Hurry up new recruiting process - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

130 5

Pro

Posted by cbriese on 1/16/2016 8:28:00 PM (view original):
"Hey, Johnny, this is Coach Hamilton of Florida State. I realize that you've already told the good folks at UAB that you'll play for their program, but I'd like to offer you a full-ride scholarship to Florida State. You'll get to play all the ACC teams every year, and your family and friends will be able to watch you on ESPN many, many times each season. We really need you when we go up against Duke and North Carolina. I completely understand, however, if you want to honor your commitment to the Blazer staff - after all, they get the make trips to schools like Western Kentucky every season. I am hoping you will consider becoming a Seminole, and maybe one day adding your name to a list of the 30 Florida State players, like Dave Cowens and Sam Cassell, who have made the jump to the NBA."

"Sorry, coach, but I'd really prefer to go to the University of Alabama, Birmingham", said no one ever.

Not disagreeing with you as to the outcome with regards to a RL recruiting battle between UAB and FSU but the difference between RL and HD (and the flaw in the HD recruiting process) is that in RL UAB would probably have back up options they could recruit after Florida State came calling. In HD the ONLY chance UAB has at landing a guy who could be a "difference maker" is to commit all of their recruiting resources, particularly when another mid major is also recruiting the guy. The result is that when he is poached both mid-majors are then stuck with taking a walk on SIM because they don't have other options. That's absurd and is completely unrealistic and disincentivizes teams from ever trying to sign better players. If there's no realistic "back up" recruiting process available in HD, I don't think it's unreasonable to impose recruiting penalties for teams that make no discernible recruiting effort until late in the process.

The other place where this is completely unrealistic is that in RL Florida State doesn't wait until the day or week before signings to start recruiting. They'd be so far behind the eight ball at that point that they would never compete in a Big 6 conference because all of the premiere talent would be long gone. The fact that this game allows higher prestige teams to effectively take any player they choose after sitting idly by doing nothing until right before signing leaves the UAB's and other lower prestige schools with very little chance to recover and at a big disadvantage.

"Hey Johnny, this is Coach Haase of UAB. I'm interested in recruiting you to play Blazer basketball next season but I just realized that the good folks at Florida State haven't started recruiting for next season yet and tomorrow is signing day. I realize that neither you or I know if FSU is even going to start recruiting but I just don't want to take any chances in case they do. Would you mind sitting idly by until they start recruiting so I can determine if they might want you to play at their school. I mean, you know how it is, if I try to recruit you and they jump it at the last minute I'll have no chance to recruit anyone else this season."

That's never happened either.

1/16/2016 10:24 PM

bhansalid00

Posts: 713 (0)

Hall of Famer

104 189 6 1

Prospect

Posted by zorzii on 1/16/2016 8:28:00 PM (view original):
I disagree Bistiza. I think the big six concept is great, the mid-major concept is great. The advantage needs to be lessened so that some teams can sneak into a final four sometimes or even get to the national game. But if we are realistic when's the last time a non big six team has won the NCAA tournament?

UNLV 1990
Marquette 1977
UTEP 1966

When was the last time a non-big-six went to the final game?

Butler (2010-2011)
Utah 1998
Houston (1983-1984)
Indiana State (1979) Larry Bird

So the game needs to take that into account.

Then why doesn't the game take it into account at D2 and D3? Kentucky Wesleyan made 6 straight championship games in real-life D2 from 1998-2003. As that dynasty went on, they were able to start recruiting better talent than anyone else in D2, including a half-dozen players who'd eventually play professionally in Europe and one in the NBA. So why didn't HD boost up KWU's prestige in this game to reflect their unique real-world dominance and recruiting advantages? Realism is realism, right?

The reason is that HD isn't after realism with baseline prestige. They're simply trying to pander to popular teams in D1. And that's a bad reason, because real-world D1 powerhouses would be awesome in D1 even without baselines. There would always be a line of people who'd want to coach at Duke or Kentucky because of their names, and that competition would ensure those schools would quickly be manned by really good coaches.

