D1 Recruit Generation - These go to 11... Topic

Posted by rogelio on 7/30/2015 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 7/30/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):
i agree. we also need to see an uptick in work ethic among the lower crop of players - which mirrors real life if you ask me - to make the players with lower ratings and higher potential of more use in their soph/junior years, so they can be valuable members of low to mid bcs squads. the current ratings of the lower 3/4ths of d1 players are fine, but the potential and work ethic could both use a small uptick. it just goes a long way to increase the value of scouting and planning ahead - it should be the case that a very industrious team without elite prestige, can build a team that when experienced, can compete with the younger a+ recruited squads (assuming the pieces are arranged well). its fine they can't compete with the best team in the country, an experienced team that got some luck in EEs and has beast talent. fine. but a young a+ squad with 9 fr/sophs who are just really talented, you should be able to compete with that.

its very american to allow upward mobility. i think we just need to frame the current recruit gen as un-american and equate that with aiding and abetting terrorists, and THEN we will see action! this is fox we are talking about, after all :)
Take the rhetoric to DEFCON 5...or is it 6!?  Anyhow, yes.

My thought has always been that recruits should not be generated with WE of less than 10, nor more than 90.  Simple.   There would still be some players with great potential and terrible WE, but few where you just could not move the needle at all.  Don't know what the distribution of WE generated currently is, but it could be bumped up slightly.  Maybe is should be a median of 55 and a range from 10 - 90 (assuming it's 1-100, with a median of 50 now).

With a slight bump down in initial ratings generated and a change in the distribution of maximum potential ratings generated, a lot of problems that currently exist just change.  Those very few generated with 90+ initial ratings would actually be fought over.  Just that money spent would make it possible for mid-majors to jump into the pool for players that are the next alternative for all the Big 6 schools. 
Pet Peeve: Defcon 1 is the state of war, not Defcon 5. 

Hasn't anyone seen War Games? Kids these days... 

www.youtube.com/watch
7/31/2015 8:37 AM
Posted by andystender on 7/31/2015 7:59:00 AM (view original):
I agree that we should lower the number of elite recruits, but I would take it one step further and make those recruits national recruits.  National recruits would basically be an international in terms of distance being the same for everyone no matter where they are from.  IRL an elite recruit out of Texas would be recruited by UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Michigan State, etc.  It is silly that they are left to whatever Texas team has the A+ currently.  I would also make a minimum spend to get the elite recruit.  If it cost a minimum of $30k (those elite recruits need to feel that love) that elite A+ school would have to put a lot more thought into the way they use their budget.  One of the biggest problems with recruiting, in my opinion, is when a team dominates a region so fully that no one ever challenges them and they pick whatever recruits they want in the region, sign them for cheap and then have huge carryover making them even more dominant the next season. 
Not against the idea of "National" recruits (similar to International costs), but I don't think you need to over-cook the fix right away.  The reason that A+ schools dominate is that they do not need to spend much of their budget to get top recruits.  If the layer of top-tier recruits were simply thinned out, with a few recruits with max potential showing up with low initial ratings, then those A+ prestige schools would be forced into actually battling more frequently.  They would end up with far less carryover and far more risky results for those teams.

It dawned on me some time ago, that there were A+ teams that no one would fight.  Over time, that means that they amass enormous carryover budgets.  Good luck battling them for a recruit, if they only have to battle every 3rd year!  That also becomes hard to track, but you need to take into account whether the opponent has a fat wad from the season prior.  With that depleted, you'd see different results over time.  [One fix that might be painfully fun would be to have the AD raid the carryover budget from time to time to fund, say the women's gymastic programs trip to Beijing!  That would also promote battles, since there would be a risk that the carryover would take a random hit from time to time.]  

