Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 11:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.
I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1
I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.
I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.
From my experience in Div 1 there were several factors I believe.
1) A extreme value for Big 6's prestige compared to other factors that should be nearly as equal to recruits (as they are in real life: Immediate playing time, close to home, family connections to school, (extreme rare today sure but a few) educational opportunities, style of play, recent success to name a few off top of head.
2) Tied in somewhat with #|. Job firing process. Would a recruit really want to got to a Big 6 that is a perennial loser and cant even start there early?
3)) Too many 90-90-90 5 star and they are almost exclusively the property of the Big 6's.
4) Problem not associated with the current system is the fact that these advantages lead to well populated Big 6 conferences (or sims that cant be replaced for what ever reasons) and others (unless coaches organize mid majors for players) are left with empty conferences which again affects RPI's and thus tourney monies.
None of those issues required a "complete re-do or overhaul" of recruiting.
1. I would agree these tweaks could (and probably should) be made, at a minimum of violence to the current system.
2. Not sure what this has to do with recruiting, but agree that the jobs firing process needs a tweak, esp. at A+ prestige schools.
3. I think you have this backwards -- the problem is that there aren't enough 90/90/90 guys, so the few that exist are snapped up by the elite programs. If there were more created in recruit gen (or more guys that start marginal, but end up at 90/90/90), there would be a larger pool of elite players, which would trickle down to the have-nots. There should be many more low-ranked players that make large -- like 200+ points -- gains over four years. My feeling for years has been that if you fix recruit gen, you fix lots of other recruiting problems.
These changes could be made without throwing out the old system -- which, while not perfect, is pretty good.