3/14/2013 11:06 AM
Isn't that what D2 and D3 are for?
3/14/2013 11:28 AM
I don't think it's simply a BCS conference issue.  Yes, they don't often enough battle each other.  But it trickles down to the rest of us as well.  If Mid Major schools would be willing to battle the big shots once in a while (I actually beat Duke for a 4 or 5 star a few seasons ago at Charlotte), it might open up the flood gates to other BCS schools hopping on.  They'd be much more likely to battle a school if they were already battling a Mid Major, anyway.  The trick is to just battle smartly.  But I actually think it makes more sense for a Mid Major school to invest a big portion of their budget in a stud...they can be program changers if you include the right pieces around them.

I believe it was...mamxet maybe?...who made a call for more battles a year or 2 ago.  I've stuck with it...won a few, lost a few.  None that destroyed a program though.
3/14/2013 11:37 AM
For some reason, my Oldresorter account has lost posting rights, so here goes with Ryan75, as I am playing up some old credits with an experimental team in Crum.

I think OR caused TBird's consternation, or I did.

funny thing, the player in ? was a hi pot mid 500's guard, that was considering only UConn in Tark, and TBird jumped on him.  Which is fine, but I guess my ? would be, should not UConn be allowed to defend itself, for a player I indeed wanted and went hard after, in the FIRST round???

As far as collusion in Tark's Big East, that is almost funny, as that area in Tark (and in general for the game) is brutally competitive, to the point none of us will probably be able to ever win a NT from that region again. 

Since player ratings have been lowered, the only way to have a shot at winning year in and year out, is to either get lucky, or have a high % of sims in the high prestige schools in your local market, or have coaches in your area who are purposefully not taking one another's recruits, an implied collusion of sorts.

To that extent, TBird is right on, the new game, with lack of available recruits, has created this 'Implied Collusion' phenomena.  It is the only way to survive in a local market long term, using tricks to survive, and allowing those around you to survive too.  I read on some board (I think it might have been Tark ACC) where a coach commented something like if I can get two of those guys, I'll be really happy.  This is great, until you play a team in the NT who is rated 800 plus with 12 solid players, and obviously is not having to settle for 8 solid ones.

One last thing, I'm pretty sure Seble's main goal in dummying up the game ratings and using EE's was to keep d1 dynasties from dominating.  In a sense, it has worked.  It is much, much harder to win it all several years in a row or 3 out of 6 or whatever, than it used to be in d1.   The change has pulled the middle of the top end of franchises closer to the top five, at the expense of the bottom 75-85% of the franchises.  This might be controversial to many, but it has always been my position, that the ratings should not predict who wins, but the coaching, so for me, I want ratings to be somewhat equal, and not the huge swings the game now has.

Overall, ratings have gone up, not down on the top teams by the way.  I won a NT with a 12 man Wisconsin Badger roster back in the day, that had a team total of 680.  That might barely be a top rated d2 team these days.

TBird, sorry for taking your thread a bit off topic.  I will say this for public consumption, on the guard in question, I put 6k on him (enough to strongly consider me) in round 1, then put a couple of k in everyonce in a while to try to shake you off.  I did not want him to be open to the post first signings round, so at the end, I put in enough to end the battle.



3/14/2013 12:23 PM

Someone thinks there is BCS collusion in Tark?  Gosh, I'm at Maryland and just finished a battle with higher prestige W Va who wanted a kid who was local for us.  I could not win battles and therefore did not fight for several guys I wished I could have in my area - my A- just doesnt cut it against A+ neighbors.  Saw several good battles, but also of course saw lots of decisions not to fight when there is no hope.  Ya  gotta know when to fold em.

I could have tried to fight more battles - but then I would have had a hard time signing some solid lesser guys and could not have kept a nice carryforward so I can pay for FSS before the next cycle.

3/14/2013 12:59 PM
I fought a battle just recently I knew I couldn't win.  There was nobody worth a damn, so I said, I'm getting this guy or nobody.  Turns out I got nobody, as I was fighting a much higher prestige school, but this school was looking at three 4 and 5 star dudes and had no competition, so I fought a loosing battle if for no other reason than to make sure this school would not carry over all of their money.

