D1 Allen - Big 6 get 91% of non auto-bid NT money Topic

cheeznsweet
Posts: 112 (0)
Hall of Famer
103 55 1
Prospect

Interesting data.  No particular position on it from me just thought I'd share.

Total NT appearances possible:  126 (63 games * 2 teams per game)

Big 6: 96 games
Other:  30 games

Take out the auto-bids and you have

Big 6: 90 games
Other: 9 games

So Big 6 gets 90/99 or 90.9%

Oh, and the ACC had as many NT games played as the next two conferences combined (34 for ACC, 17 each for Pac 10 and Big 12).  ACC earned a total of $57.9k.  Next highest was Big 10 with $31.7k.

4/28/2011 2:41 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
I belive in Smith, 28 of the 32 remaining teams in the NT are from the Big 6.

4/28/2011 3:04 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
Dartmouth went to the final four in Rupp last season.
4/28/2011 3:28 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
There are so many things one can say about the problems in Allen right now that I wouldn't even know where to begin. 
4/28/2011 4:26 PM
brikeisco
Posts: 20 (0)
Hall of Famer
87
Prospect
Well Rudy Tomjanovich has something to say on behalf of Boston College in Allen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-1jgNhopNo


.  
4/29/2011 5:40 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
The ACC in Allen is the poster child for what's wrong with early entries right now.  Tell me how Virginia loses precisely zero early entries from a Final Four team while, say, Indiana loses two.  And the two guys Indiana lost probably wouldn't even start on UVa.  Just pathetic. 
4/29/2011 6:39 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Why is it that in D3, you get $3000 for a scholly and $3000 for a NT game. 
In D2 its $5000k for a scholarship and same for a NT game
But in D1 its $15k for a scholarship and $20k for a NT game?

Why make NT games more important in D1 than in other divisions? 
Allen D1 is so screwy now, The ACC's $57,866 in NT/PT money is just wrong.  It is a great group of coaches, but that just unbalances recruiting to the point where anyone east of the Mississippi, even B+/A- prestige Big 10, Big Easy and SEC schools are at the mercy of ACC schools 500-800 miles away for recruits within 200 miles.
4/30/2011 12:12 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
The recruit generation logic that was put in with the new release has killed interest in DI.  While the "real world" is generating more and more equal talent accross mid level conferences, WIS is stuck in the dark ages where only the Big Six conferences dominate.
4/30/2011 10:21 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by jbasnight on 4/30/2011 7:48:00 AM (view original):
In Allen, Smith, and Tark, all 48 of the D1 Sweet 16 teams were from Big 6 conferences. This is Seble's vision, folks. This is exactly what he wanted.

And yes, jslotman, I'm with you 100% on the EE thing. The ACC in Allen should be getting massacred by EEs. To have them distributed as they were this season is completely ridiculous. 
I don't know, jbas.

UNC lost two EE's, Duke lost two, Clemson lost two, BC lost two, GT lost one. The only one of the ACC elite that didn't lose one was UVA, and they really only had one strong EE candidate.

Not that many guys on other big-time ACC teams that strike me as strong EE candidates. None on Va Tech, none on NC State, Wake and FSU didn't even make the tourney, so they wouldn't apply to the whole "successful teams should get more penalized argument".

I see one or two guys on MD you could argue for, but no one screaming for it. I see one guy on Miami, but they were 17-12, NT 2nd round. So I can't imagine they'd be the team you think should be targeted.

So unless you think we should consistently be losing more than two guys apiece, which quite honestly would make the game ridiculous, I think you and js are throwing out random generalizations that don't really hold up on paper.
4/30/2011 12:31 PM
jbasnight
Posts: 113 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 325 8
Prospect

Dalt, my point is that if the ACC (or any conference) gets a large percentage of a world's four- and five-star players, then yes, they should have a large percentage of that world's early entries. (In my opinion, talent/ratings should be the key determinant. I've never been an adherent to the "successful teams should get punished more" theory.

Your point about there not being many more guys in the ACC who "should" have gone is a fine one, but we all know that there's no small degree of randomness to a lot of the EEs each season. Jslotman brought up Indiana earlier; LSU also lost two guys after a 2nd-round NT season; one of them had no business leaving early. Put another way: How many 4- and 5-star guys have you signed at UNC in the past three seasons? I think LSU has 3. Why should the two of you have the same number of early entries?

