A disturbing lack of D1 battles. Topic

In Crum this season of the 125 players in the top 25 in their position 109 signed at the first cycle.

There was almost no battles throughout recruiting.

UCLA was on the #1 PF and #1 SF both in Wyoming, 900 miles away. Not one team battled for them.


Is it just basically a draft now?
12/11/2014 12:40 AM
Yep.

And it makes recruiting with one scholarship at a mid major the literal definition of hell. Big 6 schools (and mid-majors with 6 open schollies for that matter) can pretty much just pick and choose who they want and I'm just left with the scraps. And I hate the scraps.

It makes me want to move back down divisions where you have to compete for recruits to build a great team.
12/11/2014 1:47 AM
blame the system. The primary reason for this is that most experienced D1 coaches can recognize a losing battle and either dont initiate poorly or bail when they see the writing on the wall. Of course, even though this, like everything else I sputter, is stated with authority, it is just an idea I just thought of reading the thread. But it sounds plausible.

(ETA, especially the coaches that can realistically compete for the top recruits...)
12/11/2014 2:18 AM
Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 12/11/2014 1:47:00 AM (view original):
Yep.

And it makes recruiting with one scholarship at a mid major the literal definition of hell. Big 6 schools (and mid-majors with 6 open schollies for that matter) can pretty much just pick and choose who they want and I'm just left with the scraps. And I hate the scraps.

It makes me want to move back down divisions where you have to compete for recruits to build a great team.
this isnt really true either. There are probably 20 or so teams in each world that can almost pick whoever they choose. the mid level bcs teams have an advantage in cash that is true, but they cannot compete with the real big boys consistently (generally - some exceptional coaches prove their moniker by being exceptions) and wind up with mediocre records. A solid mid major (like Marquette for instance) is probably way easier to get to the Sweet 16 level then a mid or lower level BCS team.
12/11/2014 2:22 AM
Posted by tannermcc on 12/11/2014 12:40:00 AM (view original):
In Crum this season of the 125 players in the top 25 in their position 109 signed at the first cycle.

There was almost no battles throughout recruiting.

UCLA was on the #1 PF and #1 SF both in Wyoming, 900 miles away. Not one team battled for them.


Is it just basically a draft now?
You've got a B- prestige Tanner, which big boy BCS team did you battle?
12/11/2014 3:39 AM
Posted by dacj501 on 12/11/2014 2:19:00 AM (view original):
blame the system. The primary reason for this is that most experienced D1 coaches can recognize a losing battle and either dont initiate poorly or bail when they see the writing on the wall. Of course, even though this, like everything else I sputter, is stated with authority, it is just an idea I just thought of reading the thread. But it sounds plausible.

(ETA, especially the coaches that can realistically compete for the top recruits...)
It's probably the very reason you don't see many battles CJ. The most experienced coaches know when they're fighting a losing battle and when it's time to cut bait and move on. Why pour all your money into a guy you know you're not going to get? Move on and find a replacement, quite simple logic really.

Add in the fact that "poaching" (and no, I don't believe there is such a thing, but that's the term everyone uses, so that's why I'm using it) seems to be becoming a more and more popular method to recruit is probably another contributing factor in the lack of battles. More coaches are becoming more patient, biding their time, waiting for a mistake, then hit-and-run recruiting right before signings leaving no time for battles.

Finally, just the general lack of coaches period means there are more good players to go around. You wouldn't being seeing this in a full world or even a world two-thirds full. Then the demand would outweigh the supply and if a coach wanted to be successful, they'd be FORCED to battle for the quality recruits. If they didn't, they'd lose and (if it worked correctly) be fired.



Summary, not enough coaches. The coaches there are experienced enough to know when to fold 'em. More patience during recruiting.

