I dont think there is a problem either.  There is no consensus either.  Its just you dont typically find people wasting their time defending the status quo.  After this past season of watching other teams recruit in Naismith, Ill tell you from the 5 or 6 schools I watched, the problem wasnt the players but the manner of how mid-majors were recruiting.  Also, coaches at midmajors have always complained about recruiting and always will.  Stop making changes and give the game time to cycle through.  I also agree that people havent made adjustments.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/27/2010 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I dont think there is a problem either.  There is no consensus either.  Its just you dont typically find people wasting their time defending the status quo.  After this past season of watching other teams recruit in Naismith, Ill tell you from the 5 or 6 schools I watched, the problem wasnt the players but the manner of how mid-majors were recruiting.  Also, coaches at midmajors have always complained about recruiting and always will.  Stop making changes and give the game time to cycle through.  I also agree that people havent made adjustments.

Care to expand on the mistakes you saw the mid-majors making?

Sure:

1) A midmajor should not be getting into battles with schools for Big 6 conferences that have distance, money and prestige advantages over them;

2) Regardless of recruit generation, a C+/B- midmajor should not jump onto a 5-star recruit from the very first cycle when there are A/A+ prestige schools nearbyfrom said recruit who have multiple openings and a ton of tournament money;

3) A C+/B- midmajor should especially not battle for a 5-star recruit as its a waste of recruiting budget.

4) A midmajor that is trying to build their program should (IMO) never try and carry 12 players and should use the money gained by carrying a walk-on or two to make up for the money gap. 

There were probably a couple of more; but these were mistakes which were made by several teams and I was suprised to see their comments on their CCs which basically insinuated suprise when they lost a battle or were "sniped" by other schools.  These are not issues limited or created by in any way to the new recruit model and are general flaws in recruiting strategy. 

I think mid-majors were always at a disadvantage but the disadvantages can be overcome by smart recruiting and building up prestige. 

until the new players are all thats left for a while, im not sure we can making a verdict on this topic. the top end players are so much better, but if they all go by soph year, the mid majors might be able to compete just fine with a good number of upperclassmen.

Posted by metsmax on 9/26/2010 7:19:00 AM (view original):
what is the consensus fix for the issue?

something between the old and the new.

mmt, the problem is, you can't really build up prestige at a nonBCS.  I'll admit I'm not the best coach, but at my 12 seasons at a non BCS school(the last 3 were with new recruits), I had a run where I made the postseason 4 seasons in a row, 3 of them NT, got it up to a B-.  Then I missed it two seasons in a row as I was rebuilding and dropped to a C.  That's my biggest problem with nonBCS schools, your work disappears so fast that you almost feel like you're starting over all the time. 

I think the point is well made that the continued presence of old players keeps the new system from getting its real equilibrium - in terms of competitive success and early exits for the draft

Is there a world that is all new?

Posted by fd343ny on 9/27/2010 6:02:00 PM (view original):
I think the point is well made that the continued presence of old players keeps the new system from getting its real equilibrium - in terms of competitive success and early exits for the draft

Is there a world that is all new?

I am pretty sure tark is the farthest along, and is recruiting its 4th class right now. 

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/27/2010 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Sure:

1) A midmajor should not be getting into battles with schools for Big 6 conferences that have distance, money and prestige advantages over them;

2) Regardless of recruit generation, a C+/B- midmajor should not jump onto a 5-star recruit from the very first cycle when there are A/A+ prestige schools nearbyfrom said recruit who have multiple openings and a ton of tournament money;

3) A C+/B- midmajor should especially not battle for a 5-star recruit as its a waste of recruiting budget.

4) A midmajor that is trying to build their program should (IMO) never try and carry 12 players and should use the money gained by carrying a walk-on or two to make up for the money gap. 

There were probably a couple of more; but these were mistakes which were made by several teams and I was suprised to see their comments on their CCs which basically insinuated suprise when they lost a battle or were "sniped" by other schools.  These are not issues limited or created by in any way to the new recruit model and are general flaws in recruiting strategy. 

I think mid-majors were always at a disadvantage but the disadvantages can be overcome by smart recruiting and building up prestige. 

mmt - I agree that mistakes are made in recruiting, but the point is there's less margin for error than before such that the consequences of mistakes are more severe.  From what I have seen, this is true for both mid major schools as well as elite levels. 

This is fine in theory, but IMO the $12.95 question is - "Is this 'harsher' game environment the most effective way to keep worlds full?'

That's a good question.  It seems like the way forward is to make the non-elites feel like they must work really hard to get the best leftovers available.  While at the same time, make the elites feel frustrated every season because their good players leave early. 

Making the game frustrating for both types of schools might make it fair, it might make it more accurate measured against real life, but does it make the game fun?

Or - I agree completely that one of the impact is that there is less margin for error. Personally, I think thats a good thing...there were too many things which I felt were too easy in the past at the higher levels of DI.  I think its good that if a coach cant succeed because they arent ready they can get fired go back to DII and figure things out.

I also agree with your $12.95 question being central to the future of HD.  In that respect time will tell.  It does seem though that for every person who feel there is a problem there is another that doesnt have any issues.  I think Gil is right that the roster need to cycle through.  I also think that prestige needs to be looked out in the manner which Ive argued at nauseam in the past (basically two separate prestiges 1 for hirings which should remain constant another based on success which is floating and would be used for recruiting etc.).

It isn't just the mid-majors. B level BCS schools are just as challenged. Since there are so few studs, the A+'s from all over swarm to them, and usually get them, which (imho) is going to make the prestige disparity even more evident. Good or bad. I was 40k into a local OH recruit  (the only elite guy I went hard for) only to have Uconn take them over in one round on the second day... considering the dropoff, it isn't hard to imagine the talent gap in BCS with this new system.

wouldn't the answer for non bcs schools be to go the different route when it comes to recruiting?
instead of going after studs - go for the high WE high potential guys, RS someone every year, and spend a lot of time on getting A/A+ IQ's?

i mean i know studs are fun in CBB, my alma wants to get them all the time. but sometimes you take the project knowing as a junior/senior/RSsenior they'll be great.

The problem is there aren't even many guys like that. Starting ratings for the mid-level guy were lowered considerably, and there are a lot more low potentials. So while yes, there are some players like that, there are far fewer than there were before.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/27/2010 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Sure:

1) A midmajor should not be getting into battles with schools for Big 6 conferences that have distance, money and prestige advantages over them;

2) Regardless of recruit generation, a C+/B- midmajor should not jump onto a 5-star recruit from the very first cycle when there are A/A+ prestige schools nearbyfrom said recruit who have multiple openings and a ton of tournament money;

3) A C+/B- midmajor should especially not battle for a 5-star recruit as its a waste of recruiting budget.

4) A midmajor that is trying to build their program should (IMO) never try and carry 12 players and should use the money gained by carrying a walk-on or two to make up for the money gap. 

There were probably a couple of more; but these were mistakes which were made by several teams and I was suprised to see their comments on their CCs which basically insinuated suprise when they lost a battle or were "sniped" by other schools.  These are not issues limited or created by in any way to the new recruit model and are general flaws in recruiting strategy. 

I think mid-majors were always at a disadvantage but the disadvantages can be overcome by smart recruiting and building up prestige. 

Thanks mmt, looks like I'm guilty of one count.