. He red-shirted.

That's anecdotal, not the norm.

He should have gone to North Carolina. But mentally, the kid never was cut out for his 5 star status.

I was responding the the post above me, the first post that had the following statements:

• D1 FIVE STAR RECRUITS want to play (normally Start too) as freshman and they do not want rebuilds.
• The party line is "this is not supposed to be the real world" and I say that ANY College Basketball should have those two requirements as the "Gold Standard".
• Five stars do not want to ride any benches, and they will only go to a rebuild when THEY are to be the centerpiece of the program ( and have that heart to be that guy).

The original poster, while asking for the game to be changed to help the top players continue to dominate, made some claims that he says are always true. In the name of realism I was simply pointing out that his universal claims were false. They might be often true but not always.

nacorwin, you have to realize that "asking for the game to be changed to help the top players continue to dominate" is a way of life around here. But thanks for the clarification.

Posted by blackdog3377 on 3/17/2017 8:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/17/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I think 100% of 5 stars should want success and playing time.

Like the #1 overall pick last year and the possible #1 pick this year who played for teams that didn't make the tournament?

Personally, I don't agree with the 100% thing. That's not more intelligent, it's just more predictable and basic. I do think that all elite 3+ star recruits should be at least one of the two. Probably most should want success and playing time, but there should be some with no preference for either - and as I stated, a few (3-5%) - should want rebuilds. If they ever implement a % of distribution promise, I'd be ok eliminating the rebuild preference, but until that time, there should be a few top 100 recruits every year who want to be the star of the show, and are savvy enough to know that it won't happen at a loaded team; so currently that's the rebuild preference.

Still a lot of room for improvement on the preference front. It's better than 2.0, but not yet as intelligent as it could be.

5 star recruits should consider rebuilds. Success is negligible since these guys can change an entire team. Guaranteed 20 minutes and starts is understandable. Redshirt them and they should leave.

Could have top players from D2 make themselves available to D1 schools. That happens in life. Not sure what to think of it but it was suggested to me as a possible solution.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/17/2017 7:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/17/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I think 100% of 5 stars should want success and playing time.

Really couldn't it be said that all players want to play? You don't often hear about guys saying "I sure hope they offer me a scholarship but only if I can ride the pine for four years."

Perhaps a preference for playing time should just be a universal. Doesn't mean you have to offer minutes but your recruiting efforts will be enhanced if you do.

The idea is that yeah, all players want playing time - which is why promising minutes has a stand-alone impact apart from preferences; and why there is no preference for riding the pine. But the promise of minutes is more important, and will have a greater impact for some. I think that's pretty realistic.

Posted by pkoopman on 3/17/2017 10:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/17/2017 7:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/17/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I think 100% of 5 stars should want success and playing time.

Really couldn't it be said that all players want to play? You don't often hear about guys saying "I sure hope they offer me a scholarship but only if I can ride the pine for four years."

Perhaps a preference for playing time should just be a universal. Doesn't mean you have to offer minutes but your recruiting efforts will be enhanced if you do.

The idea is that yeah, all players want playing time - which is why promising minutes has a stand-alone impact apart from preferences; and why there is no preference for riding the pine. But the promise of minutes is more important, and will have a greater impact for some. I think that's pretty realistic.

I get what you're saying and mostly my comments were in response to Benis saying that 100% of 5 stars should want playing time. If you're going to say that and make the assumption that that there isn't a disparity of impact among the five-star guys then you might as well just make it true universally ... all HD players want to play.

That being said, I personally think this there's a missing element to recruiting and roster management in this game that could be enhanced by making all players want playing time. I could go on a long-winded diatribe/explanation as to why but I won't bother because ultimately this is just one of those ideas that gets chalked up to how I'd like the game to be and which most everyone else would probably think was idiotic.

I think they can go rebuild or wherever. Ben Simmons went to LSU didn't he? What I find a bit strange would be if they did not want start or minutes.