This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/13/2013 10:01 PM
"Rather us continuing to whine about the issues", blah, blah, blah and yet you just posted this gem in the Baseline Prestige ??? thread:


My take on Baseline Prestige is it is the crutch that keeps long-time customers as customers and prevents the game from growing or being much fun. You may get other answers elsewhere and they are probably more correct, but ultimately, baseline prestige says customers who have played the game from the start are playing basketball on a 6 ft hoop (man, that is fun) and new customers will be playing the same game on a 14 foot hoop. I will say that for me, it appears that within 40-50 seasons you will transition from the 14ft hoop to the 6ft hoop and then you get to have all the fun.

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/13/2013 10:39 PM
so your thread title isn't an accusation or an inquiry but a proposition. That's bold...
3/13/2013 10:40 PM
The reason there are few battles among the top teams (relatively, there are plenty of battles) is mostly because the top teams have experienced coaches who know how to evaluate a battle and won't bother to enter one just for ***** and giggles. If one can't win a battle one doesn't enter it...
3/13/2013 10:47 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 3/13/2013 10:40:00 PM (view original):
The reason there are few battles among the top teams (relatively, there are plenty of battles) is mostly because the top teams have experienced coaches who know how to evaluate a battle and won't bother to enter one just for ***** and giggles. If one can't win a battle one doesn't enter it...
I disagree, dac. I think it's the risk/reward of a huge battle with another Big 6 that deters. I, and I'm sure most others, have declined to enter a battle I knew I would win, but that would likely drain my entire budget. 

On the flip side, I disagree regarding the lack of Big 6 battles. I think there should be more, especially for elite recruits, but you often see top-tier players being courted by a couple different teams throughout the process.
3/13/2013 10:54 PM
I actually agree with both Dacj and Isack.
3/13/2013 11:22 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 3/13/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
I actually agree with both Dacj and Isack.
me too (shocking, i know)
3/14/2013 12:03 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/13/2013 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Hi all:
   Working on another draft class and have been paying more attention each season to what the higher ups are doing in my world, as I so desperately want to be part of that group.  I am noticing that as many have discussed before, that the top teams very rarely battle each other for recruits and it seems like there is a gentleman's agreement at the top that if you don't mess with mine, I won't mess with yours.  I know we have discussed fixing this many times before but thought of an idea to solve the problem today and wanted to run it out here to see what people think.  What if the non big 6 teams (and maybe even some of the lower big 6 teams) made the same kind of gentleman's agreement.  I am thinking that if they did, it may help with the jobs process and level the playing field.  I would go so far as to say those lower teams should not battle against anyone B prestige or lower and should spend at least 33% of their budget battling teams with B+ prestige or higher.  On first thought I know there might be some reactions, but I think this is a win-win for everyone.  The lower teams most ilkely get better players and move to be competitive at a much quicker rate.  At the same time, the good teams get more competition both in recruiting and in gameplay.  It can't be that much fun just to select the guys you want and then sign them and even if it is fun, there really isn't any strategizing or much thinking involved in that so I imagine the fun "runs out" after a while.  
   Rather than us continuing to whine about the issues or contact WIS to no avail, I would think trying something like this in one world may have relatively quick results.  If it fails, so be it, but would rather proactively look for a solution than to continue this mockery where we all pretend we are competing even though we know deep down that is not the case. 
   Hoping we can stay positive and not get too personal but hoping to hash out the positives/negatives of this idea. 
"It can't be that much fun just to select the guys you want and then sign them and even if it is fun, there really isn't any strategizing or much thinking involved in that so I imagine the fun "runs out" after a while. "

you start out by saying you so badly want to join the upper group, and then you describe what its like to be there... i hope you can see why that doesnt make much sense. you really misjudge what its like - i challenge you to get to a position where you are so far ahead of everyone that you can just pick and choose your way to a great class without thinking - you just can't do it (at least, i cant)... if you land the right job in the right situation, where there should be more competition but there isnt, you can get to the point where you can take the top guys without too much effort, but that is definitely not the norm. look at the east coast - so many A range schools are within a couple hundred miles of each other - none of them can just pick and choose and push everyone else around. 

so, i think you are really off in your assessment of what high end d1 recruiting is like, and i think if you get there, you'll find its WAY harder than you are thinking. 
3/14/2013 1:19 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/13/2013 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Hi all:
   Working on another draft class and have been paying more attention each season to what the higher ups are doing in my world, as I so desperately want to be part of that group.  I am noticing that as many have discussed before, that the top teams very rarely battle each other for recruits and it seems like there is a gentleman's agreement at the top that if you don't mess with mine, I won't mess with yours.  I know we have discussed fixing this many times before but thought of an idea to solve the problem today and wanted to run it out here to see what people think.  What if the non big 6 teams (and maybe even some of the lower big 6 teams) made the same kind of gentleman's agreement.  I am thinking that if they did, it may help with the jobs process and level the playing field.  I would go so far as to say those lower teams should not battle against anyone B prestige or lower and should spend at least 33% of their budget battling teams with B+ prestige or higher.  On first thought I know there might be some reactions, but I think this is a win-win for everyone.  The lower teams most ilkely get better players and move to be competitive at a much quicker rate.  At the same time, the good teams get more competition both in recruiting and in gameplay.  It can't be that much fun just to select the guys you want and then sign them and even if it is fun, there really isn't any strategizing or much thinking involved in that so I imagine the fun "runs out" after a while.  
   Rather than us continuing to whine about the issues or contact WIS to no avail, I would think trying something like this in one world may have relatively quick results.  If it fails, so be it, but would rather proactively look for a solution than to continue this mockery where we all pretend we are competing even though we know deep down that is not the case. 
   Hoping we can stay positive and not get too personal but hoping to hash out the positives/negatives of this idea. 
Hahahahaha.

