Posted by a_in_the_b on 4/1/2011 9:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by aporter on 4/1/2011 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Problem with SIM recruiting is that they don't recruit where the players are generated for that school.  Am I not correct  that recruits are still generated by the potential number of open scholarships (before EE and transfers) in a geographical area?  What happens now is SIM teams recruit players nationally taking a player away from a mid/low major team in that area.  Now that mid/low level team has to spend more for that recruit and they certainly can't go back across country to recruit a player from the SIM team's area. 

But by extension doesn't that mean that wherever that sim is from they AREN'T taking a player away from the local pool, thus leaving a player available that might not have been otherwise?

 

No that would be incorrect, they would be making an extra player available to the schools in that area since they aren't recruiting players that were generated based on the openings they have.

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Dan, You forget that some of us are down here in D2 or D3. I'm not talking about a D1 Human Coached vs. a D1 Human Coached vs. a D1 SIM, (yes you're right with your thoughts on that) what I'm referring too and talking about is us guys here in D2 trying to get a halfway decent low level D1 pulldown or the D3 coach trying to snag a halfway decent D2 pulldown and some crap D something prestige and crap 200 + something RPI for the last 8/9 seasons from 1000/1500 miles away all of a sudden jumps on a recruit we've been working on (after signings start) and than we end up losing him after xx.xx amount of dollars, or some BS team again that jumps on a recruit right out of the gate (5 minutesbefore recruiting starts) that we've had on our list and because we are at work or some other obstacle, we miss the first recruiting cycle and than can never get the guy to consider us. It's B.S. that some washed up SIM team from the state of Washington can jump on a decent guy from Mississippi and all the Gulf South teams regardless of they're A++ prestiges and 5/6/7 or more strings of top 10 teams can't ever get the guy because of the distance penalty for us Human Coaches.

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Dan, You forget that some of us are down here in D2 or D3. I'm not talking about a D1 Human Coached vs. a D1 Human Coached vs. a D1 SIM, (yes you're right with your thoughts on that) what I'm referring too and talking about is us guys here in D2 trying to get a halfway decent low level D1 pulldown or the D3 coach trying to snag a halfway decent D2 pulldown and some crap D something prestige and crap 200 + something RPI for the last 8/9 seasons from 1000/1500 miles away all of a sudden jumps on a recruit we've been working on (after signings start) and than we end up losing him after xx.xx amount of dollars, or some BS team again that jumps on a recruit right out of the gate (5 minutesbefore recruiting starts) that we've had on our list and because we are at work or some other obstacle, we miss the first recruiting cycle and than can never get the guy to consider us. It's B.S. that some washed up SIM team from the state of Washington can jump on a decent guy from Mississippi and all the Gulf South teams regardless of they're A++ prestiges and 5/6/7 or more strings of top 10 teams can't ever get the guy because of the distance penalty for us Human Coaches.

I don't think this is a relevant argument at all, except to say it would be better for D1 sims to recruit more locally in general. 

And Sims recruit before the first cycle so it doesn't matter in D2 if you can get on a computer cycle one or not.

This may be a question that I should already know the answer to but how are recruiting dollars determined?  Conference, prestige, # of scholarships, a combination of all?
Thanks!

# scholarships + a bonus for each NT/PT game your conference was in.

Posted by acn24 on 4/1/2011 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 4/1/2011 10:11:00 AM (view original):
I think a very simple fix would be to give your mid-level recruits better potentials.  The reason in real life for a team like Butler's success is they have veteran players that just keep getting better.  Where as Kentucky and UConn have younger guys that are awesome but will leave early or are already maxed out.  By increasing potentials of mid level kids the mid level schools will have players that after 4 years are great players, rather than having guys that after their Sophomore year don't change much.  I think this is a really easy change to make and would make a huge impact on recruiting.

I don't know how much this would help low/mid DI programs - I don't know how many high potential guys will end up on those teams.  I expect that a lot of those guys will be scooped up by BCS schools, either as backups if they lose a battle or as a developmental player.  I think this might encourage people to take the B- and worse prestige teams in BCS conferences, but I don't think it would encourage people to leave a successful DII program to go to the Patriot/MEAC/OVC/etc. low-mid conferences.

My thought was that if that is who Big 6 schools go after they are only going to be good every 3-4 years and eventually will start going after the big time guys, but would make it a little easier to rebuild a C level ACC or Big East team.  You may be right though.  I just think eventually all Big 6 coaches will go after 4 and 5 star guys because you can't help yourself, leaving the little guys more alone.

