Recruiting: Proximity To Home Should Be *Highly* Valued

[Huckleberry]

I agree that distance should trump state or region. As an example, where do you think a 2.5-star prospect from Houston would go if his two scholarship offers were UTEP and La.-Lafayette if their academics and prestige were equal in real life? Little things like that are always present. Texas fends OU off better with Houston recruits than Dallas recruits. But A&M holds their own against Texas better with Houston recruits than Dallas recruits. That's not to say that state shouldn't factor in. There are always the small number of kids that value staying in state more highly than usual. These guys should be flagged with a "State Pride" icon. ;)

[Huckleberry]

Forgot to discuss Matt Stafford. Prized recruit from Dallas that chose Georgia. He falls into SkyDog's category 2. He also would apply to whatever recruiting ability coordinators have or affect. We can't get squat for QBs because our OC sucks.

[SkyDog]

UPDATE (Sorry to keep shattering your myths and preconceived notions...) 40 of the Rivals 100 have now committed. By my count, 21 have committed to in-state schools, 12 to "regional" schools (just a state or two away), and only 6 have made "national" commitments. I was a little generous with "national," too. I gave Stafford (Texas-->UGA) and Snead (Texas--FL) "national" status, when some might argue that they're staying in the South. Even the "national" guys are staying on the same coast... Stafford Snead Rolle (NJ-->FSU) Hebron (MD-->UGA) Tate (MD-->Auburn) Devlin (PA-->Miami) Note that no Southern boys are planning on heading up north so far. ;)

[Tim Plum]

Don't forget about the military schools, Army, Air Force, Navy they have recruits from all over the states because many are special appointees, not your standard fare of college recruit.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=Tim Plum]Don't forget about the military schools, Army, Air Force, Navy they have recruits from all over the states because many are special appointees, not your standard fare of college recruit.[/QUOTE] With all due respect, people don't go to the military academies for football reasons. There are no BCS visions held by any airmen, midshipmen, or grunts. But I think Skydog's analysis is on point. But I think you're ignoring a possible mitigating factor. The schools you mention almost always attract the better/best/most famous coaches and that does have a rather large impact. Like, do you think South Carolina's recruiting efforts were/will be enhanced by having two of the most accomplished college football coaches ever at the helm? Fairly sure Notre Dame's going to have an easier time getting recruits from California given the rings their head coach has and what he's been able to do with offense. While I agree that proximity to home can weigh heavily on a recruit's decision-making process, I don't think that level of realism would particularly benefit the game overall. If that's the case, then everyone should only play major programs in hotbed states if they want to consistently be successful. Building UConn (for example) into a perennial BCS title contender would be next to impossible. Non-hotbed state surrounded by other non-hotbed states in a really "bad" conference ("bad" in that it isn't the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, or ACC). I think a degree of randomness would alleviate the problem somewhat though.

[SkyDog]

[QUOTE=Remianen] Building UConn (for example) into a perennial BCS title contender would be next to impossible. [/QUOTE]I get the impression that is the way the game is intended to work, pretty much. It would be possible, just very unlikely and very difficult to do (kind of like in real life). I like the idea of spending 3-4 years at UConn, proving myself, then getting hired at a mid-tier school in a BCS Conference, taking them up to 8-3/9-2 level, then hitting the ceiling there, but getting a job offer at a top-tier program that has had a down year or two and therefore just fired their coach.

[dime]

there were some issues in beta with schools like TCU and San Jose St becoming top 10 schools...simply because of the distance logic giving them more quality TX and CA recruits than, say, arizona state or arkansas. that is why I'm not a fan of the idea that distance is the be-all and end-all when it comes to recruiting. program prestige and coach prestige are extremely important...kids want to be seen, and they want to be a high draft pick in the nfl. btw I saw that someone said texas and florida were both regional or in the south? what? recruits from each of these states hate each other...it's a great rivalry. I don't think they would tell you they have anything in common with the other, it's not like a kid from MS and a kid from AL.

