8/21/2011 1:51 PM
Posted by mldynasty on 8/21/2011 1:49:00 PM (view original):
I stopped giving a damn when this stopped being whatifsports and turned into thisissports.
Actually, this about sums it up!
8/21/2011 8:57 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 8/21/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Really no point in continuing this discussion.  Mr. Mason is so obviously set in his line of thinking that no amount of reasonable discussion will ever change it.  I do think it's a bit humorous though, that nearly everyone who bothers to respond is in agreement on one side of the issue, but a handful of coaches who take the other side of the issue constantly tell everyone us that they're wrong.

As far as the remaining human coaches not fighting over what scraps of good players are left, Mason, if you honestly believe that then I really don't know what else to say.  What you might be missing is that it doesn't matter if the teams are in the same conference or not.  As long as two teams are human-coached teams fighting for the remaining scraps, then the same conference point is moot.
So what you are saying is that I should always agree with everybody else or else I'm doing something wrong? Sorry bub, I don't think like that. I don't have the need to agree with everyone just to fit in (not saying you do) and if I disagree with everybody else then I will let them know, and I have no fear of being alone in my argument.
8/21/2011 9:42 PM (edited)
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/21/2011 8:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/21/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Really no point in continuing this discussion.  Mr. Mason is so obviously set in his line of thinking that no amount of reasonable discussion will ever change it.  I do think it's a bit humorous though, that nearly everyone who bothers to respond is in agreement on one side of the issue, but a handful of coaches who take the other side of the issue constantly tell everyone us that they're wrong.

As far as the remaining human coaches not fighting over what scraps of good players are left, Mason, if you honestly believe that then I really don't know what else to say.  What you might be missing is that it doesn't matter if the teams are in the same conference or not.  As long as two teams are human-coached teams fighting for the remaining scraps, then the same conference point is moot.
So what you are saying is that I should always agree with everybody else or else I'm doing something wrong? Sorry bub, I don't think like that. I don't have the need to agree with everyone just to fit in (not saying you do) and if I disagree with everybody else then I will let them know, and I have no fear of being alone in my argument.
Is that what you got out of that post?  Really?  If so, you may want to read it again because that's not even close to what I said....bub.  Don't you think though, that when so many people (including some of the most successful and respected coaches in HD) are taking one side of an argument and so few are taking the other that maybe, just maybe, the majority side might be on to something?  Maybe?

You say that the new recruit generation wasn't given a chance.  Sometimes things don't need to be given a chance to know they're not going to work properly.  I could decide that I'm going to market onion ice cream.  Guess what, the public doesn't have to give it a chance to know it ain't gonna be any good.  New sport...uphill bowling.  Again, no need to give it a chance because it ain't gonna work...........

I think it's admirable to take a stance and fight for what you think is right, but sometimes there comes a point where a person just has to say, "Nope, I was off base on this one".  I'm more than willing to listen to both sides of this argument and form my own opinions and judgments.  Problem is, from where I stand, it's all been one sided thus far.  Like I said in the next post, I'm willing to listen....convince me!  :^)
8/21/2011 9:31 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 8/21/2011 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2011 6:25:00 PM (view original):

I can't say I agree emy. The more humans the better, regardless if it's BCS or not. It sucks that the way things are now it's tough to really prove that to be the case simply because there aren't enough humans in non BCS conferences. That Conference USA experiment will be interesting, I think they will do well, despite being in an area that is populated by BCS schools simply because they have good coaches. Same goes for the Mountain West in Tark as long as the group of coaches we have now stick together. The biggest reason I don't agree with that theory is the schools in the same conference aren't so close together that they are competing for the same recruits. For example at North Texas I will never compete with schools like BYU, Utah, UNLV and San Diego State for recruits, and BYU and Utah will rarely compete with UNLV and San Diego State. The schools are spread out enough that if the conferences are better, meaning getting more recruiting money they can sneak in and snatch an elite or near elite player from their region that if the conference was worse nobody in the conference would've gotten. Let's say there is a 3 star recruit that is 10 miles from North Texas and I sign him instead of a Big 12 team getting him but if North Texas was sim controlled a Big 12 team would get him.