While this was a foolish move by, had one other school done it I could have won, or at the very least UCLA would have had a lot less money to go around.  If there were just a few more battles, I think it would encourage even more down the road.  There is just nothing in this game that drives me more crazy than guys who sign 5 stars for $2500.
3/14/2013 1:33 PM
I agree.  Now and then I will fight based on reasoning like that, but rarely.
3/14/2013 2:13 PM
How was my drop in the bucket comment small minded?  You just don't understand the effects of prestige in D1.  And having multiple schools throw 33% of their budget at an A+ prestige school is pointless... it's like throwing pebbles at a giant.

You can call it small minded or you can call it realistic.  But your "solution" solves absolutely nothing.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/14/2013 7:00 PM
"The bottom line is right now, top players are being bought for way below their market value."

As a general thought, I don't think that's true.  As a DI coach in Smith, I see battles for many of the top recruits, probably over half to even 75% of the 4 and 5 star recruits.  Yes, there are 5 star guys signed on the cheap, but I don't think it happens as often as you think.

The SEC has been the big dog for a while most years, but you'll see battles amongst all of the top conferences, especially with the SEC to try to dethrone them.  And even the Mountain West has been a player for many seasons, even though they don't have the same baseline prestige as other schools in the big 6 conferences.  Take a look at New Mexico, Texas Southern, Utah, etc and you'll see what I mean.

I think there is occasionally a gentleman's agreement in-conference that it's not always wise to battle, but it happens.  I've battled 3 different conference mates the last three seasons for 4 and 5 star recruits.

So I guess I'd summarize by saying, though it is harder to win at a smaller school (which I do lament, as some things were best left not to change), you CAN be successful.  And I'm seeing lots of battles amongst elite schools.
3/14/2013 8:02 PM
Not sure about everyone else, but the top recruits I see always have messages in FSS that say something to the effect of "very tight". I'm sure it may have happened in the past that a Big 6 school has signed a 5 star player for $2500, I guess I've just never seen it. 

What's so wrong with building your team prestige by recruiting intelligently. That's one of my favorite aspects of this game. The better you recruit, the better you coach, the higher your prestige goes and eventually you're right in the thick of the battles for top tier guys. Then one season the world may generate a 4 or 5 star within 50 miles of you and you have the prestige and money to defend that guy until he signs. 

3/14/2013 8:55 PM
How much does it cost be "very tight" though? 5K? 10K? A relative pittance with the money you'll get for being in a good conference. So with "very tight" with a high prestige, there's not going to be many takers on trying to make a battle. Sure there's one-sy two-sys, but most will find another fish to fry.

Tbird has some good points (and some terrible ones), but I'll just say the latest changes to the game (a year ago?) was to try to collapse some of the advantages of the elites. I feel the gap has narrowed minimally and there should be a few slight changes. #1 on my list is reducing the postseason money conferences bring in.

Just for an example, Louisiana Monroe and Baylor are both C prestige, but going into recruiting Baylor will have $28,000 from postseason money while Louisiana Monroe will have $1,700.
3/14/2013 9:44 PM
Posted by ryan75 on 3/14/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
For some reason, my Oldresorter account has lost posting rights, so here goes with Ryan75, as I am playing up some old credits with an experimental team in Crum.

I think OR caused TBird's consternation, or I did.

funny thing, the player in ? was a hi pot mid 500's guard, that was considering only UConn in Tark, and TBird jumped on him.  Which is fine, but I guess my ? would be, should not UConn be allowed to defend itself, for a player I indeed wanted and went hard after, in the FIRST round???

As far as collusion in Tark's Big East, that is almost funny, as that area in Tark (and in general for the game) is brutally competitive, to the point none of us will probably be able to ever win a NT from that region again. 

Since player ratings have been lowered, the only way to have a shot at winning year in and year out, is to either get lucky, or have a high % of sims in the high prestige schools in your local market, or have coaches in your area who are purposefully not taking one another's recruits, an implied collusion of sorts.