[SkyDog]

[QUOTE=dime]there were some issues in beta with schools like TCU and San Jose St becoming top 10 schools...simply because of the distance logic giving them more quality TX and CA recruits than, say, arizona state or arkansas. that is why I'm not a fan of the idea that distance is the be-all and end-all when it comes to recruiting. program prestige and coach prestige are extremely important...kids want to be seen, and they want to be a high draft pick in the nfl.[/QUOTE]You're not paying attention to the data, then. Schools like TCU and San Jose State do not become Top 10 schools in real life, and players still massively favor staying in state. (Texas has like 9 players on their roster from out of state. UGA usually starts 10 players from Georgia on defense, and 8 on offense...I could go on...) If that's happening in the game, then there's an imbalance issue in the game--too many good recruits from the power states, not enough of them going to top-tier in-state or in-region schools, or something else. Take a look around college rosters, and Top 100 recruit lists, and you'll see what I'm talking about. HALF of even the elite players stay in-state. That's an irrefutable and unchangeable fact. What IS changeable is how the game handles this fact. With the last few betas, ARlie has done a great job of balancing the two issues. In case you haven't noticed, things have changed drastically in the last two weeks with regard to guys staying in-state and in-region. Things were awful a couple of weeks ago. I saw a UGA recruiting class with *ZERO* players from Georgia. They are *much* better now. I'm looking at a career run with the latest that is in 2016. Texas has 50 players from in-state. (They were having only like 15-25 a couple of weeks ago.) UGA has 47, with another 22 coming from in-region. Yet, TCU has finished no better than 10-3 and has an average CPU rank of 43 and Average prestige. San Jose is Below Average Prestige and an overall 66-59 record, SDSU is averagine finishing #55, FIU averages #87, etc. etc. etc. In other words, the game now has very close to the proper balance of most recruits staying home without having the lesser-tier schools in top-tier states becoming dominant. Works for me. :)

[dime]

yes, things have been tweaked because they needed to be. the recruit-rich states had too much talent and the smaller in-state schools were getting too good because of it. I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here. I still think that program prestige and coach prestige are very important. If Georgia/Texas was a middling school as they were in the Ray Goff/John Mackovic days, they'd still have a ton of in-state recruits, but the higher caliber ones would be going elsewhere (Bama/Miami). I'm not sure how that logic is implemented at the moment...

[TPBPlayer]

[QUOTE=SkyDog]I get the impression that is the way the game is intended to work, pretty much. It would be possible, just very unlikely and very difficult to do (kind of like in real life). I like the idea of spending 3-4 years at UConn, proving myself, then getting hired at a mid-tier school in a BCS Conference, taking them up to 8-3/9-2 level, then hitting the ceiling there, but getting a job offer at a top-tier program that has had a down year or two and therefore just fired their coach.[/QUOTE] In a game, this should not be next to impossible to do. It should take a good player and many, many seasons to accomplish, but you have to be able to do it if you want a fun game to play. It gets boring awfully quick if you can't take a tiny little school and try to build them into a powerhouse. Isn't that why we play these games for the most part? Who the heck wants to take USC or Miami or Texas everytime they play??? Who wants the game's landscape to look pretty much the same after 20 seasons? Don't we play these games to take our favorite teams to glory? To see which powerhouses fall on hard times? Besides Uconn is in a BCS conference and with the other mediocre teams in that league, it should be pretty easy, relatively, for them to become a solid top 25 team. After that, anything is possible. I realize UConn was just an example used in this thread, but still...

[MirageAg99]

[QUOTE]In a game, this should not be next to impossible to do.[/QUOTE] Why? This is one of the fun parts of games like this. I enjoy trying to make a RPG out of my game coaching career like Urban Myers. I want to see if I get myself into a situation I cannot succeed and find a job back at a lower tier school like O'Leary or Price guy. That's fun to me and I want it to be possible (if I'm good enough).

[dp68]

Great information Skydog. That is fantastic analysis.

[TPBPlayer]

[QUOTE=MirageAg99]Why? This is one of the fun parts of games like this. I enjoy trying to make a RPG out of my game coaching career like Urban Myers. I want to see if I get myself into a situation I cannot succeed and find a job back at a lower tier school like O'Leary or Price guy. That's fun to me and I want it to be possible (if I'm good enough).[/QUOTE] Both things can exist in the game at the same time. There will always be lower tier schools you can drop back down to, but others should have the option to take a tiny, unsuccessful school to national powerhouse status over the course of many many seasons. These text sims are games I strongly feel you need to be able to do things n them that might not seem realistic, such as taking a Duke, or Uconn or Buffalo to top 25 status and beyond.

