Whatifsports.com - Forums: BCS Power

5/15/2012 7:00 AM

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 219 (0)

HD - 63 GD - 60

Posted by ekswimmer on 5/15/2012 1:01:00 AM (view original):
At the risk of entering a screaming match...here's my two cents. I do not think baseline prestige nor recruit generation works as it should. Baseline prestige should exist in DI, I like that there are 'power' teams and mid-majors. I prefer to try to win outside the BCS leagues, thinking its an added challenge. However, it is nearly impossible to win this way right now. Yes, I know there are examples, but outside of about 20 coaches that each have 1500 wins and already know everything about this game, its incredibly hard. Regardless of what you think it should be, Id hope we can agree on that.

That said, wouldnt we all prefer a world full of humans? How do you get that if you cater to the small minority by creating a huge competitive gap? You don't, as we are seeing in each world.

I think baselines need to be adjusted somehow. Whether that is by having a rolling baseline (maybe taking into account 10 years, 20 years, whatever) or doing away with conference prestige (all it does is keep the bad BCS teams high and the good mid-majors low), or preferably both. Personally, I think there should be more recruits with high potential, so that while the BCS teams get the 800+ players for 3-4 years, there are some that would fall to mid-majors that would compete as Seniors.

A rolling baseline is good. Something like 10 season samples to adjust baselines. Any team that wins 2 NT's, makes 6 sweet 16's, and every NT in 10 seasons should probably have the top baseline no matter who they are. Unless someone does better of course. Or something along those lines. There are probably some mids out there that deserve a better baseline than some BCS schools.

I like that idea ekswimmer.

5/15/2012 12:25 PM (edited)

tianyi7886

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 4149 (0)

MLB - 51 NBA - 33 HD - 162 GD - 40

Posted by tbird9423 on 5/15/2012 12:11:00 AM (view original):
Tianyi-- Your arguments aren't really arguments, just by definition if nothing else. You should hold the judgement and I'll answer your question: Why should I have to play in D2 or D3 forever because I am in favor of an "equitable" league. I'm not advocating changing your game, I am simply suggesting adding a new option for those of us who enjoy a level playing field. You sound like the guy who sued to play women's sports. Adding a new world or taking away baseline (or conference) prestige, doesn't end your game so why the anger at the proposition. My guess is because with a new "fair" option not based on money or longevity, you know most would choose to play that version. And that would make many of your accomplishments "under the old unfair and crazy system" that only a few people would be left to play. That is why I suggested the poll to see the differing interest levels.
Imagine a coach of UNC having a few non-productive seasons in real life-- Oh, wait, we have that example-- He got canned. He didn't have his conference counterparts calling his boss telling him that since they are good, he is good too? Are you shitting me? That's exactly what happens in this game. "Baseline/Conference" prestige does exist in real life but it woks the exact oppositte of this game.
Why can't you answer the simple question of why you dislike the idea of a Mercer becoming the best program in a world because their coach is the best? You can answer that or just call me stupid.

You do realize I'm making the argument for baseline while coaching 2xD baseline and 1x C schools right? What's the point of having D1 the same as D2/D3? I already played 100 seasons in D2/D3, what's the point of playing D1 when it's the going to be the same as D2/D3?

What's the difference between D1 and D2/D3 once baseline is gone? You are not trying to even the playing field, you are trying to eliminate the fun of playing D1 entirely. If I'm going to play a HD game where there is no baseline, I would just stick with the dynasties I built in D2/D3, rather than moving up in D1.

Btw, getting fired has nothing to do with baseline/conf prestige. That's completely different from what we are discussing.

And Mercer can become the best program in the world. I have already said that in IBA, there are A-10 (I know it's B baseline, not D like Mercer) winning NCs. It's not impossible for midmajors to win NCs, just more difficult in D1.

5/15/2012 11:12 PM (edited)

gomiami1972

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 165 (1)

MLB - 10 NFL - 1 HD - 321 GD - 4 HBD - 65

Dear WIS,

1. Make a small adjustment to baseline prestige for individual schools.

2. Eliminate conference prestige. This is already reflected in individual baseline prestige and is thus redundant.

3. Guarantee a PIT spot for every regular season conference champ if they do not survive their conference tournament. Think of it as a token redistribution of wealth. Please see real life as a blueprint.

