Seble please keep Postseason Cash and Carry-Over Topic

iwanturmind2
Posts: 150 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 127 23
Prospect

I know Seble has proposed getting rid of Postseason Cash and Carry-Over but here is my thought on the matter.  The NCAA gives conferences money for Postseason success in BB and FB.  Also there are conference TV contracts to consider.  Schools from the Big East should have more money and resources than the A-10 and Big South.  This is a part of college and why certain conferences get top players and others ie Gongaza have to have success ie perstige to get other players.  The Pac 10 should always beat the WCC in recruiting and Major Conferences should have sucess so players can move up to a better conference or job and want to move up. 

Carry-Over I feel you should keep also.  If a coach is smart with his money why should he be punished for doing a good job.
Just my thoughts...any feedback yea or nea.

11/4/2015 3:58 PM (edited)
taniajane
Posts: 811 (0)
Hall of Famer
97 55 11
Prospect
I agree. But, the Pac 10, the Big Ten, ACC SEC etc were not ALWAYS the Prestige schools (Minus Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina). I would not mind conferences being equal in prestige and let their coaches make them prestigious as a conference. The real Life Indiana State, or Jacksonville U making the championship game are rare now, but nearly impossible in WIS.
11/4/2015 4:13 PM
therewas47
Posts: 657 (0)
Hall of Famer
127 1
Prospect
Agreed but only keep the carry over if schools have a roster full of American born players.  Im sure everyone is in agreement with me when I say that we are tired of seeing scholarships that could go to American born players being shipped overseas.  Incentives need to be provided to keep those scholarships for domestic athletes.  
11/4/2015 5:26 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Posted by therewas47 on 11/4/2015 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Agreed but only keep the carry over if schools have a roster full of American born players.  Im sure everyone is in agreement with me when I say that we are tired of seeing scholarships that could go to American born players being shipped overseas.  Incentives need to be provided to keep those scholarships for domestic athletes.  
Wut?
11/4/2015 5:31 PM
buddhagamer
Posts: 3710 (0)
Hall of Famer
466 215 98
Pro
My biggest concern with the removal of post season cash will be the lack of incentive to move to a bottom BCS D1 program to try and build it up.  

Without the extra funds, who would want to lose every season to the elite programs thus likely not making the post season AND get no extra recruiting $$$$ to boot.  Its different at D2/D3 since there are no preferred schools and any conference could be made elite but at D1, post season cash is critical to bottom BCS coaches to try and compete in conference.

Maybe a better solution is to keep the post season cash but have zero rollover.
11/4/2015 6:50 PM
the0nlyis
Posts: 2686 (0)
Hall of Famer
295 6
Prospect
Keep carryover as it for all divisions(honestly should raise to 50%, should be rewarded for recruiting efficiently).  Then cut post season cash in half at D1.  Still gives strong conferences cash advantage without making it absurd.

Cutting cash at D2/D3 ruins the point of superconferences as much as sebles doesn't think so.
11/4/2015 7:25 PM
hughesjr
Posts: 3174 (0)
Hall of Famer
484 154 8 2
Prospect
Well, money is not going to mean the same thing as it does now if I am reading how seble wants recruiting to go.  Right now money means everything.  More money means more recruiting actions now.

In the new system, recruiting battles will now be done with effort and you do not get more effort points, home visits or campus visits given to you based on money.  Cash is only going to be used for scouting, and scouting has no recruiting impact.

So, more money means you can find more possible recruits .. BUT you get 'X' effort points, 'X' home visits and 'X' campus visits and that is based on the number of openings and not how much money you have.

See this post for details.

