Fine. Replace Kentucky with Rutgers. You think Rutgers being in the B10 doesn't give them more money to scout and recruit than Jacksonville St? Its because teams in their conference are really good and they get a nice slice of that money they help bring in with their postseason success (not to mention TV deals).

Are you seriously arguing this?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):
"If it needs to be real life, then I guess people need to be given more money and AP for scouting and recruiting since they may have to make up for an EE. See how that works?"

Huh? No, I don't see how that works. Are you saying, when a kid leave KY early, that KY is gifted more money to find a replacement?

The point made Mike is in real life schools are not restricted to their scouting/recruiting budget based on how many scholarships they have open. Schools may budget an allocation to the coaches/athletic department, but they are only restricted based on what the school will allow, and by reasonable expectations. I'm sure Kentucky doesn't say, well we have 12 scholarship players, so we won't grant you any recruiting money for scholarships that aren't open. What they likely say is well we know 4 of our 5 starting freshman are probably declaring for the draft, how much money do you need to recruit their replacements?

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 6/4/2017 3:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 12:09:00 AM (view original):
Adding conference cash back in is an awful idea. The game doesn't need to go back to hacks and cheats and secret handshakes. The incentive to play in a tough conference is good RPI and tournament seeding, and the subsequent prestige boost, provided you can stay afloat. That's how it is in real life, that's how it should be in the simulation. If you need more "incentives", you're looking for something that a simulation is not and should not be designed to provide.

If the only thing the recruiting cash was allowed to be used on was scouting, then secret handshakes mean nothing. Anything you would accomplish under that system you can accomplish now, because actual recruiting money wouldn't change. As far as your assumption on needing a tough conference for RPI and seeding is a joke. I have 2 teams alone in conferences in which I seed just fine (top 5 seed is pretty regular) and each of them maintain an A+ prestige.

You talk out of 2 side on these issues. At one point you'll say the game needs to be more like real life, and other times the game needs to be more like a sim. If it needs to be real life, then I guess people need to be given more money and AP for scouting and recruiting since they may have to make up for an EE. See how that works?

I think you should remember the goal for the company should be to create something that incentivizes users to want to keep playing, and in a lot of cases, being part of a conference does that. I originally joined a power conference for that bonus recruiting cash, but enjoyed the relationship built with those other coaches over time. Enough so to prevent me from quitting the game a few times when I grew tired of the game. Point being, an incentive to create power conferences is a good thing if done correctly.

If you don't think adding conference cash back in the game is going to be an advantage if just limited to scouting, then what kind of incentive are you talking about? I don't make assumptions. Read through it again, and take another stab at paraphrasing what I actually said before you respond. I said "The incentive to play in a tough conference is good RPI and tournament seeding." Nowhere is it stated or implied that it's "needed"; just that it helps. Like real life. The corollary is that strong conference is already built into preferences for players.

I use the same principle in every discussion. A game simulation based on a real life sport should feel like whatever the game is simulating, with allowance made for competitive and non tedious gameplay. I should feel like a college basketball coach recruiting players and game planning, but without the tedium and redundancies. I shouldn't feel like I'm playing poker or eBay or maths. Every proposed change is run through that filter for me. If it makes the game feel more real without adding tedium, or removing competitiveness, then I'll support it. If not, no thanks.

Your assumption is that the additional conference prestige and NT seeding is enough incentive for coaches to band together to create a strong conference, and I'm saying, that it is not. The reason it is not, is because you can accomplish NT seeding without a strong conference, and just as much as conference prestige matters, so does team success amongst many other factors. Stronger conference may reduce your ability to maintain a strong program (based on records) and strong conference may or may not be a factor in recruiting the player.

Understand I'm not saying it's not an advantage, but in the end, it is not an advantage impacting another person's ability to compete for a recruit. The only difference is you can scout more players, but you still have to beat out the other coaches who likely have the same recruit scouted. The prior way conference cash was handled did mean you would be at an actual recruiting disadvantage.

I'm not even going to touch your statement on your principle, because apparently you are playing a different game than everyone else. This game isn't even close to simulating real life. Rewarding for a strong conference being one of those.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Wait.. you think the incentive to play in a big conference isn't about money in real life? Ha.

Money for the university, ok. Money for more scouting, no.

Um yes. You're telling me that the travel budget for recruiting at Grambling St is the same as Kentucky?