Equals lack of battles. Yep, it's "basically" a draft (with the minor exception here or there) and it has been for a good, long while now. Might as well get used to it because unless something drastic happens to the game it doesn't look like it'll be changing any time soon. Which is a pity.
12/11/2014 3:54 AM (edited)
I think it needs to be fixed with the guaranteed minutes and guaranteed starter gig. And it has to be really harsh if you don't follow with it. My logic is this, you get a freshman, you make him sit all season while you win, or you even redshirt him without needing to tell him. On the other hand, a mid-major would give him 15 minutes or even start him. It has to have some big weight into the recruiting decision of the kid. It does. Right now, it does not. So as I understand, it makes it a lot tougher on mid-majors. Second, they need to open up D1 gigs. It takes too long to get there and it has no real reason to be like that. At first, I think it was an economic decision, with people wanting to stick around until they get to D1. If they open it up, they need to make sure firing happens and expectations are high on D1 top teams, and a bit lower on mid-major teams.



12/11/2014 7:32 AM
The top 25 is a little deceptive, there are plenty of top 25 recruits (20% or more) that aren't really top tier quality........if it is stil Day 3 in Crum check to see how many recruits actually are being battled over by BCS schools?.....I suspect it is more than 20.
12/11/2014 9:30 AM
I think putting a baseline number on top recruits would help.  With no battles I can lock up a top recruit for under 2K depending on distance.  Nobody will battle the big boys with big money when that is all it takes.  If a coach has 5 openings and you are the only coach fighting him, he has all the money he needs to fight you off.  What happens is then these top programs not only get the top recruits, but also have a ton of carry over money each year to continue the cycle.

My solution is to create a threshold for recruits based on their rankings.  10K minimum to sign an elite player and on down, or something to that effect
12/11/2014 9:40 AM
Posted by dacj501 on 12/11/2014 2:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 12/11/2014 1:47:00 AM (view original):
Yep.

And it makes recruiting with one scholarship at a mid major the literal definition of hell. Big 6 schools (and mid-majors with 6 open schollies for that matter) can pretty much just pick and choose who they want and I'm just left with the scraps. And I hate the scraps.

It makes me want to move back down divisions where you have to compete for recruits to build a great team.
this isnt really true either. There are probably 20 or so teams in each world that can almost pick whoever they choose. the mid level bcs teams have an advantage in cash that is true, but they cannot compete with the real big boys consistently (generally - some exceptional coaches prove their moniker by being exceptions) and wind up with mediocre records. A solid mid major (like Marquette for instance) is probably way easier to get to the Sweet 16 level then a mid or lower level BCS team.

as someone fairly new to D1, this is an interesting comment regarding "way easier" getting a solid mid-major to sweet 16 vs. low level d1 school.

why is this so?  I have found that my lower level d1 schools are at such a disadvantage with recruiting money that it's hard to compete with low level BCS schools for recruits (it's possible, but not always).  hence, harder to a decent run in the NT. 

can you elaborate?

 

12/11/2014 10:54 AM
Posted by tannermcc on 12/11/2014 12:40:00 AM (view original):
In Crum this season of the 125 players in the top 25 in their position 109 signed at the first cycle.

There was almost no battles throughout recruiting.

UCLA was on the #1 PF and #1 SF both in Wyoming, 900 miles away. Not one team battled for them.


Is it just basically a draft now?
I was probably the only school with a shot that was within 360 of either of those players. I put a good chunk on them and didn't even show up on the first cycle. I had six open scholarships (UCLA had 4 IIRC). I didn't have a chance unless I wanted to get 1 of those players and end up with a 7 man roster. I immediately moved on and was kicking myself because I threw away a portion of my budget which cost me at least one other solid recruit and I was lucky to hang on to another.

Being any good as this game requires you have to know when to move on.
12/11/2014 12:29 PM
Posted by cburton23 on 12/11/2014 9:40:00 AM (view original):
I think putting a baseline number on top recruits would help.  With no battles I can lock up a top recruit for under 2K depending on distance.  Nobody will battle the big boys with big money when that is all it takes.  If a coach has 5 openings and you are the only coach fighting him, he has all the money he needs to fight you off.  What happens is then these top programs not only get the top recruits, but also have a ton of carry over money each year to continue the cycle.

