Posted by jbasnight on 3/31/2011 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 3/31/2011 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Shouldn't WIS offer increased credits for NT appearances from low/mid-major schools?  Fantastic incentive to build a mid-major school and you might have guys leaving the big schools to get some good mid-majors.  Greater challenge=Greater Reward

To clarify, this is what I was suggesting in the other thread. Not additional tournament cash for an NT trip with a low-prestige school--I'm not convinced that would make a whole lot of difference--but more HD credits per NT game for the user than they would earn for a higher-prestige school.

This is what I was thinking too.  My only difference is higher HD credits would only apply to non-BCS schools as the BCS schools (even bad ones) already have advantages over the mid-majors.  Of course there are a few schools in non-BCS conferences that have a higher baseline prestige, but you could easily program those schools to be treated as BCS schools if desired.  The point is really to try and reduce the number of sim coached teams in DI. 

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Posted by aporter on 4/1/2011 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Problem with SIM recruiting is that they don't recruit where the players are generated for that school.  Am I not correct  that recruits are still generated by the potential number of open scholarships (before EE and transfers) in a geographical area?  What happens now is SIM teams recruit players nationally taking a player away from a mid/low major team in that area.  Now that mid/low level team has to spend more for that recruit and they certainly can't go back across country to recruit a player from the SIM team's area. 

But by extension doesn't that mean that wherever that sim is from they AREN'T taking a player away from the local pool, thus leaving a player available that might not have been otherwise?

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

• At 80%, it would make sims more competitive without threatening humans on a long-term basis.
• Would make it more appealing for new users.  Most new users choose their initial team based on a personal connection.  If their choice is one that has two strikes on it before their first season, the current setup is a quick way to say, "one and done."
• Wouldn't screw conference mates as far as sos
• Wouldn't screw with a remote team's recruiting since the one decent local recruit in 3 years wouldn't be randomly considering a sim.  
• It would balance the power of sims and make more parity among sims (see above #2).

Posted by cburton23 on 4/1/2011 10:11:00 AM (view original):
I think a very simple fix would be to give your mid-level recruits better potentials.  The reason in real life for a team like Butler's success is they have veteran players that just keep getting better.  Where as Kentucky and UConn have younger guys that are awesome but will leave early or are already maxed out.  By increasing potentials of mid level kids the mid level schools will have players that after 4 years are great players, rather than having guys that after their Sophomore year don't change much.  I think this is a really easy change to make and would make a huge impact on recruiting.