come on, girt calls out viper in the coaches corner for screwing up by pulling a scholarship offer on a guy viper was in the recruiting battle with Syracuse for, which allowed Syracuse to  win a battle against NC State.

that "only do what is good for the overall conference" attitude may be one of the biggest problems with HD.   Because essentially that is the approach one needs as the recruiting pool is shared evenly, and a strong conference bankroll should lead to stronger teams. 

...hard to imagine a real life pep rally in Ann Arbor wishing Ohio State good luck in the Rose Bowl, as it means more money for the Wolverines.

The only way that will change is if the entire conference doesn't share in the postseason money, and instead it's just given to individual schools. (Which of course creates an ever bigger problem of haves vs. have nots and would be disastrous.) So, like dozens of other things in HD, it's different than real life. We both know it's not an ACC-Allen issue, it's everywhere, like when Texas got angry at Baylor or season or two ago for jumping on one of his recruits, etc.

But let's be real, I didn't call him out like getting mad at him, I commented that it was ironic because it was a big uproar that he did something to negatively impact Cuse, but in the end it actually helped them significantly.

That's a terrible idea.

I don't understand the argument for the bigger conference effect on those two issues.  To Iguana's point, does Michigan stay away from a recruit because Michigan State is also trying to sign him?  Or Seton Hall and St. John's?  Of course not. 

Second, when a conference has a great few teams, it absolutely does not reflect in the real life "prestige" of other schools in the conference.  If HD were the real world, South Florida, Seton Hall, and St. John's would have B+/A- prestiges because they play in the same conference as Louisville, UConn, and (at least at this moment) Syracuse.  In the actual real world, those three schools struggle to stay afloat because they're in the same conference as those other schools. 

I've thought since 2004 that conference success had way too much impact on individual schools, and that opinion has not changed in the least eight years later. 

if HD adopted a payout based on performance similiar to that of C-USA in real life, where the team that participates keeps 50% and the remaining 50% goes into the conference pool. 
I would drop the per NT game payout of D1 down to the value of one scholarship, or $15000.

If the overall top D1 conference earns $500,000  (that's roughly 30 NT and 10 PIT games), $250k is kept by the individual teams that played in the games, and $250k goes into the shared conference pool.
ie.  if a team plays the maximum 6 NT games and earns $90,000 of tourney cash, they would keep $45,000 and the remaining $45,000 would go into the conference pool.   They also would be entitled to 1/12 of the $250k shared pool, or roughly $20,800 more.  That's a total of a cool $65,800 for making the championship game in the elite conference.
..a sweet 16 team would receive 50% of their three games played or 22,500 + 20,800 or $43,300.
..and if someone goes 0-16 in conference they would receive only the 1/12 share of the shared pool ($20,800).

that certainly could make things within a top conference as more a have vs. have nots.  But under this scenario if the sweet 16 team had three open scholarships and the 0-16 had 4 open scholarships the total recruiting budgets would be $88,300 vs $80,800.
Or if the championship team had 3 openings vs. the sweet 16 teams 4 openings, that would be $110,800 vs. $103,300.

however at a lower level conference that sends two teams to the NT that both lose in the first round of the NT they each would keep their 50% ($7500) plus the 1/12 of the shared total of $15,000 ($1250).    So a team that made the NT from a lower level conf would receive $8750 under a perfomance based payout vs the $2500 they would receive with the equally distributed concept.   This gives the small guy a slightly better chance to compete with the bottom feeders of the big boys.   Butler vs. a South Florida if you would.

Still sound disastrous for all?

Posted by cornfused on 8/1/2012 12:28:00 PM (view original):

7/31/2012 1:05 AM	cornfused
I'd like to report collusion in the ACC-Allen. Please check the coaches' corner.
7/31/2012 4:35 PM	Customer Support
Thanks for the note. We're aware of this collusion and have handled the matter.
7/31/2012 5:42 PM	cornfused
How? This is one of the most blatant examples of ToS violation, especially since the ToS were changed. A public announcement of the penalty, particularly from seble, would be greatly appreciated. After all (as you can see on the forums), this is an area where everyone's still trying to figure out what's legal... but everyone agrees that viper was breaking the rules.
7/31/2012 6:21 PM	Customer Support
Sorry but we do not discuss how we handle these matters. We can tell you that the potential punishments for violating the Fair Play Guidelines are posted in the guidelines.
8/1/2012 11:30 AM	cornfused
So he was warned? No punishment for blatant cheating that resulted in Syracuse losing two recruits to ACC schools?
8/1/2012 12:09 PM	Customer Support
As stated, we do not discuss how we handle these matters.

blatant cheating? ltm...hahahahahaha

Posted by Iguana1 on 8/3/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):
if HD adopted a payout based on performance similiar to that of C-USA in real life, where the team that participates keeps 50% and the remaining 50% goes into the conference pool. 
I would drop the per NT game payout of D1 down to the value of one scholarship, or $15000.

