Posted by jamespastine on 11/14/2011 1:02:00 PM (view original):
i agree with JBasnight on the recruit PT issue 100%. (and, i'm as guilty as anyone of stashing 5-star recruits at the bottom of my bench). i believe that since WIS has updated the recruit generation to create 800+ level recruits that can contribute immediately, they should also demand starts and minutes immediately.

Yeah its crazy that half these guys get stashed at the end of UNC/Duke/GT's bench and don't play 100 minutes all season, while at Kentucky, Ohio State, UConn, or any of a number of A- teams they would get a start and 20-25 minutes and be 2 year starters and then in the NBA. 

They should demand 20 mpg or else leave after 1 year.  THAT would actually really help things.

Posted by jslotman on 11/14/2011 9:32:00 AM (view original):
The good news is that Syracuse and Kansas somehow made it to the Elite Eight and are playing each other.  So I guess the non-ACC Allen coaches have a rooting interest.  Or something. 

Really though, I'm just peeved on a personal level because I'm consistently losing early entries whilst it seems Clemson and BC have 900+ rated seniors stick around on the regular despite superior postseason success. 

acn - I haven't noticed you being particularly active on the Allen ACC coaches corner during recruiting, so I suppose lumping the entire league save hoosierchap and viperhoops into the "colluder" category is a bit unfair.  Still, what happened in the ACC during last year's cycle (i.e., viper is scolded by a throng of ACC coaches for getting into a recruiting battle with another ACC coach) is definitely bordering on collusion, IMO. 

For the record js, I did not speak about viper's recruiting efforts until after the player was signed by viper.  By definition that is not collusion, but you may call it as you like though. 

reinsel the start and minutes really carry no weight and I agree with you it is a poor part of the sim.  None of the top players is willing to spend a year on the pine these days at least in the real world.

Posted by reinsel on 11/14/2011 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jamespastine on 11/14/2011 1:02:00 PM (view original):
i agree with JBasnight on the recruit PT issue 100%. (and, i'm as guilty as anyone of stashing 5-star recruits at the bottom of my bench). i believe that since WIS has updated the recruit generation to create 800+ level recruits that can contribute immediately, they should also demand starts and minutes immediately.

Yeah its crazy that half these guys get stashed at the end of UNC/Duke/GT's bench and don't play 100 minutes all season, while at Kentucky, Ohio State, UConn, or any of a number of A- teams they would get a start and 20-25 minutes and be 2 year starters and then in the NBA. 

They should demand 20 mpg or else leave after 1 year.  THAT would actually really help things.

I really like the idea of creating different playing time expectations for elite recruits - not just the standard expectations

and by the way - ACC incredible in Allen  6 of 8 in the Elite Eight......

Posted by hoosierchap on 11/14/2011 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jslotman on 11/14/2011 9:32:00 AM (view original):
The good news is that Syracuse and Kansas somehow made it to the Elite Eight and are playing each other.  So I guess the non-ACC Allen coaches have a rooting interest.  Or something. 

Really though, I'm just peeved on a personal level because I'm consistently losing early entries whilst it seems Clemson and BC have 900+ rated seniors stick around on the regular despite superior postseason success. 

acn - I haven't noticed you being particularly active on the Allen ACC coaches corner during recruiting, so I suppose lumping the entire league save hoosierchap and viperhoops into the "colluder" category is a bit unfair.  Still, what happened in the ACC during last year's cycle (i.e., viper is scolded by a throng of ACC coaches for getting into a recruiting battle with another ACC coach) is definitely bordering on collusion, IMO. 

For the record js, I did not speak about viper's recruiting efforts until after the player was signed by viper.  By definition that is not collusion, but you may call it as you like though. 

I specifically called you a non-colluder.  Sorry if that was lost in translation. 

No problem. 

Well I think the group had some good ideas.  I'll summarize:

1)  Less weight on Conference Prestige in Team Prestige
2)  EEs should be based on player ratings
3)  NT/PT money should be made less at D1 or per scholarship money made more
4)  Elite (~top 25-30 overall) recruits should expect to play right way
5)  Promises at D1 should carry more weight
6)  Recruit generation should create less 900 level studs and more 800 level usable players.

Personally, I think all of these save #4 and #6  would be easy to implement and have a big effect in preventing uberconferences from dominating a given world, which is unrealistic and no fun.  I'm fine with conferences getting 7-8 NT berths, just not 7-8 Sweet 16 berths. 

I thought somebody mentioned it, but top tier recruits should have a minimum amount of effort needed before they will consider you.   Say like $2000 per star or something.   That might force big schools to spend more on players close to campus that other teams wouldn't battle for because they were at a distance disadvantage.  Forcing them to spend more to get the stud leaves them less likely to steal recruits from mid majors that don't get the same access to tourney cash. 

