I think alot of it is the fault of the Mid-Major coaches. Some of them try to make a big statement by scheduling big 6 teams they probably cant beat. When they lose those games, it brings down the SOS/RPI of their conference mates, and hurts the number of teams the conference sends to the NT. Resulting in lower conference prestige and less recruiting money. Its a natural tendency of a new coach at a mid-major that rarely if ever happens in real life.

You also have some career mid-major coaches with the same scheduling problem because they dont believe that a mid-major conference has a chance of finishing above a big 6.

I rarely see Big 6 coaches schedule in a way that hurts the conference.

When I see mid-major conferences schedule wisely they usually finish above a big 6. 

Several points of response.

Yes, I recently sent in a ticket, I'm hopeful that after some back and forth I'll reach seble.

The classification that the big 6 guys have been here the longest and are the ones worth making happy is bunk. I and a few of my conference mates in the MAC have been here. I'd think WIS would be trying to make the best coaches (the ones who stand to stick around and spend the most money) the happiest with their product, not basing it on conference affiliation... Or failing that creating a fair system that makes everyone happy.

The few ideas I bullet-pointed in my first message were just that, ideas. While I am certain that there is a problem, I'm not certain how to fix that problem.

Playing and losing to Big 6 teams as mykids talks about above, hurts your RPI, but actually helps your SOS. In a conference with a couple of sims, I've scheduled a game or two like that each year, knowing that my SOS will drop when I reach conference play.

Posted by girt25 on 5/5/2012 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bow2dacowz on 5/4/2012 5:29:00 PM (view original):
id be intrigued by a hybrid sort of system between what we have now and what it used to be (from what i've heard, i wasnt here for that).

something like where you can allocate minutes to improve any skill for any player and skills would improve at a rate dependent on work ethic and just how high their ceiling is, but each player has an unseen number of total improvement points to dish out.  some of this would be luck....meaning that a mid or lower tier school could hit the motherload on a guy with several hundred points of improvement and some of it you might be able to glean from some form of scouting (obv the current scouting system would have to be redone). 

a lot of work, and a pipe dream perhaps, but i think it might be a good way to help people really shape the kind of team they want to coach (you'd still see battles for guys because youre still going to have guys with certain starting cores that you want) and also make recruiting a little more interesting because there is always that little bit of unknown.  you might get the 790 guy with 40 points of improvement to allocate, or you might get the 600 guy with 400 points and a 99 WE.  Or you might really hit the motherload with that 750 player that has another 300 points of improvement potential. I imagine things like this happen all the time in the real world where the stud hits a wall or the guy you never expected to grow as much as he did becomes your go to. 

Well, if each player has an unseen amount of points to dish out that varies from player-to-player, that doesn't mean "some" of it would be luck. It kind of means all of it would be luck. And no offense, but I think that would be -- removing a ton of strategy/skill from the game and replacing it with luck.

I have been beating the drum to fix recruit generation since the moment they rolled it out, so I'm with you there. I just think that suggestion is not the answer.

(And yes, there are some real world times where the guy you never expected to grow really does ... but the reality more often is that top coaches/talent evaluators are good at picking this out, and that's a skill. Reducing it to random luck would be disastrous and pretty much take the thing I like best about this game, recruiting, and turn it into something I disliked.)

1st I apologize for not wanting the game spoon fed to me.  Paying $250 for a scouting report and knowing exactly what every single player will be in 4 seasons is not very exciting or realistic.  Why you find that element enjoyable I do not understand.

2nd you and I have very different understandings of "some" and "all".  How is it "all" luck when a) you get to distribute your practice minutes to any skill you see fit and b) as I said above you'd have to revamp scouting and in doing so could build in some way to get an idea of the kinds of potential caps that might exist in a player without knowing exactly where they will end up.  

If you want to build a team of athletic defenders you can always do that and not have to rely entirely on having the right prospect within 300 miles....but by the time you're done you may or may not have minutes left to distribute to other skills.  I think it might encourage people to recruit different kinds of players because even if you dip down to a lower tier player than you might talk to right now...regardless of level...there is still a chance to be able to mold that player into someone that can help you.  If I'm at a BCS I'm not going to recruit a post that is 550 overall with 150 points of anticipated improvement where 20 is PER, 20 is BH and 20 is PASS and 20 is DUR unless I'm just doing it as filler, even if their cores start off decent because there's just not enough improvement to go around. But if I can take that same player and through a revamped scouting model determine he's got between 125-175 points of improvement then I can mold him into a useful player.  