If the overall top D1 conference earns $500,000  (that's roughly 30 NT and 10 PIT games), $250k is kept by the individual teams that played in the games, and $250k goes into the shared conference pool.
ie.  if a team plays the maximum 6 NT games and earns $90,000 of tourney cash, they would keep $45,000 and the remaining $45,000 would go into the conference pool.   They also would be entitled to 1/12 of the $250k shared pool, or roughly $20,800 more.  That's a total of a cool $65,800 for making the championship game in the elite conference.
..a sweet 16 team would receive 50% of their three games played or 22,500 + 20,800 or $43,300.
..and if someone goes 0-16 in conference they would receive only the 1/12 share of the shared pool ($20,800).

that certainly could make things within a top conference as more a have vs. have nots.  But under this scenario if the sweet 16 team had three open scholarships and the 0-16 had 4 open scholarships the total recruiting budgets would be $88,300 vs $80,800.
Or if the championship team had 3 openings vs. the sweet 16 teams 4 openings, that would be $110,800 vs. $103,300.

however at a lower level conference that sends two teams to the NT that both lose in the first round of the NT they each would keep their 50% ($7500) plus the 1/12 of the shared total of $15,000 ($1250).    So a team that made the NT from a lower level conf would receive $8750 under a perfomance based payout vs the $2500 they would receive with the equally distributed concept.   This gives the small guy a slightly better chance to compete with the bottom feeders of the big boys.   Butler vs. a South Florida if you would.

Still sound disastrous for all?

# of scholarships doesn't really have a place in that discussion though - everyone gets the same for those - in your example if that champ ended up with 6 open ships he'd get $155,800. The 0-16 team probably (hopefully anyway) isn't so bad that even with 4 graduating seniors they go 0-16, so probably not a lot of 0-16 teams with 4 openings, but either way, it is most assuredly a rich get richer while the poor get poorer situation and not a system I would be in favor of. As pointed out 1000s of itmes, RL and HD don't match, and in many cases shouldn't match if the relative "fairness" of the system is unbalanced by making the game mimic RL...

So to answer your question, no it only sounds disastrous for those who aren't making consistent deep runs (ie the elite)

Posted by Iguana1 on 8/3/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):
if HD adopted a payout based on performance similiar to that of C-USA in real life, where the team that participates keeps 50% and the remaining 50% goes into the conference pool. 
I would drop the per NT game payout of D1 down to the value of one scholarship, or $15000.

If the overall top D1 conference earns $500,000  (that's roughly 30 NT and 10 PIT games), $250k is kept by the individual teams that played in the games, and $250k goes into the shared conference pool.
ie.  if a team plays the maximum 6 NT games and earns $90,000 of tourney cash, they would keep $45,000 and the remaining $45,000 would go into the conference pool.   They also would be entitled to 1/12 of the $250k shared pool, or roughly $20,800 more.  That's a total of a cool $65,800 for making the championship game in the elite conference.
..a sweet 16 team would receive 50% of their three games played or 22,500 + 20,800 or $43,300.
..and if someone goes 0-16 in conference they would receive only the 1/12 share of the shared pool ($20,800).

that certainly could make things within a top conference as more a have vs. have nots.  But under this scenario if the sweet 16 team had three open scholarships and the 0-16 had 4 open scholarships the total recruiting budgets would be $88,300 vs $80,800.
Or if the championship team had 3 openings vs. the sweet 16 teams 4 openings, that would be $110,800 vs. $103,300.

however at a lower level conference that sends two teams to the NT that both lose in the first round of the NT they each would keep their 50% ($7500) plus the 1/12 of the shared total of $15,000 ($1250).    So a team that made the NT from a lower level conf would receive $8750 under a perfomance based payout vs the $2500 they would receive with the equally distributed concept.   This gives the small guy a slightly better chance to compete with the bottom feeders of the big boys.   Butler vs. a South Florida if you would.

Still sound disastrous for all?

+1  Fantastic solution!

dacj501, the scholarships were used to show how little the difference in team that goes 0-16 vs a team that makes the sweet 16.
a D1 NT game would be worth the value of one half a scholarship.

the current system only rewards success with a bump in prestige.  Maybe that's enough once we start to see the effects of the prestige changes recently introduced.   Currently if a Memphis makes the Final Four in HD, a 0-16 Wake Forest will still mop the floor with them in recruiting since cash is still king.

by maintaining the current system the low bid conferences are sharing the money they earned with the others.  So by supporting the present system, we're supporting keeping more conf cash with the also rans in the top conferences, and taking more away from the top performers in the lower conferences.   Not saying a performance based payout would attract more teams in the lower conferences, but the current system has proved it doesn't.