What would happen if HD killed baseline, changed hiring logic and became more aggressive with firings (i.e. turned the firings button on)? I think you'd still see some perennially elite schools that reflect real life... but you'd also see the rest of D1 succeed or fail based on the merit of their coaches instead of an artificial crutch.

1/16/2016 10:36 PM

possumfiend

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

130 5

Pro

Posted by bhansalid00 on 1/16/2016 10:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 1/16/2016 8:28:00 PM (view original):
I disagree Bistiza. I think the big six concept is great, the mid-major concept is great. The advantage needs to be lessened so that some teams can sneak into a final four sometimes or even get to the national game. But if we are realistic when's the last time a non big six team has won the NCAA tournament?

UNLV 1990
Marquette 1977
UTEP 1966

When was the last time a non-big-six went to the final game?

Butler (2010-2011)
Utah 1998
Houston (1983-1984)
Indiana State (1979) Larry Bird

So the game needs to take that into account.

Then why doesn't the game take it into account at D2 and D3? Kentucky Wesleyan made 6 straight championship games in real-life D2 from 1998-2003. As that dynasty went on, they were able to start recruiting better talent than anyone else in D2, including a half-dozen players who'd eventually play professionally in Europe and one in the NBA. So why didn't HD boost up KWU's prestige in this game to reflect their unique real-world dominance and recruiting advantages? Realism is realism, right?

The reason is that HD isn't after realism with baseline prestige. They're simply trying to pander to popular teams in D1. And that's a bad reason, because real-world D1 powerhouses would be awesome in D1 even without baselines. There would always be a line of people who'd want to coach at Duke or Kentucky because of their names, and that competition would ensure those schools would quickly be manned by really good coaches.

What would happen if HD killed baseline, changed hiring logic and became more aggressive with firings (i.e. turned the firings button on)? I think you'd still see some perennially elite schools that reflect real life... but you'd also see the rest of D1 succeed or fail based on the merit of their coaches instead of an artificial crutch.

I generally agree but conference post season cash is a far bigger issue to me than baseline prestige. It would be nice if baseline's were updated every year after the NCAA tourney though. Or, I'd be okay with retaining post season cash if it were pooled separately and its use was limited to scouting functions only.

1/16/2016 11:09 PM

willowcards2

Posts: 209 (0)

Hall of Famer

178 27 6

Prospect

The reason every coach who is saying don't change recruiting are the one's who have the biggest budgets and don't have to fight but wait till 5pm on signing days and spend more money than anyone else to get a recruit

That is why they are so against the change!

The new process will take time into consideration as part of the process to hephep stop poachers. Everyone arguing for kows they hàve a unfair advantage and would be unwilling to go mid major because they know the money difference

1/16/2016 11:15 PM (edited)

darnoc29099

Posts: 1362 (0)

Hall of Famer

321

Pro

Posted by willowcards2 on 1/16/2016 11:15:00 PM (view original):
The reason every coach who is saying don't change recruiting are the one's who have the biggest budgets and don't have to fight but wait till 5pm on signing days and spend more money than anyone else to get a recruit

That is why they are so against the change!

The new process will take time into consideration as part of the process to hephep stop poachers. Everyone arguing for kows they hàve a unfair advantage and would be unwilling to go mid major because they know the money difference

Considering credit is already a "thing" in recruiting. The way Seble described things it doesn't matter if you recruit day 1 or day 5 because it sounds like considering credit is going away.

I don't think the update is going to help with what you're frustrated with. In the new engine players will be pre-programmed to sign in the late cycles no matter what but I don't think coaches will have a clue if a guy is going to sign in the first or second signing period. So when, say, FSU loses out on their primary targets during the first signing period what do you think they're going to do? My guess is lower their expectations and sign some lower-rated guys in the 2nd round of signings....even guys that have been considered by schools like UAB from day 1. I don't think poaching will ever go away-it's a part of the D1 game.

The best way to avoid getting sniped is to budget your money, watch what other schools are doing, and wrap your battles up by 10am on day 4 of recruiting.

