"As I said before, I personally like Div-2 the best .. every team is equal (or has the ability to be, based on winning), and it does not have the inherent bias to a group of teams that there is in Div-1.  There is also enough money to get decent recruits and be able to scout, etc.  Div-3 also has no bias, but I want more recruiting cash.  So, I understand the appeal of Div-2 .. but one can build up a lower level Div-1 team, then take a CUSA or A10 team and build up to a good Div-1 team .. and from there jump into good BCS teams when they open up."
I agree with you hughesjr 100%. I'm just saying that I was at Creighton for 20 seasons, made the postseason 10 straight years and still not qualified for low end BCS.  Creighton wasn't even lower level DI. I should be qualified for ****** simmy ran BCS schools.  We all tried building up MVC in wooden and it got us nowhere.

How much money does a BCS team get by recruit? I mean, don't they get 15k? How much more does the NT can rack up?

The good ones get 40k+ a season

For the NT participation in their conference?

its 20,000 per game played in the NT and 5k for the PIT for all the teams totaled up and divided by 12

Most BCS conferences average between 20-40k payout per team somewhere

So let's say I grab Vanderbilt, a D+ Baseline BCS team, I get the payout?

Yep

It's definitely not easy at the bottom of the Big 6 schools when you're competing with the high prestige teams! IMO mid major is easier than the BCS conf recruiting when you are under B- regardless of the extra money.

Posted by zorzii on 2/19/2015 7:18:00 PM (view original):
So let's say I grab Vanderbilt, a D+ Baseline BCS team, I get the payout?

Vandy is a B baseline, which is much different than whatever their current prestige is.

In case you're unaware, prestige in D1 is completely different than D2 or D3.  In whatever world you're referring to, say Vandy's current prestige is D+.  It'll be a lot easier to get them to a B prestige than it would, say, IUPUI.  Teams gravitate towards their pre-determined baseline prestige.  IUPUI's baseline is D or D+, meaning it's a lot harder to get them to B or better.  In other words, if both Vandy and IUPUI were currently D+, 3 straight trips to the first round of the NT would probably get Vandy close to B prestige, where IUPUI would be closer to C, maybe C+.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/19/2015 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the real issue is that the big boys don't fight enough for the top recruits......if the A+'s had to spend 20-30k on each 4 star recruit they then wouldn't have the cash to take recruits from the mid-majors......as it is now, to many good recruits sign for for just a few thousand, leaving the upper crust to have enough money to inflict their will on the lower tier teams......

spot on...the disparity between the haves and have nots is too significant.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 2/19/2015 8:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/19/2015 7:18:00 PM (view original):
So let's say I grab Vanderbilt, a D+ Baseline BCS team, I get the payout?

Vandy is a B baseline, which is much different than whatever their current prestige is.

In case you're unaware, prestige in D1 is completely different than D2 or D3.  In whatever world you're referring to, say Vandy's current prestige is D+.  It'll be a lot easier to get them to a B prestige than it would, say, IUPUI.  Teams gravitate towards their pre-determined baseline prestige.  IUPUI's baseline is D or D+, meaning it's a lot harder to get them to B or better.  In other words, if both Vandy and IUPUI were currently D+, 3 straight trips to the first round of the NT would probably get Vandy close to B prestige, where IUPUI would be closer to C, maybe C+.

All he wanted to know was if he was at Vanderbilt, who is currently D+ if he would get the big post season recruiting bonus.

Posted by cburton23 on 2/19/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 2/19/2015 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 2/19/2015 9:12:00 AM (view original):
Like I said before DI BCS is BS. I made the postseason 10 years straight at Creighton and still was not qualified for a low end BCS. Been there 20 seasons.  What tex is saying like we all have SAID before is the recruiting generation is broke. I should be able to land some top recruits with my ex-Creighton team, but when a BCS school comes in with $140,000 something and unloads on a recruit the mid-major team can't counter attack. They just don't have the money to play with the big boys. But mid-major should be able to promise start and say hey I made post season 10 years in row, yet the (for ex) BC team that is recruiting you has not, but they have more money so he goes to BC.  It's all about the money and little about prestige. If you were a collge basketball player and mid-major (who made post season 15 years in row) was recruiting you and an ACC school (who hasn't made post season in 5 years) was recruiting you, the majority of the time the mid-major wins for a couple seasons then falls back in line.

