Posted by gillispie1 on 12/11/2014 3:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dcy0827 on 12/11/2014 3:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 12/11/2014 2:19:00 AM (view original):
blame the system. The primary reason for this is that most experienced D1 coaches can recognize a losing battle and either dont initiate poorly or bail when they see the writing on the wall. Of course, even though this, like everything else I sputter, is stated with authority, it is just an idea I just thought of reading the thread. But it sounds plausible.
(ETA, especially the coaches that can realistically compete for the top recruits...)
It's probably the very reason you don't see many battles CJ. The most experienced coaches know when they're fighting a losing battle and when it's time to cut bait and move on. Why pour all your money into a guy you know you're not going to get? Move on and find a replacement, quite simple logic really.
Add in the fact that "poaching" (and no, I don't believe there is such a thing, but that's the term everyone uses, so that's why I'm using it) seems to be becoming a more and more popular method to recruit is probably another contributing factor in the lack of battles. More coaches are becoming more patient, biding their time, waiting for a mistake, then hit-and-run recruiting right before signings leaving no time for battles.
Finally, just the general lack of coaches period means there are more good players to go around. You wouldn't being seeing this in a full world or even a world two-thirds full. Then the demand would outweigh the supply and if a coach wanted to be successful, they'd be FORCED to battle for the quality recruits. If they didn't, they'd lose and (if it worked correctly) be fired.
Summary, not enough coaches. The coaches there are experienced enough to know when to fold 'em. More patience during recruiting.
Equals lack of battles. Yep, it's "basically" a draft (with the minor exception here or there) and it has been for a good, long while now. Might as well get used to it because unless something drastic happens to the game it doesn't look like it'll be changing any time soon. Which is a pity.
the BCS conferences are full, i fail to see how having more mid major coaches is going to impact the battles of the A prestige schools? you might get a few mid majors who are competitive at those levels, but its typically going to knock down some BCS schools in the region as a result.
i agree with the premise, its just not applied correctly, IMO. full worlds would force some coaches to battle for recruits - its just the middle to lower BCS and higher mid major tier, that that becomes true for. those teams would be fighting for the same guys they get now, split more ways. its easy to have more moderate prestige mid majors and just have some of the sims be crappier... but this does not largely trickle up to the A prestige schools. it would make being a mid major or mid-lower BCS school completely insane - fighting hard for mediocre players like it was when the new engine came out - which is why roughly half those folks (a third of all d1 coaches) left.
recruit generation is a problem, and the simplistic regional auction style recruiting model is a problem. not having coaches is symptom, not the problem itself.
More mid-major coaches means more teams for those conferences in the tourneys, which means more recruiting dollars. More recruiting dollars mean a better chance for those mid-majors to take a chance battling mid-level BCS schools. Plus due to more teams having human coaches, that means that the desirable players now have more competition for them. Sure maybe it doesn't affect the very top of the line A+ prestige schools, but it would necessitate that more battles be fought over the next lower tier of players, that is, if a coach wanted to be successful.
I'll agree that recruit generation is the biggest problem, but a lack of coaches is also a huge problem itself.