You think the facilities at Valparaiso are just as good as Duke?

bigger conference equals more money for your athletic program.

If they're going to make budget about the teams performance and history, now we're getting somewhere. But that's not what we're talking about. Duke and Kentucky don't have the budget they have because of the ACC or SEC, and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State.

Conference strength and team prestige are factors that already have representation in the process. They don't need your proxy.

This is a flawed statement at best. There are lots of bad programs who ease the pain of being bad by remaining in a power conference and collecting all that extra money. There are plenty of bad program who have great facilities simply because they are in a tough conference. Just because the school gets the money, does not mean a lot of it does not go back into the athletic departments.

Posted by poncho0091 on 6/4/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/4/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):
"If it needs to be real life, then I guess people need to be given more money and AP for scouting and recruiting since they may have to make up for an EE. See how that works?"

Huh? No, I don't see how that works. Are you saying, when a kid leave KY early, that KY is gifted more money to find a replacement?

The point made Mike is in real life schools are not restricted to their scouting/recruiting budget based on how many scholarships they have open. Schools may budget an allocation to the coaches/athletic department, but they are only restricted based on what the school will allow, and by reasonable expectations. I'm sure Kentucky doesn't say, well we have 12 scholarship players, so we won't grant you any recruiting money for scholarships that aren't open. What they likely say is well we know 4 of our 5 starting freshman are probably declaring for the draft, how much money do you need to recruit their replacements?

We aren't "running" athletic departments.

Real life schools are restricted by a few things. One is how much revenue they have at hand. Which, we know, would make a horrible simgame if UNC had 48 times as much as UNC-Greensboro. Another is how much the AD will allocate to the program. And, as previously noted, we aren't running ath depts.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Fine. Replace Kentucky with Rutgers. You think Rutgers being in the B10 doesn't give them more money to scout and recruit than Jacksonville St? Its because teams in their conference are really good and they get a nice slice of that money they help bring in with their postseason success (not to mention TV deals).

Are you seriously arguing this?

Do you think Rutgers gets the same scouting budget as Michigan State?

Yes I'm seriously arguing this, because conference cash was removed for a reason, and inserting it back in to this game is a bad idea. Conference strength and team prestige are already part of the process. Your proposed proxy is unnecessary, and without the context of and the full gamut of university economics, is neither realistic nor good competitive gameplay.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Fine. Replace Kentucky with Rutgers. You think Rutgers being in the B10 doesn't give them more money to scout and recruit than Jacksonville St? Its because teams in their conference are really good and they get a nice slice of that money they help bring in with their postseason success (not to mention TV deals).

Are you seriously arguing this?

Do you think Rutgers gets the same scouting budget as Michigan State?

Yes I'm seriously arguing this, because conference cash was removed for a reason, and inserting it back in to this game is a bad idea. Conference strength and team prestige are already part of the process. Your proposed proxy is unnecessary, and without the context of and the full gamut of university economics, is neither realistic nor good competitive gameplay.

According to this site, Nebraska spent way more money on basketball recruiting than Michigan State. Yes, the basketball powerhouse of Nebraska spent the 3rd most in the B10. Wow!

Regardless, you said you wanted real life. This is the way it works in real life. Teams in power conferences spend 2 to 3 times as much as small schools.

if you think that is bad for HD, fine. But don't say you want realism then.

should also point out that it says Rutgers spent more on recruiting than Wisconsin and Indiana.

Look how much more money the big conferences brought in than small conferences.

Rutgers, Nebraska and all the other crappy big conf schools get a slice of the pie and put quite a bit back into athletics thereby giving them a huge advantage over the little guys.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Fine. Replace Kentucky with Rutgers. You think Rutgers being in the B10 doesn't give them more money to scout and recruit than Jacksonville St? Its because teams in their conference are really good and they get a nice slice of that money they help bring in with their postseason success (not to mention TV deals).

Are you seriously arguing this?

Do you think Rutgers gets the same scouting budget as Michigan State?

Yes I'm seriously arguing this, because conference cash was removed for a reason, and inserting it back in to this game is a bad idea. Conference strength and team prestige are already part of the process. Your proposed proxy is unnecessary, and without the context of and the full gamut of university economics, is neither realistic nor good competitive gameplay.