To that extent, TBird is right on, the new game, with lack of available recruits, has created this 'Implied Collusion' phenomena.  It is the only way to survive in a local market long term, using tricks to survive, and allowing those around you to survive too.  I read on some board (I think it might have been Tark ACC) where a coach commented something like if I can get two of those guys, I'll be really happy.  This is great, until you play a team in the NT who is rated 800 plus with 12 solid players, and obviously is not having to settle for 8 solid ones.

One last thing, I'm pretty sure Seble's main goal in dummying up the game ratings and using EE's was to keep d1 dynasties from dominating.  In a sense, it has worked.  It is much, much harder to win it all several years in a row or 3 out of 6 or whatever, than it used to be in d1.   The change has pulled the middle of the top end of franchises closer to the top five, at the expense of the bottom 75-85% of the franchises.  This might be controversial to many, but it has always been my position, that the ratings should not predict who wins, but the coaching, so for me, I want ratings to be somewhat equal, and not the huge swings the game now has.

Overall, ratings have gone up, not down on the top teams by the way.  I won a NT with a 12 man Wisconsin Badger roster back in the day, that had a team total of 680.  That might barely be a top rated d2 team these days.

TBird, sorry for taking your thread a bit off topic.  I will say this for public consumption, on the guard in question, I put 6k on him (enough to strongly consider me) in round 1, then put a couple of k in everyonce in a while to try to shake you off.  I did not want him to be open to the post first signings round, so at the end, I put in enough to end the battle.



the posting thing rights happened to me just like a month ago, apparently if you play off credits for 2 years, you cant post. but if you send a ticket and are in good standing, they will put them back.

i find your tark big east comment funny... because they are all such big cheaters!! dont you remember when seble warned you all for cheating, back when mrpolo was running different offenses than he had IQ in to study the effects of IQ? that seemed like a pretty cut and dry case of abuse of the system to me, and id expect that group (one of the most successful groups of coaches ive seen in a conference together) to know better!

but really, i find your tark big east comment funny... because WV and Pitt have won like 5 of the last 10 championships. and Rutgers had a couple just before that. so you guys are batting like 50% on national champions over the past year or so... but you are right, none of you will ever win again ;)

if you really are the guy who ****** off tbird, thats kind of funny, because you are sort of known for being overly successful with teams of non-elite d1 players. my advice to tbird is, if OR is the guy stealing your players (regardless of who was on them first), then you should probably keep going for those kinds of players! clearly, hes figured something out. or i guess, he is just really lucky. more likely still, him and the rest of the tark big east are a bunch of dirty cheaters!!

3/14/2013 9:51 PM
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/14/2013 10:30:00 AM (view original):
That's a drop in the bucket kinda makes my point I am not really looking for feedback from small minded people but rather looking to make it more competetive for all. Rather than competing with 20-30 teams each season wouldn't it be more fun to compete against 100? Rather than laughing at newbies response to the mom recruit message, wouldn't it be nice to have new people stay around? I am trying to come upwith solutions to obvious issues. To be honest, this isn't a div 1 issue as the best lockdown dynasties in the game may be at div 3. A bigger point continues to be the way some of you turn the boards into a personal attack zone rather than a productive learning or even just a venting spot. Why not put some thought and energy in your responses so this place is meaningful.
seriously? after starting a thread to ***** about the severe built in advantages in high d1, you counter with, to be honest, the best lockdown dynasties may be at div 3 -- where there are NONE of the build in advantages you were so upset about to start with? what am i missing?

well, clearly, you are right to tell us to put some thought and energy in our responses, because you put so much into yours. this thread has truly enriched all of our lives, and we owe you a great debt!! i suggest, if you are serious about not turning things into a personal attack, that you re-read your posts prior to posting them. or better yet, substitute re-read with delete. for if there is one thing we can be sure about, all those high and mighty ******** who go around laughing at newbies, they sure are laughing right now...
3/14/2013 9:58 PM
lol
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.