Posted by milkamania on 11/15/2011 11:16:00 AM (view original):
I thought somebody mentioned it, but top tier recruits should have a minimum amount of effort needed before they will consider you.   Say like $2000 per star or something.   That might force big schools to spend more on players close to campus that other teams wouldn't battle for because they were at a distance disadvantage.  Forcing them to spend more to get the stud leaves them less likely to steal recruits from mid majors that don't get the same access to tourney cash. 

This is another good idea.  I can regularly sign 4* guys for $2500 and I do use that to poach people.

You forgot #7 - Operation Cobra.  We can take this offline. 

Posted by reinsel on 11/15/2011 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Well I think the group had some good ideas.  I'll summarize:

1)  Less weight on Conference Prestige in Team Prestige
2)  EEs should be based on player ratings
3)  NT/PT money should be made less at D1 or per scholarship money made more
4)  Elite (~top 25-30 overall) recruits should expect to play right way
5)  Promises at D1 should carry more weight
6)  Recruit generation should create less 900 level studs and more 800 level usable players.

Personally, I think all of these save #4 and #6  would be easy to implement and have a big effect in preventing uberconferences from dominating a given world, which is unrealistic and no fun.  I'm fine with conferences getting 7-8 NT berths, just not 7-8 Sweet 16 berths. 

I like all of these.  Some time back I'd mentioned making it V-E-R-Y tough (and expensive) to sign 5-star guys without promises of PT and/or start. 

Another aspect I'd like to see is if a team has a strong player already then it would be tougher to recruit another kid at that position.  Make it so a recruit looks at the roster and responds they like the team but would really like to go somewhere that they could contribute right away--make the coach spend more to overcome this reluctance and/or make promises to reassure the kid that the coach really wants the player, not just depth.  And have the recruits also look and see who else is being signed in their class...if you have 3 top-25 PGs on the hook make them all a bit leery of who is really "the man", and maybe when 1 signs make the others react with needing more effort to convince them to come.  In the meantime, this reluctance by recruits will help schools who are trying to build and are willing to offer PT and/or starts to bring in a stud.

Make the promises stick--breaking promises might result in a player leaving at end of season (or even mid-season?).  There must be consequences for making promises that are not kept.

Allow promises for sophomores--like in GD--so that a kid who won't start in year 1 but would in year 2 can be recruited.

But don't make it so you can't overcome these issues, just make it tougher (and more expensive).  This will tend to spread the talent around and make coaches consider harder who they want to go after, especially for the top kids who want to play right away.

I would be against something that would cause a player to look at your depth chart and determine how easy or difficult it would be to recruit them.

I would estimate over 80% of my teams have a player starting at a position other than his listed position.  

If you promise a start to two PGs then they both should expect to start, not just expect to start only at their listed position of PG.  

Posted by Iguana1 on 11/15/2011 2:42:00 PM (view original):
I would be against something that would cause a player to look at your depth chart and determine how easy or difficult it would be to recruit them.

I would estimate over 80% of my teams have a player starting at a position other than his listed position.  

If you promise a start to two PGs then they both should expect to start, not just expect to start only at their listed position of PG.  

Iguana, I didn't say that the kid would have to start at their position, as I agree you may often play a kid out of position.  I do think that having the 4 and 5 star kids expect to play immediately (and be harder but not impossible to recruit if you can't promise that) is reasonable.  To me that would (a) allow mid-majors (and majors trying to perform like majors) to bring in better talent to compete, and (b) force top schools to dig a bit deeper to find some kids who will develop and provide their depth (albeit this may take away some of the kids currently going to mid-majors).

Of course, if EE's are increased proportional to talent then the top programs probably will be willing and able to offer said promises...

Am I crazy for thinking that "Promises at D1 should carry more weight" would have a nasty cascading effect on D2 teams going after pulldowns?

This would be a step or two removed from the BCS conferences but if a D level program gets into a battle, wouldn't they just need to set aside a sliver of the budget in case they lost and throw a simple 10 minute promise at a ranked player that was looking at a D2 school instead?

Posted by kujayhawk on 11/15/2011 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Am I crazy for thinking that "Promises at D1 should carry more weight" would have a nasty cascading effect on D2 teams going after pulldowns?

This would be a step or two removed from the BCS conferences but if a D level program gets into a battle, wouldn't they just need to set aside a sliver of the budget in case they lost and throw a simple 10 minute promise at a ranked player that was looking at a D2 school instead?

Maybe, but shouldn't a player rather play 10 minutes on a D1 team than sign with a D2 team?

How many Human D1 vs. D2 battles are there anyway?  I've got to think its not very many.  Plus most D1 humans wouldn't want to really play the guys they are battling D2 for.  They are probably RS candidates.