I know a lot have tossed around this idea. Should it be seriously considered?

What kind of weight would you want it to carry and how many scholarship players would be necessary to make a state into a pipeline for a team? I would think 4 for a state and 2 for a country. 

The other benefit I can think of would be a discount on scouting for that state. Obviously, recruiting needs some changes, but I think this is a moderate change that would please the majority of coaches. 

Would NOT please me, particularly in regards to states...

What objection would you have to pipelines?  I think it's a fantastic idea.  Really small credit for a state and a little bit more for a specific school.

I think it would be cool with countries - I just signed two Italians, for instance, and I think that would definitely raise Italian awareness of Loyola Marymount in real life.  Sort of like St. Mary's and Aussies and stuff.

Recruiting is extremely regional as it is. I don't see how this would help the game.

Isack - my objection is incredibly simple, and I think most of the coaches that want a pipeline effect would actually agree with it if they thought it through (not all, but most).  People think about pipelines from their own school's perspective and think, "hey, wouldn't it be cool if I could now recruit guys from (location) cheaper?"  The problem is that most aren't considering it from an outside perspective.  This would remove transparency from recruiting.  It's already hard enough to try to figure out what battles you can win based on estimating recruiting funds and looking at distance and prestige.  This would just add one more thing you'd have to look for.  Do I agree that the current system is somewhat unrealistic in this and other regards?  Of course.  But I think most of the fixes I see proposed to increase realism are really bad for the game.  I think a system in which recruiting is basically a level playing field is the only fair way to deal with it.  I see the pipeline thing as basically akin to strengthening the impact of favorite schools.  Sure, it better mirrors real life recruiting.  But further complicating the recruiting process is bad for HD.

For example, say Duke loses out on a couple of it's top guys and winds up taking 2 consolation recruits out of Kentucky or Tennessee.  The next season the #1 PF happens to show up in that state.  Now Duke can probably afford to take a run against Kentucky or Tennessee, whereas maybe UNC or Wake can't.  This is basically a result of luck but gives a significant advantage.  And then what happens if Tennessee's coach doesn't happen to notice that Duke had a pipeline and spends a fortune on the guy only to lose out.  Now that's at least 3 coaches who are going to feel slighted by the pipeline effect.

Understandable.  But it wouldn't take more than two seconds to go to the roster page and see if they have recruited anyone from  that state/school in the past two or three seasons.

As for regional recruiting, I don't see a state credit being that much, but I think a school credit would be fun and wouldn't affect all that much.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/29/2011 9:11:00 PM (view original):
For example, say Duke loses out on a couple of it's top guys and winds up taking 2 consolation recruits out of Kentucky or Tennessee.  The next season the #1 PF happens to show up in that state.  Now Duke can probably afford to take a run against Kentucky or Tennessee, whereas maybe UNC or Wake can't.  This is basically a result of luck but gives a significant advantage.  And then what happens if Tennessee's coach doesn't happen to notice that Duke had a pipeline and spends a fortune on the guy only to lose out.  Now that's at least 3 coaches who are going to feel slighted by the pipeline effect.

Everything is a result of luck.  What if the #1 recruit lands in Durham?  That's even luckier.  

And I'm not suggesting that it's a massive credit or multiplier, just a slight advantage.  

And if someone doesn't take the minimal time to go look at the roster of the team they're battling, I guess I just don't have sympathy.

I'd be willing to listen- but what are the requirements/impacts?  Is it players on the roster?  Players recruited by the coach in x seasons?  Reduced scouting, additonal reward for recruiting efforts?  The idea is okay on paper, but the devil is in the details.

I think it would probably have to be in the last two or three seasons; certainly someone on the current roster.

I think it would be additional reward for recruiting efforts.  Not much, just something small.  You constantly hear that X player was influential in recruiting because they played together in high school, AAU, etc.  I think this would replicate that to some small degree.

Posted by isack24 on 10/29/2011 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/29/2011 9:11:00 PM (view original):
For example, say Duke loses out on a couple of it's top guys and winds up taking 2 consolation recruits out of Kentucky or Tennessee.  The next season the #1 PF happens to show up in that state.  Now Duke can probably afford to take a run against Kentucky or Tennessee, whereas maybe UNC or Wake can't.  This is basically a result of luck but gives a significant advantage.  And then what happens if Tennessee's coach doesn't happen to notice that Duke had a pipeline and spends a fortune on the guy only to lose out.  Now that's at least 3 coaches who are going to feel slighted by the pipeline effect.

Everything is a result of luck.  What if the #1 recruit lands in Durham?  That's even luckier.  

And I'm not suggesting that it's a massive credit or multiplier, just a slight advantage.  

There is some luck already, sure.

But I don't think that's a good argument for adding even more luck.

Additionally, the reality is that the fine people at WIS have pretty limited resources, and there are several dozen items that I would sincerely hope would be addressed thoroughly before anyone even thought about this one.

For whatever additional luck there is, I think there is additional strategy, especially if you consistently scout certain states that others neglect.

I also don't think that "it shouldn't be a priority" is a good argument for it being a bad idea.  

It's cool that you've taked the initiative to come up with an idea for improving the game.  But I agree with dahsdebater...against this idea 100%