Posted by acn24 on 11/9/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/9/2015 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 11/9/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/9/2015 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Right now it is interesting personally I see a view main opinions people have:

• Want HD to be completely fluid like D2/D3(personally I think thats stuipid)
• Want HD to be only Elites going far
• Want HD to remain as is(basically only Elites going far)
• Want HD to be more middleground where you can have more than just 1/2 built up projects getting to the S16.

Personally what I'd love to see would be the absolute elites(billy, stew, acn, johnsensing, stinenavy, kimball, jdno, etc) to take a conf(Summit, is that considered the best D- baseline conf?) and see how far they can build it up honestly each taking teams in seperate conferences would be even more interesting since they wouldn't be able to benefit each other with bonus cash and make it more like a true low end school test and not a conf building test.  Honestly I'm not sure how far these coaches could go and how how they could build a program.

you are all over this game so im assuming you are familiar with CUSA rupp? girt lead that project, i had a team for a couple seasons but wasn't part of accomplishing anything, but it was filled with a top notch cast of coaches. they were without question the #1 conference in that world, and marshall won 3 championships, one under girt, two under acn (although acn's first was like his first or maybe second season, so it was girts players, so they sort of get joint credit for that one). 

not sure if you are saying because that was a C prestige mid major conference, that it doesn't count? is it limited only to d+ mid majors (i don't think there are d- baseline confs, i think the worst schools are d+)? anyway it seems to me the mid majors have 2 issues, prestige, and money, and taking a situation without either is obviously the hardest - but generally the guys with success outside of BCS aren't taking the absolute worst case positions, either (IRL). seems to me having 1 of the 2 disadvantages is probably enough.

yes I familar with the conf(now in shambles) and I know girt and acn won many titles there(I believe they were the only 2).

I guess personally I'd classify the C-USA as a "mid-major" conf since it's all C?  I'm absolutely not taking any credit away because of that, I just figured doing the same thing from a D baseline would maybe provide a test to see what the limit is, since we know a great group of coaches can come together at the mid major level and build the top conference.(I don't think they're any D+ or D- baseline conferences?

Honestly I think a lot of people want to big a correction, what you said is true, that the reason you can't take a low D1 school to the S16 and beyond is because all of the capable coaches of doing that are all at Big 6 jobs.  I think it maybe a little too hard at the moment, but personally think it's not too far away from being the right balance of competition.

Sort of a reply to what you said about St. Boneventure, I guess I started the hyping of that squad, but you already went to the 2nd round in season 3(I didn't catch who you played and what their roster was like), but you already got twice as far as the majority of coaches have even once they get up to B- prestige.

The Summit in Allen has a few teams up to a B, and conference prestige up to C+, although I think they may have had a net loss of coaches this season, with 9 humans and 3 sims.  I think the MWC in Crum is really strong - but if you're considering the C-USA a mid-major conference the Mountain West would be too.  Girt and I were the only 2 win titles (and all 3 of the conferences titles were from Marshall, I never did at UAB), and as gill mentioned, it was probably 1.5 each, since I did win my first year at Marshall.  

Really I think it is very difficult for a lone coach to do this by themselves, having a full conference is so important, both in potentially earning additional recruiting cash and especially in removing the worst teams that will artificially cap a team's prestige.  For reference, I had this run at Manhattan, early in Tark (so people were just getting to DI and filling in at elites, so it isn't as impressive as it may be if it happened today):

19	johncannon	29-4	11-1	12-2	6-1	16-0	3	7	64	A-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
18	johncannon	30-4	12-1	11-2	7-1	16-0	6	7	50	A-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Final Four)
17	johncannon	31-3	12-0	12-2	7-1	16-0	2	5	28	B+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Final Four)
16	johncannon	24-8	8-4	11-3	5-1	14-2		31	85	C+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
15	acn24	35-0	13-0	13-0	9-0	16-0	1	1	42	C	Conf Champion CT Champion National Champion
14	acn24	26-7	11-2	9-4	6-1	14-2		28	101	C	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
13	acn24	29-3	11-0	13-2	5-1	15-1	2	1	9	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
12	acn24	29-3	10-1	14-1	5-1	16-0	7	23	187	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
11	acn24	27-5	10-2	12-2	5-1	15-1	17	8	23	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
10	acn24	24-6	10-2	11-3	3-1	12-4	19	64	300	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (1st Round)