[govols]

If you look at the big schools with a good talent in state. The Georgia, Florida, LSU's of the world. They mostly have instate kids. However, The high school talent in states like Tennesee is low. Here is a breakdown of Tennessee's last 4 classes 2002 - 25 signings -- 6 In-state 2003 - 22 signings -- 6 in-state 2004 - 24 signings -- 6 in-state 2005 - 26 signings -- 8 in-state So roughly only 1 in 4 kids are from Tennesse and many of those are roll players at best with the team. Frankly there is just not enough talent in Tennesse.

[Dunleavy]

when a recruit is considering factors, distance is more common then important. recruits in general have a common desire to stay closer to home. i think a core vaule, something like 5-7 out of 10, should be given to a majority of the recruits. i prefer miles to region, although i will concede there is a certain intangable to staying in state for a few kids, so maybe a sub-group with that state pride someone mentioned ;) but in general miles are more logical. i think we should drop the whole regions thing completely, replace it with a simple filter i.e. "all with in X miles" or all in these states i think you guys are underestimating the importance of power conferences, giving them some clout is realistic and practical and will solve TWO problems! for one it will cut down on kids leaving regions and secondly it will prevent too much talent going to smaller schools

[SkyDog]

[QUOTE=Dunleavy]when a recruit is considering factors, distance is more common then important. recruits in general have a common desire to stay closer to home. i think a core vaule, something like 5-7 out of 10, should be given to a majority of the recruits.[/quote]Yup. It seems that it pretty much works that way now. [quote]i prefer miles to region, although i will concede there is a certain intangable to staying in state for a few kids, so maybe a sub-group with that state pride someone mentioned ;) but in general miles are more logical. i think we should drop the whole regions thing completely, replace it with a simple filter i.e. "all with in X miles" or all in these states[/quote]Agree wholeheartedly, but I'm fairly certain we won't see that before BBCF2. It bugs the snot out of me that a kid from Gaffney, SC is more likely to go to Mississippi State or Memphis than he is to Duke/UNC/NC State, even though the latter three are much, much closer, but in a different "region." Same with kids from Southeast Texas being more likely to in the game to go to Oklahoma or Nebraska than LSU, which in real life gets kids from the Houston/Galveston area with regularity. And of course, don't even get me started about kids from my home area of West Central and also Southwest Georgia and their real-life propensity to pick the War Chickens over the Dawgs because Auburn is a good bit closer to home than Athens. UGA has, I think, three kids from the LaGrange/Columbus/Albany/Americus area, and Auburn has around 8-10. [quote]i think you guys are underestimating the importance of power conferences, giving them some clout is realistic and practical and will solve TWO problems! for one it will cut down on kids leaving regions and secondly it will prevent too much talent going to smaller schools[/QUOTE]I'd love to see (probably for BBCF2) a small increase in interest from a kid from, say Georgia, in Maryland, just because Tech plays in the ACC. Yeah, they're out of our "region," but the simple fact is that kids from Atlanta are familiar with the ACC because of Tech being in it. Plus, I've heard this one from more than one kid, "Well, nobody good close to home has offered me, but if I go to Maryland, at least mama can easily see me play at Clemson and Tech, and she might be able to get up to NC/NC State/Duke, too!" On the whole, if a "power conference" has a school from its state in it, there should be a slight boost in interest in *every* school in that conference, even if it is out of "region." Kids from Atlanta would rather play for Maryland and get to play Clemson/Tech/Miami/FSU than they would to go to a power conference that doesn't have any schools nearby.