OR, essentially I say recruit generation is the culprit for the downfall of non BCS conference but not for the reasons everybody else says. I strongly feel that recruit generation is fine, but the perception is that it's broken so people don't give it a chance. We all know how that old saying goes, perception is reality. There is 0 doubt in my mind that if say the group of coaches we had in the Big East all left this season and went to a mid major conference in 7-10 seasons we would consistently be a top 5 conference. We wouldn't be the best because of the inherent advantages BCS conferences have, namely baseline prestige but we'd give them a run for their money and we would from time to time send a team to the Final 4. Do you really think we wouldn't be able to OR? 

Maybe it would be better if I tried to explain it like this.  There are only "X" amount of quality recruits generated every season.  With the current amount of human-coached teams, a mid-major still has a chance to recruit enough good players to make the occasional deep tourney run.  However, if the number of human-coached teams were increased like you said, there would be even less quality recruits for low and mid-major teams to try to sign, thus diluting the talent on those teams even further.  Everyone agrees, the BCS schools are going to sign the best players, I don't think anyone is arguing that point.  However, more human coaches equals less quality players for the little guys.  Simple matter of ratios.

As far as your example about your conference overlapping and battling amongst themselves, you have a legitimate point there.  But if the Southland Conference and Big West Conference and West Coast Conference, etc. were full of human coaches like you wished, you guys more than likely WOULD be battling other human coaches for the leftovers.  More battles for the leftovers means two things: (1) fewer leftovers as it is, and (2) more money spent on battles leaving even LESS money to try to fill the remainder of a team's schollies.   Just something to think about.
I would like to hear your thinking on this post though Mason.  I just don't see how you can believe that with recruit generation as it is, that MORE human coaches would lead to deeper runs for low and mid-major teams.  I'm willing to listen though, convince me!!  :^)
8/22/2011 12:11 AM (edited)
kmason, you also haven't really explained why you think the new recruit generation isn't problematic. You've repeatedly stated you think it's not, but haven't really offered anything to support that position.

The fact is that the number of recruits who could develop into good enough players to challenge/rival BCS players was very dramatically reduced. From a straight-up logic standpoint, how that could be anything but a major negative for low/mid DI schools is completely beyond me.
8/21/2011 11:42 PM
I tend to think that this (^^^) is the heart of the matter. The mid-range guys no longer have the potential to be very good or great (at D1). Meanwhile there are 800-level d3 players all over the place now (yeah yeah, it's an exaggeration, but they exist). It's really strange.
8/22/2011 10:49 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 8/19/2011 9:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 8/12/2011 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by milkamania on 8/12/2011 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Gill, if I may ask a yes or no question without making any judgements as I am fine with 2 teams in the same world as long as CS says it is within the rules.   If I am not mistaken, your 2 teams in Tark are Texas A&M and Kentucky.   The question is, do you ever FSS scout the same state with both schools?  Given that Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, etc can easily be recruited by both, I am curious.  Again, I don't mean to sound accusatory, as I said, I have no problem with it, but I am curious.  Same question would apply to anyone else with multiple teams in the same world?
milk - great question. and no worries - i am more than happy to explain my system and your question does not offend me in the slightest.

here is my policy - if my teams are so close that i have overlapping regions (where i have to scout the same state on both), i refuse to have them, because of the potential for unintentionally giving myself an advantage. so i maintain "safety" by following two simple rules:
1) never scout the same state on both schools
2) never recruit a player i have not scouted

other than internationals, this means that i cannot possibly use information from one school to benefit the other. even if i was recruiting with say UK, and looked at arkansas, i could notice a player and then end up scouting on a&m when i may not have done so. so, strictly speaking, even if i scouted say arkansas on both schools, i could have used information from one to the advantage of the other.