7/31/2015 10:50 AM
doesnt all the carryover get cut to 25%,  so how are they amassing enormous caryyover budgets? 
7/31/2015 11:07 AM
Posted by waykbordr on 7/31/2015 11:07:00 AM (view original):
doesnt all the carryover get cut to 25%,  so how are they amassing enormous caryyover budgets? 
True enough, at D1 EEs take care of the possibility of 100% carryover for Big 6 teams.   Just remember that a A+ prestige enjoys a multiplier effect on effort value, so a $20k carryover is enormous when converted over to a B+ Prestige cost of effort to overcome.  

I don't know the exact numbers that the A+ prestige folks are able to roll when unchallenged, but I would not be shocked if it were between $20k - $30k.
7/31/2015 11:16 AM
Posted by rogelio on 7/31/2015 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by andystender on 7/31/2015 7:59:00 AM (view original):
I agree that we should lower the number of elite recruits, but I would take it one step further and make those recruits national recruits.  National recruits would basically be an international in terms of distance being the same for everyone no matter where they are from.  IRL an elite recruit out of Texas would be recruited by UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Michigan State, etc.  It is silly that they are left to whatever Texas team has the A+ currently.  I would also make a minimum spend to get the elite recruit.  If it cost a minimum of $30k (those elite recruits need to feel that love) that elite A+ school would have to put a lot more thought into the way they use their budget.  One of the biggest problems with recruiting, in my opinion, is when a team dominates a region so fully that no one ever challenges them and they pick whatever recruits they want in the region, sign them for cheap and then have huge carryover making them even more dominant the next season. 
Not against the idea of "National" recruits (similar to International costs), but I don't think you need to over-cook the fix right away.  The reason that A+ schools dominate is that they do not need to spend much of their budget to get top recruits.  If the layer of top-tier recruits were simply thinned out, with a few recruits with max potential showing up with low initial ratings, then those A+ prestige schools would be forced into actually battling more frequently.  They would end up with far less carryover and far more risky results for those teams.

It dawned on me some time ago, that there were A+ teams that no one would fight.  Over time, that means that they amass enormous carryover budgets.  Good luck battling them for a recruit, if they only have to battle every 3rd year!  That also becomes hard to track, but you need to take into account whether the opponent has a fat wad from the season prior.  With that depleted, you'd see different results over time.  [One fix that might be painfully fun would be to have the AD raid the carryover budget from time to time to fund, say the women's gymastic programs trip to Beijing!  That would also promote battles, since there would be a risk that the carryover would take a random hit from time to time.]  

your idea has one flaw - and that is that the natural advantage inherent in a potential battle often dictates the winner before the fight ever starts - and reducing the number of great recruits does not change that. all over the place, recruits only have 1 a+ school within 200 miles, or 1 a+ school within 360, or even if there are 2 one has a much bigger budget... and its pretty much guaranteed if that coach is savy hes going to know that and take that recruit. more people might be willing to fight uphill battles if they are more desperate for good players but fundamentally the change needs to change the slope of that hill.

international recruits are a great example, because there are often big battles for the top ones. other times they go to someone for next to nothing, because there are good local recruits in enough places. if you pulled out a bunch of those local elites and added some international ones (whether actually international or national so people could see FSS but they were distance-agnostic, preferably the latter), it would really heat up competition for those players - because there are many people who would be eyeing them from similar positions of strength.

the carryover does matter but usually the reason teams have carryover is because nobody fought them in the first place... so slashing that carryover really does nothing to address the root of the problem.

