no doubt - I am pretty sure I could do the same - but it is less easy than b4 - fewer coaches exist who can post the type of success you guys are talking about than could before - but still possible, you betcha - but changes in this game can change the overall dynamic in unintended places and ways - which is what happened in this case

one more thing, in d1, if I was challenged to make the NT with a D type prestige school, I would  pick both a populated with recruits area like california, texas, nt or carolinas and a empty conference, if I was the only human that would be ideal - it is a stats thing - the odds of making the NT go up big time if you are the only human in the conference.  But, if the goal was to win it all, I might pick both an unpopulated conference and area - like daalter did with montana - for my guess - but either way - I would rather play alone with 11 sims in low end d1 if my goal was to make the NT.

Now, I know I fall on the other side of the recruit generation argument as OR, billy, daalter and many others (but on the same side as Anton), but here's the thing regarding prestige:

Right now in Smith, for example, there are about 15 teams that ever have a chance at winning a NC.  No one else really has a chance.  Every so often one drops out or someone new moves up, but this has been about the status quo.  Every year, 12 of the top 13 RPIs are A+'s.  And it's these few teams that pull in nearly all ~50 of the top tier recruits -- that's why things never change. 

Now: if it was much harder to become an A+ -- let's say there were only 4 -- then those teams would still pull in top-50 recruits: but that would leave 35 left for the B+'s - A's.  The results?  There would still be dominant teams, but only 4 instead of 15.  And the rest of the wealth would be spread amongst 20-40 other schools, wherein competition would allow those teams to rise or fall, and a good coach could put together a squad composed of a few 5-stars with solid 3-stars and role players so as to compete successfully on the big stage.  Add in that these lower-level schools will be less likely to lose EEs than the top 4 schools, and you have a very competitive environment, where the very cream of the crop still has some advantage -- which is I think a pretty ideal situation.  And -- it doesn't involve changing recruit generation. 

I don't think the problem is the recruits, though that is still a separate issue and can still be debated.  Regardless, I think the real problem is the ease with which an A+ can now be achieved.

jeff -

my side to what you wrote would be that no change was made to how prestige was calculated, yet there is now a glut of A+'s - hence something else has to be at fault other than how prestige is calculated.

further the glut of A+'s correlated near 100% to the creation of imbalanced recruit generation - and the near stated goal of uber recruits was to create a 'gap' between players - when I was trying to convince seble way back when that he got it wrong, one thing I told him is the best recruiters are going to gobble up those 800 level players like an 8 year old with Halloween candy.

your fix is sort of like giving one a labodomy (change prestige calculation) for a broken arm (recruit generation) - sure the pain will go away - put why not just fix the broken arm - especially when we have near 10 years of history that the old recruit generation pattern resulted in decent levels of competition.

That's a very good point. 

Here's my question -- before the new recruit generation, there was a big clamor for superstars; impact players who could play in their first year, rather than the old status quo of guys getting very little PT until their junior year.  The argument, if I recall, was to make it more like RL, and it wasn't a bad argument.  In all, I thought impact players were a good idea -- and to make them true "impact" players, they have to be significantly better, and there have to be few of them.  So: might it be that 2 changes were required at that time -- new recruit generation, and a simultaneous change in the calculations for prestige?  And if they were both done then, maybe we'd have an even better HD than we did before?

Sort of like treating a pulmonary embolism due to deep venous thrombosis simultaneously with both urokinase to break up the current clot, as well as a Greenfield filter to prevent further embolization (for those who like medical analogies :) ).

jeff - I think it is just as likely (note, not more likely) as more A+'s would fix things as well as fewer - if indeed the goal is to spread those epic players around more.  If a person breaks his arm, fix the broken arm .... typical of our health system .... you've now scheduled heart surgery for our patient - LOL

one more thing - we now have had a year, minimum 10 worlds 7 seasons or 70 seasons, as far as I know, not a single uber frosh has won a title as the team's best player, most uber frosh are low distro starters or rotational guys or even deep reserves on uber teams - the change has just damaged the next layers of teams, pretty much all of them - the trade off is staggering as far as the effect on the human coaches - and the change did not even accomplish its goal - by the way - one of my last tickets to seble we discussed this - his answer was uber players will impact teams as soph's and juniors and seniors, it was never his intent to have them star as frosh.

ok - enough from me - sorry for the rant - too bad oldave isn't around ranting anymore - it made the rest of us seem a little more normal!

