the problem with recruiting as a whole is that there are no caps on what a coach can do in recruiting.  in real life, if you look at the UNC recruiting board (which I do often) you will see that they have a list of about 20-30 basketball players they are looking at and recruiting... or players who are wanting them to be interested in them.  

the way the game is set up, you can lock into a single recruit and if you have enough money you will get them.  as a result, teams with lower prestige and lower money are going to shy away from the big conference schools because it's a useless attempt to sign a top player.  thus the rich get richer.  teams in the top conferences know this is the case so if they see another conference foe recruiting a player, they can go after a lesser player or another similarly talented player because they have the cash and prestige to do so, so there are fewer battles... the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. 

It's also important to note that in real life recruiting begins 3 seasons before they are eligible to play for the team.  the top players sign with the top schools and the rest of the players then filter down to other schools.  if UNC loses out to their target to UK, then they have plenty of time to go after a second tier player.  in this game if UNC loses out to UK, they won't have the resources to battle for a 2nd tier player, so it's all or nothing.  top teams are afraid to be shut out, so they're going to pass on the top players in most cases to the team with higher prestige and/or scholarships open + NT cash.

there is no simple solution to the recruiting conundrum.  there are 2 issues here, the first is there is no benefit of spreading your cash around to 15-20 players for 3 or 4 scholarships.  the fewer players being recruited, the fewer wars in recruiting you will have.  and as a result if you spread your cash around with the shotgun approach you will lose everyone to coaches using the rifle approach.  and if you lose out on the top players, you will not be able to jump in on the 2nd tier players because they will either be gone or you won't have the money to jump into a recruiting battle.  So your best chance to do well is to wait and see who the top players go after and then go for whoever is left.  

the second issue is the time given for recruiting.  in real life there is enough time to allow the top teams to get their recruits and then the 2nd tier get the 2nd tier players and players filter down the line and so on.   Some kids will know what level early on they are and will sign, while others will wait for higher prestige schools to jump in and hope they can improve.  

what I would like to see in recruiting is a model something like this.... 

Recruiting lasts a week and is reduced to 4 cycles a day until the last 4 days when recruiting cycles will return to 3 hour cycles. Players considering list will only be updated once a day and players can have up to 10 schools on their considering list.  Only 1 campus visit per school for each player and teams are allowed and 1 coach visits allowed and 4 assistant coach visits allowed per player per day.  Players start signing after 3 days with the top recruits signing first along with a select number of random recruits who sign with schools which may help smaller schools scoop up a good player every now and then.  This would allow power teams to hold onto more money to go after players if they miss out on their main target to have cash to go after another target and keep conference collusion to a minimum as no one will know who going after a player and who is a school's main target.  Big schools can recruit players but not offer a scholarship and still have a fallback list instead of losing out on their main player and going for leftovers.  

I don't think it's a bad thing to root for a conference mate in the postseason.

But compare the ACC in Allen to the D2-Gulf South.    They both played roughly the same amount of games in the NT this season. 

But with lower payouts and with prestige having a much lesser effect in D2, the Gulf South usually stays more local when recruiting and often have 8-10 inner conference recruiting battles that last a few days, while the ACC may have a battle or two per season that drags out until the beginning of signings.  Correct me if I'm mistaken but I'm not sure there was an ACC v. ACC battle that lasted past the first couple cycles this season.

It's one thing to root for your conference in postseason, but it seems that with the shared revenue being the entire recruiting budget, the overall strength of the conference is more important than the state of a single team.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/3/2012 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Iguana1 on 8/3/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
dacj501, the scholarships were used to show how little the difference in team that goes 0-16 vs a team that makes the sweet 16.
a D1 NT game would be worth the value of one half a scholarship.

the current system only rewards success with a bump in prestige.  Maybe that's enough once we start to see the effects of the prestige changes recently introduced.   Currently if a Memphis makes the Final Four in HD, a 0-16 Wake Forest will still mop the floor with them in recruiting since cash is still king.

by maintaining the current system the low bid conferences are sharing the money they earned with the others.  So by supporting the present system, we're supporting keeping more conf cash with the also rans in the top conferences, and taking more away from the top performers in the lower conferences.   Not saying a performance based payout would attract more teams in the lower conferences, but the current system has proved it doesn't.

ok, so if one happens to be a coach at an also ran in a BCS conference (jobs which currently tend to be a bit harder to get than jobs in the low bid conferences) they should be given disadvantages so that mid majors can get better? How does that help the bottom half teams in the BCS conferences that are fighting the elites head to head? I guess your idea wasn't designed to help those schools, but they need to be considered too, don't they?

yes they do need to ne considered.   
but I also think there's something to be said about a consistently last place team riding on the success of the conf mates and being able to trounce higher prestige teams from nearby conferences just because they're sitting on a mountain of cash someone else earned for them.