How many McDonald's All Americans (in real life) are playing on Mid-Major teams that are not B baseline teams HERE ?  All I am saying is, one can plan and move into the better teams and this is realistic.  Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Arizona, etc. do get most of the really good recruits.  Big 6 teams get the majority of the other very good athletic recruits .. mid majors mostly get good players with flaws that play well within their programs.

Because of this bias, I also would rather play in Div-2 instead of Div-1 .. but it is realistic.

Scheduling and RPI is critical to bumping up your prestige to get a better job at Div-1.  How to bump up your RPI via scheduling is by picking teams who will get lots of wins, but who you can beat.  How I do this is I sort by Overall Wins (starting after about the 23rd game) ... then I pick teams who have what I consider to be low defense (which for Div-2, I look for lower than 53 as an average .. more like 63 for a Div-1 team).  If you can schedule teams that will get 20 or more wins that you can beat, that will get you a good RPI, which in turn will get you a better NT seed, which will allow more round one wins.

As I said before, I personally like Div-2 the best .. every team is equal (or has the ability to be, based on winning), and it does not have the inherent bias to a group of teams that there is in Div-1.  There is also enough money to get decent recruits and be able to scout, etc.  Div-3 also has no bias, but I want more recruiting cash.  So, I understand the appeal of Div-2 .. but one can build up a lower level Div-1 team, then take a CUSA or A10 team and build up to a good Div-1 team .. and from there jump into good BCS teams when they open up.

This tactic is becoming more and more difficult as more people use it.  As more people use this strategy these teams that used to win 18-20 games are now going 2-8 or worse in the non-con

I try to play most of my non conference games on the road. I tend to look at teams that have a very bad home court advantage, but that will have a lot of seniors the following year, so that they should win a decent amount of games. Road wins help your RPI more than home wins. 

Posted by cburton23 on 2/19/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 2/19/2015 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 2/19/2015 9:12:00 AM (view original):
Like I said before DI BCS is BS. I made the postseason 10 years straight at Creighton and still was not qualified for a low end BCS. Been there 20 seasons.  What tex is saying like we all have SAID before is the recruiting generation is broke. I should be able to land some top recruits with my ex-Creighton team, but when a BCS school comes in with $140,000 something and unloads on a recruit the mid-major team can't counter attack. They just don't have the money to play with the big boys. But mid-major should be able to promise start and say hey I made post season 10 years in row, yet the (for ex) BC team that is recruiting you has not, but they have more money so he goes to BC.  It's all about the money and little about prestige. If you were a collge basketball player and mid-major (who made post season 15 years in row) was recruiting you and an ACC school (who hasn't made post season in 5 years) was recruiting you, the majority of the time the mid-major wins for a couple seasons then falls back in line.

How many McDonald's All Americans (in real life) are playing on Mid-Major teams that are not B baseline teams HERE ?  All I am saying is, one can plan and move into the better teams and this is realistic.  Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Arizona, etc. do get most of the really good recruits.  Big 6 teams get the majority of the other very good athletic recruits .. mid majors mostly get good players with flaws that play well within their programs.

Because of this bias, I also would rather play in Div-2 instead of Div-1 .. but it is realistic.

Scheduling and RPI is critical to bumping up your prestige to get a better job at Div-1.  How to bump up your RPI via scheduling is by picking teams who will get lots of wins, but who you can beat.  How I do this is I sort by Overall Wins (starting after about the 23rd game) ... then I pick teams who have what I consider to be low defense (which for Div-2, I look for lower than 53 as an average .. more like 63 for a Div-1 team).  If you can schedule teams that will get 20 or more wins that you can beat, that will get you a good RPI, which in turn will get you a better NT seed, which will allow more round one wins.

