Suggestion for the small school prestige problem

[BigT34]

I think we've all gone, "oh boy, here we go again" as we hit year 5 or 6 of our dynasty and North Texas from the mighty Sun Belt conference has risen to 5-star prestige and is signing top-10 class after top-10 class. If you're like me, you go in and handicap them, but that gets tedious.

The bottom line is that schools not in the major BCS conferences are inherently limited in their recruiting. There just aren't THAT many recruits who want the AXA Liberty Bowl to be the pinnacle of their season. In Rivals.com class of 2004 rankings, the highest rated class of a non-BCS conference school was USF at #43. And, keep in mind, USF coaches could probably sell the fact that, by the class' second season in the program (RS-frosh or sophomore year), the Bulls WILL be playing in the BCS-affiliated Big East. The next-highest ranked class belonged to San Diego State at #46, followed by TCU at #55. All three schools went head to head and beat the likes of Pittsburgh, UF, FSU, Oregon State, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas Tech, etc. for some recruits, and each school signed at least one four-star kid. But, on the whole, they were severely limited. It's also no coincidence that the top-3 classes came from schools in what are far and away the most talent-rich states in the country, by almost a 2-1 ratio to the #4 state Georgia.

The previous year it was the same story, with Louisville leading the way at #35, followed by SDSU at #48 and UCF at #52. Again, Florida and California are present.

Okay, now here's my idea to remedy this problem: Assign each conference a maximum prestige for each team. Any member of a BCS conference can attain the maximum prestige rating of 6 stars. From there, the top two non-BCS conferences are likely C-USA and the MAC. Those schools can attain a 3-star prestige maximum, and perhaps that can be applied to the WAC or MWC as well. Low-end conferences like the Sun Belt have a max of 2-stars. These schools will still be able to sign some decent players, as I pulled in a #20 rated class once at 2-star USF--a 22 man class comprised entirely of Florida players. But, this should prevent schools like North Texas and UTEP from suddenly signing the 4/5-star players in Texas. If those kids don't go to in-state Texas, TAMU, or TT, they MIGHT go to Baylor, but are more than likely going to head out of state to someone like Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, or FSU.

Another possible solution, or perhaps way to compliment this, is to have the bowl you reach help determine your prestige. For instance, if TCU were to pull a miracle season and actually make a BCS game, I could see their recruiting taking a big leap forward in the coming years. So, if a school from a lesser conference somehow makes a major BCS game, their prestige MAY be able to jump to 4-stars, at least for a couple of years.

IMO, this will really help re-create the feeling of coaching in a smaller conference. You and your opponents all have the same limitations, and you have to go and evaluate talent much more carefully. A decent player can no longer take Rice and turn them into a 5/6-star powerhouse--instead he can only take them so far. The end result is that it keeps the games within your conference reasonably competetive, and the talent difference between the ACC or SEC and someone like the WAC is still very obvious.

Thoughts?

[Brandwin]

Good post man I agree something like this def needs to be included, maybe they have this yr? We can only hope

[Lintyfresh85]

Quote:

---

BigT34 said:
I think we've all gone, "oh boy, here we go again" as we hit year 5 or 6 of our dynasty and North Texas from the mighty Sun Belt conference has risen to 5-star prestige and is signing top-10 class after top-10 class. If you're like me, you go in and handicap them, but that gets tedious.

The bottom line is that schools not in the major BCS conferences are inherently limited in their recruiting. There just aren't THAT many recruits who want the AXA Liberty Bowl to be the pinnacle of their season. In Rivals.com class of 2004 rankings, the highest rated class of a non-BCS conference school was USF at #43. And, keep in mind, USF coaches could probably sell the fact that, by the class' second season in the program (RS-frosh or sophomore year), the Bulls WILL be playing in the BCS-affiliated Big East. The next-highest ranked class belonged to San Diego State at #46, followed by TCU at #55. All three schools went head to head and beat the likes of Pittsburgh, UF, FSU, Oregon State, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas Tech, etc. for some recruits, and each school signed at least one four-star kid. But, on the whole, they were severely limited. It's also no coincidence that the top-3 classes came from schools in what are far and away the most talent-rich states in the country, by almost a 2-1 ratio to the #4 state Georgia.