But then again I'm really not a fan of the baseline prestiges keeping a team artifically competitive either.
I'm hoping the recent changes made to conference prestige being such a large part of individual team prestige will somewhat curb their strength.
There definitely is (was?) something wrong when a team can average 3-4 wins in conference over 10 seasons and still have a top 40 prestige grade.

I guess I was in the wrong BCS conferences...I made the NT about 2/3 of the time at Alabama in Tark for 17 seasons, and after the first season of my rebuild never missed either the NT or PIT. My prestige was typically a B+. I was only rarely able to steal a stud away from the bigger schools either other SEC schools or nearby ACC schools. When I did, they'd inevitably go EE and leave me short, but that's not really the issue at hand I suppose. I guess this is mostly a reflection of my abilities as a coach, but personally, I've got no interest in a system that makes it even harder for me to compete with my lower half BCS clubs while boosting someone else's mid-major success. Sounds like so far I'm in the minority, so if it does come to pass I guess I make my future decisions then...

ETA: I averaged 8.8 conference wins over my 17 season (including my 3-13 first season.) I never really checked, but I don't know that my B+ was ever a top 40 prestige...

Posted by jslotman on 8/3/2012 5:17:00 PM (view original):
Poor Wake Forest. 

Tell me about it.....

dacj, I really don't think there's actually any consideration being given to a restructuring of the conference recruiting money as I don't think the current systm is preceived as needing repair.
But I think the current system places a higher priority on overall conference prestige rather than individual team success.

just to throw a few more numbers at you:

Under the current system
Elite conference with 30 NT and 10 PIT games.
       every team gets $54,000
Good BCS with 15 NT and 5 PIT games
      every team gets $27,000
Low-Mid major with 5 NT and 1 PIT
     every team gets $8,750


with performance based disbursement (dropping NT games to $15k)
Elite conference with 30 NT and 10 PIT games.
       Final Four team gets       $58,300
      Second round loss gets  $35,800
       Last place team gets      $20,800
Good BCS with 15 NT and 5 PIT games
       Final Four team gets       $47,900
      Second round loss gets  $25,400
       Last place team gets      $10,400
Low-Mid major with 5 NT and 1 PIT
       Final Four team gets       $40,800
      Second round loss gets  $18,300
       Last place team gets      $ 3,300



so under the current system an Alabama team in a solid SEC, that loses in the second round of the NT, gets $27,000 vs a last place team in the elite conf which brings home $54,000
under performance based, Alabama gets $25,400 vs a last place in the top conf which gets $20,800

Iguana, I see some good in what you say - but I still have a couple hang-ups. Continuing to use Bama as an example team - I think we were usually around 3rd or 4th as a conference in the postseason cash. I think we probably averaged a little more than $27k, but its close enough. I can see how it would be a boon to earn roughly the same (instead of half as much as) the bottom ACC team or Big 10 or Big 12, whatever team. But the top team in the SEC (often LSU (storm69) or Kentucky (gillispie1), occasionally the Nat'l Champ, most seasons good for at least Final 4) is getting at least $47,900. So I'm good vs the guy in the ACC who finishes last but now I have to recruit against A+ billyg AND do it with half the budget (and his school is probably closer to mine too.) I'd rather take my chances against the bottom ACC guy. Also, with this system (even accounting for the $5k reduction in awards) the conferences still pretty much keep the same amount of money overall as before, right? I mean Allen ACC is still gonna make $500k while all the other conferences make $300k so other than making it so that the mediocre teams of a middling BCS conference have a shot at the bottom dwellers of a power BCS conference, and boosting the few top mid majors that make consistent NT appearances into the realm of BCS bottom feeders this doesn't do much for lower half BCS schools, which are about half of the BCS schools, so about 36 coaches/teams end up mostly in a worse overall position... if you happen to be the last place team in a middle of the road BCS you only get $10k...how do you stop being the last place team in a middle of the road BCS (which usually sports a Final Four, a Sweet 16 or 2, a couple more NT 1s and maybe the PIT runner up) on $10k? I guess you quit the BCS and go become a mid major? 

*as I'm proofing this, I hope my tone doesn't come off wrong. I admire the concept in a way, but I really don't think it would help me at all, and I think there are a few dozen others like me who would find it unhelpful as well.

I agree with what iguana is trying to, but I do think it creates haves and have nots in the BCS conferences. How about an even simpler solution - keep the distribution system the same, but flip D1 NT and scholarship money. Each D1 scholarship is now $20k and each NT game is worth $15k.