1/17/2016 12:02 AM

willowcards2

Posts: 209 (0)

Hall of Famer

178 27 6

Prospect

According to them it isn't poaching it is their entitled right to come in at the last second and spend more and get the recruit

1/17/2016 12:12 AM

the0nlyis

Posts: 2686 (0)

Hall of Famer

295 6

Prospect

Posted by willowcards2 on 1/17/2016 12:12:00 AM (view original):
According to them it isn't poaching it is their entitled right to come in at the last second and spend more and get the recruit

then prepare it's not something you can't completely control.

The important question what was the recruit rank/overall rating? Was he really good or a ****** player?

1/17/2016 12:13 AM

oldave

Posts: 1162 (0)

Hall of Famer

3 302 12

Pro

Posted by willowcards2 on 1/16/2016 11:15:00 PM (view original):
The reason every coach who is saying don't change recruiting are the one's who have the biggest budgets and don't have to fight but wait till 5pm on signing days and spend more money than anyone else to get a recruit

That is why they are so against the change!

The new process will take time into consideration as part of the process to hephep stop poachers. Everyone arguing for kows they hàve a unfair advantage and would be unwilling to go mid major because they know the money difference

The oaks cant help thier feelings
if they like the way theyre made
And they wonder why the maples
Cant be happy in thier shade

1/17/2016 3:04 AM

cbriese

Posts: 919 (0)

Hall of Famer

760 102 199

Prospect

Rush for the win.

1/17/2016 4:35 AM

Benis

Posts: 7256 (0)

Hall of Famer

266

Prospect

Posted by bhansalid00 on 1/16/2016 10:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 1/16/2016 8:28:00 PM (view original):
I disagree Bistiza. I think the big six concept is great, the mid-major concept is great. The advantage needs to be lessened so that some teams can sneak into a final four sometimes or even get to the national game. But if we are realistic when's the last time a non big six team has won the NCAA tournament?

UNLV 1990
Marquette 1977
UTEP 1966

When was the last time a non-big-six went to the final game?

Butler (2010-2011)
Utah 1998
Houston (1983-1984)
Indiana State (1979) Larry Bird

So the game needs to take that into account.

Then why doesn't the game take it into account at D2 and D3? Kentucky Wesleyan made 6 straight championship games in real-life D2 from 1998-2003. As that dynasty went on, they were able to start recruiting better talent than anyone else in D2, including a half-dozen players who'd eventually play professionally in Europe and one in the NBA. So why didn't HD boost up KWU's prestige in this game to reflect their unique real-world dominance and recruiting advantages? Realism is realism, right?

The reason is that HD isn't after realism with baseline prestige. They're simply trying to pander to popular teams in D1. And that's a bad reason, because real-world D1 powerhouses would be awesome in D1 even without baselines. There would always be a line of people who'd want to coach at Duke or Kentucky because of their names, and that competition would ensure those schools would quickly be manned by really good coaches.

What would happen if HD killed baseline, changed hiring logic and became more aggressive with firings (i.e. turned the firings button on)? I think you'd still see some perennially elite schools that reflect real life... but you'd also see the rest of D1 succeed or fail based on the merit of their coaches instead of an artificial crutch.

Thank you for posting this. I was going to try to make a similar point but didn't feel like digging up real life data on d2 and d3 schools.

Totally agree.

1/17/2016 6:30 AM

gillispie1

Posts: 5030 (0)

Hall of Famer

95

Veteran

Posted by bistiza on 1/16/2016 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting isn't the problem - D1 baseline prestige and other advantages to big name, big conference schools in D1 is the problem.

The game works GREAT at D2 and D3. The best change would make D1 more like D2 and D3 - no baseline prestige, no power conferences except what human coaches create by having a bunch of good coaches in one conference.

There is NO reason HD has to have the same power schools or power conferences as real life. None.

I have one D1 school that I keep just to see what I can do, but the game is FAR better at D2 and D3.

i never get this argument... if all you want is to make d1 like d2/d3, then why not just play d2/d3? is it the name on the school, is that really that important?