[The_Bee]

[QUOTE=SkyDog]I'd love to see (probably for BBCF2) a small increase in interest from a kid from, say Georgia, in Maryland, just because Tech plays in the ACC. Yeah, they're out of our "region," but the simple fact is that kids from Atlanta are familiar with the ACC because of Tech being in it. Plus, I've heard this one from more than one kid, "Well, nobody good close to home has offered me, but if I go to Maryland, at least mama can easily see me play at Clemson and Tech, and she might be able to get up to NC/NC State/Duke, too!" On the whole, if a "power conference" has a school from its state in it, there should be a slight boost in interest in *every* school in that conference, even if it is out of "region." Kids from Atlanta would rather play for Maryland and get to play Clemson/Tech/Miami/FSU than they would to go to a power conference that doesn't have any schools nearby.[/QUOTE] I think this is a good idea, and doesn't sound like it would be that difficult to implement.

[Dunleavy]

like i was saying i wouldn't mind seeing regions be replaced by conference states. i.e. a majoirty of the recruits from some states like Illinois, Oregon, or Mississippi would want to play in the Big 10, Pac 10, or SEC repectfully. while other states, especially larger states like NY, Cal, Fl, and Texas would be more diverse. [QUOTE] When I talked to Robert Smith (Simeon’s basketball coach) last month, he told me that kids want to go to school and play with other kids that can play and give them the best chance to win. That statement by Mr. Smith is true because you can see it and feel it from the recruits that I talk to; they all ask me about Williams and Gordon. [/QUOTE] Williams and Gordon are two top HS players and both are doing some recruiting of their own, and other HS'ers are very receptive...yet another angle in recruiting

[larry_boy_44]

[QUOTE=AZJAZ]Well if you take a look at the top quality programs, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, Miami etc, many of those teams are in hotbed states so they dont need to go out of state to get recruits. Now if you look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon and especially Notre Dame, they dont get many recruits from their home state, so I dont think you can base your argument on Georgia alone or even USC. SoCal is a hotbed of talent, why would they even want to go anywhere else for a player unless that player is elite. Now with the distance from home argument. What if there is a stud from North Dakota? I dont think he will go to Iowa, Minnesota or Nebraska automatically. I like your info, I just dont think we should put all of our eggs in one basket. SkyDog if you get a chance take a look at the rosters of those teams, Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon and Notre Dame.[/QUOTE] dude... what are you talking about? Wisconsin's starters are like 50%+ from Wisconsin... the rest is pretty evenly split between Pennsylvania and Ohio... I would venture to say that 90+% of the even average prospects from in Wisconsin go Wisconsin to play football, there is, honestly, no competition... BUT that being said, if Wisconsin doesn't offer a scholarship to a player, you'd think that they'd go relatively far away since there are no other schools in Wisconsin that are above D-III...

[larry_boy_44]

[QUOTE=SkyDog]As far as the other schools mentioned: [u][b]WISCONSIN [/b][/u]From "Hotbed" states mentioned above (not including nearby OH): 7 fairly-nearby (PA/MO): 4 scattered, non-hotbed: 11 (but 7 of those are from the northeast--no true powerhouse colleges up there) Nearby or in-state: (WI/IL/MN/SD/MI/MN/IN/OH) everyone else (circa 70 players) [u][b]OREGON [/b][/u]As I would have guessed, virtually everyone is from California. They only have 13 players not from Cali/Wash/Oreg, and about half of those are from Utah and Nevada[/QUOTE] I guess I was wrong about Penn/Ohio... although they seem to have 3-4 starters from both Ohio and Pennsylvania every year for the last 5-10 years... (I guess that could be done with ~20 recruits, though)

[larry_boy_44]