I think this really helps when you talk about making the middle more competitive with the top because the middle is no longer left with the scraps that none of the big boys wanted because their potentials sucked and/or were all in the wrong places.  Yes the higher rated start value players still go to the big boys, but you can still build a lesser player into someone that can compete and if you find a lower start value guy with lots of growth potential that was overlooked you can build him into a monster that could be starting for a BCS school. That's harder to do now when all the high ath/def guys typically are snatched up 

I don't think it makes it all luck at all and i don't think it eliminates any strategy from the game, it's just different, and IMO more realistic when it comes to team building and figuring out how to make your team the most competitive even if you don't necessarily have the players to be competitive at the outset. (not that realistic is always the answer, I get that).

here's a radical idea........ one that would make it more of a challenge in this game....... (it would also require a LOT of work on WIS's part so I know this will never happen)

How about WIS hide all ratings for every player at every level.  FSS being purchased for a state would then show the ratings for players in that state.  Scouting trips would then be required to learn the upside and downside of the recruit, although coach phone calls could reveal some of the upside and downside.  One scouting report could give the entire upside and downside of a recruit, and coach phone calls could reveal 1 or 2 rating potentials.  

This way, teams in the power conferences could then have the ability to recruit nationally, but it would require more money in scouting to do so.  Teams in Mid-Majors would be able to recruit a couple regions and lower tier conference teams would have to stick more close to home, but if there is a single recruit they want to pursue based off of position and/or overall rankings, they could do a scouting trip for a single player and get the results, while not having to pay to recruit the entire state.

tdiddy, how does that make sense?  How on earth would anyone bother sending a scouting trip for a single player while not paying for scouting on the state if ratings were invisible until you scouted?  That would just be randomly picking a name out of a hat and saying "this guy sounds like someone who could have decent ratings and potentials!"  Your idea is that you just see their position rank and scout based on that?  What if you're not in D1?

dahs..... it actually makes a LOT of sense if you think about it......

In real life, coaches may not know squat about a recruit other than the fact that they are ranked.  UNC gets a chance to recruit players nationally because they have the scouting budget to do so.  East Carolina however cannot recruit nationally, however if there is a guy that they see ranked who is being unrecruited late in the recruiting season, they might throw a couple phone calls, they might do some scouting of the individual player.  If they did a scouting report on a single player, they would learn what his current abilities are and also look to see if the kid looks like he has potential to improve or if he's reached his peak already.  

I don't think it would make much sense for a team like East Carolina to recruit nationally, but if there is a player who is the #1 overall ranked player in the country in California and UNC wants to check him out, they can do a single scouting report on the player and not have to spend a lot of money to scout the entire state.  

I would also add that to make it work right, WIS would need to lower the cost of scouting trips to make it more feasible to make it work.  

As far as people not in D1, my idea would make the game more realistic.  Real life D3 coaches have to do the majority of their scouting via videos and then they have the ability to scout those very close by (within 100 miles).  Scouting trips for players within 100 miles could cost $50-75 and within 200 miles could cost $100-150.  That way the best players they could scout and get an idea of the potential.  Aside from that, FSS would be their main recruitment tool.  D2 coaches would be similar to D3 but would have a little more money to scout more players and find players with more potential.  

D3 isn't a science, it's more of a crapshoot.  Unlike in this game, D3 schools don't recruit nationally.  They recruit locally, and if a coach is from another area and has ties to a certain area, he might have a source who gives him info on a player in that area.  Most D3 players are local athletes or JUCO players.  Very rarely do you find players leave a Texas high school for a Pennsylvania D3 school.

I think there should be some realism, but it has to be remembered this is a game. Therefore, there also has to be some entertainment and sense of hope from everyone. I can remember the University of S. Miss winning a national championship. I remember California, Riverside (or one of the cali + schools) winning a national championship. There is no way that could happen now.

