tk ~ Your idea is reasonable.  The EE problem being worked on would help if the uber conferences lost EEs at a much higher rate than the rest.

What has Seble said about these issues? I am just now moving up to D1 - have a team in Knight, but it's a lower level team. Seems like it would be less fun if one conference always dominates. I like a lot of the ideas here.

Setting aside the one specific example that started, for me it's a chicken or egg question.  Is the system what caused a good conference to become the clear best and therefore other coaches don't build up another big 6 to challenge, or because the other big 6's didn't have steady or good coaches, the great conference started to distance.

For me, as a data person, until the big 6's are all full, it's hard to say if this is a problem of the system, or the number of coaches.  Some of us that have been here for a long time know that a near full world is a whole different animal than a half full world.

When Clemson keeps two 900+ players and Army loses a mediocre junior (as happened last season in Allen), the early entry system has to be reexamined. ACC gets a significant majority of the top recruits in Allen, but don't lose a corresponding percentage of early entries.

Also, conference success impacting prestige continues to be a huge issue. It makes so little sense on so many levels, but I won't rehash that here. And the ACC in Allen with maybe two exceptions are borderline colluders when it comes to recruiting. Gentleman's agreements on not touching other ACC teams recruits are pervasive based on coaches corner posts alone. I can't imagine what those guys say to each other via site mail.

Honestly? Allen can't be fixed unless seble is willing to be TR to the ACC's Standard Oil.

ACC has 6 of the Elite 8 in the NT and 3 of the final 4 in the PT.

Posted by jslotman on 11/14/2011 7:41:00 AM (view original):
When Clemson keeps two 900+ players and Army loses a mediocre junior (as happened last season in Allen), the early entry system has to be reexamined. ACC gets a significant majority of the top recruits in Allen, but don't lose a corresponding percentage of early entries.

Also, conference success impacting prestige continues to be a huge issue. It makes so little sense on so many levels, but I won't rehash that here. And the ACC in Allen with maybe two exceptions are borderline colluders when it comes to recruiting. Gentleman's agreements on not touching other ACC teams recruits are pervasive based on coaches corner posts alone. I can't imagine what those guys say to each other via site mail.

Honestly? Allen can't be fixed unless seble is willing to be TR to the ACC's Standard Oil.

I suppose I'm one of the colluders because I say, "Hmm, which recruit should I target - the one who is considering the A+ school that has $60k in postseason cash or the one considering the A school that has $12k in postseason cash?"

Your other points are correct - the EE process needs serious revisions (and I would have said that before I lost 5 in Tark) and the postseason money system needs to be adjusted, either by flipping the dollar figures for scholarships/NT game in DI (making it $20k/scholarship and $15k/NT game played by the conference), or adjusting it to a system where the NT 'rights' get sold for the same amount and each conference gets their share based on the number of teams from the conference who made the tournament (so this season the ACC would get 9/64ths of the NT money to split among 12 teams).

The good news is that Syracuse and Kansas somehow made it to the Elite Eight and are playing each other.  So I guess the non-ACC Allen coaches have a rooting interest.  Or something. 

Really though, I'm just peeved on a personal level because I'm consistently losing early entries whilst it seems Clemson and BC have 900+ rated seniors stick around on the regular despite superior postseason success. 

acn - I haven't noticed you being particularly active on the Allen ACC coaches corner during recruiting, so I suppose lumping the entire league save hoosierchap and viperhoops into the "colluder" category is a bit unfair.  Still, what happened in the ACC during last year's cycle (i.e., viper is scolded by a throng of ACC coaches for getting into a recruiting battle with another ACC coach) is definitely bordering on collusion, IMO. 

I will echo girts comments ....

* DI tourney money has been the same forever.  * School and conference baseline prestige has been around forever. * The number and quality of coaches in B6 schools has been relaively consistent over the past 40 seasons.

The imbalance between haves and have nots ties directly to the recruit generation change that took place when top tier recruits were generated with a huge gap in talent before the next level.   In an attempt by HD to make some users happy by creating a group on impact players, HD essentially created a game where only a few select group of schools can win a DI championship in each world.  Now .....that "superconference" may be different from world to world but the issue is the same.

According to our resident stathead in Allen, over the last three seasons, 65 percent of non-ACC 900+ rated non-senior players have entered the draft whilst less than 40 percent of similar non-seniors in ACC have foregone their remaining eligiblity.  Very small sample size obviously, but perhaps an indicator of the flaws in the early entry logic. 

I used to think putting a cap on early entries was a fair thing to do, but have changed my position on this.  If you recruit a gang of top 100 talent, you should lose a corresponding number of early entries.  There really shouldn't be that much randomness involved in the selection process, and Patriot League players should pretty much never leave college early. 

Posted by asher413 on 11/14/2011 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Setting aside the one specific example that started, for me it's a chicken or egg question.  Is the system what caused a good conference to become the clear best and therefore other coaches don't build up another big 6 to challenge, or because the other big 6's didn't have steady or good coaches, the great conference started to distance.

For me, as a data person, until the big 6's are all full, it's hard to say if this is a problem of the system, or the number of coaches.  Some of us that have been here for a long time know that a near full world is a whole different animal than a half full world.

Asher, not saying you are wrong.  But to take your analogy one step too far, I'd say it's not a chicken or egg question. At this point it's a question of if Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again.

And mully, I think there is consensus that the change to recruiting generation was the tipping point.  But at this point would improving that fix things?  (Make better, yes?  Fix, maybe not?)

It looks like after this season the ACC will have 9-10 teams a A+ prestige and will have at least $65,000 extra per team.

Even if you go back to the way things were with recruiting, the ACC will have such a massive advantage over other conferences, I'm not sure how long it would take to get back to how things were ... but I'd guess we are looking at many, many seasons.

