I don't know if it's just my world (IBA) and/or if I am alone in my opinion, but I feel like the talent is a bit too top heavy at the D1 level.  I have been at William and Mary for 5 years now and I have noticed there are very few upsets.  However it isn't just the lack of upsets that red flagged me...it's the fact that the large majority of the games are not even competitive.  Now obviously I am not applying this to the 1/16 and 2/15 games, but in real life those 10/11/12/13 seeds can be deadly traps and that just isn't the case in HD, at least not in my world.
     I'm not saying us mid majors deserve cracks at the top recruits, I think the way the top recruits are distributed seems just fair.  My suggestion lies with the recruits we are supposed to land at the middle of the pack being just a bit too weak in comparison to the superstars.  I think the tweak only needs to be minimal, but I think one might be in order.  If this post gets any agreement or positive feedback, I'll start sharing some of my ideas.  No sense wasting a lot of time if I'm just objectively off base within the community.

-mrgsport 

I don't have a DI team but I've read similar comments before. So you're not alone in your analysis.

In the 1st round of the IBA  tournament, the mid-majors were 1-25 vs. the BCS schools.

If they make those recruits better in the middle though won't low end BCS schools scoop them up before mid majors get a shot? 

Posted by gvsujulius on 1/9/2012 8:21:00 AM (view original):
If they make those recruits better in the middle though won't low end BCS schools scoop them up before mid majors get a shot? 

Depends on distance and prestige. A midmajor with C or higher prestige can generally put up a fight against the low end BCS teams, who tend to dwell in the C- to C+ range. Conf money helps the bcs teams but it's not decisive (assuming you are not up against the top BCS conf thats netting 45-60k in extra cash). 

My $.019- it's not a system flaw, it's a population flaw.  In most of the worlds I'm in, the BCS conferences have 3-5 total openings a year.  100+ exist in D1 outside of those schools.  In general, very few people spend more than 5-7 seasons at a mid-major, they just are trying to move up when something 'better' opens up.  This helps perpetuate a gap between the top conferences and the rest, and having one or two teams make the post-season will not raise the conference prestige and equip the teams to recruit with the big boys.

My example- CUSA in Rupp.  They may not yet be a power such as Allen's ACC, but they are on the path to show mid-majors can compete.  They are up to a B- conference prestige, sent 8 teams to the post-season (including an Elite 8 run), and current sit with two ranked teams and #1 RPI 9 games into the season.

I won't pretend it's as easy for a mid-major conference to do that, but I personally believe if the mid-majors were consistently 80-90% full, we would see the gap between BCS and mid-major close a lot more.

That's partially it asher, but what do you think would happen if D1 mid majors are completely full? I would imagine the quality of mid majors could a little weaker, because there would be more competition for the same # of quality recruits. 

I think it comes down to the athletes and defenders the top teams get...they are just too much stronger.
Id be curious to have a run out of my game vs #1 seed GT tonight with as many possible gameplans as can be. My guess would be I never win and Id rarely compete.

My question is how did Guy Cain not go EE after his Soph year? 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/9/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
That's partially it asher, but what do you think would happen if D1 mid majors are completely full? I would imagine the quality of mid majors could a little weaker, because there would be more competition for the same # of quality recruits. 

i agree with this.

also, i think the OP stated the problem pretty well. however, its larger in scope than mid major vs BCS. if you look at the top couple schools in each BCS conference, and compare them to the lower end (but not bottom of the barrel type) schools, there is also no contest. even for the middle of the pack BCS schools, you must climb a mountain to upset the top couple teams in conference.

the reason is, as the OP stated, the top end recruits are too good, and the drop off too severe. if there were like 5 recruits at that level, fine. but not enough to keep 15 schools ridiculously stacked!

the difference between HD an real life in this respect is that recruits in real life are mis judged all the time. A player may look amazing in the scouting report but ends up a dissapointment or visa versa. Thats where guys like Stephen Curry come from. In HD we deal with objective figures that eliminate recruits slipping through the cracks.

Well even in HD some serious potential can slip through, but only if they don't start out high enough to be on the radar.  I still think the problem lies in the immense drop off in ath/spd.  For example the number 2 PG in this upcoming recruiting class is a 95 athlete 75 speed 95 defense to start off.  However, the number 12 PG is a 66 athlete a 63 speed and a 50 defender...in real life the number 12 PG is usually a ridiculously talented recruit as well, so why the giant drop off here?  If the game is gonna have such a large crop of "1 and done" caliber talent, it needs to at least start increasing the amount of players that are 1 and done!

Before they changed the recruiting to create a huge competition for the top 10 or so at each position (and create a big drop off of talent), wasn't the complaint that there was not enough difference between the top 25 recruits and top 150 ... and that everyone was able to field a team with 90 or higher at all the relevant "core" attributes.

And wasn't the complaint that because of this, there was not a big enough difference between the top teams and the rest of the field?