Posted by m4284850 on 8/3/2012 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Iguana1 on 8/3/2012 3:22:00 PM (view original):
if HD adopted a payout based on performance similiar to that of C-USA in real life, where the team that participates keeps 50% and the remaining 50% goes into the conference pool. 
I would drop the per NT game payout of D1 down to the value of one scholarship, or $15000.

If the overall top D1 conference earns $500,000  (that's roughly 30 NT and 10 PIT games), $250k is kept by the individual teams that played in the games, and $250k goes into the shared conference pool.
ie.  if a team plays the maximum 6 NT games and earns $90,000 of tourney cash, they would keep $45,000 and the remaining $45,000 would go into the conference pool.   They also would be entitled to 1/12 of the $250k shared pool, or roughly $20,800 more.  That's a total of a cool $65,800 for making the championship game in the elite conference.
..a sweet 16 team would receive 50% of their three games played or 22,500 + 20,800 or $43,300.
..and if someone goes 0-16 in conference they would receive only the 1/12 share of the shared pool ($20,800).

that certainly could make things within a top conference as more a have vs. have nots.  But under this scenario if the sweet 16 team had three open scholarships and the 0-16 had 4 open scholarships the total recruiting budgets would be $88,300 vs $80,800.
Or if the championship team had 3 openings vs. the sweet 16 teams 4 openings, that would be $110,800 vs. $103,300.

however at a lower level conference that sends two teams to the NT that both lose in the first round of the NT they each would keep their 50% ($7500) plus the 1/12 of the shared total of $15,000 ($1250).    So a team that made the NT from a lower level conf would receive $8750 under a perfomance based payout vs the $2500 they would receive with the equally distributed concept.   This gives the small guy a slightly better chance to compete with the bottom feeders of the big boys.   Butler vs. a South Florida if you would.

Still sound disastrous for all?

+1  Fantastic solution!

+2

This system is ok.  Any system that lessens the amount of NT $$$ floating around the top top top D1 conferences would be good.  My simple change I have proposed for a while is just to drop the NT payout to $15k.  Its not a big deal to most schools, but it is a big deal to the top conferences.

Posted by Iguana1 on 8/3/2012 4:07:00 PM (view original):
dacj501, the scholarships were used to show how little the difference in team that goes 0-16 vs a team that makes the sweet 16.
a D1 NT game would be worth the value of one half a scholarship.

the current system only rewards success with a bump in prestige.  Maybe that's enough once we start to see the effects of the prestige changes recently introduced.   Currently if a Memphis makes the Final Four in HD, a 0-16 Wake Forest will still mop the floor with them in recruiting since cash is still king.

by maintaining the current system the low bid conferences are sharing the money they earned with the others.  So by supporting the present system, we're supporting keeping more conf cash with the also rans in the top conferences, and taking more away from the top performers in the lower conferences.   Not saying a performance based payout would attract more teams in the lower conferences, but the current system has proved it doesn't.

ok, so if one happens to be a coach at an also ran in a BCS conference (jobs which currently tend to be a bit harder to get than jobs in the low bid conferences) they should be given disadvantages so that mid majors can get better? How does that help the bottom half teams in the BCS conferences that are fighting the elites head to head? I guess your idea wasn't designed to help those schools, but they need to be considered too, don't they?

Poor Wake Forest. 

Iguana - do you know if the NT cash was around at the start of the game?  I'd be curious to know what Tarek's original reason for it was.

My $0.02 is that they probably lose me as a customer several years back, without the NT cash.  When I first started I hated my conference mates actively rooted for them to lose, especially in the NT.  I saw things as a zero-sum game.  I probably would have quit were it not for a bunch of WIS credits I had on the site.  Since I did stick around, I discovered that there are good things to having your conference do well and from that I think you get the "community" that, at least for me, is a strong appeal to the game.  And now I actively root for my conference in the NT to the point that I seriously (long story) was pulling for my conference mate when we squared off in the last NT.

I think your (Iguana) proposal makes things more equitable, but it probably reintroduces the fact that I might start rooting against my conference mates again considering that he gets 54% of the money associated with the win and I get just 4%.  That hurts the conference community.  And I might be completely off base on this, but I think the fact that the overwhelming majority of us don't root against our conference is a key factor to the games success.  It's as much the 11 other human coaches in my conference that makes this appealing to me as it is the sim itself.