The problem is that losing a battle is super punitive right now.  Nobody wants to lose a battle where they've sunk so much money in.  In real life, nobody puts in 90% of their recruiting budget into 1 or 2 guys.  Nor is it really an auction - kids decide where to go based largely on preferences.   A better way to do it might be to have a cap on how much effort "matters" to a recruit, and then the final decision rests with their internal attributes. 

1) I think any changes should only be to DI, you rarely hear complaints about recruiting at DII or DIII;
2) I think making the considering credit worth considerably more than it is now would certainly impact inner conference battles...my only concern would be killing someones class who just cant recruit the first day or two as often happens.

I've often thought that there should be some sort of effect of the % of the money used in your budget...as it is now, it is almost impossible to nab a top-level recruit with only 1 (or even 2) schollies, even at an A-level school. 

I'm not really sure how it would work, but the handicap of only have 1 or 2 schollies is a pretty big one.

Posted by abitaamber on 6/5/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I've often thought that there should be some sort of effect of the % of the money used in your budget...as it is now, it is almost impossible to nab a top-level recruit with only 1 (or even 2) schollies, even at an A-level school. 

I'm not really sure how it would work, but the handicap of only have 1 or 2 schollies is a pretty big one.

I would totally agree with this. 

I think it might be interesting, somewhat realistic, and certainly helpful in terms of several flaws in recruiting to have subsequent recruiting efforts begin to decrease in value.  IE in D1 you get full credit for the first 10 HVs, 95% for the next 5, 85% for the next 5, 75% for the next 5, 60% for the next 5, etc...

OTOH, it would increase the power disparity of elite schools.  Trying to outspend them to make up for prestige disadvantages would now not even run linearly and it would be like running into a wall trying to take recruits away from A and A+ schools.  It fits better at D2 and D3 I think...

Posted by abitaamber on 6/5/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I've often thought that there should be some sort of effect of the % of the money used in your budget...as it is now, it is almost impossible to nab a top-level recruit with only 1 (or even 2) schollies, even at an A-level school. 

I'm not really sure how it would work, but the handicap of only have 1 or 2 schollies is a pretty big one.

Impossible to nab a top level recruit with only one or two schollies?  Nah.  Tough maybe, but not impossible.  Case in point, three recruiting sessions ago, I had two open schollies with Duke in Tark.  The one recruit that I signed that season is now at a 1013 overall rating and was ranked as the #1 SG and #1 overall player coming out of high school.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather battle an A prestige school that has 5 or 6 open schollies as opposed to a team that only has 1 or 2.  Why?  Well, most coaches are afraid to take multiple walk-ons (for what reason, I'll never understand) and are worried to death about filling a bunch of empty roster spots.  So....they end up spreading their budget around on a few different players making each one of those guys less expensive.   That coach with only 1 or 2 schollies?  He's sinking ALL of his money into that 1 recruit.  Every bit of it.  Makes that 1 recruit get real expensive, really quick.  Having 1 or 2 schollies means being handicapped during recruiting?  Nahh, those are the guys that are TOUGH to beat.   

Posted by trobone on 6/5/2012 9:43:00 AM (view original):
i think battles in conference should be more plentiful....

in real life when was the last time UCLA and USC didn't battle over a player.... or duke and UNC? or Mizzou and kansas? or UT and some other texas school? they battle on almost every player.

the problem is that right now there is no inventive too

MU and Kansas pursue the same players once in a while if they are local talent (usually Kansas going into Missouri to sign a player), but by and large that's not a good example.  The talent pool in the Midwest is too scarce and the level of recruits those 2 schools chase is different.  They don't butt heads often, at all, and now that MU is in the SEC it will probably even be less.

In one of my conferences, we bump heads a little bit but I haven't seen anyone get upset over it.  It's all taken in good fun and in most cases, the "losing" coach can find another player of equal or better skill to replace the loss.

Posted by emy1013 on 6/6/2012 4:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by abitaamber on 6/5/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I've often thought that there should be some sort of effect of the % of the money used in your budget...as it is now, it is almost impossible to nab a top-level recruit with only 1 (or even 2) schollies, even at an A-level school. 

I'm not really sure how it would work, but the handicap of only have 1 or 2 schollies is a pretty big one.