Posted by cburton23 on 4/1/2011 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 4/1/2011 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 4/1/2011 10:11:00 AM (view original):
I think a very simple fix would be to give your mid-level recruits better potentials.  The reason in real life for a team like Butler's success is they have veteran players that just keep getting better.  Where as Kentucky and UConn have younger guys that are awesome but will leave early or are already maxed out.  By increasing potentials of mid level kids the mid level schools will have players that after 4 years are great players, rather than having guys that after their Sophomore year don't change much.  I think this is a really easy change to make and would make a huge impact on recruiting.

I don't know how much this would help low/mid DI programs - I don't know how many high potential guys will end up on those teams.  I expect that a lot of those guys will be scooped up by BCS schools, either as backups if they lose a battle or as a developmental player.  I think this might encourage people to take the B- and worse prestige teams in BCS conferences, but I don't think it would encourage people to leave a successful DII program to go to the Patriot/MEAC/OVC/etc. low-mid conferences.

My thought was that if that is who Big 6 schools go after they are only going to be good every 3-4 years and eventually will start going after the big time guys, but would make it a little easier to rebuild a C level ACC or Big East team.  You may be right though.  I just think eventually all Big 6 coaches will go after 4 and 5 star guys because you can't help yourself, leaving the little guys more alone.

I think that Big 6 schools may also look at this as a way to get a player who could contribute as a JR/SR cheaply as a way to hedge against early entries.  I know a lot of elites are fine w/ walkons - they might look to sign a really high potential guy who is #80 at their position cheaply, rather than have the walkon.

Posted by aporter on 4/1/2011 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 4/1/2011 9:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by aporter on 4/1/2011 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Problem with SIM recruiting is that they don't recruit where the players are generated for that school.  Am I not correct  that recruits are still generated by the potential number of open scholarships (before EE and transfers) in a geographical area?  What happens now is SIM teams recruit players nationally taking a player away from a mid/low major team in that area.  Now that mid/low level team has to spend more for that recruit and they certainly can't go back across country to recruit a player from the SIM team's area. 

But by extension doesn't that mean that wherever that sim is from they AREN'T taking a player away from the local pool, thus leaving a player available that might not have been otherwise?

 

No that would be incorrect, they would be making an extra player available to the schools in that area since they aren't recruiting players that were generated based on the openings they have.

I thought that was what I just said??

 

Posted by reinsel on 4/1/2011 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 4/1/2011 7:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by courtmagic on 4/1/2011 1:10:00 AM (view original):
Get rid of the SIM bonus. As in, make them (the SIM schools) have to pay the same distance disadvantage as us human coaches, I.E. the Scouting Visits, the Home Visits, and the Campus Visits. This way they couldn't load up all their money for one or 2 strong recruits and take the rest as walk-ons. The way it is now, the guy 2500 miles away cost the same as a guy 100 miles away for a SIM team. That's just Bull S*IT.

First, it's stunning to me that people complain about this. Sims are already terrible recruiters with bad teams ... and we want to make them worse? Second, that's not going to bring new coaches to DI.

Dan, You forget that some of us are down here in D2 or D3. I'm not talking about a D1 Human Coached vs. a D1 Human Coached vs. a D1 SIM, (yes you're right with your thoughts on that) what I'm referring too and talking about is us guys here in D2 trying to get a halfway decent low level D1 pulldown or the D3 coach trying to snag a halfway decent D2 pulldown and some crap D something prestige and crap 200 + something RPI for the last 8/9 seasons from 1000/1500 miles away all of a sudden jumps on a recruit we've been working on (after signings start) and than we end up losing him after xx.xx amount of dollars, or some BS team again that jumps on a recruit right out of the gate (5 minutesbefore recruiting starts) that we've had on our list and because we are at work or some other obstacle, we miss the first recruiting cycle and than can never get the guy to consider us. It's B.S. that some washed up SIM team from the state of Washington can jump on a decent guy from Mississippi and all the Gulf South teams regardless of they're A++ prestiges and 5/6/7 or more strings of top 10 teams can't ever get the guy because of the distance penalty for us Human Coaches.

I don't think this is a relevant argument at all, except to say it would be better for D1 sims to recruit more locally in general. 

And Sims recruit before the first cycle so it doesn't matter in D2 if you can get on a computer cycle one or not.