Sincerely,

gomiami1972

5/15/2012 11:10 PM

tianyi7886

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 4149 (0)

MLB - 51 NBA - 33 HD - 162 GD - 40

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2012 10:50:00 PM (view original):
DI shouldn't be the same as D2/D3. As a college basketball fan, there's a certain comfort, as well as familiarity, with knowing Kentucky, North Carolina, etc. are going to have a built-in advantage. But to keep UNC (or any high baseline school) at an A prestige even with extreme suckage is bizarre...and IMHO, detracts from the game. It is, if nothing else, counterintuitive to the concept of "what if."

A+ baseline doesn't = A+ prestige. The following UNC team is at B+ after "mediocre suckage." If WIS weaken the effect of conf prestige (such as professor's suggestion), we could easily see this UNC team at B or lower.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=2436

5/15/2012 11:15 PM

gomiami1972

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 165 (1)

MLB - 10 NFL - 1 HD - 321 GD - 4 HBD - 65

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/15/2012 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2012 10:50:00 PM (view original):
DI shouldn't be the same as D2/D3. As a college basketball fan, there's a certain comfort, as well as familiarity, with knowing Kentucky, North Carolina, etc. are going to have a built-in advantage. But to keep UNC (or any high baseline school) at an A prestige even with extreme suckage is bizarre...and IMHO, detracts from the game. It is, if nothing else, counterintuitive to the concept of "what if."
A+ baseline doesn't = A+ prestige. The following UNC team is at B+ after "mediocre suckage." If WIS weaken the effect of conf prestige (such as professor's suggestion), we could easily see this UNC team at B or lower.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=2436

lol, I removed that post because I didn't like the wording I used...but you beat me to it.

5/15/2012 11:21 PM

gomiami1972

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 165 (1)

MLB - 10 NFL - 1 HD - 321 GD - 4 HBD - 65

Either way, I'm familiar with UNC's record in that world. A history like that shows the firing logic is also not what it should be. A coach keeping such a premium job would have a (negative) cascading effect of the rest of the human coaches playing.

5/15/2012 11:23 PM

tianyi7886

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 4149 (0)

MLB - 51 NBA - 33 HD - 162 GD - 40

Agreed. Firing needs to be ramped up, conf prestige toned down, and we should have pretty good balance.

The above UNC coach should have been fired around season 47.

5/16/2012 12:26 AM

emy1013

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 1301 (4)

HD - 270

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/15/2012 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Agreed. Firing needs to be ramped up, conf prestige toned down, and we should have pretty good balance.

The above UNC coach should have been fired around season 47.

I agree with both. I've been on my soapbox for years arguing that the firing logic was horrible and needed to be ramped up. The argument I always hear against increasing firings is that WIS will **** off long time customers. Well, that might happen, that might not, but one thing that IS happening is that coaches who are stuck at mid-majors and lower end BCS schools that wish to move up and are qualified to move up to the top schools, can't because once a coach gets to those top schools and has a few good seasons, it becomes very difficult for him to get fired. Sooooo, those mid-major coaches hit a roadblock that shouldn't be there and they DO get ****** off and rightfully so.

How much should firings be ramped up? I don't know, haven't really thought about it much, but I do know that there aren't nearly enough as it is. I saw a coach in another thread one time suggest that if a coach is at an A+ or A prestige school that he should HAVE to make a Final Four at least once every four seasons or get canned. Now that is WAY to strict of a requirement. I don't think that making a Final Four appearance mandatory for any of those schools in any time frame is a good idea. But I would also say that once a coach has been at one of those schools for four seasons (enough to get a team full of all his/her players) that they should be making the NT on a regular basis (meaning pretty much every season. Two consecutive seasons missing the NT might be enough to get fired in my book). Two consecutive seasons of no NT, but having a PIT might be enough to save their job, but if that scenario arose again, bye bye. Update your resume and move on. Three consecutive seasons of no NT is automatic grounds to be fired, PIT appearance or not. Again, this is for A+ and A prestige schools, after a coach has been there for four seasons. By then he should be established enough to be making the NT. If he can't, time to let someone else try.

5/16/2012 8:11 AM

reinsel

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 812 (0)

MLB - 1 HD - 68

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Dear WIS,

1. Make a small adjustment to baseline prestige for individual schools.

2. Eliminate conference prestige. This is already reflected in individual baseline prestige and is thus redundant.

3. Guarantee a PIT spot for every regular season conference champ if they do not survive their conference tournament. Think of it as a token redistribution of wealth. Please see real life as a blueprint.