This is funny.
3/14/2013 1:26 AM
Posted by isack24 on 3/13/2013 10:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 3/13/2013 10:40:00 PM (view original):
The reason there are few battles among the top teams (relatively, there are plenty of battles) is mostly because the top teams have experienced coaches who know how to evaluate a battle and won't bother to enter one just for ***** and giggles. If one can't win a battle one doesn't enter it...
I disagree, dac. I think it's the risk/reward of a huge battle with another Big 6 that deters. I, and I'm sure most others, have declined to enter a battle I knew I would win, but that would likely drain my entire budget. 

On the flip side, I disagree regarding the lack of Big 6 battles. I think there should be more, especially for elite recruits, but you often see top-tier players being courted by a couple different teams throughout the process.
Ah, but the situation you describe is a loss, not a win. Its not about landing one big recruit its about building the best possible team. I guess I didn't convey that very well. That's part of the evaluation I was alluding to but failed to properly communicate. Ultimately we agree...
3/14/2013 9:24 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/13/2013 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Hi all:
   Working on another draft class and have been paying more attention each season to what the higher ups are doing in my world, as I so desperately want to be part of that group.  I am noticing that as many have discussed before, that the top teams very rarely battle each other for recruits and it seems like there is a gentleman's agreement at the top that if you don't mess with mine, I won't mess with yours.  I know we have discussed fixing this many times before but thought of an idea to solve the problem today and wanted to run it out here to see what people think.  What if the non big 6 teams (and maybe even some of the lower big 6 teams) made the same kind of gentleman's agreement.  I am thinking that if they did, it may help with the jobs process and level the playing field.  I would go so far as to say those lower teams should not battle against anyone B prestige or lower and should spend at least 33% of their budget battling teams with B+ prestige or higher.  On first thought I know there might be some reactions, but I think this is a win-win for everyone.  The lower teams most ilkely get better players and move to be competitive at a much quicker rate.  At the same time, the good teams get more competition both in recruiting and in gameplay.  It can't be that much fun just to select the guys you want and then sign them and even if it is fun, there really isn't any strategizing or much thinking involved in that so I imagine the fun "runs out" after a while.  
   Rather than us continuing to whine about the issues or contact WIS to no avail, I would think trying something like this in one world may have relatively quick results.  If it fails, so be it, but would rather proactively look for a solution than to continue this mockery where we all pretend we are competing even though we know deep down that is not the case. 
   Hoping we can stay positive and not get too personal but hoping to hash out the positives/negatives of this idea. 
So you're basically saying that everyone B prestige and lower try to turn recruiting into first come, first serve?  And why would any B prestige school want to spend 33% of their budget battling a B+ or higher school?  That's like a drop in the bucket for most school >= B+... you won't win any battles, you won't even be making them spend all that much, you'll just be hurting yourself.  If you're going to battle a higher up school, you basically have to decide if you're going all in or just back away from the battle, you can't half *** it for the greater good of the world or whatever you're proposing.

This idea would ruin a lot of mid-major programs and actually widen the gap between big 6 and also-rans.
3/14/2013 9:49 AM
I think this thread misunderstands what goes on in BCS recruiting and proposes action that would (a) violate the rules of the game, (b) not be fun and (c) would not be workable as a basis for collusion - who gets first pick?.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/14/2013 11:01 AM
"small minded people" - ad hominem attacks are a great way to convince people

what is the obvious issue that other posters have failed to consider?

have you tried reading the numerous threads on recruiting on these forums - one might benefit from learning more before posting

lets gets specific about how your suggestion would work. Teams of a certain prestige will not battle with teams that are below them in prestige.  Who gets the player - the first to be considered?  Is one cycle enough in the TBird Collusion World?  What does a school do if its primary targets are all considering schools one notch lower?  Who decides?  Is there a grand pooh bah who decides who gets the players?  Is that Czar TBird himself - since he knows better than the rest?

Do the rules of TBird Collusion World take into account budgets?  Number of slots, carryover $ and conference postseason $ all matter.  What if a school that is say C+ but has a ton of money gets considered in cycle one by a planned target of a B or B+ school - are they allowed to fight for them.

How about distance to the recruit - do the rules of the TBird Cooperation and Collusion Agreement give priority to schools that are very close to a player?  What is the mileage range within which one has exclusive rights to players?  or primary rights to players?

I'm trying to take your suggestion seriously, but I just dont see how it will work.  Maybe its my small mind.  Maybe its your suggestion. 

What happens if some schools dont go along.  You have lots of schools that have signed on to the TBird Collusion Scheme - and along comes a B+ school that looks at a player who has terrific potential and is considering a B minus school.  The B plus school says to himself, "I know my mind is small but it seems to me that I will help my team if I take this player"......the B minus school is blown away - he then looks at a player who is considering another B minus school but is just 50 miles away, while the school already considered is 370 miles away.  "My mind may be small, but I think I can take that player".  How does it work.

Just dont see why collusion could be expected to work in the broad environment of B and B plus schools generally.  And I confess that I dont see collusion or gentlemens agreements happening now.  I DO see coaches hesitating to start battles they cant win.  I DO see coaches considering as a factor in battling not just one player and one battle, but the longer term competition - which may mean that getting along with others is part of success.  For some.

Just one set of views, sorry for my small minded approach.
of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.