I definitely think more 2nd tier recruits would help. I see recruits each cycle that high majors go after that pior to the changes they wouldn't have touched. This has become all about recruits. Again, I know that may be more realistic but is it what's best for the game as a whole?

There isn't a perfect answer, and no matter what there will be displeased coaches. I have coached in the ACC and I am now coaching a mid major team after leaving for a few seasons. To me I think some steps back to the way things were wouldn't be a back thing.  

Posted by mykids_31206 on 5/5/2012 8:56:00 AM (view original):
I think alot of it is the fault of the Mid-Major coaches. Some of them try to make a big statement by scheduling big 6 teams they probably cant beat. When they lose those games, it brings down the SOS/RPI of their conference mates, and hurts the number of teams the conference sends to the NT. Resulting in lower conference prestige and less recruiting money. Its a natural tendency of a new coach at a mid-major that rarely if ever happens in real life.

You also have some career mid-major coaches with the same scheduling problem because they dont believe that a mid-major conference has a chance of finishing above a big 6.

I rarely see Big 6 coaches schedule in a way that hurts the conference.

When I see mid-major conferences schedule wisely they usually finish above a big 6. 

There is some merit in what you say about scheduling. However, low major and mid major coachs are the ones most likely to leave and your left playing against a Sim team. Also, the fact of the matter is that is not at all uncommon for mid major schools to beat mid and low tier teams in power conferences. There has to be the possibility for a Butler, George Mason, Xavier, Gonzaga and VCU type of mid major teams in this game. It doesn't exist as things stand.

Whether you have to schedule sim teams, depends on how hard you  look at teams to schedule and the talent on your team.

Also. Sims in your conference may not matter if you have a few humans. A10 Naismith has 5 Sims last season, but we finished in the top 6 conferences. So we will probably have fewer sims next season.

I will not stay at a Mid-Major Conference where the coaches kill your RPI/SOS with crazy non-con schedules. I will just move on to another mid-major, or as a last resort, join a big 6.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 5/6/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Whether you have to schedule sim teams, depends on how hard you  look at teams to schedule and the talent on your team.

Also. Sims in your conference may not matter if you have a few humans. A10 Naismith has 5 Sims last season, but we finished in the top 6 conferences. So we will probably have fewer sims next season.

I will not stay at a Mid-Major Conference where the coaches kill your RPI/SOS with crazy non-con schedules. I will just move on to another mid-major, or as a last resort, join a big 6.

Well all 5 of those SIMs were in the top 200, with 3 in the top 150, and one at #37. So it's not like those SIMs really hurt the conference too much. The baseline prestiges at many of the A10 schools are definitely an advantage compared to any other mid-major conference.

Wow, I find myself always liking what debater has to say but I also really like Tiddy's idea-- If there was a way to make it cost more to get more information, then there would be an added level of randomness more consistent with real life.  I agree it will never happen but it would be great to see a guy's total rating number and maybe even his growth potential but finding out more would require more investment.   Right now, every guy I am learning about has guys at a higher division or higher prestige knowing the exact same thing.  Thus, making it harder to find a diamond in the rough and recruit him to my school, thus making it harder to be a new person, thus the reasoning for all the new people not sticking around.  
   Would anyone else enjoy playing in a "world" with no baseline prestiges (everyone starting equally)?  It seems like there should be a new world every now and then for new people to go into where they could have a balanced playing field?

I got a pretty basic response from Admin stating that they were aware of the competitive balance issue and that they're looking at changes, but have no timetable. I pushed back in hopes to keep the conversation going. 

Seems to me that the problem isn't the existence of baselines, but instead 'grade inflation' in them. Make the highest baseline b+ and redjust accordingly- noone should have an 'a' prestige without earning it.

Posted by arssanguinus on 5/7/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Seems to me that the problem isn't the existence of baselines, but instead 'grade inflation' in them. Make the highest baseline b+ and redjust accordingly- noone should have an 'a' prestige without earning it.

Not a bad idea. I hate seeing 1-26 programs in the ACC that stays at A+. 

I don't know if I agree with making the highest baseline a B+ ... I just think that current prestige should be tied more to actual on court performance and less to baseline.

(I may be splitting hairs there, ars ... ultimately we're advocating for the same thing.)