I'm the last person to bring this up, but I am anyway simply because I'm a bit amazed by what's happening in Allen this season and it has me thinking.

While I've never made the jump to D1, I have been following most of the forum threads that talk about the problems with recruit generation.  Every now and then, somebody suggests that the conference recruiting money is also a problem and they get quickly slammed for bringing that up because prior to the change in recruit generation mid-majors could successfully compete with BCS level programs.  That suggestion/rejection happened again today in the post regarding the WIS update.

Like I said, I'm in no position to really know what's going on but I wonder if in worlds like Allen the problem with recruit generation has tipped the scales so much that now the conference bonus monies are problematic. 

We are 19 days into the Allen season and right now the top 3 conference RPIs are:

1. ACC .6638
2. Big Ten .6288
3. Big 12 .6250

The ACC is on pace to shatter the all time record.   The Big Ten would move into a tie for #5 all time and would be #1 for non Allen ACC conferences.  The Big 12 would be #8 on the all time list.

Those numbers will probably change a bit by season's end but this isn't a RPI fluke after 7 games.  Those numbers have been holding steady.

Getting to 14 wins might be a problem to be NT eligible but if the season ended today, all 12 ACC teams make the NT.  10 make it from the Big 12.  And 9 make the NT from the Big 12 for sure and they would maybe get 11 depending on how many at large bids were available.

The amount of recruiting dollars these conferences are going to get is going to gigantic.  Not to mention the prestige advantages these conferences have now built with several seasons of the "new" recruit generation in place.

Is it still *just* the recruit generation that is broken?  Or has that problem exacerbated other inequities to where fixing that wouldn't really fix much about how top heavy the BCS conferences are these days?

I'm just throwing the question out there as I sit back and admire (is that the right word?) what is going on right now in Allen from my little corner in the D3 world and wonder if those three conferences are going to be able to get all 36 teams into the NT next season.

those rpis will all likely sag in the course of conference play - still it is remarkable. 

The Big Ten is working on a proposal to move ACC Allen to the NBA.

I have to think that those are going to come down more than you suspect but those are remarkable numbers.

I've heard in the past a few idea's for changing recruiting money, they make sense, but in the end I don't feel any of them actually fix the problem. 

The best idea that I have seen posted (sorry for whoever posted this, I don't remember who it was!) had something to do with schools not getting $15k per scholarship but a set money amount based on how many open 'ships, basically each additional opening gave a school less on a per ship basis. I believe it was something like 20k for 1, 35k for 2, 45k for 3, etc. (those numbers are likely off).

Another thing I have always wondered is why doesn't the team who wins the NT Championship game not get 1 more games worth of monies for their conference? 

Like I said in the other thread, I am alright discussing the possibilities of what effect this could have if changed (and whether or not it would help) but I don't think this gets anywhere near the root of the issue at D1. To get to the bottom of that issue I think we need to soft cap player rating caps, once you get that no growth next email, instead of getting 1 more point for the players entire career, be able to get two or three points a year at 20 practice minutes (obviously work ethic would also be a factor).

I've heard in the past a few idea's for changing recruiting money, they make sense, but in the end I don't feel any of them actually fix the problem.

I tend to think that's the case and that's why I put problem in parenthesis in the thread title.

At the same time, I really wonder how the heck it is going to be possible to undo the "damage" that has been done in Allen in particular as a consequence of the recruit generation changes and the resulting departure of so many mid-major coaches.  Conferences are so lopsided right now that I really wonder what all the King's horses and all the King's men could do to remedy things.

Last year (in real life), the Ivy League had a .499 RPI and fourteen conferences had RPIs of .5000 or better, with the best being the Big East at .5796.

Allen has the six power conferences - and no others - over .5000.  The Pac 10, at .5897, is also better than the RL Big East.

Also this.

The fact is that low/mid DI teams were extremely successful before recruit generation changed ... and we had the exact same recruiting cash set-up. It's been demonstrated over and over and over and over that isn't a problem. There was far more success from non-BCS teams here than in real life before the change to recruit generation.