therefore, i segregate the states from the start. i don't want to reveal too much about my recruiting strategy but suffice it to say that i generally will check out the border states without FSS on either, and based on the scholarship needs and possibly who has been local recruits, i will decide who gets to scout those border states, and it may often be neither school.
I think this is a fair enough answer.  I wonder what the effect with your D2 team is though?  Having a D2 team in the southern part of Illinois and a D1 team in northcentral Kentucky must be difficult when it comes to not overlapping states when it comes to scouting.  If you were to tell us that you FSS some of the same states with your D2 team that you do with Kentucky, I think most people would agree that to be reasonable.  I also think most people would find it difficult to believe that you don't use some of the FSS information that you gain with Kentucky to help your D2 team (SIU, Edwardsville) in southern Illinois (I mean, they can't be more than a couple of hundred miles apart in the real world.  Would be awfully hard not to be looking at recruits in some of the same states, don't you think?).  If you don't, hey great, I applaud you.  If you do, well, I guess that's a whole different discussion.......
emy - what i described is my system for 2 teams in the same division.

i don't have a system like that for teams in 2 different divisions. it just seems totally unnecessary to me. i recruit overlapping states with my d2 team and kentucky every single season (as one would expect). i am not sure where the issue arises, where I would use FSS info from KY to benefit? but anyway, the states i scout on both straight away, i guess there can't possibly be an issue there. i suppose the concern is, would i see players for one team on the other? i guess its possible, as both view d1 recruits, but it just doesn't shake out that way. maybe its because its so hectic recruiting on 3 teams i can't remember a damn thing anyway? but im sure part of it is that on my d2 team, i never look at the top d1 recruits, as it is obviously a waste of time. and on kentucky, where all recruits are available, i sort by ratings view and therefore if i did see a player who is a good fit for d2, i really wouldn't even know it - not knowing the position ranking. unless the player was so good i would possibly sign him at kentucky. but it just doesn't really happen in my experience.
8/22/2011 11:20 AM
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2011 11:39:00 AM (view original):
Girt, I just don't buy the idea that non BCS schools don't have a chance at putting together a team that has a chance to compete. Like was posted a little earlier Illinois-Chicago made the Final 4 in Knight. If there were a few conferences in every world with 8+ humans I guarantee it would be a common thing to see a couple of teams in the Sweet 16, 1 in the Elite 8 and every few seasons 1 slipping into the Final 4.

100% reward points in D2 and D3, and people perceiving recruit generation as dismantling all chances mid majors have of competing are what caused the current situation not that mid majors actually have no chance.
kmason, this is kind of ridiculous. i agree that perceptions can run wild in this game and that people probably made the recruiting generation problem out to be a bigger problem than it really is/was. but there is still a recruit generation problem, there is no doubt about it. and the fact that there is some success today is totally meaningless. the point is, if you add 100 humans to the mid major pool, there wouldn't be a drastic uptick in the number of mid majors to break the top 10 and top 25 - and that, fundamentally, is the problem.
8/22/2011 11:45 AM (edited)
i hadn't read the last few pages when i made that post.

kmason, i think the heart of the matter is that you don't see recruit generation as flawed. the simple reality is, most people do. is there really a significant difference between "recruit generation is not broken but everybody thinks it is" and "recruit generation is broken"? i would argue if most people think its broken, it is, and there is no more to it. so i really don't think it matters much if you think recruiting generation is flawed or not - in the argument of why d1 population got crushed.

there is a different argument of, is recruit generation broken or not? i think there clearly is a problem. i believe you can see the issue by comparing real life recruits to d1 recruits. in real life, you could plot a talent curve, where you have # of people at a talent level against talent level. you would essentially have a sharp curve at the very high end of recruits - a small handful of recruits are truly much more talented than the rest. but after that, you have a nice smooth curve. like in any sport, there are a handful of standouts, but the limits of the human physique and the simple reality of how hard so many people are willing to work to be the best guarantees the status quo - a handful of standouts, with a gradually flattening curve the rest of the way.