I must be hallucinating, because I think I just saw people endorse an idea in which the elite teams get more of an advantage. They must be job creators!

Posted by stinenavy on 8/4/2012 8:13:00 AM (view original):
I must be hallucinating, because I think I just saw people endorse an idea in which the elite teams get more of an advantage. They must be job creators!

I actually thought the same thing as I was writing it.  It does come off as capitalist vs. communist principles.

I think the swapping of the amount of money per scholarship and postseason money has always been a good idea.

Probably also a better idea to roll back the performance payout from a team keeping 50% to only keeping 33% (or $5000 bonus per NT game).   
I'm trying to come up with an idea that would allow a conference with 4-6 human coaches having a chance against one that is full.

Under the current system
Elite conference with 30 NT and 10 PIT games.
       every team gets $54,000
Good BCS with 15 NT and 5 PIT games
      every team gets $27,000
Low-Mid major with 5 NT and 1 PIT
     every team gets $8,750


with performance based disbursement (dropping NT games to $15k)
Elite conference with 30 NT and 10 PIT games.      keep 0%     keep 33%         keep 50%
       Final Four team gets                                               $41,667       $52,778           $58,333
      Second round loss gets                                          $41,667       $37,778           $35,833
       Last place team gets                                              $41,667       $27,778           $20,833

Good BCS with 15 NT and 5 PIT games                    keep 0%     keep 33%         keep 50%
       Final Four team gets                                               $20,833       $38,888           $47,917
      Second round loss gets                                          $20,833       $23,888           $25,417
       Last place team gets                                              $20,833       $13,888           $10,417

Low-Mid major with 5 NT and 1 PIT                           keep 0%     keep 33%         keep 50%
       Final Four team gets                                               $  6,667       $29,444           $40,833
      Second round loss gets                                          $  6,667       $14,444           $18,333
       Last place team gets                                              $  6,667       $  4,444            $  3,333

Posted by stinenavy on 8/4/2012 8:13:00 AM (view original):
I must be hallucinating, because I think I just saw people endorse an idea in which the elite teams get more of an advantage. They must be job creators!

Heh.

Posted by acn24 on 8/4/2012 7:19:00 AM (view original):
I agree with what iguana is trying to, but I do think it creates haves and have nots in the BCS conferences. How about an even simpler solution - keep the distribution system the same, but flip D1 NT and scholarship money. Each D1 scholarship is now $20k and each NT game is worth $15k.

Right. You're just plugging one whole to create another.

HD is already tilted towards the top schools -- and this would tilt it to them way more.

I think you guys are really looking at the "have/have nots" in the wrong light.  It's already like that.  No matter what we do, it will always be that way, and it should.  But with Iguana's system, the "haves" are at least reaching that status on merit.  Yes, the elites will become more elite, but there will be a much better chance for good coaches from small conferences to break into that second tier, and move past the mediocre BCS teams.

Iguana's system will spread out the "haves" among more conferences.  Sure, it will be difficult to crack that elite level, but once you do, a mid-major would be more able to compete.

I'm not saying Iguana's system is perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Iguana, even your revised 33% plan means that (sitll using Bama) I'd be facing a 15k deficit vs the billygs and storm69s and johnsensings of the conference...and the last place team (using the "Good BCS" model) is 25k behind the top teams - again, how does one take a last place team and raise them from last place like that? What is the value of making life easier for those 4-6 coaches in the partially filled conferences at the cost of making it harder for the bottom half of BCS coaches?

Posted by isack24 on 8/4/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I think you guys are really looking at the "have/have nots" in the wrong light.  It's already like that.  No matter what we do, it will always be that way, and it should.  But with Iguana's system, the "haves" are at least reaching that status on merit.  Yes, the elites will become more elite, but there will be a much better chance for good coaches from small conferences to break into that second tier, and move past the mediocre BCS teams.

Iguana's system will spread out the "haves" among more conferences.  Sure, it will be difficult to crack that elite level, but once you do, a mid-major would be more able to compete.

I'm not saying Iguana's system is perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

it is already difficult to crack that level. This will make it almost impossible. And how exactly are the "good coaches from small conferences" going to break past that middle tier? So this system gives a little more to those few decent teams in the half empty mid majors. Those coaches are able to elevate themselves past the level of middle or lower BCS coaches, who of course will probably have given up and quit HD by then because they can't even come close to hanging with the top of their own conference anymore. So now those jobs can be filled by those top mid major guys, and then they can suffer at the feet of the gods like the former low BCS coaches did...how exactly do they rise above that level when they only earn half what the big boys of the conference do?