Sincerely,

gomiami1972

I agree and add one more.

Change the amount of money given to a conference at D1 to match what it is at the other levels.
D3 NT game = $3000
D3 Scholarship = $3000

D2 NT Game = $5000
D2 Scholarship = $5000

D1 NT Game $20,000
D1 Scholarship = $15,000

Since the vast majority of NT games are played by the top BCS conferences, making each game worth $15,000 would help the little guys. OR just increase the money per scholarship to $20,000, either way I am good with.

5/16/2012 8:43 AM

milkamania

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 270 (0)

MLB - 2 HD - 108 HBD - 1

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/15/2012 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Agreed. Firing needs to be ramped up, conf prestige toned down, and we should have pretty good balance.

The above UNC coach should have been fired around season 47.

Firing is definitely an issue at D1. I don't want to pick on the coach, who has more NT's than me and about 4000 more wins, so is clearly a far better coach than me, but look at the St. Johns team in Tark. I only follow it because St John's is my "dream job" so I always check every world to see if it is open.

In 12 seasons, he has 1 winning season, 1 PIT berth and 1 rpi under 100, all of those came in his first year. No NT appearances, no above .500 conference records, no 20 win seasons. That job should be open for someone.

However, to tie into the baseline issue, they still have a C+ prestige, which I don't think is wrong at all. They are still St John's, still in the Big East, still play at MSG, still get big time ESPN games, etc. They will still get recruits, even if the truly elite ones will pass on them, which is reflective of a C+.

Recruit generation is the big fix to all of this. The biggest problem the mid majors have is that most of the conferences are half empty or worse. Track the success of the mid majors that are full and they consistently perform very well, equaling or surpassing some Big 6 schools. You'll never see an ACC with only 3 coaches, but an A10 or CUSA with 3 is not uncommon. More humans equal better rpi's, equals more NT teams, equals more recruiting cash, equals better balance. Fix recruit generation and you'll get more humans into the mid majors, which will make them more competitive and so on and so on.....

5/16/2012 12:07 PM

cburton23

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 379 (1)

MLB - 1 HD - 172 GD - 3

Firing needs to be ramped up for sure. I'll use myself as an example. I should be fired at Georgia Tech. I took over in a rebuild, did some decent work and have now lost all ability to put together a decent schedule In the last 4 seasons I have 1 NT and 2 PITs. In my mind that is not enough to keep an A- baseline job. Now that being said I don't plan on quitting anytime soon. But I think the idea of coaches getting ****** about firings is a bit silly, most people are reasonable enough to say "yeah I should be canned," and if they are not, their pissiness would be outweighed by everyone else having joy that a job opened up. If they were to ramp up firings though the job application process would need to be toned down, so schools wouldn't go Sim AI for 2 years before a coach could grab them.

5/16/2012 1:14 PM (edited)

gomiami1972

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 165 (1)

MLB - 10 NFL - 1 HD - 321 GD - 4 HBD - 65

Posted by cburton23 on 5/16/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):
Firing needs to be ramped up for sure. I'll use myself as an example. I should be fired at Georgia Tech. I took over in a rebuild, did some decent work and have now lost all ability to put together a decent schedule In the last 4 seasons I have 1 NT and 2 PITs. In my mind that is not enough to keep an A- baseline job. Now that being said I don't plan on quitting anytime soon. But I think the idea of coaches getting ****** about firings is a bit silly, most people are reasonable enough to say "yeah I should be canned," and if they are not, their pissiness would be outweighed by everyone else having joy that a job opened up. If they were to ramp up firings though the job application process would need to be toned down, so schools wouldn't go Sim AI for 2 years before a coach could grab them.

The job application process issue is an easy one to fix, I believe. The best qualified human who applies for the job gets it. A school should never go to SIM AI unless there are no human applicants...and if a curious scenario plays out where the only applicant to Kansas is a low DI coach who has had 7 straight 16 loss seasons...then congrats, that coach just won the lottery because nobody else wanted the KU job. Screw SIM AI.

This coupled with a better firing logic based on baseline prestige expectations would complete the deal. If that coach was over his head and bombs at KU, he'd be fired soon enough and the job would be opened again.

