Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

On reflection, that is a great point and spot on Awags. It would be pretty boring to have all levels exactly the same. I would really be interested in your thoughts on improving 1A (or the game in general).

nitros

I think updating the conference alignments to their current state would be nice. I also agree with the idea of elites changing over time.

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

A dynamic Elite system would keep that mechanism intact but add a fun element to incentivize coaches to overachieve at their non-Elite.

Posted by gt_deuce on 4/22/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

A dynamic Elite system would keep that mechanism intact but add a fun element to incentivize coaches to overachieve at their non-Elite.

13 worlds with Temple, Rutgers and BC as elites? Sounds dynamic.

Elite Colorado and Minnesota

So I just spent $34k on a recruit from an average BCS team (8-10 win, ranked 30-40 recently) and was behind on the scholarship offer versus an elite. I didn't have enough to engage further, so I wrote him off. 2 cycles later he signed with me lol. The other team apparently filled it's scholarships, so he signed with me.

So my $34k wasn't even enough to win over what was apparently a back-up player for this elite lol. Never seen anything like this before.

it's also possible the elite made a mistake and thought he was behind and didnt have any more money so he signed a backup when he didn't need too.

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

On reflection, that is a great point and spot on Awags. It would be pretty boring to have all levels exactly the same. I would really be interested in your thoughts on improving 1A (or the game in general).

nitros

This sounds like a great subject for a podcast. Hopefully we have more of them soon.

Posted by gt_deuce on 4/22/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

A dynamic Elite system would keep that mechanism intact but add a fun element to incentivize coaches to overachieve at their non-Elite.

I really wish they would make elite status 100% performance based allowing any team to get top tier status.

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 7:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 4/22/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

A dynamic Elite system would keep that mechanism intact but add a fun element to incentivize coaches to overachieve at their non-Elite.

13 worlds with Temple, Rutgers and BC as elites? Sounds dynamic.

Sure, you're going to get some teams that would settle into Elite status and never leave - such as Penn State, Rutgers, Temple and BC. But you'd see teams like Georgia/Dobie come (and go) into or out-of the Elite ranks.

The Dynamic aspect is independent of who achieve the status. The Dynamic comes from the opportunity for Elites to change over time. Whether or not coaches seize upon that opportunity is purely up to their determination.

Posted by gt_deuce on 4/24/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 7:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 4/22/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by awags on 4/22/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nitros on 4/22/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Tangent: I really think two changes to 1A would make it much, much more interesting for me personally:

1. Elites change over time.
2. Playoffs.

nitros

Here is why I disagree. We have that in the three other levels already. The differences in each level is what keeps them interesting to me.

A dynamic Elite system would keep that mechanism intact but add a fun element to incentivize coaches to overachieve at their non-Elite.

13 worlds with Temple, Rutgers and BC as elites? Sounds dynamic.

Sure, you're going to get some teams that would settle into Elite status and never leave - such as Penn State, Rutgers, Temple and BC. But you'd see teams like Georgia/Dobie come (and go) into or out-of the Elite ranks.

The Dynamic aspect is independent of who achieve the status. The Dynamic comes from the opportunity for Elites to change over time. Whether or not coaches seize upon that opportunity is purely up to their determination.

A more randomized recruit allocation would help to negate some of that. Part of the reason that Penn State, Rutgers, et.al. are perennially so good is they are in a recruit-rich area. If there were seasons where there were a good crop of recruits in Colorado/Wyoming/Montana and less "stars" in the east it would help to even some of that out.

We just had a Big East IA discussion in Leahy concerning prestige edge. My comment was "if I knew that 5k from Penn State equaled 100k from non elites, it would be insane for anybody else to compete. If the edge isn't that big then how big is it?" yankee301 thought it might be as high as 2-1. Ebel331 responded, " 2 to 1 is completely wrong. 5k to 100k is funny. Team's recent history plays a big roll. If you take over a rebuild your prestige sucks and hurts your recruiting efforts, which has nothing to do with elites. also BC is not an elite team" Now ebel is a great coach, (and probably a very good recruiter) But how could he know what the recruiting edge is when there is no transparency? Maybe he would be so kind as to describe recruiting battles he won against Elites when he was a Non Elite. How much $ did he spend? How can he know what the Elite spent? I wonder if the guys that win almost all of their recruiting battles really outspend their rivals. With recruiting transparency, If someone beats me in a recruiting battle where I spend 80k and he spends 65k, at least I would have an idea what the edge is.