And as for "making the game ridiculous," unfortunately, we're as close to there as we have been since I started playing. The fact that it's more difficult in a simulation to get a small school deep in the tourney than it is in real life is completely silly.

Right now, we have a situation in which:

- The top level of recruits are a lot more talented than everyone else;
- The powerful effects of conference prestige (it means too much, IMHO, but that's a subject for another time) and huge NT-driven recruiting budgets give Big 6 teams a huge advantage over everyone else in getting the top-level recruits;
- The early-entry system, which is essentially the only check in place in the game right now against BCS teams, has very little rhyme or reason to it.  

4/30/2011 4:08 PM (edited)
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
"Dalt, my point is that if the ACC (or any conference) gets a large percentage of a world's four- and five-star players, then yes, they should have a large percentage of that world's early entries. (In my opinion, talent/ratings should be the key determinant. I've never been an adherent to the "successful teams should get punished more" theory."

jbas, I agree with all of that. And my point is that, from a ratings perspective, there weren't a ton of ACC guys that were passed over that were clear early entry candidates. There were some -- just like there were some that coulda/shoulda gone from other conferences but didn't.

It's also easy to cherry pick and say, "Look, LSU lost the same # of guys as you this season" ... just as it would be easy for me to say, "Wow, can you believe teams like Northwestern and Florida (etc) didn't lose anyone early?!" You have to look at the big picture. And while I certainly think that from a big picture perspective there are some things quite wrong in DI right now (and I've been very vocal about those), I don't really think that EE's is one of them.

By-and-large, there's always a risk for a highly-rated player to leave early. That risk is exacerbated if your team is successful. Some guys you expect to leave end up staying, and vice-versa. I would like to see some tweaks, but I don't think the EE system is horribly broken or one of the main reasons that DI currently has issues.

(And let's not forget that Allen is unique because the ACC is so dominant and BEast (and, to a lesser extent the SEC) is so weak. No other world has a dynamic quite like that.)


4/30/2011 5:01 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
- The powerful effects of conference prestige (it means too much, IMHO, but that's a subject for another time) and huge NT-driven recruiting budgets give Big 6 teams a huge advantage over everyone else in getting the top-level recruits;


This +1

Big 6 teams should have better coaches on average and be able to win without massive subsidies to maintain the status quo.
4/30/2011 5:01 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 4/30/2011 5:01:00 PM (view original):
- The powerful effects of conference prestige (it means too much, IMHO, but that's a subject for another time) and huge NT-driven recruiting budgets give Big 6 teams a huge advantage over everyone else in getting the top-level recruits;


This +1

Big 6 teams should have better coaches on average and be able to win without massive subsidies to maintain the status quo.
We're getting circular here, but make no mistake: The problem is recruit generation.

WIS had the same NT money structure for years, and the non-BCS teams were extremely powerful -- much more powerful than they are in real life, and it wasn't even close. That speaks volumes, and tells you that the NT money structure isn't the problem, because non-BCS teams had previously thrived under the very same system. The tide only turned once seble mucked up the recruit generation. It remains crystal clear what the real problem is here.
4/30/2011 5:04 PM
jbasnight
Posts: 113 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 325 8
Prospect
Dalt, we're in about 98% agreement. I think what's happened is that the recruit-generation change has exacerbated a lot of formerly small (or non-) issues. Conference prestige is one example. Where you and I don't seem to agree is that I think another is the determination of early entries. It hasn't really changed; however, now that there are players who are start out so far ahead of everyone else, the randomness that's always been part of the EE process serves to help the big boys even more by not hitting them as hard as it should.

Your point about the unique situation in Allen is also spot on. But in a way, it makes my point: Because the Big East and the SEC are so weak, the ACC coaches as a group pretty much get any 4- and 5-star player east of Lake Erie they want. That's a huge percentage of the world's top-rated players. The offset to that should be that the ACC has a lot more EE's than everyone else. But that doesn't seem to be happening. This season, for example, the PAC 10 had the same number of guys go early as the ACC.  
4/30/2011 6:56 PM
12 Next ▸
D1 Allen - Big 6 get 91% of non auto-bid NT money Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.