1/17/2016 6:43 AM

Benis

Posts: 7256 (0)

Hall of Famer

266

Prospect

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/17/2016 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 1/16/2016 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting isn't the problem - D1 baseline prestige and other advantages to big name, big conference schools in D1 is the problem.

The game works GREAT at D2 and D3. The best change would make D1 more like D2 and D3 - no baseline prestige, no power conferences except what human coaches create by having a bunch of good coaches in one conference.

There is NO reason HD has to have the same power schools or power conferences as real life. None.

I have one D1 school that I keep just to see what I can do, but the game is FAR better at D2 and D3.

i never get this argument... if all you want is to make d1 like d2/d3, then why not just play d2/d3? is it the name on the school, is that really that important?

Kind of, yeah.

1/17/2016 7:02 AM

gillispie1

Posts: 5030 (0)

Hall of Famer

95

Veteran

the advantage of top schools in d1 is pretty clearly out of whack right now. when i started d1, BCS schools had an advantage, but it wasn't like it is today, people could compete in the NT without being an A prestige BCS school. heck, i won my first title as a rookie recruiter with a C+ prestige out at colorado. i didn't feel like i had a big disadvantage compared to other coaches - a small one, sure, but nothing i couldn't compensate for with coaching.

however, people weren't really that happy with d1 back then, either. nobody (generally speaking) complained about the advantage of one school over the other. but tons of people complained that there was too much talent, that there were 50 teams almost full of players who had 90s in all their cores. oldresorter coined the game "coin flip dynasty", which i thought was a bit unfair, nobody really was into coaching those days, which to me, was the real problem. but he had a valid point, there were so many players with 90s in their cores... so many... it was more than a bit ridiculous.

i think it makes a lot of sense how we got where we are now. i didn't see it coming, not sure many people did, but most of us wanted the talent level across teams to be more varied. when you cut back on talent, from a situation where so many teams are "haves", you are going to move towards a situation like today where you have so many more "have-nots". did seble go too far? almost certainly. is there a happy medium that would solve most problems? maybe, or maybe structural changes are needed.

there's really two points i'm trying to make here... first, advocating for massive structural changes, its going to come with unforseen effects, like the last overhaul did. just trying to nuke away all that makes d1 d1, turning it into d2/d3, i just don't think that's a good idea. and secondly, i think people try to make this into a battle between the haves and the have-nots. i don't agree with that, that is wrong, IMO. its just that the haves have been in d1 for a long time, they loved d1 for various reasons, and they don't want to see what they loved about d1 stripped away. almost everyone agrees d1 balance is out of whack. that doesn't mean we will all agree on the solutions, and when we don't, that certainly doesn't mean the other folks with different opinions have those opinions for purely selfish reasons. that garbage line of thinking needs to go.

1/17/2016 7:08 AM

duke137

Posts: 65 (0)

Hall of Famer

30 8 3 117 14 5

Prospect

Posted by possumfiend on 1/16/2016 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 1/16/2016 8:28:00 PM (view original):
"Hey, Johnny, this is Coach Hamilton of Florida State. I realize that you've already told the good folks at UAB that you'll play for their program, but I'd like to offer you a full-ride scholarship to Florida State. You'll get to play all the ACC teams every year, and your family and friends will be able to watch you on ESPN many, many times each season. We really need you when we go up against Duke and North Carolina. I completely understand, however, if you want to honor your commitment to the Blazer staff - after all, they get the make trips to schools like Western Kentucky every season. I am hoping you will consider becoming a Seminole, and maybe one day adding your name to a list of the 30 Florida State players, like Dave Cowens and Sam Cassell, who have made the jump to the NBA."