11/4/2015 11:14 PM (edited)
chapelhillne
Posts: 2469 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 717 17 2
Veteran
I think conference prestige will be more important, which may offset some of the pain of losing the tournament cash. There is also still the baseline prestige, which will give an advantage to Big 6 schools. I  also think that most of the Big 6 coaches are very skilled in order to have landed the Big 6 programs, so they will probably still be able to land the better players because of their recruiting abilities. I am not sure if I remember reading this, but some of the players will have pre set preferences for the kind of schools that they will go to, and some of those players may prefer the Big conferences right off of the bat. It may not make as big of a difference as it sounds. I kind of think it will be interesting to see what happens, personal, so I am not really of one opinion or the other. The game will still be a lot of fun no matter how that is handled. I do think that the system right now makes it pretty much impossible for lower echelon teams to compete in recruiting. That is probably fairly realistic though.
11/4/2015 11:20 PM
iwanturmind2
Posts: 150 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 127 23
Prospect
Posted by chapelhillne on 11/4/2015 11:20:00 PM (view original):
I think conference prestige will be more important, which may offset some of the pain of losing the tournament cash. There is also still the baseline prestige, which will give an advantage to Big 6 schools. I  also think that most of the Big 6 coaches are very skilled in order to have landed the Big 6 programs, so they will probably still be able to land the better players because of their recruiting abilities. I am not sure if I remember reading this, but some of the players will have pre set preferences for the kind of schools that they will go to, and some of those players may prefer the Big conferences right off of the bat. It may not make as big of a difference as it sounds. I kind of think it will be interesting to see what happens, personal, so I am not really of one opinion or the other. The game will still be a lot of fun no matter how that is handled. I do think that the system right now makes it pretty much impossible for lower echelon teams to compete in recruiting. That is probably fairly realistic though.
In this day and time I don't know too many top players saying they want to go to LIU Brooklyn or to VMI or even Parie View A&M.  Most of those players at those schools are sub 300 overall players.  They are players that are good enough for Div 1 but never get looks at the Mid Major Level and above.  Now there are players that may be good enough to go to a Big East School as a RS but will look at an A10 school to get more playing time and things like that but to say bottom schools should have a better edge to go against a Big 6 school is not realistic.  Big 6 schools get the players they want and they compete vs other Big 6 schools for recruits.  Gonzaga and others have a history of getting good quality players and once awhile a player in their back yard that is a 5 star player will consider them and go there.  Just like UNLV got a great 5 star PF from Las Vegas recently.  My point is Postseason cash is a part of the game and should not be taken away.  I respect all schools and players want to build their systems up but there is a reason why you work your way up to a Bigger conference so you can compete as a coach and get the benifits of being in a big conference.  Just my point on it but WIS will make their own decisions.
11/6/2015 9:17 AM
iwanturmind2
Posts: 150 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 127 23
Prospect
Posted by taniajane on 11/4/2015 4:13:00 PM (view original):
I agree. But, the Pac 10, the Big Ten, ACC SEC etc were not ALWAYS the Prestige schools (Minus Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina). I would not mind conferences being equal in prestige and let their coaches make them prestigious as a conference. The real Life Indiana State, or Jacksonville U making the championship game are rare now, but nearly impossible in WIS.

Indiana State has not made the final 4 since Larry Bird and Jacksonville U I dont think they ever got to the Sweet 16 in their history.  To make those schools equal or on par to any Big 6 school is not realistic in Real Life or WIS.

