3/14/2013 10:19 PM
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/14/2013 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 3/14/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):
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.
This was my point exactly.  I don't think we need hardfast rules for lower prestige recruiting, just a gentleman's agreement not to fight battles we aren't sure to win.  If we are fighting battles with other lower prestige schools, we are going to lose in the long run and so avoiding battles between lower prestige schools whenever possible is in my team's (and every other lower prestige teams) best interest.  At the same time, if you're not fighting battles with other teams as much as we do now, we will also have more pebbles to collectively throw at the giants.  If I can be an A+ team and say I am not going to battle for a top recruit because I might lose and that might hurt my chances for next year, then I should also be able to use that same logic at a lower level and say I am not going to battle anyone B or lower because I might lose and that only hurts my chances for next year.  I guess I see those as pretty much the same thing and think it would be interesting to at least test that out in one world?
So you're advocating that lower prestige level teams not battle each other but are getting upset when higher prestige teams don't do it?  What kind of logic is that?  You seem to want the higher prestige teams to battle over each and every stud player, while your lower prestige teams collude (yes, collude) with each other NOT to battle, so that they'll have more funds to use to battle the higher prestige teams.  Sound about right?
3/14/2013 10:29 PM
As for no battles between BCS schools, I can tell you that EVERY season in Tark, I am battling another BCS school (or two) for the top recruits.  In fact, I'm in a battle with Mississippi State for a recruit right now that I've dropped over 70K on (I'm not worried about posting the dollar amount because the battle is nearly over.  Win or lose, it's still over 70K).  How's that for no battles?

Every year at Duke, I was battling either UNC or W. Virginia or S. Carolina or Pitt or, well you get the picture.  To say that there are no battles at the high end of D1 is not only ridiculous, it's flat out wrong.  There may not be as many as you'd like, but that's because coaches that have gotten to that level generally know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.  No sense staying in a battle you can't win, so as soon as the losing coach realizes he's beaten, he usually cuts bait and runs.  It ain't rocket science and it ain't small minded. 
3/14/2013 10:39 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 3/14/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):
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.
In your example, how many coaches are in the SEC and how many are in Southland? Big 6 conferences are normally full... at least 10 coaches. That's lots of money earned. If more coaches worked to fill mid major and low D1 conferences they would get more money. Maybe not 28k... maybe it's more like 17k. How much is an empty conference supposed to earn? About $1700 I would think. 

Why reduce the money? Get some good coaches together and go build a good mid major. You could probably turn a low D1 conference into a midmajor if you could fill it and keep it filled with decent coaches. Get some at large bids and earn your money. Girt is getting congrats right now for winning a NT at Marshall. Very impressive. There are actually lots of mid majors I've noticed in different worlds getting it together and starting to do big things against Big 6 schools. It's possible to be successful in lower prestige conferences. 

Most coaches who do this actually go out and recruit other coaches to come to one conference. Maybe the game is designed this way and it's a good thing. More humans more success. 


3/14/2013 10:42 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 3/14/2013 10:29:00 PM (view original):
As for no battles between BCS schools, I can tell you that EVERY season in Tark, I am battling another BCS school (or two) for the top recruits.  In fact, I'm in a battle with Mississippi State for a recruit right now that I've dropped over 70K on (I'm not worried about posting the dollar amount because the battle is nearly over.  Win or lose, it's still over 70K).  How's that for no battles?

Every year at Duke, I was battling either UNC or W. Virginia or S. Carolina or Pitt or, well you get the picture.  To say that there are no battles at the high end of D1 is not only ridiculous, it's flat out wrong.  There may not be as many as you'd like, but that's because coaches that have gotten to that level generally know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.  No sense staying in a battle you can't win, so as soon as the losing coach realizes he's beaten, he usually cuts bait and runs.  It ain't rocket science and it ain't small minded. 
jesus emy, when will you stop lying to yourself, and admit its all luck? to suggest that the coaches at the best jobs might actually know what they are doing, and that is why they are often able to avoid massive amount of battles and sign great players - its just madness, complete and udder madness!
3/14/2013 10:59 PM (edited)
My fault, I forgot, all luck.  I'll try to remember that from now on and forget the many seasons that it took all of us to actually reach and be successful at those high prestige jobs.  All this time I thought you actually had to work to get to them, I never realized that you could go from D3 to D2 to low-end D1 to mid-major to BCS badass in a half a dozen seasons or so.  Man, I did it the long way, I guess.

I gotta know though, is that "udder" madness like from a cow, or just "utter" madness, like crazy or something.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  :^)
3/14/2013 10:58 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 3/14/2013 10:55:00 PM (view original):
My fault.
the first step is admitting you have a problem! well, that concludes my knowledge of such things. if you ever figure out step 2, do me a favor, write it down, laminate it, and push it into a bottle of makers mark -- then, send it my way :)
3/14/2013 11:37 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 3/14/2013 10:59:00 PM (view original):
My fault, I forgot, all luck.  I'll try to remember that from now on and forget the many seasons that it took all of us to actually reach and be successful at those high prestige jobs.  All this time I thought you actually had to work to get to them, I never realized that you could go from D3 to D2 to low-end D1 to mid-major to BCS badass in a half a dozen seasons or so.  Man, I did it the long way, I guess.

