I still think a minor tweak to NT money is needed.

At D3, its 3k a scholarship, 3k for a NT game.
At D2, its 5k a scholarship, 5k for a NT game.
At D1, its 15k a scholarship, 20k for a NT game.

I think that making a scholarship worth 20k or a NT game worth 15k at D1 would certainly improve things.

The PT #'s at all levels are each about 1/3 of a scholarship's value, which is fine.

How does new recruit generation work and why is it problematic?

is it that number and quality of recruits is based on number and quality of openings? kind of seems that way - and that would be really bad in my opinion.

Here's the reality.  In both RL and in HD, a coach who is doing really well at a mid-major is not going to win a title until he makes the jump to a Big 6 team (yes, exceptions are possible).  But that's the deal.  Earn your way to the Big 6 and then compete for a title. 

Now, that means there have to be Big 6 slots to move into.  I'm not aware of a single year where there were no Big 6 spots open, but it is also true, that there aren't that many.  Firing logic has to be improved, both to give bottom feeders a longer time if they are building a good team and to hold a top team accountable and not let them out of the doghouse solely because they have one good season.

Finally, if you are going to increase firing, you have to make it easier for a bad Big 6 coach to have a shot back -- make them more competitive for mid-level DIs if they are fired from a top job (see Lavin, Steve) and a coach that flails out at Purdue or Wazzu needs a shot at a good mid-major.

Posted by lakevin on 9/19/2011 8:38:00 AM (view original):
Here's the reality.  In both RL and in HD, a coach who is doing really well at a mid-major is not going to win a title until he makes the jump to a Big 6 team (yes, exceptions are possible).  But that's the deal.  Earn your way to the Big 6 and then compete for a title. 

Now, that means there have to be Big 6 slots to move into.  I'm not aware of a single year where there were no Big 6 spots open, but it is also true, that there aren't that many.  Firing logic has to be improved, both to give bottom feeders a longer time if they are building a good team and to hold a top team accountable and not let them out of the doghouse solely because they have one good season.

Finally, if you are going to increase firing, you have to make it easier for a bad Big 6 coach to have a shot back -- make them more competitive for mid-level DIs if they are fired from a top job (see Lavin, Steve) and a coach that flails out at Purdue or Wazzu needs a shot at a good mid-major.

Just because it is real life doesn't mean it's best for HD.

I think making HD like RL is not an admirable goal. RL has plenty of flaws, if you can recruit and coach a team in the Big Sky conference, and a bunch of other coaches want to join the Big Sky and recruit and coach teams the, the BigSky should be able to become the HD version of the ACC if they can. Wanting o immolated Big 6 conferences is a silly goal.

Ps, I had iPad autocorrect

Hate

actually, wanting to immolate big 6 conferences might be an admirable goal...

Posted by dacj501 on 9/22/2011 2:21:00 AM (view original):
actually, wanting to immolate big 6 conferences might be an admirable goal...

At the rate we're going in RL - WIS is going to have to do some realignment! 

Seriously...my Colorado team is in a conference in WIS that might not even exist, much less be the one its supposed to be in.

I'm kind of in the hybrid camp here.  I think recruit generation stinks, but I also think that tying recruiting bucks (and prestige!!!!) to conference success also stinks. 

Yeah, I think each team should have a baseline, but that it should be independent of conference.  I mean, the Big 10 is good in basketball, but Penn State sucks.  Or any of a number of examples.

The ACC's baselines are obviously unrealistic (as many have discussed before).  And really, when UCLA was winning all of those titles back in the 60's and 70's, did it make Stanford any better?  Or has UConn's last 20 years of pretty good teams somehow made Seton Hall a better program? 

Posted by reinsel on 9/22/2011 5:29:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I think each team should have a baseline, but that it should be independent of conference.  I mean, the Big 10 is good in basketball, but Penn State sucks.  Or any of a number of examples.

I wouldn't say completely independent of the conference, but I would say less dependent than the current model.

Posted by girt25 on 9/22/2011 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 9/22/2011 5:29:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I think each team should have a baseline, but that it should be independent of conference.  I mean, the Big 10 is good in basketball, but Penn State sucks.  Or any of a number of examples.

I wouldn't say completely independent of the conference, but I would say less dependent than the current model.

+9999999