Is the new recruit generation causing more battles for the very best recruits? If the answer is ...

No) Probably not good. Hierarchy of prestige may be too (edit/sp.) dominant and/or stable.

Yes) Then good? Top teams spend more for the very very best recruits because of battles. Teams that are ranked, say, #21through #64 have a greater opportunity to settle for just the 15th best player at a position. A roster stocked full of 15th best players at each position will repeatedly make the tourney. Sometimes they will be out in the 1st round and sometimes make deep runs -- probably to lose in a round of 8 against a Kansas who has 3 or more of those very best players.

Anyways, and I know I'm probably in the minority here, I think the new recruiting change actually makes it easier to build a midmajor program. At least to the point of repeated tourney appearances. But getting into the "promised land" where UCLA, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas type programs reside is near impossible. I think that is how it should be and tends to reflect real life pretty well.    

One other thing...

By definition a mid major team is in a mid major conference. In HD (there are exceptions, of course) conferences like this send few teams to the tourney. Given a few years a lot of us coaches can build a program to be one of the top 2 or 3 teams in a mid major conference (usually the top one). Not saying someone like me is good, just the better coaches tend to move up. 
  The goal in a mid major conference is to be the dominant power. With patience this can OFTEN be achieved. Coaching stability in a real life midmajor program is rarely achieved, seems true in HD as well. But when it happens good things result (usually). Just sayin.

Posted by Lizak on 9/5/2010 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Moy - the fall of Rome was an example of how it's never easy to see the decline of something while you are in the middle of it, it's just with hindsight that you can look back and say, it was on the decline.  Only in the rare cases where something is really screwed up will you see a dramatic change (the mass exodus that was being discussed).

I would have thought that was clear when read in context.  You sure wouldn't try to change the context because that was an easier argument to win would you?

Actually I was just being playful with my response but with some seriousness as well. Personally I wasn't in Rome back when it fell so I don't know if they saw it coming or not ;)

I don't see this change as the downfall to hd. I wish I had the real numbers to prove or disprove this.

Posted by jenningss on 9/5/2010 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Is the new recruit generation causing more battles for the very best recruits? If the answer is ...

No) Probably not good. Hierarchy of prestige may be to dominant and/or stable.

Yes) Then good? Top teams spend more for the very very best recruits because of battles. Teams that are ranked, say, #21through #64 have a greater opportunity to settle for just the 15th best player at a position. A roster stocked full of 15th best players at each position will repeatedly make the tourney. Sometimes they will be out in the 1st round and sometimes make deep runs -- probably to lose in a round of 8 against a Kansas who has 3 or more of those very best players.

Anyways, and I know I'm probably in the minority here, I think the new recruiting change actually makes it easier to build a midmajor program. At least to the point of repeated tourney appearances. But getting into the "promised land" where UCLA, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas type programs reside is near impossible. I think that is how it should be and tends to reflect real life pretty well.    

OK jenningss, I'll bite -- how does the new recruiting change make it easier to build a mid-major program looking for repeated NT appearances?

I think he's saying -- and I agree -- that in a mid-major conference, everything is relatively equal prestige-wise.  Therefore, a good coach should be able to rise to the top -- as opposed to Lizak's situation of getting to UVA, and then never being able to crack Duke/UNC/MD.  But win your mid-major conference, and you're in the NT.  I don't think he's arguing that this team will then be competing for national titles -- just that you can get a midmajor to regularly appear in the NT.  And of course then, you have the choice for continuing like that indefinitely, or trying to make the jump as Lizak did to the BCS where, as jenningss points out, it's almost impossible to get to the promised land of UCLA, Duke etc.  
Which is just like RL.

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, but I don't think the recent recruiting changes are at all responsible for what you describe -- and that's what I was asking jennings about. 

What jeff said... and girt, I do not think the recent change made it possible. But I do think it made it more set in stone for the mid major to be good in conference and be a repeat tourney team.  Earlier I said it made it easier and that is probably incorrect, I like my "set in stone" reference better.

Oh. And language gets in the way. Sometimes I think coaches say mid-major program and, to me, it seems they are referring to bottom BCS teams. When I say mid-major I mean a team from A-10, Mountain, etc.

By the way, Washington State football sucks. No wonder I follow Gonzaga basketball out in these parts!

OK, thanks for the clarification.

But I'm still not quite understanding why the recent changes made it more "set in stone" for the mid major to be good in conference and be a repeat tourney team. I actually think it's just the opposite, but I'm curious to hear your rationale.

Posted by professor17 on 9/1/2010 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by udm_mike on 9/1/2010 12:11:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem could be drastically reduced if they lessened the effect of baseline prestige.  Not sure if this would be doable, since it'd be different affects for different worlds, but I'd like to see baseline prestige go closer and closer to zero in each subsequent season after the 1st.  So the affect in Wooden would be negligible, but the affects in Tark/Phelan would still carry a little bit of weight.  Just my 2 cents.

Lessening it is one thing. Bringing it down close to zero over time is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction, IMO. A game where Duke and the ACC have zero inherent advantage over Lehigh and the Patriot League is just too far a departure from reality. Might as well get rid of real team names and conferences altogether if you do that. A big part of the appeal of the game to me is climbing the ladder to get better and better jobs. That pretty much goes away if all schools become equal in terms of baseline prestige.

Giving teams like Duke, North Carolina, and Kentucky more prestige because of who they are is the furthest from reality. Those teams earned their prestige, it was not given to them. Right now, the game copys real life. We should make it mirror real life by taking away all baseline prestige and let teams earn their prestite.

I have problems with baseline prestige but I accept that it represents more than just on the court performance.  It also represents all the other things that separate Duke or UK from Lehigh.  Things like money and commitment from the school and area.

Let's face it.  When a recruit is brought into UK for a visit, it's a lot different than when the same guy is brought into Lehigh.  The facilities alone are probably enough  to sell a kid on UK even if he's lived under a rock for the past 18 years of his life.

The prestige gap is much more difficult to overcome than it used to be. At B- Providence, I spent $80k on a single recruit, but never came close against A+ St. John's, which spent just over $40k on an equidistant recruit. In other words, I would have to spend well more than double to beat a team 1 1/3 grades higher for a recruit. That's a huge gap even inside a BCS conference. The gap could be worse for a mid-major and seems too much, in my opinion.