the real life curve naturally limits the kind of problems we have in HD today. if a few schools ate up all the top recruits, they would dominate, but it would only be a few - maybe 2 or 3 schools - and then it would be a veritable free for all. the smallness of that set of players makes it difficult though, and usually, its going to be a smooth curve of teams by talent as well. of course, there would still be "tiers" of teams to some extent, NT quality teams, post season quality teams, etc, but as they are all recruiting in part of the recruit curve where it is smooth, gaps are smaller, build in advantages have smaller impact, and people are able to coach their way to success - not just those with dramatic advantage on the coaching side of things (i.e. it  is totally irrelevant if the current big east of tark or cusa of rupp succeeds). in short, a smooth recruit talent curve results in a smooth team talent curve.

in HD, you have a glut of talent at the top, then you have a sharper curve down, followed by the gradual flattening. the problem it creates is simple. like in real life model, if people are able to recruit only at the top, they will dominate. the problem in HD is, 15ish schools are able to do that. then, you have a sharp curve, followed by the smooth part. this is like the real life part. except you have added an echelon above with which roughly nobody can compete. in short, a far from smooth recruit talent curve results in a far from smooth team talent curve. theres a giant leap.

and if you take out those top 15 or 20 teams, what you are left with really does mimic the original real life curve. so you essentially may have a few teams who rise to the crop of those, who are able to pull in talent in the high echelons. but whether you have 40 other teams or 140 other teams, you still can only ever have a few who truly excel. i believe this is precisely the point emy is making. and i agree with it. of course, its not all or nothing, some "non big 15" teams do get "big 15 recruits" if you will, and there is some overlap. but not enough. by and large the effects described above hold true. lower divisions are a much better approximation of real life. and sure, you get dominant dynasties. but not 15 of them in 1 world (making none of them dynasties). you get a few who separate from the pack and then there is a lot to be had for "everyone else". so if "everyone else" is 50 schools or 150 schools there is still something to go around. obviously less - more competition always means less to go around. but enough :)
8/22/2011 11:55 AM
one more thing kmason. you have always fixated, at least in my eyes, on the idea that coaches could not adapt to "crappy looking" players. i think that is misguided. we would be fine with 80s in everything players being "good", if they truly were. but not when you look at 15 teams with players so good they make old style players look like d2ers. if you had kentucky and north carolina filling up on guys with 80s in everything because there were only 5-10 players in the whole country with 90s in everything, then mid majors would be fine with guys who look like current d2 or even d3 recruits. but you can't have the wild disparity on such a large scale.

if seble had truly created elite recruits, where there were only 5 to 10 guys who were a lot better than say the 100th best player, or remarkably better than the 200th best player, it would be fine. i would have no problem with a 80/80/80/80 sg if there were only a few teams with a guy enough better than i felt i had a major disadvantage at that position. but if a 80/80/80/80 sg means i have a major disadvantage to 20 teams, me nor any other coach will be find having 80/80/80/80 guys be the guys they hope to sign. it just will never happen.
8/22/2011 11:57 AM
Here is some data to help make Mr. BillyG's point.  Average recruit rating for the various ratings (by position, not overall)


Ranking   
1 to 5          775       
9 to 11       715                                  
24 to 26     614       
48 to 50     581       
74 to 76     564        
98 to 100   555       
124 to 126 533    
149 to 151  525      
174 to 176  516     
198 to 200   508     

As you can see, the #1-#5 guys are awesome, the #10 guys are good, and then everyone else sucks.  The gap between #10 an #25 on average is the same as #175 and #25.  That is the problem.

I don't have the power to go back to the old days, but I think the curve as MUCH MUCH MUCH more linear.  The #20 and #30 recruits that mid-majors could get were able to play against the #8 recruits the big guys got if they were a year older.  The #50 recruits that C level teams got were scary when a team had 6 seniors and 6 juniors, even playing a stacked UNC/Duke/UCLA if it was full of 6 freshman. 

That doesn't happen anymore because the top 20 players overall are 150 points better than the #25 players.
8/22/2011 12:12 PM
And that data was old (march 2011).  Here is the data for Allen for now.

