Posted by jetwildcat on 11/12/2010 12:32:00 PM (view original):
i still think recruits generation should follow real-life population density/recruit locations. I dont see how it would be any worse that what it is now.

random thoughts:

1. baseline prestige should be based off of total conference prestige about a 20-previous-season-window for your school to account for the 18-year "lives" of recruits before they are recruited.
2. prestige of local colleges should affect the percentage of local 8-12 year-olds who pick up the sport of basketball.

if the system worked like this, you could, in theory, NOT ONLY could you build your school's prestige over time and make a powerhouse out of a small school BUT YOU COULD ALSO help your conference and local schools by making nearby cities hotbeds for basketball youths

If recruit generation followed real life population density, etc. it would be way, way, way worse than the current system.

The current system isn't perfect, but is based on something sensible, and could actually work nicely with a few simple tweaks.

Basing it on real life population, which has nothing whatsoever to do with HD, would be disastrous. Recruiting in HD is so heavily localized, a move like that would be an unmitigated disaster.

New recruit generation only favors the Big 6. If your low level you have no chance of ever becoming a power. You can only hope for a trip or two.. in 5 seasons... 

I am sure you Big 6 guys like the new recruits. 

you will try and convince the low level guys that its fair... lol 

And you will show examples of low level guys that are having success... LOL i'm buying what your selling ... NOT... 

The new recruit generation is pretty unkind to the bottom 50% of the BCS as well. If you think it's just the non-BCS, you should look again.

No question in my mind that a top-notch coach could still be consistently successful at a low/mid DI school. However, now I think the cap is "consistently successful" vs. the previous game where it was very possible to consistently be a national contender. It is much, much harder now to take a low/mid and compete against BCS teams.

It's a nice time to run an A prestige BCS team (Iowa State, Knight) and a really bad time to run a C prestige team (Northern Arizona, Tark).

Rupp must be different from the other worlds. We have teams like buffalo, charlotte, and Missouri-kc with sweet 16s and elite 8s in the last few seasons. There are also a lot of newly coached low-d1 teams with outstanding records like Austin peay. Then there are the constants like ace at butler. Davis just took over a low-d1 team and he's got them headed in the right direction in just 2 seasons.

Rupp is still cycling out the "old" recruits, isn't it?

Posted by hitman1979 on 11/12/2010 11:30:00 PM (view original):
Rupp is still cycling out the "old" recruits, isn't it?

It's had 3 new recruit cycles

Moy, do you disagree with the notion that it's now much harder to take a low/mid team and make it a big-time program?

All worlds have random examples of teams making runs here or there, but let's be honest about the effect as a whole.

(And even the examples that you hand-picked aren't that compelling to me ... Butler hasn't been past the 2nd round of the NT in a dozen seasons; Mizzou-KC literally beat no one all season and then beat only one BCS team -- a 10-loss LSU squad by a point -- in the NT.)

I've yet to see anything that comes close to dispelling the notion that the rich have gotten richer. Check out Allen, which used to be an absolute bastion of low-mid teams excelling (Montana, Southern, UWGB, Cleveland State, Yale, Boston U, Idaho State, etc). Now, the top 19 rpi teams are from BCS conferences. Last season, all but one of the S16 teams were BCS ... with the lone exception coming from a sub-regional where all four schools were non-BCS.

The game done changed, my friend.

And I'm cool with the change. I don't have a mid/low-d1 team so I can't answer if its MUCH harder. Let's assume it is and I change your wording....'this game is still easy to be successful at all levels... just not as easy'. This game is not rocket science... let's not pretend it is.

What I do notice is my players are ******** about minutes more often than they used to (not promised minutes, but soph/jr pt) and that 2 bcs coaches were fired in Rupp last night (uconn and missouri). I can't keep a 11+ roster cause I can't play the extra players enough nowadays. Just lost my sf cause I got sick of his whining the last 2 seasons.

I also notice a team in Rupp like a-prestige charlotte that made the final 4 recently and have a young non-senior roster and fight unc, duke, umd for recruits each season.

Really though.... if a coach does not like the challenge of the low/mid-major they should try out a c prestige low level bcs-school.... there is no more difficult challenge than that in hd.

Posted by jbrewman1 on 11/12/2010 7:33:00 PM (view original):
New recruit generation only favors the Big 6. If your low level you have no chance of ever becoming a power. You can only hope for a trip or two.. in 5 seasons... 

I've snagged top 5 players and other good enough players to make it this far in mid major land.... I know my conference mates have struggled a bit but I look at bottom of Big 6 teams and they might actually have it worse.


(edited for clarity)    

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2010 8:57:00 AM (view original):
And I'm cool with the change. I don't have a mid/low-d1 team so I can't answer if its MUCH harder. Let's assume it is and I change your wording....'this game is still easy to be successful at all levels... just not as easy'. This game is not rocket science... let's not pretend it is.

What I do notice is my players are ******** about minutes more often than they used to (not promised minutes, but soph/jr pt) and that 2 bcs coaches were fired in Rupp last night (uconn and missouri). I can't keep a 11+ roster cause I can't play the extra players enough nowadays. Just lost my sf cause I got sick of his whining the last 2 seasons.

I also notice a team in Rupp like a-prestige charlotte that made the final 4 recently and have a young non-senior roster and fight unc, duke, umd for recruits each season.

Really though.... if a coach does not like the challenge of the low/mid-major they should try out a c prestige low level bcs-school.... there is no more difficult challenge than that in hd.

You're assuming the hiring process allows coaches to get those jobs.

Posted by hitman1979 on 11/13/2010 11:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2010 8:57:00 AM (view original):
And I'm cool with the change. I don't have a mid/low-d1 team so I can't answer if its MUCH harder. Let's assume it is and I change your wording....'this game is still easy to be successful at all levels... just not as easy'. This game is not rocket science... let's not pretend it is.

What I do notice is my players are ******** about minutes more often than they used to (not promised minutes, but soph/jr pt) and that 2 bcs coaches were fired in Rupp last night (uconn and missouri). I can't keep a 11+ roster cause I can't play the extra players enough nowadays. Just lost my sf cause I got sick of his whining the last 2 seasons.

I also notice a team in Rupp like a-prestige charlotte that made the final 4 recently and have a young non-senior roster and fight unc, duke, umd for recruits each season.

Really though.... if a coach does not like the challenge of the low/mid-major they should try out a c prestige low level bcs-school.... there is no more difficult challenge than that in hd.

You're assuming the hiring process allows coaches to get those jobs.

I can tell you with certainty that seble is looking at the job process issue right now.