During a sitemail exchange with Tarek, I was told that I was essentially capped at A- unless more coaches joined.  This was very early in the development of prestige, and before potential adn the recruit generation update.

that was under a different prestige system though, wasn't it? im honestly not sure about that, i can't remember if when prestige started showing, it was already floating, or not... but if that is with floating prestige, then, wow - although seble has lowered the impact of baseline prestige. the reason i really doubt its anything like today's prestige system is, you won a NC, and stayed at a C. there's no freaking way. i've gotten d+ mid majors to a C+ off of two consecutive NT 1s. actually, i'm sure that prestige system is nothing like todays, although the tail end is starting to look like it... i do agree it would be rather hard to get a D+ to an A+.

I'll interrupt breifly to opine I'm ok with postseason cash going away since prestige makes it redundant.

But recruiting isn't broken and shouldn't be fixed. The jobs system in D1 is utterly broken and desperately needs to be fixed so coaches can lateral between D-level schools and bad coaches at top conferences can actually be fired. This system has been awful for years.

Gil - that was right after prestige got rolled out, I honestly couldn't tell you what tweaks they've made to prestige since then; I do remember Tarek specifying that Manhatten was capped at an A- until more humans joined the MAAC. I kept pushing because Manhatten had one of the 3-4 best runs in Tark at that time, but there were like 15 As or A+s. Then Tarek shut down john's account, because that's how he rolled.

But I really think that not a ton has changed, at least in terms of conference prestige holding down a single team's prestige.

Posted by gillispie1 on 11/11/2015 7:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/9/2015 10:17:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to feel that everybody is shopping on empty stomachs. Gill said how a mid. Major can win now I feel were handicapping the game because people can't recruit the right players. Everyone can't get five star players even at mid majors. Your lucky to really get a four star player at a mid major. I think this was a bad idea and punishes good coaches because you have to be a good coach to get a high prestige and elite program. People flame out at bcs level all the time. We should give more respect to good coaches.

they were all 0 stars who i signed... maybe a 1 star, maybe one 1 star i mean. 

That was my point exactly.  You found great vaule for your prestige and build a great program.  It's easy if you learn from others. 

Posted by acn24 on 11/12/2015 7:57:00 PM (view original):
Gil - that was right after prestige got rolled out, I honestly couldn't tell you what tweaks they've made to prestige since then; I do remember Tarek specifying that Manhatten was capped at an A- until more humans joined the MAAC. I kept pushing because Manhatten had one of the 3-4 best runs in Tark at that time, but there were like 15 As or A+s. Then Tarek shut down john's account, because that's how he rolled.

But I really think that not a ton has changed, at least in terms of conference prestige holding down a single team's prestige.

I rememember that Mahattan team in Tark.  It was a great team and was an awsome job.

Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/13/2015 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 11/12/2015 7:57:00 PM (view original):
Gil - that was right after prestige got rolled out, I honestly couldn't tell you what tweaks they've made to prestige since then; I do remember Tarek specifying that Manhatten was capped at an A- until more humans joined the MAAC. I kept pushing because Manhatten had one of the 3-4 best runs in Tark at that time, but there were like 15 As or A+s. Then Tarek shut down john's account, because that's how he rolled.

But I really think that not a ton has changed, at least in terms of conference prestige holding down a single team's prestige.

I rememember that Mahattan team in Tark.  It was a great team and was an awsome job.

Thank you

I think one thing that would make recruiting much more competitive would be if it was not easy to see who all of the recruits are considering, specifically, if it was very difficult to see if a school is in a lot of battles.

Right now, in D1, it is best to avoid battling for multiple players because you become a target and can lose the good players that you already have considering you. I don't think that as the coach of Georgia Tech, I should be able to see all of the players that are considering Georgia, and then see if they are battling for some of those recruits. I think if I am recruiting a player, or have done a certain level of scouting, I should be able to tell which schools he is considering. But I should not know what other players are considering that school.

I also like the fact that HVs and CVs are a lot more limited, as this may also take care of the problem of the lack of competition for recruits. If someone cannot save a bunch of money for the period before signings, and go in with 200 home visits at the last minute, schools will be much more likely to compete for a number of recruits because they will not feel vulnerable.

