Like I said, I don't believe that it's usually just a couple hundred buck, and how much that get's you depends on the distance and your definition of "a couple". Besides, being savvy can only get you so far when you're ballin' on a budget. In my humble opinion, making FSS free would almost eliminate the those 'savvy' tactics whereby coaches can snag those sought after and overlooked recruits. 

Also, I absolutely will ***** about playing against cheaters if I think it's a problem. The way you repeatedly admit to cheating and advocate it's usage simply because the possibility exists makes your argument just sound utterly shallow. I don't have an old grampa's view on personal integrity or anything, but I wouldn't want the word "cheater" to pop into peoples' heads everytime I said something. 

Posted by colonels19 on 8/14/2011 11:51:00 AM (view original):
A couple hundred bucks gets you what, a scouting trip?

You can ***** about playing against "cheaters" all day and I'll more than gladly rub elbows with any/all of them at my current "disadvantage".  The savvy recruiter gets the guys they want/need, regardless of the circumstances.  Again, if you have 2 teams in the same world and aren't using it to your advantage, you're dumb.

And lastly, again, you want to solve the problem...make FSS free for everyone, that levels the playing field.  The current "problem" is impossible to police, so why not just solve it?

It's ludicrous that you think it's only a couple hundred bucks.  If you FSS Texas and California, it's a D3 scholarship.  That's a huge advantage.

Posted by coach_billyg on 8/13/2011 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 8/13/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 8/12/2011 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 8/12/2011 1:44:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely NO REASON to have 2 teams in the same world ... unless you have teams in all the other worlds.

The ONLY reason to have 2 teams in the same world is to CHEAT.

It should not be allowed, cut and dry.

Sure, one can argue that they are not cheating and would not cheat, etc.  And you can choose not to cheat.  BUT ... there are enough worlds that it is not necessary to have 2 teams in the same world.

One can build relationships and build up teams in any world ... so, just do it.

The ONLY reason to have 2 teams in the same world is to CHEAT.

this is just an incredibly short sighted statement. really? how many coaches have picked up a second ID to take over a team they love, so they can still achieve their goal of moving up and building a dynasty at a higher level? clearly, there is ABSOLUTELY no merit there, right? what about a coach who doesn't want to have 10 recruiting sessions per year, and would like to condense that to say, 5. there is ABSOLUTELY no merit there, right? what about a coach who doesn't want to play 1 or 2 a day worlds. just totally ridiculous to feel that way right? come on.

A team that you LOVE ... really?

This is a computer generated sheet of numbers.  You can LOVE the next excel spreadsheet it generates just as much as the last one.

I am not saying that everyone cheats, just that after 4 seasons there is no one left that was there when you took over, so getting the same team in another world is just fine.

then please explain to me, under your claim that there is absolutely no reason to have teams except to cheat with FSS - absolutely none at all - then why did so many coaches have multiple teams BEFORE FSS EVEN EXISTED????

I am not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to want to have 2 teams in the same world.

If I am coaching in the XYZ conference in Division 3 in world ABC and I like the coaches in the conference, it is absolutely possible that I would want to move to Division 2, because I want to advance and also want to purchase another team in the same world to do both things.  The only problem is that FSS, among other things, make it impossible NOT to cheat if you do it. 

It is just that by doing that, I have automatically committed collusion.  You can not UNLEARN information.  You therefore, whether you choose to act on the information or not, entered into an agreement with the coach of another team to provide you information that you would otherwise not have.  The other coach is you ...

I am not saying that everyone who has 2 teams in a world is using the information ... I don't know if they are or not.  I am saying it should not be allowed.

Of course, you only know that someone is doing it if they tell you ... so I am also not saying anything can be done about it ... except to make people who cheat understand that cheating is cheating :D

Posted by hughesjr on 8/14/2011

"I am not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to want to have 2 teams in the same world."

First of all, hughes, you did say exactly that when you entered this conversation. Exactly that. In fact, your verbatim quote was, "The ONLY reason to have 2 teams in the same world is to CHEAT." So the statement that you made in your post above is a bald-faced lie, which of course is sort of interesting for someone ranting about everyone else cheating and colluding.

"It is just that by [having two teams in the same world], I have automatically committed collusion".

First, you're wrong from a definition standpoint. WIS says it's OK to have two teams in the same world as long as they're not geographically close. They're the ones who decide what constitutes cheating and violates their fair play guidelines. They have clearly stated that this does not. (For example, when I last had two teams in Allen, I had D2 S. New Hampshire and DI Montana. I didn't even really have an opportunity to collude with myself even if I had wanted to.)

Fine, just keep lying to people about why you have multiple teams in worlds because your story is very believable...................................

Gill, now you are threatening to kill people because they disagree with you? Class act pal.

Realistic question for varying worlds out there. 