"Sorry, coach, but I'd really prefer to go to the University of Alabama, Birmingham", said no one ever.
Not disagreeing with you as to the outcome with regards to a RL recruiting battle between UAB and FSU but the difference between RL and HD (and the flaw in the HD recruiting process) is that in RL UAB would probably have back up options they could recruit after Florida State came calling. In HD the ONLY chance UAB has at landing a guy who could be a "difference maker" is to commit all of their recruiting resources, particularly when another mid major is also recruiting the guy. The result is that when he is poached both mid-majors are then stuck with taking a walk on SIM because they don't have other options. That's absurd and is completely unrealistic and disincentivizes teams from ever trying to sign better players. If there's no realistic "back up" recruiting process available in HD, I don't think it's unreasonable to impose recruiting penalties for teams that make no discernible recruiting effort until late in the process.

The other place where this is completely unrealistic is that in RL Florida State doesn't wait until the day or week before signings to start recruiting. They'd be so far behind the eight ball at that point that they would never compete in a Big 6 conference because all of the premiere talent would be long gone. The fact that this game allows higher prestige teams to effectively take any player they choose after sitting idly by doing nothing until right before signing leaves the UAB's and other lower prestige schools with very little chance to recover and at a big disadvantage.

"Hey Johnny, this is Coach Haase of UAB. I'm interested in recruiting you to play Blazer basketball next season but I just realized that the good folks at Florida State haven't started recruiting for next season yet and tomorrow is signing day. I realize that neither you or I know if FSU is even going to start recruiting but I just don't want to take any chances in case they do. Would you mind sitting idly by until they start recruiting so I can determine if they might want you to play at their school. I mean, you know how it is, if I try to recruit you and they jump it at the last minute I'll have no chance to recruit anyone else this season."

That's never happened either.

I think you make a great point possumfiend. The real crux of the problem is'nt that FSU took UAB's recruit, it's that FSU took UAB's recruit at 0 hour, when UAB thought they had fought for, and won, the rights to signing this recruit. If FSU had declared their intentions on day 1, of the recruiting process, then UAB most likely would have backed off, and would'nt have spent most of their budget, and I believe could have accepted at that point that they could'nt compete with FSU, and moved on to another recruit without having too much animosity... So some kind of stern penalty for teams coming in at the last second, and "poaching" another team's recruit might be the remedy for this problem. Maybe they lose 20% of their recruiting budget for next season, if they do what FSU is accused of doing. I believe this would force them to declare for prospects earlier, and would eliminate most of the so called "poaching" by power 6 teams.

1/17/2016 8:52 AM

bhansalid00

Posts: 713 (0)

Hall of Famer

104 189 6 1

Prospect

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/17/2016 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 1/16/2016 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting isn't the problem - D1 baseline prestige and other advantages to big name, big conference schools in D1 is the problem.

The game works GREAT at D2 and D3. The best change would make D1 more like D2 and D3 - no baseline prestige, no power conferences except what human coaches create by having a bunch of good coaches in one conference.

There is NO reason HD has to have the same power schools or power conferences as real life. None.

I have one D1 school that I keep just to see what I can do, but the game is FAR better at D2 and D3.

i never get this argument... if all you want is to make d1 like d2/d3, then why not just play d2/d3? is it the name on the school, is that really that important?

D1 would always be fundamentally different than D2 or D3, because it contains the only schools that coaches aspire to get to someday.

Many relatively new HD coaches start planning their eventual path to Duke or Kansas or Kentucky. So top-notch D1 schools already have the built-in advantage of having a lot of demand for their coaching openings, which means the cream is going to rise to the top. Then a good-but-not-great RL school (say a Minnesota or Providence) would probably get more HD interest than a no-name school, but not as much as elite schools. And so on down the line. In other words, RL prestige is already being factored into the quality of the job organically. It doesn't need the artificial controlling of baseline prestige.

Meanwhile at D2, as I pointed out earlier, no matter how many RL championship games Kentucky Wesleyan gets to, there isn't a spike in applications to KWU in HD. D2/D3 will never be like D1.

Most of us HD coaches also happen to be very well aware of RL D1 hoops. I wish the game would just trust the market to determine where the prestige lies, instead of imposing it on us.

1/17/2016 9:34 AM (edited)

Forums

Hurry up new recruiting process Topic

Search Criteria