According to this site, Nebraska spent way more money on basketball recruiting than Michigan State. Yes, the basketball powerhouse of Nebraska spent the 3rd most in the B10. Wow!

Regardless, you said you wanted real life. This is the way it works in real life. Teams in power conferences spend 2 to 3 times as much as small schools.

if you think that is bad for HD, fine. But don't say you want realism then.

should also point out that it says Rutgers spent more on recruiting than Wisconsin and Indiana.

Busting out that Duke of Obfuscation title conferred to you, I see.

First, no. I didn't say I "wanted real life". If I wanted real life, I'd go into coaching in real life. I want the game to feel like college basketball recruiting and game planning, as long as it's not tedious, and is competitive. That's what I said. Look it up.

Second, no. What you are proposing is not "how it works in real life". If it was, I'd be behind it, as long as it wasn't tedious, and kept gameplay competitive. You are proposing that teams in the same conference get to spend the same amount of dollars in scouting. Saying that's "how it works in real life" is ridiculous. What you're doing is trying to sell this as a proxy for conference strength, as if that's not already part of the process.

Rutgers spends more in recruiting (again, different from what you're proposing) than other schools because it has to in order to stay (get) competitive. As Mike has pointed out, we are not running athletic departments. That's an institutional choice. If the game developers want to add the full athletic department experience into the game, then we'll assess. If it stays competitive and non-tedious, I'm sure I would support it.

But that isn't what you're doing.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Fine. Replace Kentucky with Rutgers. You think Rutgers being in the B10 doesn't give them more money to scout and recruit than Jacksonville St? Its because teams in their conference are really good and they get a nice slice of that money they help bring in with their postseason success (not to mention TV deals).

Are you seriously arguing this?

Do you think Rutgers gets the same scouting budget as Michigan State?

Yes I'm seriously arguing this, because conference cash was removed for a reason, and inserting it back in to this game is a bad idea. Conference strength and team prestige are already part of the process. Your proposed proxy is unnecessary, and without the context of and the full gamut of university economics, is neither realistic nor good competitive gameplay.

According to this site, Nebraska spent way more money on basketball recruiting than Michigan State. Yes, the basketball powerhouse of Nebraska spent the 3rd most in the B10. Wow!

Regardless, you said you wanted real life. This is the way it works in real life. Teams in power conferences spend 2 to 3 times as much as small schools.

if you think that is bad for HD, fine. But don't say you want realism then.

should also point out that it says Rutgers spent more on recruiting than Wisconsin and Indiana.

That's football...

my proposal was to add a little bit of money to scouting budgets in an effort to encourage fuller conferences.

what an off the rails idea that was!

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/4/2017 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Fine. Replace Kentucky with Rutgers. You think Rutgers being in the B10 doesn't give them more money to scout and recruit than Jacksonville St? Its because teams in their conference are really good and they get a nice slice of that money they help bring in with their postseason success (not to mention TV deals).

Are you seriously arguing this?

Do you think Rutgers gets the same scouting budget as Michigan State?

Yes I'm seriously arguing this, because conference cash was removed for a reason, and inserting it back in to this game is a bad idea. Conference strength and team prestige are already part of the process. Your proposed proxy is unnecessary, and without the context of and the full gamut of university economics, is neither realistic nor good competitive gameplay.

According to this site, Nebraska spent way more money on basketball recruiting than Michigan State. Yes, the basketball powerhouse of Nebraska spent the 3rd most in the B10. Wow!

Regardless, you said you wanted real life. This is the way it works in real life. Teams in power conferences spend 2 to 3 times as much as small schools.

if you think that is bad for HD, fine. But don't say you want realism then.

should also point out that it says Rutgers spent more on recruiting than Wisconsin and Indiana.

That's football...

Ah ****. I had a basketball one.

well the Rutgers point still stands cause they're bad in football too. Much worse than Wisconsin.

Wisconsin gets all the fat white guys from Wisconsin by default. The parents feed 'em cheese and play the WI fight song from birth.

Ah here we go

not sure what Auburn is doing. Blowing a lot of dough for little return.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 7:07:00 PM (view original):
my proposal was to add a little bit of money to scouting budgets in an effort to encourage fuller conferences.

what an off the rails idea that was!

A simple, easy fix would be to make "Strong conference" preference the KING of PREFERENCES!!!!!

IOW, all the other preferences are ******* when compared to Strong Conference.