Posted by stinenavy on 3/15/2013 12:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rednation58 on 3/14/2013 10:39:00 PM (view original):Why not reduce the money? Why should Baylor get $26,000 more in recruiting money because Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas did well in the NT? Why should you have to get a group of coaches together?
Posted by stinenavy on 3/14/2013 8:55:00 PM (view original):In your example, how many coaches are in the SEC and how many are in Southland? Big 6 conferences are normally full... at least 10 coaches. That's lots of money earned. If more coaches worked to fill mid major and low D1 conferences they would get more money. Maybe not 28k... maybe it's more like 17k. How much is an empty conference supposed to earn? About $1700 I would think.
How much does it cost be "very tight" though? 5K? 10K? A relative pittance with the money you'll get for being in a good conference. So with "very tight" with a high prestige, there's not going to be many takers on trying to make a battle. Sure there's one-sy two-sys, but most will find another fish to fry.
Tbird has some good points (and some terrible ones), but I'll just say the latest changes to the game (a year ago?) was to try to collapse some of the advantages of the elites. I feel the gap has narrowed minimally and there should be a few slight changes. #1 on my list is reducing the postseason money conferences bring in.
Just for an example, Louisiana Monroe and Baylor are both C prestige, but going into recruiting Baylor will have $28,000 from postseason money while Louisiana Monroe will have $1,700.
Why reduce the money? Get some good coaches together and go build a good mid major. You could probably turn a low D1 conference into a midmajor if you could fill it and keep it filled with decent coaches. Get some at large bids and earn your money. Girt is getting congrats right now for winning a NT at Marshall. Very impressive. There are actually lots of mid majors I've noticed in different worlds getting it together and starting to do big things against Big 6 schools. It's possible to be successful in lower prestige conferences.
Most coaches who do this actually go out and recruit other coaches to come to one conference. Maybe the game is designed this way and it's a good thing. More humans more success.
I guess it boils down to this. Why reduce money in D1 when there are already divisions with reduced money (D2 or D3). And if you look in those divisions there are still power conferences with 12 humans (CCAA, GLV, Heartland, etc) that will end up with more money than some coach who's in a relatively empty conference.
Also why shouldn't Baylor get 28k? Baylor also has to play Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas 2 or 3 times a season while someone in an empty conference can continually win the CT and get a NT birth for beating sims.
Why change D1 to be more like D2 when the potential for success is there at low end D1 and mid major conferences?