I gotta know though, is that "udder" madness like from a cow, or just "utter" madness, like crazy or something.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  :^)
i feel like "complete and utter madness" is triply redundant, so i figured to contribute to the madness, i would bring cows into the picture. i dont know about you, but when i think madness, i think cows :)

(no really, i am TERRIBLE at spelling/grammatical ****. udderly terrible. if the browser didnt have spell check, you guys would think i was mentally handicapped. im a programmer, the big words i deal with on a daily basis are words like "for" and "if" =)
3/14/2013 11:44 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 3/14/2013 9:58:00 PM (view original):
lol
first time I think I ever gave colonels a thumb up...
3/14/2013 11:59 PM
Posted by gillispie on 3/14/2013 11:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 3/14/2013 10:59:00 PM (view original):
My fault, I forgot, all luck.  I'll try to remember that from now on and forget the many seasons that it took all of us to actually reach and be successful at those high prestige jobs.  All this time I thought you actually had to work to get to them, I never realized that you could go from D3 to D2 to low-end D1 to mid-major to BCS badass in a half a dozen seasons or so.  Man, I did it the long way, I guess.

I gotta know though, is that "udder" madness like from a cow, or just "utter" madness, like crazy or something.  Sorry, couldn't resist.  :^)
i feel like "complete and utter madness" is triply redundant, so i figured to contribute to the madness, i would bring cows into the picture. i dont know about you, but when i think madness, i think cows :)

(no really, i am TERRIBLE at spelling/grammatical ****. udderly terrible. if the browser didnt have spell check, you guys would think i was mentally handicapped. im a programmer, the big words i deal with on a daily basis are words like "for" and "if" =)
It's all in fun, no worries. 
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/15/2013 12:44 AM
So should only schools that have post season success get paid then?
3/15/2013 1:32 AM
Posted by rednation58 on 3/15/2013 12:44:00 AM (view original):
So should only schools that have post season success get paid then?
I dont think so.

I dont consider it fair that conferences that send 6+ teams to the tourney that are difficult should receive the same amount as an empty conference with only one human that is considerably easier.


3/15/2013 8:37 AM
If the "favorite school" thing carried more weight you might actually see some quality players end up at lesser schools every now and then.  That might not make a huge difference, but it could do a little to level the playing field.  Kind of like Sam Dekker going to Wisconsin rather than a top ten program even though he could have.
3/15/2013 8:59 AM
Posted by stinenavy on 3/15/2013 12:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rednation58 on 3/14/2013 10:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 3/14/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):
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.
In your example, how many coaches are in the SEC and how many are in Southland? Big 6 conferences are normally full... at least 10 coaches. That's lots of money earned. If more coaches worked to fill mid major and low D1 conferences they would get more money. Maybe not 28k... maybe it's more like 17k. How much is an empty conference supposed to earn? About $1700 I would think. 

Why reduce the money? Get some good coaches together and go build a good mid major. You could probably turn a low D1 conference into a midmajor if you could fill it and keep it filled with decent coaches. Get some at large bids and earn your money. Girt is getting congrats right now for winning a NT at Marshall. Very impressive. There are actually lots of mid majors I've noticed in different worlds getting it together and starting to do big things against Big 6 schools. It's possible to be successful in lower prestige conferences. 

Most coaches who do this actually go out and recruit other coaches to come to one conference. Maybe the game is designed this way and it's a good thing. More humans more success. 


Why not reduce the money? Why should Baylor get $26,000 more in recruiting money because Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas did well in the NT? Why should you have to get a group of coaches together?
I guess it boils down to this. Why reduce money in D1 when there are already divisions with reduced money (D2 or D3). And if you look in those divisions there are still power conferences with 12 humans (CCAA, GLV, Heartland, etc) that will end up with more money than some coach who's in a relatively empty conference.

Also why shouldn't Baylor get 28k? Baylor also has to play Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas  2 or 3 times a season while someone in an empty conference can continually win the CT and get a NT birth for beating sims.

Why change D1 to be more like D2 when the potential for success is there at low end D1 and mid major conferences?  
3/15/2013 12:06 PM
Posted by treyman on 3/15/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
If the "favorite school" thing carried more weight you might actually see some quality players end up at lesser schools every now and then.  That might not make a huge difference, but it could do a little to level the playing field.  Kind of like Sam Dekker going to Wisconsin rather than a top ten program even though he could have.
more texture in recruits would help a ton

- make the favorites matter

- create other preferences - like I want strong academics

- I want skiing

- I want warm weather

- I want cold weather

- I want a party school

- I want a big school

- I want a small school

- create pipeline effects - recruit a kid from a high school and the next season it is easier to recruit from that school - recruit a kid from a town and the same sort of effect

Create about 10 texture factors, make them reasonably significant and recruiting could get a lot more interesting - and lesser schools could snare players from the bigs
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.