Now is the time for the airing of the grievances...

I got a lot of problems with you people...

Edit: In the original post I stated my displeasure with superclasses and weak nonconference schedules full of road games, but the more I reread it, the more I realized it sounded like **** and came off really bad.

Yeah.....what she said.

hmmm...

fair points, np, ... and i do see where youre coming from.
but here's my semi-rebuttal.

i am one who is often guilty of a sim-heavy noncon.  i have gotten  to where i enjoy having 4 or 5 teams,    id like to get them to the point where they can beat "anybody, anywhere",  but for the most part we are not there yet.  
with that many teams,  at least for me,  something has to give.  and so an easy noncon allows me to put a team on semi-autopilot for a while and not worry about it .    and i do try to set it up where it works to my advantage  (schedule mostly road games against halfway decent sims ---rpi150ish)  but there is some skill in getting that kind of schedulle right
 and more importantly, it really doesnt help your projection report that much.  you can obviuously overinflate your rpi by alot... but the projrept seems to usually sort that out and so youll see a team with a 40rpi and a 70 pr get left out of the dance.... and usually when you look deeper at those cases, they didnt desevere to be in because they didnt really beat anyone.


superclass?  i kinda agree.  but can you imagine how it used to be?  there used to be no class limits and you would see 12 senior teams that would be incredibly hard to beat.   the current system has helped tremendously,  i guess in my perfect world it would be limited to 5 per class (or maybe a flat recruiting budget that doesnt vary according to open schollies? or not vary as much? ),

 but in my worlds i dont really see teams that go 6-6-0-0 and dominate one out of 4 years.   and i do see several examples of coaches who go really deep in the NT nearly every year and win multiple Nts,  so obviously they are not running superclass and are able to beat guys that are.

for me, i sometimes go the superclass route when building a program.  in the long run, i dont think i would ever want a class setup that didnt give me a chance to at least win an NT game or two even in the lean years.  but i also want to try to set up the classes so that there are peak years where i give my team the best possible chance of an NT.  if you are in a world where a small number of teams seem to take turns winning it all with 10+ upperclassmen .. yeah  i guess that would suck.  im just not seeing that or not noticing that.   

We have teams in Smith with a 6-0-6-0 balance that compete for NC every 2 years.
Just as bad.

You sayin you want a piece of me?

Interesting topic on the superclasses. Doesn't appear to exist in Iba.

Class breakdown of the top 5 teams in D-I

Georgia Tech: 3-3-3-3
Texas A&M: 1-3-4-4
Boston College: 0-5-4-3
Connecticut: 2-2-4-4
Colorado 3-3-4-2

Iba D-II:
Limestone: 4-5-3-0
St Marys (TX): 4-2-3-3
Northeastern St: 3-5-3-1
Bowie St: 3-5-3-1
Merrimack: 3-1-4-4

Iba D-III:
Marietta: 3-1-4-4
Wartburg: 4-6-2-0
Marywood: 2-3-2-5
Arcadia: 3-3-3-3
Wilmington: 2-3-3-4

Granted, it's only one season.

Technically a 1-5-1-5 would be better than 0-6-0-6

Allows redshirts.

"jerkstore" was on last night.. could help but think of HD's coach jerkstore33 ... who recently retired from rowan-tark after 78 seasons and 2 NCs and 4 runnerups and a whole crapload of nt wins.   it looks like he retired from HD altogether.   :-(

Posted by oldave on 11/19/2014 12:24:00 AM (view original):
"jerkstore" was on last night.. could help but think of HD's coach jerkstore33 ... who recently retired from rowan-tark after 78 seasons and 2 NCs and 4 runnerups and a whole crapload of nt wins.   it looks like he retired from HD altogether.   :-(

haha, I'm glad somebody caught the reference.

Probably shouldn't have hit submit post on this thread, but oh well...