How many non BCS teams make the sweet 16 in your world, on average?

Further, how many make the final 4, on average?

In Naismith, both are very low, I would say 1 is probably the median in Naismith for the SS and zero for the FF.  This is clearly way off base from real life.

As I've said before, I think the largest reason for this is how recruiting money is spread to the power conferences.  The difference is so substantial first and foremost because there are just WAY too many sims.  Essentially, what needs to happen is 1. Get a lot more players in D-1 or 2. Change how recruiting money is distributed, or 3. Change recruit gen completely again. 

Posted by colonels19 on 8/13/2011 10:31:00 PM (view original):
How is it cheating when it's openly allowable and anyone can do it as long as they're willing to buy 2+ teams in the same world?  What should the penalty be?  How can/do you police it?

If you have 2 teams in the same world and you aren't using that as an advantage in some way in recruiting, you're an idiot, period.

I have a D3 school in Virginia and a D2 school in Hawaii.  Some might say I'd be an idiot to have any overlap in scouting in the first place.  I'd be one of those people.

Girt is right.  In Allen there was a 10 year period where a non big 6 team won 5 of the 10 NTs.  After recruiting changed...none.

all 16 teams in Crum that just made it in D1 were BCS.

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2011 7:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 8/15/2011 5:33:00 AM (view original):
Realistic question for varying worlds out there. 

How many non BCS teams make the sweet 16 in your world, on average?

Further, how many make the final 4, on average?

In Naismith, both are very low, I would say 1 is probably the median in Naismith for the SS and zero for the FF.  This is clearly way off base from real life.

As I've said before, I think the largest reason for this is how recruiting money is spread to the power conferences.  The difference is so substantial first and foremost because there are just WAY too many sims.  Essentially, what needs to happen is 1. Get a lot more players in D-1 or 2. Change how recruiting money is distributed, or 3. Change recruit gen completely again. 

Grant, it's recruit generation, not how money is given out.

You know how I know? Because previously they had the exact same system for giving out money, and there were lots of non-BCS teams making runs in the NT. So that pretty definitively demonstrates that it's not how money is spread out that is the main factor.

But once recruit generation changed, it became much, much harder for non-BCS teams to assemble enough talent to win multiple NT games.

daalt,

i'd be curious to see if it worked given the right coaches and the right non-BCS/A-10 conference in the new system. Best bet would likely be WCC, Big West, or WAC, one of those western places with some mileage, and the PAC-10 is often the weakest BCS due to Fresno and Hawaii... I definitely think it'd be tougher than before, but I was in a highly competitive WCC in Wooden not 10 seasons ago, and with those coaches back, I'd take my chances that we'd have some guys who could compete.

Well, we'll find out in C-USA Rupp. In our fourth season, at this point from an rpi perspective we're in BCS territory, but not yet from a true talent perspective. The hope is that a few more seasons of numerous NT berths and prestige bumps will let us amass enough talent to make some NT runs.

Posted by jbasnight on 8/8/2011 9:00:00 AM (view original):

(NOTE: I'm trying very hard not to be whiny, and I don't want to go all vegaskevin here, but at the same time I don't really feel like throwing my money away to a game whose rules make it so difficult for a large portion of its players to compete. So I sent the following to CS this morning.)

Since the new recruit generation was introduced last year, a huge gap has developed in D1 between the BCS teams and everyone else. Because a small percentage of recruits are so far superior to the rest, and because the engine was tweaked so that game results would more closely track player ratings, it has become much more difficult for non-BCS teams to compete. A Sweet 16 appearance is the most those teams can realistically hope for.

In many worlds, this gap is compounded by coaches flocking to one or two BCS conferences, putting them head and shoulders above everyone else. The effects of conference prestige and recruiting dollars (which have long been in the game) combined with the new recruit generation means that teams in those superconferences can stuff their rosters with 4- and 5-star recruits, and the teams in other conferences have very little chance to compete.

As an example: In Allen, the ACC has long been the best BCS conference. I spent several seasons at Villanova in Allen prior to the current recruit-generation method, and even though I was in the ACC's backyard I was able to compete--I felt like I had a chance to build an NT title-contending team. I have since moved to Kentucky, a much higher-baseline prestige program. However, the ACC's strength means that those teams head into recruiting with budgets almost always some multiple of mine. That greatly reduces my chances of landing a top-10 recruit, which in turn reduces my team's chances of competing head-to-head with any ACC teams. Thus, at this point I feel like I have less chance than ever to realistically compete at the highest level.

This situation does not seem good for the long-term health of Hoops Dynasty. I am not the only coach who feels this way, as a look through the forums and coaches' corners will illustrate. Are there any plans to change the way recruits are generated?

About to have my rpi drop over 15 points after going undefeated in conference. LOL.  Can't say much more to say small conferences are broken in D-1.