Does Panini...

[chris_ac]

Does Panini put more effort into product years where the rookie class is great or say very sellable? With the better releases coming out later in the summer before the next season, watching these 16/17 products is becoming underwhelming compared to 15/16 counterparts. I just watched a preview case of 16/17 Noir and it was lacking much compared to the beautiful 15/16 Noir. More relics and less great content. Too much white area for a specific product theme like Noir. I know people complained about the broad bronze ink pens on acetates, but making the areas white for blue ink takes away from the Noir design theme.

12/13 was also a good product year which relates I think to the double RC class, so my opinion is when the rookie class is great, product development at Panini gets intensified to a point.

Anybody agree? I don't think we want Immac or Flawless for this 16/17 group based on what I see. Save it for the 17/18 class. More meaningful cards I guess.

Just thinking out loud... :)

[chris_ac]

Also, not all relics in the new Noir are prime unlike the previous year. Boo. Poor move.

[dasiegel]

I think it's pretty clear that when Panini feels they can make more money they pump out for stuff. With this upcoming class of rookies expect a few extra products and some innovation. Also expect them not to dwell on this past class too much.

[jbarnett83]

For me, Panini only cares about the first release and not the longevity of the product. I can't think of a single set that has improved after the first year.

[rangeljon]

If this is in response to Flawless Collegiate Basketball, yes.

What a load of crap.

They're for sure gonna milk this season's rookie class.

[Cavaliercards]

I think it's pretty clear that when Panini feels they can make more money they pump out for stuff. With this upcoming class of rookies expect a few extra products and some innovation. Also expect them not to dwell on this past class too much.

The product number is not decided by them.

[yiguiri2002]

I think it's the opposite: given the lackluster rookie class, I think they've put more effort into product design.

Personally, I think Aficionado, Optic, Studio, Grand Reserve and Impeccable are quite nice (only major problem being the price and sticker autos). Design-wise, it's a huge improvement over last season. And even though some products don't look good compared to previous seasons (Noir or Preferred come to mind) at least they put the effort in making significant changes.

[JayConley]

Absolutely they do, OP. Just look at the effort put forth in football this season in comparison to basketball. Just off the top of my head, football Select was roughly infinity better than basketball Select. In basketball, they got rid of the wildly popular refractor RPAs. In football, the RPAs were awesome! The comparison between those two products shows you where Panini's efforts were this year.

[Harper]

For me, Panini only cares about the first release and not the longevity of the product. I can't think of a single set that has improved after the first year.

Eminence... second year was much much better

[dasiegel]

The product number is not decided by them.

Who decides it if not panini?

[SHowley2003]

I don't think they try to improve a product based on rookie class. What seems to be more the trend is that the popularity of the hobby on a given year seems to impact quantity of products, but not quality. I can't prove it but I feel like more popular years get more product releases. I just went to Beckett and searched for "2012 Anthony Davis" and found 501 different cards. Then I searched "2013 Anthony Bennett" and found 455 different cards. I did not filter out Panini only cards. However 2012 was though to be a deep draft plus it included true rookies from 2011. I think Panini pumped out a ton of product in 12/13. 2013-14 was advertised as a weak draft. I feel like Panini released a lot less product. I feel this trend has continued. It's not the quality but the quantity IMO.

[Cavaliercards]

Who decides it if not panini?

NBA Licensing