The previous year it was the same story, with Louisville leading the way at #35, followed by SDSU at #48 and UCF at #52. Again, Florida and California are present.

Okay, now here's my idea to remedy this problem: Assign each conference a maximum prestige for each team. Any member of a BCS conference can attain the maximum prestige rating of 6 stars. From there, the top two non-BCS conferences are likely C-USA and the MAC. Those schools can attain a 3-star prestige maximum, and perhaps that can be applied to the WAC or MWC as well. Low-end conferences like the Sun Belt have a max of 2-stars. These schools will still be able to sign some decent players, as I pulled in a #20 rated class once at 2-star USF--a 22 man class comprised entirely of Florida players. But, this should prevent schools like North Texas and UTEP from suddenly signing the 4/5-star players in Texas. If those kids don't go to in-state Texas, TAMU, or TT, they MIGHT go to Baylor, but are more than likely going to head out of state to someone like Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, or FSU.

Another possible solution, or perhaps way to compliment this, is to have the bowl you reach help determine your prestige. For instance, if TCU were to pull a miracle season and actually make a BCS game, I could see their recruiting taking a big leap forward in the coming years. So, if a school from a lesser conference somehow makes a major BCS game, their prestige MAY be able to jump to 4-stars, at least for a couple of years.

IMO, this will really help re-create the feeling of coaching in a smaller conference. You and your opponents all have the same limitations, and you have to go and evaluate talent much more carefully. A decent player can no longer take Rice and turn them into a 5/6-star powerhouse--instead he can only take them so far. The end result is that it keeps the games within your conference reasonably competetive, and the talent difference between the ACC or SEC and someone like the WAC is still very obvious.

Thoughts?

---

So lets say that you are one of the small schools do only 3 star recruits and lower appear to you when recruiting or is like only the 5 star guys with interest and below appear. Like I could see this working but how would you explain to a user wanting to play as one of those schools that no matter what you do you will never be good enough for these types of players.

[BigT34]

no....

it would work just as the prestige system did in 2004. Every team had a prestige rating, from 1 to 6 stars. The best teams, who had finished in the top-5 multiple years and played for an MNC or two, had 6-star prestige ratings. TONS of blue-chippers were interested, just as in real life. The worst teams had 1-star prestige, and could really only get major interest from in-state recruits who weren't that highly rated.

Teams in the 3 star range got mostly in-state kids interested, including the occassional 4/5-star in-state blue-chipper, and a few out of state kids--JUST LIKE schools like USF and TCU do right now in real life.

My suggestion relates to those school prestige ratings, not individual recruit ratings. It would then still be possible to get an occasional big time recruit, such as TCU's James Battle or Louisville's Michael Bush (or that other top-flight QB they signed this year whose name escapes me) or SDSU's Lydell Hamilton, but they wouldn't start competing with the big boys for EVERY major recruit.

As for selling this to the people who want to coach those schools--how is that hard? it's a more accurate representation of real life. Personally, i will PROBABLY be playing at smaller schools, since I enjoy the challenge, and this idea has a ton of appeal to me. I don't WANT to be able to sign top-10 recruiting classes to a program like San Jose State or Hawaii.

[coogrfan]

Quote:

---

Superstar said:

Quote:

---

BigT34 said:
I think we've all gone, "oh boy, here we go again" as we hit year 5 or 6 of our dynasty and North Texas from the mighty Sun Belt conference has risen to 5-star prestige and is signing top-10 class after top-10 class. If you're like me, you go in and handicap them, but that gets tedious.

The bottom line is that schools not in the major BCS conferences are inherently limited in their recruiting. There just aren't THAT many recruits who want the AXA Liberty Bowl to be the pinnacle of their season. In Rivals.com class of 2004 rankings, the highest rated class of a non-BCS conference school was USF at #43. And, keep in mind, USF coaches could probably sell the fact that, by the class' second season in the program (RS-frosh or sophomore year), the Bulls WILL be playing in the BCS-affiliated Big East. The next-highest ranked class belonged to San Diego State at #46, followed by TCU at #55. All three schools went head to head and beat the likes of Pittsburgh, UF, FSU, Oregon State, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas Tech, etc. for some recruits, and each school signed at least one four-star kid. But, on the whole, they were severely limited. It's also no coincidence that the top-3 classes came from schools in what are far and away the most talent-rich states in the country, by almost a 2-1 ratio to the #4 state Georgia.