I don't have a problem with conference bonus money... that's earned by actual post-season performance. However, recruit generation does have to be fixed to bring some more parity to the game. And I think the baseline prestiges for the ACC are too high. The average baseline prestige of the ACC schools is nearly a full letter grade higher than the average baseline prestige of all the other BCS schools. That's huge, and too big an advantage, IMO. In Phelan, the ACC has pulled down close to $60K per team in bonus money each of the last two seasons, and have near complete control of that world. 

Recruiting is totally unrealistic in HD anyway. It is very unrealistic that a team like (real life) Kansas or North Carolina can not compete with a California school for the best talent on the West Coast.

We really need to do something different than spending the most money and being lucky enough to be close means you automatically get the #2 player because he is 40 miles from your campus.

John Calipari has no issues getting a top 5 recruit from North Carolina, Georgia, Washington state, etc.

Distance from your campus should not be the main factor in getting a recruit.

I think a better idea is not "distance" but regions ... and even then, reduce the impact of cash. And, you need credit for pipeline schools (you got 3 guys from California in the last 3 years ... so California guys might want to play for you, etc.).

There are so many more things that can be done than just more cash and closer to campus.

zhawks, the reason you don't get extra money for winning the NT Championship is that the whole point is to simulate conference bonus money from postseason play, which is actually based on number of games played.  There isn't another game after that, which means no extra revenue is generated, which means the conference (and team, in the real world) don't get any extra money for their athletic departments.  Although realistically the boosters would probably chip in a ton of extra after a championship.

Posted by girt25 on 9/9/2011 4:40:00 PM (view original):
The fact is that low/mid DI teams were extremely successful before recruit generation changed ... and we had the exact same recruiting cash set-up. It's been demonstrated over and over and over and over that isn't a problem. There was far more success from non-BCS teams here than in real life before the change to recruit generation.

dalt,

You always point to the past that the extra recruiting cash is not the problem.  You are right-  the extra recruiting cash amplifies the problem of low/mid major teams competing for recruits that can actually win in the tournament. 

but evening out the recruiting pool to pre-change distribution would go a long way towards correcting the cash issue. The reverse would not happen. Regardless of cash, the BCS schools are still going to get the top tier guys based upon prestige alone, even if cash were evened out. If there isn't that huge disparity, you go back to mid-majors having a chance.     

Evening out the recruit distribution would provide more talent for non-Big 6 schools (Big 2 or 3 in most worlds). However, if WiS continues to insist on keeping this recruit distribution, then the bonus money needs to be significantly reduced (by 50-75%, I think). With the current pool of recruits, each school from dominant conferences should not be able to land multiple stud recruits.

Hughes jr, you're suggestion may make things more realistic, but it would make the current situation worse.

It's not about the recruiting pool. There's one team in one of those monster conferences that has won a total of one nt game in 14 years, yet the school still holds a B+, and continues to mooch off the conference in general, getting 40k plus bonus cash each year. I believe that if you can't perform at a big 6 school, after your first 4 years, you should get fired....much quicker than it's happenning.

I believe reinsel has alluded to the tournament cash at DI.  He stated that each DI NT game was worth $20k where an open scholarship was only worth $15k.  At DII and DIII these amounts are equal (I have not checked this, but reinsel generally knows what he is talking about).  I am not sure that the cash really matters as the conferences getting the most now will continue to have the same advantage.  Thus continue to sign the best players.  Which is what girt is basically saying.

I agree that it should be more difficult to stay at a job in a top conference, but the real problem is encouraging coaches to take on the sim dominated schools in the mid-majors and give those schools a shot at advancing in the NT.  Right now getting to the second round is about all they can hope for and even that is highly doubtful due to the gap in talent from the BCS schools.

DI would be better with more human coaches.  It seems to me that the only way to encourage coaches to take them on is blow up the SIM teams and fill them with better players.  Why would you want to take on a mid-major when you have little chance of advancing to a top conference and there are no vacancies unless someone decides to quit? 

Perhaps the upcoming changes will solve the major problems, but I am not holding my breath as the last major change basically ruined DI.