Hence, my original answer to the original question posted by Girt. "What can we do to get more people involved in Mid/Low D1?" and my answer was basically the same as yours, just worded differently. Your answer was a more general answer where mine was more specific. I'm not saying my answer to the problem would work, it was just a thought. Your answer, (except to say it would be better for D1 sims to recruit more locally in general) --my answer, (make the D1 SIMS have to pay the same distance penalty that us humans do.) Which in turn would make them recruit more locally. I'm also not saying that the SIMS use the same formula as us humans, maybe a general aggregate formula of say 0-500 miles-x dollars, 500-1500 miles-2x dollars, and over 1500 miles-3x dollars.

Posted by acn24 on 4/1/2011 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 4/1/2011 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 4/1/2011 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 4/1/2011 10:11:00 AM (view original):
I think a very simple fix would be to give your mid-level recruits better potentials.  The reason in real life for a team like Butler's success is they have veteran players that just keep getting better.  Where as Kentucky and UConn have younger guys that are awesome but will leave early or are already maxed out.  By increasing potentials of mid level kids the mid level schools will have players that after 4 years are great players, rather than having guys that after their Sophomore year don't change much.  I think this is a really easy change to make and would make a huge impact on recruiting.

I don't know how much this would help low/mid DI programs - I don't know how many high potential guys will end up on those teams.  I expect that a lot of those guys will be scooped up by BCS schools, either as backups if they lose a battle or as a developmental player.  I think this might encourage people to take the B- and worse prestige teams in BCS conferences, but I don't think it would encourage people to leave a successful DII program to go to the Patriot/MEAC/OVC/etc. low-mid conferences.

My thought was that if that is who Big 6 schools go after they are only going to be good every 3-4 years and eventually will start going after the big time guys, but would make it a little easier to rebuild a C level ACC or Big East team.  You may be right though.  I just think eventually all Big 6 coaches will go after 4 and 5 star guys because you can't help yourself, leaving the little guys more alone.

I think that Big 6 schools may also look at this as a way to get a player who could contribute as a JR/SR cheaply as a way to hedge against early entries.  I know a lot of elites are fine w/ walkons - they might look to sign a really high potential guy who is #80 at their position cheaply, rather than have the walkon.

As a coach at an A+ Big 6 school that has lost 7 EE's over the past two seasons, including 3 freshmen EE's, I can say that I would absolutely go after players like this. Not for my whole roster, but certainly to sprinkle 2-3 in to ensure some semblance of stability.

Change the shape of the distributions, giving some higher senior potential to mid-D1 quality recruits, and just find a way to get more people to stay with the game.  even in mid/low D1, things get pretty competitive when a lot of humans stay in the division for 5-10 seasons.  Human coaches may need to do some collaborating to make sure they all are in the same division and stay there.  When they get more than half of a division they can compete with the larger conferences.  Conference prestige is the variable people seem to forget. 

Posted by psuarva on 4/1/2011 11:38:00 PM (view original):
Change the shape of the distributions, giving some higher senior potential to mid-D1 quality recruits, and just find a way to get more people to stay with the game.  even in mid/low D1, things get pretty competitive when a lot of humans stay in the division for 5-10 seasons.  Human coaches may need to do some collaborating to make sure they all are in the same division and stay there.  When they get more than half of a division they can compete with the larger conferences.  Conference prestige is the variable people seem to forget. 

You hit it on the head.  You have to have human coaches in over half your conference to compete.  This give you a chance to have 5 or more teams in one tournament or another and gain that valuable recruiting bonus.  My WKY team was doing well recruiting and on the court until our coaches started moving up the ladder.  I really don't want to move on, but I am competitive and want a chance to win.  After 11 seasons there where we had the first 2 below .500, the next 2 with 17 & 18 wins, but not bids I have gone to the PT, NT, NT, PT, NT, PT & PT.  This is with one undeafeated regular season and one elite 8 bid.  Honestly this is a damn decent run for a mid-major.  However, we are down to 3 (very competitive) owners so our recruting money is going down each year because only 3 of us make a tournament.  Compound that with the horrible Sim Ai teams we have very little chance of getting an at large bid to the NT which we used to get all the time. I have brought WKY from a D prestige up to a B prestige, but now down to a C+ prestige.  I feel the problem for us came about when I thought my B prestige could compete with other B prestige schools in the large conference and I lost out on some good recruits.  Now I don't even try to go after a 4 star or higher and won't fight for a 3 star if a Big Conference school is competing against me due to the difference in money they have to offer even if they are a lower prestige than I am.  I simply want a chance to compete with other schools with a similar prestige.  Why should a team such as South Carolina which is C- prestige and not had a winning season in the last 12 years nor an RPI less than 100 have a better chance at landing a recruit than I do because they get so much bonus money from the other SEC schools winning and they get an inherent bonus from their conference.  How are they just a C- prestige?  I dropped from a B to a C+ in 4 years making 1 NT and 3 PT.  I didn't do well in any of them, but I was competitive.  I really want it to be based on something we can control, not something the computer has decided before we even start.  We are losing the parity between the 4-8 ranked schools in the Big Conferences and the top 1-3 in a Mid-Major.  The overall rankings are spreading apart which shows the Big Conference schools are having their way with recruiting and it seems to be a trend that will continue.  I don't see how a Mid Major will consistently reach the round of 16 unless there are incentives to take those openings which will increase the ability to get teams in the NT & PT gaining more money for recruiting.  So long as everyone wants to jump ship we are going to have this issue. 