5/16/2012 1:43 PM

tianyi7886

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 4149 (0)

MLB - 51 NBA - 33 HD - 162 GD - 40

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/16/2012 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 5/16/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):
Firing needs to be ramped up for sure. I'll use myself as an example. I should be fired at Georgia Tech. I took over in a rebuild, did some decent work and have now lost all ability to put together a decent schedule In the last 4 seasons I have 1 NT and 2 PITs. In my mind that is not enough to keep an A- baseline job. Now that being said I don't plan on quitting anytime soon. But I think the idea of coaches getting ****** about firings is a bit silly, most people are reasonable enough to say "yeah I should be canned," and if they are not, their pissiness would be outweighed by everyone else having joy that a job opened up. If they were to ramp up firings though the job application process would need to be toned down, so schools wouldn't go Sim AI for 2 years before a coach could grab them.
The job application process issue is an easy one to fix, I believe. The best qualified human who applies for the job gets it. A school should never go to SIM AI unless there are no human applicants...and if a curious scenario plays out where the only applicant to Kansas is a low DI coach who has had 7 straight 16 loss seasons...then congrats, that coach just won the lottery because nobody else wanted the KU job. Screw SIM AI.

This coupled with a better firing logic based on baseline prestige expectations would complete the deal. If that coach was over his head and bombs at KU, he'd be fired soon enough and the job would be opened again.

If you are going to go that route in hiring, firing has to be extremely high. I don't want to see a 30-80 D1 coach jump into Kansas, then stay there for 7 seasons. If he can't turn it around in 3 seasons, he's gone.

5/16/2012 2:02 PM

gomiami1972

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 165 (1)

MLB - 10 NFL - 1 HD - 321 GD - 4 HBD - 65

For any DI school, firing should be commesurate with baseline prestige expectations. If I jump from Grambling to Kansas, I need to prove myself in 3-4 seasons. If I jump from Grambling to Hawaii, I'll get a longer look before the axe falls.

5/16/2012 6:40 PM

tbird9423

Game Rating: All Star Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 160 (0)

HD - 32

I see more agreement coming together than disagreement. I can't be sure yet but I do think that prestige and firing are somewhat correlated but I'll yield to those of you with more experience/information. The whole reason I got involved in this thread is I thought it was important to have the insight from someone realtively new to the game debating on their future with the game. I am looking to coach a good DIV I team and be successful and if that is not possible, there is no reason for me to buy another pack of seasons. I have no desire to coach (long-term) any DIV II or DIV III schools and it also appears to me that the engine works 'better' at the DIV I level. I provide a higher margin to WIS so I (and other new players) should be the target market for WIS. There are some other major issues preventing more newbies from sticking around (mostly in the lacking of updated and reliable information), but the prestige factor seems to be the major issue.

Tiyanni-- as I mentioned before, we are stating the same case with just a different perspective and never meant anything personally. I do take the comment,

"And Mercer can become the best program in the world. I have already said that in IBA, there are A-10 (I know it's B baseline, not D like Mercer) winning NCs. It's not impossible for midmajors to win NCs, just more difficult in D1."

as agreeing with my and others points. If it is more difficult to win a championship with Mercer, that means the oppositte is also true, that it is easier to win with Duke or NC (don't think anyone will argue with that) and that was the original point. To me, that lessens the "winning" of a championship with those teams so what's the point of winning when you know your competition is handicapped. I don't golf from the ladie's tee and then celebrate my victory over those playing from the men's box, and I would think to at least some level, you could see that logic. I understand your point (and mean nothing personal) that you want to play from the men's box and overcome those playing from the ladies box, but I don't think that is a way to retain new customers. Even when you do beat those others, it is not because you outcoached them or outbuilt them, but rather that you have coached well enough to join them in the ladies box while many others are still back a few yards. I am hopeful that makes sense. Becoming coach of those "favored" teams doesn't require being the best, as some examples here have illustrated, only that you are good and have paid, (i meant played so fruedian slip there but same thing really) more.

I love GoMiami's suggestions as a starting point and definetely never wanted to take anyone's game away from them as I hear terrible stories of what happens when someone has wrapped up their identity in a game and the developer's pull the plug.

Anyone on board with a world such as Go Miami suggested and using that as a starting world for new players? If you want to challenge the entrenched dynasties, you can always pursue one of the existing worlds but you would have the opportunity to start in a world where a more level playing field exists. I would like to see users be as proactive as possible in finding agreeable solutions to problems and then being able to present those to WIS in a united fashion. Rather than being normal Americans who gripe and point fingers, lets get together on this and help with change.

Have a good week all...