11/6/2015 9:22 AM
hughesjr
Posts: 3174 (0)
Hall of Famer
484 154 8 2
Prospect
Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/6/2015 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by chapelhillne on 11/4/2015 11:20:00 PM (view original):
I think conference prestige will be more important, which may offset some of the pain of losing the tournament cash. There is also still the baseline prestige, which will give an advantage to Big 6 schools. I  also think that most of the Big 6 coaches are very skilled in order to have landed the Big 6 programs, so they will probably still be able to land the better players because of their recruiting abilities. I am not sure if I remember reading this, but some of the players will have pre set preferences for the kind of schools that they will go to, and some of those players may prefer the Big conferences right off of the bat. It may not make as big of a difference as it sounds. I kind of think it will be interesting to see what happens, personal, so I am not really of one opinion or the other. The game will still be a lot of fun no matter how that is handled. I do think that the system right now makes it pretty much impossible for lower echelon teams to compete in recruiting. That is probably fairly realistic though.
In this day and time I don't know too many top players saying they want to go to LIU Brooklyn or to VMI or even Parie View A&M.  Most of those players at those schools are sub 300 overall players.  They are players that are good enough for Div 1 but never get looks at the Mid Major Level and above.  Now there are players that may be good enough to go to a Big East School as a RS but will look at an A10 school to get more playing time and things like that but to say bottom schools should have a better edge to go against a Big 6 school is not realistic.  Big 6 schools get the players they want and they compete vs other Big 6 schools for recruits.  Gonzaga and others have a history of getting good quality players and once awhile a player in their back yard that is a 5 star player will consider them and go there.  Just like UNLV got a great 5 star PF from Las Vegas recently.  My point is Postseason cash is a part of the game and should not be taken away.  I respect all schools and players want to build their systems up but there is a reason why you work your way up to a Bigger conference so you can compete as a coach and get the benifits of being in a big conference.  Just my point on it but WIS will make their own decisions.
All you said is true, sort of.

This is "What If Sports" , so teams should be able to better compete.  If only the elite schools can really win, then every D-1 world will have 15 players at the top elite schools and all the other teams will be SIMs.

There is baseline prestige, which means the Big 5 teams, even if they suck, will have more prestige and get better recruits as compared to non Big 5.  But remember that UNLV and Houstion and Memphis have competed very recently with the major players.  Right now teams like Gonzaga and Wichita State are competing with the big boys.  They are getting top flight recruits.  (Not every player on their team, but some players).  Look at BYU and Jimmer Fredette as an example.

They have to actually test the new system in beta, but I think that splitting out:

1.  Scouting:  Costs lots of money.  Everyone can scout and it does not have any recruiting value.

2.  Recruiting: everyone get the same amount of home and campus visits, each one is worth more based on prestige.  Better teams will get better players because of prestige, since their effort is worth more.  BUT, they have to properly concentrate their effort on players.

That all makes sense to me.  The better teams CAN get the best players .. if they properly scout and properly focus on players with their recruiting effort.  If they either don't find the best players (don't scout) .. or if they don't properly focus on the better players, they can lose some guys.

The way it is now,  few will even challenge an A+ Div-1 team for a recruit.  So they spend enough cash to get the guy solid ($8,000) and use the rest of their cash somewhere else.  Kentucky or Duke can't recruit guys from California if UCLA or USC have an A+, etc.  In the new setup, Duke (if they are the better prestige team) can recruit against UCLA for the best player in California.  I like the whole concept of what they are trying to do.


11/6/2015 9:44 AM
taniajane
Posts: 811 (0)
Hall of Famer
97 55 11
Prospect
Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/6/2015 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 11/4/2015 4:13:00 PM (view original):
I agree. But, the Pac 10, the Big Ten, ACC SEC etc were not ALWAYS the Prestige schools (Minus Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina). I would not mind conferences being equal in prestige and let their coaches make them prestigious as a conference. The real Life Indiana State, or Jacksonville U making the championship game are rare now, but nearly impossible in WIS.

Indiana State has not made the final 4 since Larry Bird and Jacksonville U I dont think they ever got to the Sweet 16 in their history.  To make those schools equal or on par to any Big 6 school is not realistic in Real Life or WIS.