I also like the fact that recruiting will be more national, especially for the top teams. The fact that recruits may show up as considering schools before the first cycle will definitely promote competition. If the top recruit shows up considering like 5 or 6 of the top programs, those guys are going to definitely be interested.

Right now, after the first two cycles, most of the top teams have secured the very best players. And if they have like 3 players considering them, with 5 openings, it's very doubtful they will face any competition. because of that, they have a ton of cash to make a big play for another player at the signing period. And the fact that someone is out there looking for vulnerable schools, makes you not want to get in battles for recruits so you do not look vulnerable.

Posted by chapelhillne on 11/14/2015 8:40:00 AM (view original):
I think one thing that would make recruiting much more competitive would be if it was not easy to see who all of the recruits are considering, specifically, if it was very difficult to see if a school is in a lot of battles.

Right now, in D1, it is best to avoid battling for multiple players because you become a target and can lose the good players that you already have considering you. I don't think that as the coach of Georgia Tech, I should be able to see all of the players that are considering Georgia, and then see if they are battling for some of those recruits. I think if I am recruiting a player, or have done a certain level of scouting, I should be able to tell which schools he is considering. But I should not know what other players are considering that school.

I also like the fact that HVs and CVs are a lot more limited, as this may also take care of the problem of the lack of competition for recruits. If someone cannot save a bunch of money for the period before signings, and go in with 200 home visits at the last minute, schools will be much more likely to compete for a number of recruits because they will not feel vulnerable.

I also like the fact that recruiting will be more national, especially for the top teams. The fact that recruits may show up as considering schools before the first cycle will definitely promote competition. If the top recruit shows up considering like 5 or 6 of the top programs, those guys are going to definitely be interested.

Right now, after the first two cycles, most of the top teams have secured the very best players. And if they have like 3 players considering them, with 5 openings, it's very doubtful they will face any competition. because of that, they have a ton of cash to make a big play for another player at the signing period. And the fact that someone is out there looking for vulnerable schools, makes you not want to get in battles for recruits so you do not look vulnerable.

You are very right about this and honest. I get picked off as a C becuase I want to fill up my slots.  Spent money then have like a B+ school come in after I knock off all the C and C+ schools.  This actually sucks and makes recruiting harder.

Posted by chapelhillne on 11/14/2015 8:40:00 AM (view original):
I think one thing that would make recruiting much more competitive would be if it was not easy to see who all of the recruits are considering, specifically, if it was very difficult to see if a school is in a lot of battles.

Right now, in D1, it is best to avoid battling for multiple players because you become a target and can lose the good players that you already have considering you. I don't think that as the coach of Georgia Tech, I should be able to see all of the players that are considering Georgia, and then see if they are battling for some of those recruits. I think if I am recruiting a player, or have done a certain level of scouting, I should be able to tell which schools he is considering. But I should not know what other players are considering that school.

I also like the fact that HVs and CVs are a lot more limited, as this may also take care of the problem of the lack of competition for recruits. If someone cannot save a bunch of money for the period before signings, and go in with 200 home visits at the last minute, schools will be much more likely to compete for a number of recruits because they will not feel vulnerable.

I also like the fact that recruiting will be more national, especially for the top teams. The fact that recruits may show up as considering schools before the first cycle will definitely promote competition. If the top recruit shows up considering like 5 or 6 of the top programs, those guys are going to definitely be interested.

Right now, after the first two cycles, most of the top teams have secured the very best players. And if they have like 3 players considering them, with 5 openings, it's very doubtful they will face any competition. because of that, they have a ton of cash to make a big play for another player at the signing period. And the fact that someone is out there looking for vulnerable schools, makes you not want to get in battles for recruits so you do not look vulnerable.

ever since seble proposed something along these lines, i've been intrigued by the idea. one issue i have is that guys can go wild, take huge risks, and its more likely that behavior will be rewarded. i think i see the value in not showing everybody's considering list, though. maybe a compromise is for the top players in d1 to show the list for everyone. or, if the bar to see who is considering a recruit, is not that high, then you'd see enough players in your area (assuming regional recruiting is still sort of a thing) to at least half-know what was going on locally.