My solution is to create a threshold for recruits based on their rankings.  10K minimum to sign an elite player and on down, or something to that effect
The threshold is an excellent idea.
12/11/2014 12:30 PM
Posted by carl3298 on 12/11/2014 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 12/11/2014 2:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 12/11/2014 1:47:00 AM (view original):
Yep.

And it makes recruiting with one scholarship at a mid major the literal definition of hell. Big 6 schools (and mid-majors with 6 open schollies for that matter) can pretty much just pick and choose who they want and I'm just left with the scraps. And I hate the scraps.

It makes me want to move back down divisions where you have to compete for recruits to build a great team.
this isnt really true either. There are probably 20 or so teams in each world that can almost pick whoever they choose. the mid level bcs teams have an advantage in cash that is true, but they cannot compete with the real big boys consistently (generally - some exceptional coaches prove their moniker by being exceptions) and wind up with mediocre records. A solid mid major (like Marquette for instance) is probably way easier to get to the Sweet 16 level then a mid or lower level BCS team.

as someone fairly new to D1, this is an interesting comment regarding "way easier" getting a solid mid-major to sweet 16 vs. low level d1 school.

why is this so?  I have found that my lower level d1 schools are at such a disadvantage with recruiting money that it's hard to compete with low level BCS schools for recruits (it's possible, but not always).  hence, harder to a decent run in the NT. 

can you elaborate?

 

I am seldom doing things optimally as I continue to learn, so take this for what it is worth. 

I have had lower tier BCS programs (most significantly I spent almost 20 seasons at Alabama in Tark).  The SEC was a mid level BCS conference in Tark then. Not all BCS conferences are even created equal, some have innate advantages based on baseline prestige and geography. 

I will forget, make up or twist most of the important details. This renders this basically into a fireside yarn more than anything resembling information, but that's what I've got.

There were a few tough teams at the top of the conference. Since the SEC is pretty close to each either geographically and penned in on the east by a usually more dominant ACC and to the North by the edges of the Big East (and occasionally by a dominant Big 10 or 12, but I am going to say that they were no better than wee were) there is a limited number of localish recruits. The best 3 or 4 teams will take ALL OF THESE. If you fight them for it, you will lose your entire budget and get nothing. Occasionally some rare thing happens, or like I said in the first post, exceptional coaches are exceptions. 

If you don't rage quit you learn to not **** with the big boys and try to find all the "diamonds in the rough". These are players that suck but have high potential in key areas. If you are lucky they have good WE and will be the equal of the big boys' freshmen when they are juniors. Around this time usually your best one will go EE because you finally made it past the first round of the NT and he lead your team in, well everything probably, and maybe even got 1st team All Conference or something. 

Whatever, EEs happen to everyone and you get a nearly insignificant prestige bump when your guy gets drafted 58th. 

Like I said, EEs happen to everyone, like the top 3 teams in your conference, who also get hit regularly with 3 or 4. So they usually have over 100,000 to recruit with, and A or A+ prestige. 

They take all the superior talent and kick your *** in conference games. 3-13 is not unlikely. You MUST schedule like a swami to get enough wins AND against good enough teams (since all you do is lose to the good teams in conference) just to make the NT. 

So I never did figure out how to overcome this and I just gave up and moved on. Eventually I got lucky and got invited to girt's CUSA and rode their coattails to an A+ baseline Michigan State...

Mid-majors however.  The BEST most mid-majors can hope for are those diamonds in the rough I was already finding at Alabama. But now they are the best players in the conference. Win many, many more conference games. Win CTs. Get MUCH better seeding into the NT where maybe you get a simai in the 1st round instead of being a 12 seed. Get lucky, get a good draw (or just plain outcoach) your 2nd round opponent and you are in the Sweet 16. I did this more frequently (a few times vs 1 time) this way...

12/11/2014 3:01 PM
its like playing poker with Kenny Rogers.....
12/11/2014 3:30 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
1234 Next ▸
A disturbing lack of D1 battles. Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.