I said ALWAYS. If you want to talk realistic...There is REALISTICALLY nearly Zero chance for a sub or mid major EVER getting a 5 Star player that I have seen in the present system with so many conferences filled with SIMs at those levels. Yet in REAL Life Butler's (Championship game back to back years), Indiana State's, and others do get some ..or is the NBA soley from the big 6 with it's stars?
11/6/2015 10:44 AM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
Posted by taniajane on 11/6/2015 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/6/2015 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 11/4/2015 4:13:00 PM (view original):
I agree. But, the Pac 10, the Big Ten, ACC SEC etc were not ALWAYS the Prestige schools (Minus Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina). I would not mind conferences being equal in prestige and let their coaches make them prestigious as a conference. The real Life Indiana State, or Jacksonville U making the championship game are rare now, but nearly impossible in WIS.

Indiana State has not made the final 4 since Larry Bird and Jacksonville U I dont think they ever got to the Sweet 16 in their history.  To make those schools equal or on par to any Big 6 school is not realistic in Real Life or WIS.

I said ALWAYS. If you want to talk realistic...There is REALISTICALLY nearly Zero chance for a sub or mid major EVER getting a 5 Star player that I have seen in the present system with so many conferences filled with SIMs at those levels. Yet in REAL Life Butler's (Championship game back to back years), Indiana State's, and others do get some ..or is the NBA soley from the big 6 with it's stars?
The lack of users is the issue.  CUSA Rupp signed tons of elite players, and the Allen Summit have signed a few as well.

Also, I don't think that the success that some of the mid-majors have had in real life has been due to, or led to, signing 5 stars.  Rivals had 25 5-stars in the class of 2015, and 1 signed with a non-big 6 school.  In 2014 2 out of 24 5-stars signed with a non-big 6 school, and one of those ended up playing in China.  Class of 2013, 1 out of 26.  So for the last three years, 4 out of 75 5-stars signed with non-big 6 school; 2 with UNLV, a team  with a storied history and 2 with SMU, a team with a hall of fame, former national championship coach.  Gordon Hayward was not a star recruit, Purdue was the only big 6 offer he got.  Steph Curry wasn't a highly considered recruit, he got no scholarship offers from big-6 schools.  Even going back to great players from lower DI schools, there were reasons - David Robinson grew 9 inches between Jr High and his senior year of high school and hadn't played much basketball before then, he grew another 3 the summer before  his freshman year at Navy and then another 3 while at Navy.  You reference Indiana State - but Larry Bird actually accepted a scholarship from Indiana out of high school, but quit after a month because he had trouble with how large Bloomington is.
11/6/2015 11:42 AM
taniajane
Posts: 811 (0)
Hall of Famer
97 55 11
Prospect
Posted by acn24 on 11/6/2015 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 11/6/2015 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/6/2015 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 11/4/2015 4:13:00 PM (view original):
I agree. But, the Pac 10, the Big Ten, ACC SEC etc were not ALWAYS the Prestige schools (Minus Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina). I would not mind conferences being equal in prestige and let their coaches make them prestigious as a conference. The real Life Indiana State, or Jacksonville U making the championship game are rare now, but nearly impossible in WIS.

Indiana State has not made the final 4 since Larry Bird and Jacksonville U I dont think they ever got to the Sweet 16 in their history.  To make those schools equal or on par to any Big 6 school is not realistic in Real Life or WIS.

I said ALWAYS. If you want to talk realistic...There is REALISTICALLY nearly Zero chance for a sub or mid major EVER getting a 5 Star player that I have seen in the present system with so many conferences filled with SIMs at those levels. Yet in REAL Life Butler's (Championship game back to back years), Indiana State's, and others do get some ..or is the NBA soley from the big 6 with it's stars?
The lack of users is the issue.  CUSA Rupp signed tons of elite players, and the Allen Summit have signed a few as well.