I still say it comes down to recruit generation. It used to have 10-50 were pretty close. Now 10-50 are like grocery store managers to ballplayers. I am at Western Michigan and we have done okay. When we get to the tourney, we have not shot at all. I have said this for many season's now, you can find better ball players at the local grocery store than a mid-major can find. That being said, the mid-majors are dying because it's funner at D2 to steal some good guys and be able to compete at a high level.  

I've always thought the pipeline idea would be a great idea.  Over about 10 seasons at a D2 team, I ended up with like 4 guys from Spain.  It would be really cool (and realistic) if this gave me a leg up on any other D2 school recruiting from Spain and maybe even some D1's if I wanted to try to compete.  (I was consistently a B+/A- team, so I would think it would go something like big advantage over A- and below D2 teams, decent advantage over A/A+ teams, and maybe aslight advantage all the way up to D+/C- D1 before spending any money).

This is my first year playing in D1 (and we haven't even started recruiting yet so not really sure how it is with the big boys), but one thing that frustrated me at my D2 level was the lack of discernment from recruits.  I wish I could talk to some of these recruits and tell the PG I'm recruiting "look, I have only a senior PG on my roster, you're guaranteed minutes and will definitely be starting next year!  Are you really going to consider a team that already has 4 PG's on the team, and just signed another PG this season and signed one last season too?  At this other school you won't start till your Senior year, if at all!"    And as an extension of this thought, I also think it should be harder to sign multiple players at the same position in the same season.  If a team signs a PG, early in the signing period, wouldn't it often be less likely another PG would want to sign there too, so why do I often seem to end up in a recruiting battle for a kid with a team that already signed a recruit that plays the same position and has several more players ahead of them on the depth chart.  Most kids don't want to compete for minutes, especially at lower level schools.  Some discernment would help spread good recruits to more teams.

Also I've tried to grab transfers from D1 without much success due to the same issues.  A guy transfers after his junior year from a  D1 school after playing something like 3 mpg as a Junior.  If he's transferring now, you know he wants minutes.  Is he really going to sign with another same level D1 team that's going to bury him on the depth chart and is just signing him to avoid the walk-on hit?

So the changes I think would help would be more discernment from recruits, such as:

• The amount of players you have that play the same position should effect the recruits signing decision.  Should be easier to recruit a PG with only 1 other PG on your roster, as opposed to 4 (with some different levels based on the year of the players ahead of them - easier to recruit a PG with only a Sr. PG on the roster, as opposed to a So PG.).
  
  • It should be even harder to sign multiple players at the same position in the same signing period. 
  • With this I think there should be more of a weight on promised minutes/starts, and this should extend past just 1st year.  (you can promise a player he'll be a 3 yr starter, or play an average of 20mpg over career).

I think with this, it would help spread the good recruits among more schools, instead of the best schools being able to hoard and red-shirt, etc.

• A difference in preference for playing time/ability to be a star vs. winning.  Some guys (but not all) would rather put up 25ppg  on a C+/B-/B/B+  school then play 5mpg on an A-/A/A+ school.  Just like you can promise minutes, you should also be able to promise offensive distribution or off%, and these promises should extend past  the players 1st year.

With the extended promises going past 1st year (or the ability to promise for 1yr, 2yr, 3yr, etc.), it should also be tracked/rated like prestige, reputation, loyalty, home court, etc.  Recruits will know if you keep your promises to players or not, and your promises to recruits, combined with how reliable your promise is will help sway a recruits decision.

At the least I think promised minutes/starts should weigh more heavily on a recruits decision, and extend past the 1st year.

Just some of the changes an inexperienced noob thinks would help