The previous year it was the same story, with Louisville leading the way at #35, followed by SDSU at #48 and UCF at #52. Again, Florida and California are present.

Okay, now here's my idea to remedy this problem: Assign each conference a maximum prestige for each team. Any member of a BCS conference can attain the maximum prestige rating of 6 stars. From there, the top two non-BCS conferences are likely C-USA and the MAC. Those schools can attain a 3-star prestige maximum, and perhaps that can be applied to the WAC or MWC as well. Low-end conferences like the Sun Belt have a max of 2-stars. These schools will still be able to sign some decent players, as I pulled in a #20 rated class once at 2-star USF--a 22 man class comprised entirely of Florida players. But, this should prevent schools like North Texas and UTEP from suddenly signing the 4/5-star players in Texas. If those kids don't go to in-state Texas, TAMU, or TT, they MIGHT go to Baylor, but are more than likely going to head out of state to someone like Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, or FSU.

Another possible solution, or perhaps way to compliment this, is to have the bowl you reach help determine your prestige. For instance, if TCU were to pull a miracle season and actually make a BCS game, I could see their recruiting taking a big leap forward in the coming years. So, if a school from a lesser conference somehow makes a major BCS game, their prestige MAY be able to jump to 4-stars, at least for a couple of years.

IMO, this will really help re-create the feeling of coaching in a smaller conference. You and your opponents all have the same limitations, and you have to go and evaluate talent much more carefully. A decent player can no longer take Rice and turn them into a 5/6-star powerhouse--instead he can only take them so far. The end result is that it keeps the games within your conference reasonably competetive, and the talent difference between the ACC or SEC and someone like the WAC is still very obvious.

Thoughts?

---

So lets say that you are one of the small schools do only 3 star recruits and lower appear to you when recruiting or is like only the 5 star guys with interest and below appear. Like I could see this working but how would you explain to a user wanting to play as one of those schools that no matter what you do you will never be good enough for these types of players.

---

I like the idea of prestige limits for certain teams, and I also agree that the "North Texas syndrome" is a problem. But consider the dilemma that EA faces. On the one hand, they are trying to make a (fairly) realistic simulation of college football. But a truly realistic sim would have at most 30-40 teams (large state schools and possibly Notre Dame) who have any shot at ever winning the national championship. Imagine how much that would tick off the fans of the have-nots.

Perhaps if EA were to add prestige limits for conferences they could make them something that could be turned on or off, like the salary cap in Madden?

[BigT34]

I considered saying that the prestige-limits could be turned on or off--if you don't like 'em, simply don't play with 'em.

[Greenevol]

I think that would actually be a great idea.

After about 3 or 4 seasons at MTSU, i was routinely landing 5 star players from FLorida, New York, PA, etc. In real life, it's dang near impossible for MTSU to land those players under any circumstance. I know i could handicap myself, but thats no fun.

I do think you'd have to have some way to turn it on and off, or perhaps fine tune the conference realignment system where if you had a school that had some amazing 6-7 year run, a larger conference would come knocking at the door (which is realistic), and then you could up your prestige level.

Its a good idea, but would probably be tough to implement and alot of folks would be turned off by it.

[BigT34]

the conference mobility is another good idea. Just take USF for example. Six (or so, i'm not entirely certain) years ago, they had no football program. Then they started at 1-AA, played a couple of years, and then moved up to 1-A for either the 2001 or 2002 season. By 2003 they had joined C-USA, and in 2005, they will join the Big East full-time.

Same thing goes for FAU--they played two years at 1-AA, and they're playing a full Sun Belt conference schedule this year as they move up to 1-A. I wouldn't be at all shocked if they were a member of C-USA or even the Big East in 10-15 years.

I like this idea primarily because I LIKE to play at the smaller schools, and I don't want to have unreasonable success. To me, it's no fun having a team full of blue-chippers--I can win every game against all but top-5 teams, and even a loss there is uncommon. I prefer to manage my personnel, spent tedious time recruiting, and maximize my player's abilities. this year with things like transfers, athletes, and the ability to change a player's position, what I love about the game just got a lot deeper.