Also, I don't think that the success that some of the mid-majors have had in real life has been due to, or led to, signing 5 stars.  Rivals had 25 5-stars in the class of 2015, and 1 signed with a non-big 6 school.  In 2014 2 out of 24 5-stars signed with a non-big 6 school, and one of those ended up playing in China.  Class of 2013, 1 out of 26.  So for the last three years, 4 out of 75 5-stars signed with non-big 6 school; 2 with UNLV, a team  with a storied history and 2 with SMU, a team with a hall of fame, former national championship coach.  Gordon Hayward was not a star recruit, Purdue was the only big 6 offer he got.  Steph Curry wasn't a highly considered recruit, he got no scholarship offers from big-6 schools.  Even going back to great players from lower DI schools, there were reasons - David Robinson grew 9 inches between Jr High and his senior year of high school and hadn't played much basketball before then, he grew another 3 the summer before  his freshman year at Navy and then another 3 while at Navy.  You reference Indiana State - but Larry Bird actually accepted a scholarship from Indiana out of high school, but quit after a month because he had trouble with how large Bloomington is.
yep I agree with all of it. The major prblm is the mid and lower are Usually 70-90 % sims (sure some guys have ganged together and made themselves relevant and gotten 4- 5 star players by having an all Human conference. But that is a SMALL %). Reality is there is no SIMS coaching in Real World, yet on top of prestige and dollars from post season, I am feed a line of this is Reality. NOPE, reality is some lesser schools DO get 5 star athletes (various reasons...some Seble is addressing...as in history with a coach, closer to home (which is meaningless in the auction now), and perhaps even like Bird, the desire to be in smaller campus or a Bigger Fish in a smaller pond.
11/6/2015 4:59 PM
timjmiller
Posts: 93 (0)
Hall of Famer
89 14 1
Prospect
I actually lIke the current system a lot, it mirrors real life by more than people realize. In real life, low DI teams have no shot at 3 stars and above. Mid-Majors land the occasional highly touted recruited but tend to get low skilled, higher potential guys and BCS schools land most of the 5 stars.

BUT occasionally you'll get a fantastic low d1 or mid major coach that builds up a great program and regularly make it to the NT and maybe even a few Sweet Sixteen runs (in both real life and HD). The end goal of D1 should be to get a big six school because that is the only way to really compete for a National Championship (if a national championship is your goal). If players want an even field all across the board, they have DII and DIII to coach in. DI is a different animal and I don't get why coaches complain when they can't land the same players Michigan State is recruiting when they are at Harvard or Georgia State. Here are a few suggestions I have come up with to make recruiting a little bit more level. To clarify, I think most top recruits should go to Big six schools but a good mid major program should at least be able to grab some 4 or maybe even the occasional 5 star.

- Make the Top 100 overall players cost the same to recruit for everyone. This would let USC and UNC battle over the same recruit. In rl, most top recruits don't take location into account and end up deciding between the top schools. This would force the BCS schools to invest more money into those recruits and it would level the playing field for the rest of the schools when they battle BCS schools.

-Any recruiting effort will put you on the considering list. In real life, recruits consider up to 10 schools at a time and slowly cut there list as it closer to signing day. In HD, the majority of recruits only ever consider one school. Imagine a recruit consider about 8 schools after the first cycle then slowly trim their list as the signing period gets closer. It would add a lot more strategy.

-Replace WOTS. Currently one of the ways to see who a rl recruit is leaning towards is to look at the 247 crystal ball. Sometimes a recruit has 90% chance to go to a school and ends up choosing another. Now obviously that kind of randomness wouldn't fly in HD so here is what my proposal would be. Have a 15% error rate so anything outside that is a 100% signing. For example:

1. Baylor 43%
2. Texas 35%
3. Oklahoma 11%
4. Texas State 10%
5. Montana State 1%

This recruit would be leaning towards Baylor but since they aren't out of the 15% error rate, he could sign with Texas too. Now:

1. USC 45%
2. UCLA 29%
3. Colorado 20%
4. Duke 6%
The recruit would sign with USC since they are out of the 15% error rate.

Edit: Apologies for any grammatical errors or any unclear suggestions, I typed this out on my phone belive it or not :D
11/7/2015 12:58 PM
123 Next ▸
Seble please keep Postseason Cash and Carry-Over Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.