As I said before, I personally like Div-2 the best .. every team is equal (or has the ability to be, based on winning), and it does not have the inherent bias to a group of teams that there is in Div-1.  There is also enough money to get decent recruits and be able to scout, etc.  Div-3 also has no bias, but I want more recruiting cash.  So, I understand the appeal of Div-2 .. but one can build up a lower level Div-1 team, then take a CUSA or A10 team and build up to a good Div-1 team .. and from there jump into good BCS teams when they open up.

This tactic is becoming more and more difficult as more people use it.  As more people use this strategy these teams that used to win 18-20 games are now going 2-8 or worse in the non-con

It is true that sometimes they will lose games in non-conference if they accept all comers and a lot of good teams ask them for a game.  But if they are historically winning close to 20 games a season, it usually means that they are setting their schedule so that they do not play that many teams that can beat them.

It does require analysis to pick teams that are going to win games.  But that is required to get a better RPI and is part of the strategy to build up teams.  It certainly does not always work .. and I personally never reject a game if someone challenges me, so I don't fill up with those kind of teams.  But generally, you can look at human coached teams and analyze what they are going to do based on their history and class balance.  With SIM AI teams it is much harder to predict good teams.

Posted by terps21234 on 2/19/2015 3:28:00 PM (view original):
"As I said before, I personally like Div-2 the best .. every team is equal (or has the ability to be, based on winning), and it does not have the inherent bias to a group of teams that there is in Div-1.  There is also enough money to get decent recruits and be able to scout, etc.  Div-3 also has no bias, but I want more recruiting cash.  So, I understand the appeal of Div-2 .. but one can build up a lower level Div-1 team, then take a CUSA or A10 team and build up to a good Div-1 team .. and from there jump into good BCS teams when they open up."
I agree with you hughesjr 100%. I'm just saying that I was at Creighton for 20 seasons, made the postseason 10 straight years and still not qualified for low end BCS.  Creighton wasn't even lower level DI. I should be qualified for ****** simmy ran BCS schools.  We all tried building up MVC in wooden and it got us nowhere.

The Mid Major powerhouse can happen.  Just look at Marshall in Rupp.  Can it happen with a team like UT San Antonio?  Remains to be seen but for me, that's where the fun is.

DI gets boring at the top.  Competing with a mid-major is much more challenging and rewarding.  You do have to except that there are great inequalities built into the game at DI, but that's where good strategy comes in.  Instead of rolling over others with a pile of cash, you have to be surgical in your approach.  I used to want to eliminate baseline prestige, which would make DI more like DII, but now I'm not so sure.  Being a part of the WCC (Iba) buildup and the MWC in Rupp (which has now fallen apart) has been the most fun I've had in HD.  Without the uphill battle, I'd probably have left a long time ago.  

Now I will say that building up a mid major or lower tier team cannot be done in an empty conference.  If the OP wants to compete, then find some guys who want the challenge and recruit them to your conference.  You need to be at least 3/4 full to build up a conference.  Even a BCS conference would fall apart with only a couple of human coaches.  WCC (Iba) now consistently comes in as the #3 to 5 conference each season and we're on the verge of getting teams past the sweet 16 more regularly.  CUSA (Rupp) is always at the top of the list.  I think Summit in Allen was looking good last I checked.  It won't be long before somebody wins a championship with a team like UTSA.  

I'd like to get a group of guys to take a **** DI conference with teams in very close proximity (MEAC, NEC, Patriot, Southern) and turn that around.  If anyone's interested in that, let me know.  That would be fun.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/19/2015 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the real issue is that the big boys don't fight enough for the top recruits......if the A+'s had to spend 20-30k on each 4 star recruit they then wouldn't have the cash to take recruits from the mid-majors......as it is now, to many good recruits sign for for just a few thousand, leaving the upper crust to have enough money to inflict their will on the lower tier teams......

Not really.

The "big boys" got to be "bog boys" because they understood how to recruit (as well as game plane, team build, etc)
The big boys can evaluate the recruiting scenario efficiently and know when and when NOT to get into a recruiting war.

They fight, but usually there are no big wars unless BOTH coaches have calculated a chance to successfully bring in a recruit