I think that they started to try and create more impact freshman before the most recent recruit changes by increasing the variability in IQs a recruit showed up with.  I think they could have gone further with that - have recruits coming in with A IQs, rather than greatly increasing the spread in skill level between top recruits.  On an off topic notice, I think how IQs are done is a little ridiculous - most good coaches can install zone or trap packages in a few days and have their team be servicable at it, here we need to practice it for a full season before a level of competence is reached.  But I digress.

On prestige, I don't think it is the number of 'elite' programs is necessarily the problem.  14 doesn't sound too far out of line with real life - I think the biggest problem with prestige is the way that baseline can artificially prop up or depress prestige.  But ultimately, it doesn't really matter that there are 14 A+ programs, even if prestige is adjusted so there are only 5, then those others will be come A prestiges, the current As will drop to A-, etc.  There will still be that split, so rather than 14 A+ programs signing all the elite recruits, it will be 5 A+ programs and 10 A programs - leaving the same top tier to dominate.

Apologize for not reading the whole discussion here, gents, but I agree with OR that recruit generation is the root of the problem, not baseline prestige.  Also agree that it seems way too easy to jump from say, D2 up to a Big Conference job.

Also agree with worthy's point that prestige bumps for draft picks should be eliminated.  I actually see the logic of it in theory, but in practice it seems like too much of a reward for teams to have a subpar season but get a prestige bump because they had three guys drafted.

Posted by oldresorter on 7/1/2011 10:44:00 AM (view original):
one more thing, in d1, if I was challenged to make the NT with a D type prestige school, I would  pick both a populated with recruits area like california, texas, nt or carolinas and a empty conference, if I was the only human that would be ideal - it is a stats thing - the odds of making the NT go up big time if you are the only human in the conference.  But, if the goal was to win it all, I might pick both an unpopulated conference and area - like daalter did with montana - for my guess - but either way - I would rather play alone with 11 sims in low end d1 if my goal was to make the NT.

Well, when I was at Montana, I was actively recruiting people to join the Big Sky every season. We were the most populated conference outside of the BCS -- for a couple seasons I think were were totally filled, otherwise we were generally at 9-10 humans. It was a very competitive conference (Southern won a title, Sac State and Idaho State were usually in the NT, Jackson State and Weber often were, E Wash could be counted on for the PIT, etc.

I would just get too bored playing in a conference full of sims. No interest in that, not even as a means to an end (i.e. trying to make a deep postseason run).

1) I'm content (it ain't perfect but it's close enough) with how hard/easy it is to move a schools prestige. 
2) I like the current recruit generation method as it seems to mirror the real life talent spread. (Though this has harmed HD as a game as per OR statements)

Combine 1) and 2) and you have "When everyones an A+, no one's an A+".

I propose that at the end of the season, right after prestige is calculated, all schools are then graded on a curve. -- Something like only 5 @ A+, 6 @ A, 7 @ A-, you get the idea. No change required to recruits. No change required to prestige. Just an additional line(s) of code that. I believe, solves the problem. 

Posted by jenningss on 7/2/2011 2:31:00 AM (view original):
1) I'm content (it ain't perfect but it's close enough) with how hard/easy it is to move a schools prestige. 
2) I like the current recruit generation method as it seems to mirror the real life talent spread. (Though this has harmed HD as a game as per OR statements)

Combine 1) and 2) and you have "When everyones an A+, no one's an A+".

I propose that at the end of the season, right after prestige is calculated, all schools are then graded on a curve. -- Something like only 5 @ A+, 6 @ A, 7 @ A-, you get the idea. No change required to recruits. No change required to prestige. Just an additional line(s) of code that. I believe, solves the problem. 

The current recruit generation set-up most assuredly does not mirror real life. You look at the often enormous talent discrepancy between 5- (and some 4-) stars and nearly everyone else in HD, and it's not even close to that in real life. Not by a long shot.

Posted by oldresorter on 7/1/2011 12:05:00 PM (view original):
jeff -

my side to what you wrote would be that no change was made to how prestige was calculated, yet there is now a glut of A+'s - hence something else has to be at fault other than how prestige is calculated.

further the glut of A+'s correlated near 100% to the creation of imbalanced recruit generation - and the near stated goal of uber recruits was to create a 'gap' between players - when I was trying to convince seble way back when that he got it wrong, one thing I told him is the best recruiters are going to gobble up those 800 level players like an 8 year old with Halloween candy.

your fix is sort of like giving one a labodomy (change prestige calculation) for a broken arm (recruit generation) - sure the pain will go away - put why not just fix the broken arm - especially when we have near 10 years of history that the old recruit generation pattern resulted in decent levels of competition.

Well put, OR.