1 to 5 = 759
9 to 11 = 672
24 to 26 = 601
48 to 50 = 565
74 to 76 = 547
98 to 100 = 536
124-126 = 508
148-150 = 518
174-176 = 506
198-200 = 491
8/22/2011 12:59 PM
Posted by reinsel on 8/22/2011 12:12:00 PM (view original):
And that data was old (march 2011).  Here is the data for Allen for now.

1 to 5 = 759
9 to 11 = 672
24 to 26 = 601
48 to 50 = 565
74 to 76 = 547
98 to 100 = 536
124-126 = 508
148-150 = 518
174-176 = 506
198-200 = 491
kmason, if you can look at these simple #'s and not see a problem ... wow.
8/22/2011 1:10 PM (edited)
Here is update with a slightly bigger sample from my other world.  (useless fact, Allen PG's SUCK this year as a group)

 1 to 5 = 769
9 to 11 = 689
24 to 26 = 612
48 to 50 = 569
74 to 76 = 551
98 to 100 = 536
124-126 = 518
148-150 = 517
174-176 = 505
198-200 = 491

I think my issue with this is that mid-majors get the 50-100 players (in general).  They are closer to the 175-200 D2 level than the 1-25 level. 

Assume Big 6 team with a #3, #10, #25 have an average of 690.
A little school with a #50, #75 and #100 recruit is at 552.
A D2 A+ school with a #150, #175 and #200 is at 504.

That should not be the case.  Either make the big boy down around 650 OR improve the little school to 575 or so.  The whole range from about 20 to 100 needs to go up 10 points or 15 points.

And crap I agree with Girt again :)
8/22/2011 1:43 PM
ranked position players 50 -200 are more or less interchangeable - I just had two recruits I liked recruiting with a A+ d1 school, that are considering a d2 school, I like those two recruits far more than other players even ranked in the top 50.

interestingly, now that d1 is so empty, I think it is easier again for human d1 low and mid major coaches to make the NT, opposite of what mason is saying.  The reason is there are dozens of near interchangeable top notch mid major level recruits floating around, the key is to find a conference you go 19-0 or 18-1 in 2 out of 3 seasons, and develop a strategy to win with mid level players, which is different that the strategy I would use with a A+ d1 school, at least when I am thinking straight.

Mid and low level coaches (I was a pretty good mid major coach at one point) don't always win because of a strong conference, some win because they get ridiculous overall records (like 28-1), then get over seeded in the NT, sometimes only having to beat 2 or 3 BCS powerhouses to win it all.  Still bad odds, but what I describe is the best play in the house for them IMO, it did OK for me at least.

billyg - the last season I coached at UCLA, i did a sort for a big man in California, a 480 guy popped up, I didn't think much of it, other than he was all green, and was tempting.  I was playing out some credits with my ryan account in the same world, not paying that much attention, but with my d2 school in the carolina's, the same 480 big man popped up on a sort, top of that list - I didn't take him with my d2 school - but my point to you is the crossover between high end d2 & all of d1 is more significant that you are making it sound.  I see players that catch my d1 eye getting scooped up by high end d2 programs all the time.

billyg - I have a few ideas to fix recruiting so that it is not so time consuming and so time dependent, prior to FSS, there were times even in d1 I probably spent maybe 10 minutes total on recruiting.  The game was not that dependent on recruiting back then, nearly any decent recruit would do, since you could 'mold' players into what you wanted anyhow. 

Finally, it is a false ntoion or forum fact that ratings were inflated in the very old days, I won a national title with a 12 scholorship wisc roster having a 686 team total at season's end, my starting 5 would probably not even have been rated higher than some of LM's second 5's in the modern game.  750 team totals for 12 scholorship rosters were the absolute high end back then.  Now 12 man teams run into the lo or even mid 800's, and 10 and 11 man rosters with a walk on or two are routinely still rated in the mid 700's.  The inflation of team ratings started with FSS and have not looked back, I don't think anyone wanted that back when all these changes were discussed.
of 19

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.