[QUOTE=SkyDog] 1. [b][u]"Fringe" cities within fairly-large states.[/u][/b] For example, Columbus and LaGrange, GA are both on the western border of the state of Georgia, in the central portion of the state. When all other factors are roughly equal, kids from Columbus and LaGrange usually choose Auburn over UGA in real life, because Auburn is 30-45 minutes away, while Athens is 3+ hours away. (In the Class of '05, Auburn has two kids from these two towns, and UGA has zero.) In BBCF, they'll value Georgia over Auburn because Auburn is in a different state. What makes even less sense in this scenario is that a kid from Columbus or LaGrange will "see" Florida, FSU, Tennessee and even Miami as being the same "distance" away as Auburn. That's just crazy. Miami is nearly 600 miles away, and Auburn is less than 40, but it sounds like the game is going to see them as being equally attractive, distance-wise, as it stands now. (This won't a be a rare case, either, as I'm pretty sure Arlie told me that LaGrange High--as it should be--will be one of five "elite" high schools in Georgia.) I'd imagine this sort of situation exists in several places around the country. [b][u] 2. "Border" states from regions.[/u][/b] I don't remember exactly what they all are called, but if I recall, Kentucky is in the South region, West Virginia is in the East or Northeast Region, and Ohio is in the Midwest Region. In real life, WV and Kentucky both get a decent number of kids from the southern part of Ohio. In this system, though, a kid from Southern Ohio will end up valuing, say Minnesota (a 10-hour drive) over schools that are *much* closer. Cincinnati is just a little over an hour from Lexington, but will be in another "Region." THAT'S why mileage is important, imho. Arlie's argument is that it will even out overall, because Kentucky will get leftovers from Florida and Georgia in particular. This is probably true. However, if I were a WV or KY fan, I'd be getting annoyed that I was losing kids from places that normally my roster is peppered with kids from.[/QUOTE] wouldn't adding this require him to re-do the whole game??? or at least a large part of it? Although, maybe if the "regions" were eliminated and changed to states it would work better... that might end up being too much micro-management, though, plus, the $$ amounts would be pretty small, wouldn't they? and maybe the high schools could have an attribute about schools that the players from that high school go to a lot... so that school in Georgia you talked about could have most/all of its students go to Auburn..

[GaryStephen]

As for how to reconcile all these factors, I still think the "Tropico" model would work. In this game, there were 10 factors that influenced the happiness level of each citizen. However, each citizen had a unique prioritized order of the 10 factors. Fixing a certain national problem, such as cleaning up the environment, would increase happiness in citizens who had "environment" high on their list of concerns, but would not impact those who cared more about religion, or economy, or whatever. And so it could be in recruiting. You take every recruiting factor anyone can dream up on this board, and give each recruit their own randomly-ordered set of priorities from it. For example: 1. raw distance from hometown 2. conference prestige 3. home state/not home state 4. school prestige rating 5. school W-L record/championships/bowl trips in past five years 6. school academic standards 7. job security of head coach 8. amount of recruiting attention given 9. presence of returning players/signings at player's same position 10. promises to keep player at his preferred position etc. etc. etc. Take those ten things, put them in a random order for each recruit, and you've got an instant 10! (3,628,800) unique recruiting circumstances. This would also fairly answer the question of "where do fringe recruits go?" The answer would depend on each recruit's personal set of priorities. Some would sign with a lesser football program so they can play at home, while others would sign with weak schools so they can play in major conferences, while still others would sign with private schools for academic reasons.

[NIUHuskies]

I have notcied something here in Wisconsin that was not touched on. This apllies not only to football, but the other big sports as well (basketball and hockey). Kids growing up here in wisconsin are generally wisconsin badgers / packer fans with a die hard mentality when it comes to there teams. Kids playing football around here would love an oportunity to play for wisconsin, so when they come a knocking, they sign. Loyalty to Wisconsin (the school, not the state) played a big factor. Recently a local high school player signed with Wisconsin to play basketball. He was recieving offers from around the country, but in the end, he chose wisconsin. I asked him the other day why, and simply put, he grew up cheering on wisconsin and it always was a dream of his to play for wisconsin. Grant it, wisconsin football / basketball are not minor programs, he recieved offers from bigger programs but chose to stay here. Location was not a factor, neither was the prestige of the coach. Just the fact that he grew up watching wisconsin. I dont know how this works in states with multiple Div 1 schools. I also lived in Illinois which has 2 Div I schools. People didnt seem to be as die hard about there team as they are up here in wisconsin (if you ever met a packer fan, you would understand). Just another thought. I have enjoyed reading all the other posts and cant wait to see this game blossom into something wonderful! (already is, but i have belief in that everything can be better). *Edit* Correction, their are 3 Div I schools in Illinois, but sometimes its hard to remember that NIU plays college football...lol. This is funny because I grew up 45 minutes from Dekalb and NIU, not to mention all the parties during the last years living down there!