good ideas - i just think the way they would play out isn't exactly how you are hoping.
7/31/2015 1:41 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 7/31/2015 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rogelio on 7/31/2015 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by andystender on 7/31/2015 7:59:00 AM (view original):
I agree that we should lower the number of elite recruits, but I would take it one step further and make those recruits national recruits.  National recruits would basically be an international in terms of distance being the same for everyone no matter where they are from.  IRL an elite recruit out of Texas would be recruited by UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Michigan State, etc.  It is silly that they are left to whatever Texas team has the A+ currently.  I would also make a minimum spend to get the elite recruit.  If it cost a minimum of $30k (those elite recruits need to feel that love) that elite A+ school would have to put a lot more thought into the way they use their budget.  One of the biggest problems with recruiting, in my opinion, is when a team dominates a region so fully that no one ever challenges them and they pick whatever recruits they want in the region, sign them for cheap and then have huge carryover making them even more dominant the next season. 
Not against the idea of "National" recruits (similar to International costs), but I don't think you need to over-cook the fix right away.  The reason that A+ schools dominate is that they do not need to spend much of their budget to get top recruits.  If the layer of top-tier recruits were simply thinned out, with a few recruits with max potential showing up with low initial ratings, then those A+ prestige schools would be forced into actually battling more frequently.  They would end up with far less carryover and far more risky results for those teams.

It dawned on me some time ago, that there were A+ teams that no one would fight.  Over time, that means that they amass enormous carryover budgets.  Good luck battling them for a recruit, if they only have to battle every 3rd year!  That also becomes hard to track, but you need to take into account whether the opponent has a fat wad from the season prior.  With that depleted, you'd see different results over time.  [One fix that might be painfully fun would be to have the AD raid the carryover budget from time to time to fund, say the women's gymastic programs trip to Beijing!  That would also promote battles, since there would be a risk that the carryover would take a random hit from time to time.]  

your idea has one flaw - and that is that the natural advantage inherent in a potential battle often dictates the winner before the fight ever starts - and reducing the number of great recruits does not change that. all over the place, recruits only have 1 a+ school within 200 miles, or 1 a+ school within 360, or even if there are 2 one has a much bigger budget... and its pretty much guaranteed if that coach is savy hes going to know that and take that recruit. more people might be willing to fight uphill battles if they are more desperate for good players but fundamentally the change needs to change the slope of that hill.

international recruits are a great example, because there are often big battles for the top ones. other times they go to someone for next to nothing, because there are good local recruits in enough places. if you pulled out a bunch of those local elites and added some international ones (whether actually international or national so people could see FSS but they were distance-agnostic, preferably the latter), it would really heat up competition for those players - because there are many people who would be eyeing them from similar positions of strength.

the carryover does matter but usually the reason teams have carryover is because nobody fought them in the first place... so slashing that carryover really does nothing to address the root of the problem.

good ideas - i just think the way they would play out isn't exactly how you are hoping.
There are a lot of variables that you may be disregarding.  I agree that the change I am suggesting would have an uncertain outcome.  Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't go far enough.  However...

When you are a B+ prestige team trying to sign 3 players, and 1 of those 3 is a semi-even fight that you think you can win, then a lurking even or better prestige team may read the tea leaves and take away one of the other 2.   If an A+ is willing to just go after the 1 local recruit through signings, then you are probably right.  However, if that team, as they often do, want to sign 3 or 4 top tier players, then the fight may attract attention like the lower prestige fights do.   There would be a good deal of peril to pull in the reigns on those that try to lock down 4 or 5 Top 10 players in a recruiting cycle.

That said, I don't mind the idea of taking Top 5 players at each position and flattening the cost scale.  However, I do think that the changes needed to this game, from a recruiting-game-play persective, are not huge.  A little change might go a long way.
7/31/2015 2:51 PM
I don't think making less elite recruits will result in the battles you are hoping for among the A+ schools.  In Tark I am an A+ at Oregon.  If you lessened the number of elite recruits and the closest one was in Southern California I would still be able to assess the situation and realize that I will never win against A+ UCLA distance advantage and so I would not battle.  Maybe in a congested area like North Carolina you might induce more battles, but across most of the country you would only turn the A+ schools, not lucky enough to have an elite in their back yard, towards the diamond in the roughs that mid majors like to get.  Do you think these A+ schools are not going to be able to find the diamonds?  That is why I think the only way to induce more battles and eat up the A+ school budgets is to level the playing field by taking away distance advantages on the elite recruits. 
7/31/2015 8:57 PM
◂ Prev 12
D1 Recruit Generation - These go to 11... Topic

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.