Posted by oldave on 11/18/2014 10:55:00 AM (view original):
hmmm...

fair points, np, ... and i do see where youre coming from.
but here's my semi-rebuttal.

i am one who is often guilty of a sim-heavy noncon.  i have gotten  to where i enjoy having 4 or 5 teams,    id like to get them to the point where they can beat "anybody, anywhere",  but for the most part we are not there yet.  
with that many teams,  at least for me,  something has to give.  and so an easy noncon allows me to put a team on semi-autopilot for a while and not worry about it .    and i do try to set it up where it works to my advantage  (schedule mostly road games against halfway decent sims ---rpi150ish)  but there is some skill in getting that kind of schedulle right
 and more importantly, it really doesnt help your projection report that much.  you can obviuously overinflate your rpi by alot... but the projrept seems to usually sort that out and so youll see a team with a 40rpi and a 70 pr get left out of the dance.... and usually when you look deeper at those cases, they didnt desevere to be in because they didnt really beat anyone.


superclass?  i kinda agree.  but can you imagine how it used to be?  there used to be no class limits and you would see 12 senior teams that would be incredibly hard to beat.   the current system has helped tremendously,  i guess in my perfect world it would be limited to 5 per class (or maybe a flat recruiting budget that doesnt vary according to open schollies? or not vary as much? ),

 but in my worlds i dont really see teams that go 6-6-0-0 and dominate one out of 4 years.   and i do see several examples of coaches who go really deep in the NT nearly every year and win multiple Nts,  so obviously they are not running superclass and are able to beat guys that are.

for me, i sometimes go the superclass route when building a program.  in the long run, i dont think i would ever want a class setup that didnt give me a chance to at least win an NT game or two even in the lean years.  but i also want to try to set up the classes so that there are peak years where i give my team the best possible chance of an NT.  if you are in a world where a small number of teams seem to take turns winning it all with 10+ upperclassmen .. yeah  i guess that would suck.  im just not seeing that or not noticing that.   

dave, thank for offering a rebuttle, in the harsh light of day my remarks come off pretty rough (although they weren't meant to be loving by any means), and it's totally possible my imagination got the best of me and I'm overestimating the problem, but saying it and getting it out there is better than keeping it all bottled up inside, haha.

I would have to disagree with your point that "it doesn't really help your projection report that much". If you drop a conference game or two then yes, it can really hurt you, but if you run the tables and get a few okay conference wins then you can definitely get your name to the top of the list.

And I agree with you that a class size limit has really been an improvement on how it used to be, but I would like to see it lowered to 5.

I'm not categorically saying that engaging in these circumstances is bad, like you mentioned, when rebuilding a program or something along those lines. It just gets on my nerves when people us them as a longterm strategy in order to have a high level of success...but hey, it's totally within the rules, so all I'm  really doing is ******** and moaning because something isn't aesthetically pleasing to me, which ironically is something I dislike when others do, hahaha.

I like the class size of 5 max idea. However I would like to see HD generate more 2-3 yr JUCO's with that class size..

Really, what's the big deal?  People pay their money to play this game how they see fit (within the rules).  If it doesn't float your boat, don't get in the boat.

nacho,  im not really seeing what you are in terms of projection report.  especially if we are talking about "getting to the top of the list".   maybe im mising something,  but it seems to me the top seeds in the NT usually have quite a few quality wins,  even when they sometimes have 4 or 5 losses... while the 29-0, 28-1 teams vs weak competition  never seem to be top 4 seeds and not unusual to see them 6 or 7 or worse.

in a different thread dr gil made some good points about the benefits of tough noncon scheduling... and hes probably right and that might motivate me to play tougher noncon...

but still dont see teams that are securing top seeds with undeserving teams via creative scheduling.  
could you post some examples... or if you dont want to **** anyone off you could sitemail me?

either way,  its a good thought-provoking post and you get double points for the seinfeld reference!  (elaine would be proud of me for using an exclamation point there!)

dave, I agree that it's difficult to secure a top tier seed without taking any risk whatsoever, but that's not exactly what I'm talking about...it's not difficult to schedule a top 50 sos without assuming that much risk if you have a good enough squad.

Posted by kmfloyd on 11/19/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Really, what's the big deal?  People pay their money to play this game how they see fit (within the rules).  If it doesn't float your boat, don't get in the boat.

I'm with you on this.  It is a game... by definition, people are going to game it.