Impossible to nab a top level recruit with only one or two schollies?  Nah.  Tough maybe, but not impossible.  Case in point, three recruiting sessions ago, I had two open schollies with Duke in Tark.  The one recruit that I signed that season is now at a 1013 overall rating and was ranked as the #1 SG and #1 overall player coming out of high school.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather battle an A prestige school that has 5 or 6 open schollies as opposed to a team that only has 1 or 2.  Why?  Well, most coaches are afraid to take multiple walk-ons (for what reason, I'll never understand) and are worried to death about filling a bunch of empty roster spots.  So....they end up spreading their budget around on a few different players making each one of those guys less expensive.   That coach with only 1 or 2 schollies?  He's sinking ALL of his money into that 1 recruit.  Every bit of it.  Makes that 1 recruit get real expensive, really quick.  Having 1 or 2 schollies means being handicapped during recruiting?  Nahh, those are the guys that are TOUGH to beat.   

I don't think he meant 1 or 2 schollies + $100K in carryover and postseason money.

Well, most coaches are afraid to take multiple walk-ons

I don't agree with this at all...in Knight, most of the top-level teams play with 9 or 10 scholly players every year.

Posted by ike1024 on 6/6/2012 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 6/6/2012 4:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by abitaamber on 6/5/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I've often thought that there should be some sort of effect of the % of the money used in your budget...as it is now, it is almost impossible to nab a top-level recruit with only 1 (or even 2) schollies, even at an A-level school. 

I'm not really sure how it would work, but the handicap of only have 1 or 2 schollies is a pretty big one.

Impossible to nab a top level recruit with only one or two schollies?  Nah.  Tough maybe, but not impossible.  Case in point, three recruiting sessions ago, I had two open schollies with Duke in Tark.  The one recruit that I signed that season is now at a 1013 overall rating and was ranked as the #1 SG and #1 overall player coming out of high school.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather battle an A prestige school that has 5 or 6 open schollies as opposed to a team that only has 1 or 2.  Why?  Well, most coaches are afraid to take multiple walk-ons (for what reason, I'll never understand) and are worried to death about filling a bunch of empty roster spots.  So....they end up spreading their budget around on a few different players making each one of those guys less expensive.   That coach with only 1 or 2 schollies?  He's sinking ALL of his money into that 1 recruit.  Every bit of it.  Makes that 1 recruit get real expensive, really quick.  Having 1 or 2 schollies means being handicapped during recruiting?  Nahh, those are the guys that are TOUGH to beat.   

I don't think he meant 1 or 2 schollies + $100K in carryover and postseason money.

Who had 100K in carryover and postseason money?  Because I sure didn't.

Posted by abitaamber on 6/6/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Well, most coaches are afraid to take multiple walk-ons

I don't agree with this at all...in Knight, most of the top-level teams play with 9 or 10 scholly players every year.

Then there's the answer to the question of why there are not more battles.  Coaches at high prestige schools are targeting a couple of stud players, sitting back on their bank rolls, and making sure that no one comes in to poach their players.  With that strategy of recruiting (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that line of thinking), that would certainly limit the amount of battles taking place.  Pretty simple concept really. 

It was an exaggeration, although I assume that the ACC in Tark probably snags $40K-$50K/year in postseason money. 

My point was I don't think the "1-2 schollies" comment was directed at those with ludicrous amounts of money for 1-2 schollies.  Although Maybe I'm wrong about how much the ACC in Tark brings in.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/4/2012 11:10:00 PM (view original):
I'll definitely shy away from battles in conference if there is a similarly talented recruit I can try to take away from a coach in another conference (which, in D3, there usually is).  That being said, I've definitely battled my conference mates more than a few times when I've needed to.

+1 

Make it like college basketball really is. Yes every team in the conference gets a split of the revenue, but the team who is actually playing the games gets a bigger cut. If instead of dividing the money by 12, give a third of the money earned by that school to it and then divide the remaining amount around the other teams. So in D3 the team playing each game gets $1000 and the remaining $2000 is divided by 11.

Its definitely annoying coming off a national title that I had the same recruiting budget as a team that lost in the first round of the PI

Posted by ericksonp on 8/10/2013 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Make it like college basketball really is. Yes every team in the conference gets a split of the revenue, but the team who is actually playing the games gets a bigger cut. If instead of dividing the money by 12, give a third of the money earned by that school to it and then divide the remaining amount around the other teams. So in D3 the team playing each game gets $1000 and the remaining $2000 is divided by 11.

Its definitely annoying coming off a national title that I had the same recruiting budget as a team that lost in the first round of the PI

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree, at least in part, with the sentiment) -- winning the national title, you already have an advantage in prestige over the first-round PI loser, so you're going to have access to recruits that coach can only dream of getting his hands on. If you toss a financial advantage on top of that, I'd we worried that we'd be entrenching a class of have's that would be extremely hard for the have-nots to crack into. And I'm not sure that's a good thing for attracting new, dedicated players to a pay-to-play game.

Like I said, just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion.