I think there is 1 simple change that will make non BCS schools more competitive, and that's making the best recruits more flawed, namely in the defensive department. There are way too many guys that are both great offensive and great defensive players, how many coaches at top programs won't even sign a guy unless he can get to 90D? I know I do my best to avoid that and when you look at any Sweet 16 you will see a ton of guys that are great offensive and defensive players and that's just not something that is very common in real life. For example look at my WVU team I went 21-10, 14 RPI and lost in the Sweet 16 so I have a good but not great team but yet my starter's ratings look like this

PG 84ath/76sp/96D/31LP/98per/99bb/87pa
SG  92ath/85sp/99D/58LP/99per/98bh/78pa
SF 74ath/66sp/84D/57lp/84per/73bh/55pa
PF 81ath/30sp/97reb/97D/78LP/38per/27bh/26pa
C 97ath/60sp/95reb/100D/86lp/32per/56bh/65pa

So there are 3 guys that I would consider great defensively and well above average offensively with both my C and SG being in the great area. My SF is good defensively and very good offensively while my C is very good defensively and solid offensively. 

So I start 5 good-great offensive players as well as 5 good-great defenders and I'm only a good D1 team. Now think about real life D1 basketball and how many teams have 5 guys starting that are all good-great on both sides of the ball? Now think about how many teams in WIS have 8-10 guys who fit this description. 

The best way to fix this is make 90+D something that is rare, there aren't many great defenders that's why somebody like Bruce Bowen could have a long career and be an important piece to a championship team, the reason why guys like Joel Anthony and Deshawn Stevenson are starters on teams in the Finals.

If you go up and down college basketball rosters I think you'd find a lot of guys who are gifted offensively but aren't very good defensively. For example what would Jimmer Fredette's D rating be in WIS, 30 something? How many BCS schools in HD would take a guard with that type of D even if he was sure to be 99per/99bh/60lp and good ath/sp, I'm guessing not many because I kno I wouldn't take him. But ask any school in real life if they want him and everybody would, same goes for guys like Steph Curry, Kyle Singler, JJ Reddick, Adam Morrison, Jarred Sullinger, Carmelo Anthony, Micheal Beasley and many more great scorers that either weren't very interested in playing D or just didn't have the tools to be a good defender. All of these guys I mentioned were either NPOY or candidates but in HD the best programs would avoid these guys because it seems every season there are about 50-60 guys who will end up at least good on both sides of the ball and about 20-25 of these guys will be great on both sides.

Also if players are weaker defensively in BCS conferences it will give the smaller conferences a chance to compete since they won't have their 60D rated team going against an 80D rated team in the NT and having no favorable matchups. With D ratings lowered small conference schools could actually have some matchups to exploit against the best BCS schools.

Posted by oldresorter on 6/3/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):
km - the same logic you used here was used by seble to justify the initial reduction in ratings, my counter argument was the more differentiation and diffiuclty introduced into recruiting, the more the top coaches will excel .... I am pretty sure your suggestion would just make it worse.  I liken seble's change to taking three steps into a burning building, your fix proposal is taking three more, rather than turning around and getting back to safety.

Just increase ratings in the 11th thru 100th ranked guys some, and reduce the 1st thru 10th guys some - this will absolutely make the 'other' d1 schools better, and the top tier ones slightly worse, and will narrow the gap .... it is really easy.

I think it's a good idea.

I think the initial intent to modify recruits was necessary.
 
When the top ten D1 teams (be they UNC, Duke or East Carolina) could field starting lineups of maxed out players I thought the outcome was more often decided by randomness moreso than anything a coach could do.
Just before the change was made I counted over 60 players with 97+ DEF ratings in ACC-Allen.  When they're all special, is anyone actually special?

However the resulting recruits, while more diverse in ratings, still allowed the top programs to basically continue loading up on starters that would reach a 95 rating in a half dozen categories, and left the next tier of teams trying to compete with players hopefully having 1-2 top end ratings.

I'm not in favor of dumbing down all the top recruits.  I still would like to see an occasionally 900 point impact freshman the likes of Kevin Durant, John Wall or Michael Beasley.
Maybe those true elite recruits could have some sort of minimum recruiting effort so a nearby A+ team couldn't land them for under $3k.  Perhaps it would take a minimum of $30-50,000 to even be considered.
Of course Early Entries would need to find those players after a season.

Then as others have stated, improve the next couple tiers of recruits.  Whether it be with initial ratings or a substanial increase of potential top end ratings, some changes are needed.
 

Posted by Iguana1 on 6/3/2011 6:29:00 PM (view original):

I think the initial intent to modify recruits was necessary.
 
When the top ten D1 teams (be they UNC, Duke or East Carolina) could field starting lineups of maxed out players I thought the outcome was more often decided by randomness moreso than anything a coach could do.
Just before the change was made I counted over 60 players with 97+ DEF ratings in ACC-Allen.  When they're all special, is anyone actually special?

However the resulting recruits, while more diverse in ratings, still allowed the top programs to basically continue loading up on starters that would reach a 95 rating in a half dozen categories, and left the next tier of teams trying to compete with players hopefully having 1-2 top end ratings.

I'm not in favor of dumbing down all the top recruits.  I still would like to see an occasionally 900 point impact freshman the likes of Kevin Durant, John Wall or Michael Beasley.
Maybe those true elite recruits could have some sort of minimum recruiting effort so a nearby A+ team couldn't land them for under $3k.  Perhaps it would take a minimum of $30-50,000 to even be considered.
Of course Early Entries would need to find those players after a season.

Then as others have stated, improve the next couple tiers of recruits.  Whether it be with initial ratings or a substanial increase of potential top end ratings, some changes are needed.
 

Posted by Iguana1 on 6/3/2011 8:49:00 PM (view original):
I just signed a 840 point recruit, ranked #2 overall for $2900.  That's just not right.

And what I meant by an elite Kevin Durant type player is someone that could be the best player on a good team his first year.  Dumbing down all the top 20 recruits except one or two does little to address the lack of impact freshman still have.  
To see some freshman impact if an elite recruit is still 700+, you'd also have to drop the seniors to 700+ and I don't think many want to see that.

Posted by lmschwarz on 6/3/2011 6:49:00 PM (view original):
I think Iguana1 might have a decent idea in making an elite school spend a "fair" amount for a top-10 position recruit.

It could be done by artificially putting a floor to the effort required or by having a decent prestige SIM on every top-10 player. For example, my Syracuse Knight team signed a top-10 center (34th overall) this season for around $6k because the school's A+ prestige and his close proximity to the school (50 miles) caused others to shy away.