Posted by mullycj on 11/14/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
I will echo girts comments ....

* DI tourney money has been the same forever.  * School and conference baseline prestige has been around forever. * The number and quality of coaches in B6 schools has been relaively consistent over the past 40 seasons.

The imbalance between haves and have nots ties directly to the recruit generation change that took place when top tier recruits were generated with a huge gap in talent before the next level.   In an attempt by HD to make some users happy by creating a group on impact players, HD essentially created a game where only a few select group of schools can win a DI championship in each world.  Now .....that "superconference" may be different from world to world but the issue is the same.

Yep. The problem stems from WIS changing recruit generation, without making any other adjustments to the game. As reinsel has said, once you get a bunch of good coaches together in one conference now, the game's over. And the ACC, with its high baseline prestiges, is the easiest conference in HD in which to accomplish that. Short of outright collusion by the other human coaches in Allen, there is no way to combat them. (And at this point, even that might not be successful.) The degree of difficulty for any non-ACC program east of the Mississippi to develop a championship-caliber program right now is enormous. 

Assuming that nothing is going to change with how recruits are generated--and given the lack of response from seble on this issue I feel safe making that assumption--here are a couple of other changes that could be made:

1. Make promises meaningful again. As a corollary, make it tough to sign the truly elite prospects unless they are promised starts and/or significant playing time. (And make it more likely that those players will leave if they're not getting PT.)  It's silly that any school could sign a bunch of 5-star guys and have them coming off the bench for two or three seasons.

2.  Revamp the early-entry system, making early entries solely reliant on the player's talent, not how far his team went in the NT. As things stand, I suspect (from my own experience and from anectodal evidence) that teams with lower baseline prestiges are more likely to have EEs when they have NT success than higher-baseline teams. That's another barrier to mid-major success in a game that doesn't need any.

ACN ~ You're idea on schollarship money is excellent.  Very much echo's my thoughts on the matter.

And yes, NT money has been this way forever, but there is a reaching steady state thing that happens.  Uberconferences cannot form until season 30 or so.  It takes that long to get enough coaches into the big conferences and establish themselves, and so it is a recent phenomena.

Posted by jbasnight on 11/14/2011 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 11/14/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
I will echo girts comments ....

* DI tourney money has been the same forever.  * School and conference baseline prestige has been around forever. * The number and quality of coaches in B6 schools has been relaively consistent over the past 40 seasons.

The imbalance between haves and have nots ties directly to the recruit generation change that took place when top tier recruits were generated with a huge gap in talent before the next level.   In an attempt by HD to make some users happy by creating a group on impact players, HD essentially created a game where only a few select group of schools can win a DI championship in each world.  Now .....that "superconference" may be different from world to world but the issue is the same.

Yep. The problem stems from WIS changing recruit generation, without making any other adjustments to the game. As reinsel has said, once you get a bunch of good coaches together in one conference now, the game's over. And the ACC, with its high baseline prestiges, is the easiest conference in HD in which to accomplish that. Short of outright collusion by the other human coaches in Allen, there is no way to combat them. (And at this point, even that might not be successful.) The degree of difficulty for any non-ACC program east of the Mississippi to develop a championship-caliber program right now is enormous. 

Assuming that nothing is going to change with how recruits are generated--and given the lack of response from seble on this issue I feel safe making that assumption--here are a couple of other changes that could be made:

1. Make promises meaningful again. As a corollary, make it tough to sign the truly elite prospects unless they are promised starts and/or significant playing time. (And make it more likely that those players will leave if they're not getting PT.)  It's silly that any school could sign a bunch of 5-star guys and have them coming off the bench for two or three seasons.

2.  Revamp the early-entry system, making early entries solely reliant on the player's talent, not how far his team went in the NT. As things stand, I suspect (from my own experience and from anectodal evidence) that teams with lower baseline prestiges are more likely to have EEs when they have NT success than higher-baseline teams. That's another barrier to mid-major success in a game that doesn't need any.

Agree all around, jb.  The ridiculousness (and this isn't just applicable to the ACC) of signing a five-star player and stashing him on the bench for 1-2 seasons is completely unrealistic, and always has been.  I still think freshmen should be able to come into a system and actually contribute right away, and the powers that be within HD have never really reconciled that major difference with how the real world works.   

Posted by reinsel on 11/14/2011 12:01:00 PM (view original):
ACN ~ You're idea on schollarship money is excellent.  Very much echo's my thoughts on the matter.

And yes, NT money has been this way forever, but there is a reaching steady state thing that happens.  Uberconferences cannot form until season 30 or so.  It takes that long to get enough coaches into the big conferences and establish themselves, and so it is a recent phenomena.

I sort of fall in this camp and in the girt recruit generation camp.  I think that the issues started when recruit generation was adjusted, but at this point I'm not sure that simply returning to the old recruit generation model can undo all that has been done.

I definitely like jbas' suggestions - it just seems insane that the #1 overall recruit would come to college and be fine if they played 4 minutes and took no shots the entire season.  That could be another recruit preference that they can either make known through FSS or through player calls/scouting trips.  This would probably add complexity behind the scenes, as recruits should have different expectations/requirements depending on the school (it should take different amounts of effort or promises for a player to consider/sign with a D William & Mary than with a B St. Jospephs than with an A+ Duke).  I've also supported increasing the power of promises, and making the breaking of a promise a significant drain on a coach's rep (and make that a big part of recruiting).

i agree with JBasnight on the recruit PT issue 100%. (and, i'm as guilty as anyone of stashing 5-star recruits at the bottom of my bench). i believe that since WIS has updated the recruit generation to create 800+ level recruits that can contribute immediately, they should also demand starts and minutes immediately.