I'm thinking about taking on a D1 team in Rupp (I previously won a NT in D2, but have been away from Rupp for about 10 seasons). I'm eligible for about 130 D1 jobs right now - a couple of C prestige, mostly C- to D-.

My goal is to eventually get a Big 6 job - I've never had one and would like to try something new. So what are the most important factors I should be looking for in my first D1 school? Current prestige? Baseline? Competition in the conference? How easy it would be to win a lot of games? Geography?

Any thoughts from D1 vets are appreciated.

My first (and only) Big 6 job came after 6 seasons at D baseline New Hampshire in Rupp.  4 years to take D to B-, a 2nd round thrown in among multiple NT's and I was eligible for an open job which I took, I don't remember others that were open then.

You'd think it would be easier starting with a higher prestige - you'll have better visible recruits among other things, but I would say be pretty open minded.  If your goal is Big 6, then 5-8 years at a lower D1 where you're successful should be enough to get you qualified.  If you just want any Big 6 team then sometimes you get something like Virginia Tech currently open and at D+, so in theory should be easier to get there than, for example, the currently open B+ Texas A&M.  Lots of wins and making the NT is your goal.

I think in a lot of ways taking a low D1 is sort of similar to taking a D2 team.  Things like geography and how full the conference is can come in to play, but it's absolutely possible to do it in a reasonable amount of seasons from pretty much any team.

Hope that helps.

ETA:  Another thing to consider ... you could come back in at D2 and look to try to move to an open Big 6 directly from there after several (VERY GOOD) seasons.  I know I have a D2 that was an A+ that had a couple of low Big 6 openings listed as qualified.  Either way it will take a few seasons,  I would think at least 3 or 4, but you can start with a high prestige D2 team and it might be easier.

Honestly, I think it's easier to get to a Big Six job from a relatively empty conference than from a competitive one. You need wins and NT appearances, and if you can lock up an NT every year because all of your opponents stink, good for you. Although the biggest factor is definitely going to be the ratio between number of local recruits and number of local human coaches in the B/C prestige range (those in the A range won't cross your path too often, and those in the D range should be left in the dust soon enough, unless they're good coaches in their first couple seasons at a new school)

if u've never been in DIA then recruiting is going to be the biggest hurdle you'll face.  I think it is better to take one of those low DIA teams to learn the hidden stratogies you'll see battling higher prestige teams.  plus you should be a good enough coach to still win your conf after those damaging battles wreck your recruiting.  use those lower schools to work the bugs out then move to a big 6 job,  the learning curve will be much easier.

so answer your question:  easiest conf possible,  preferably least ammount of coaches in your immediate area possible because more than likely you'll be signing more guys in the 200-500 mile range than in the 0-200 mile range, and if that school has a C/C- to start thatll be way better than a D

1) What is your plan? Do you plan to go to a big six team? If so, I'd suggest you go to an easy conference to win most of the time and slowly build your prestige.

2) Make sure to get to a spot where your recruiting won't be contested all the time.

3) If you prefer to build a winner, then you need an active conference where you will get some conference money.

It always dépends. It's tough to remain at a low-end D1, or even a mid-major. It's like, in this game, our team is not Worth it. That's what is different from D2 or D3.

I disagree with most of the posts. I would rather be in a conference that has a lot of human coaches, especially if it is in an area where there are lots of recruits, or if it is in a conference where the teams are spread out. If you are in a conference with few humans, your RPI is likely to suffer to the point that if you blow it in the conference tournament, you may not make the NT. Plus, you will get very little cash for the number of games your conference plays in the post season. If you can get in Conference USA, Horizon, or the Atlantic 10, those all have higher baseline schools. The main thing though is the first couple of years, try to get players that have really high potential. By the 3rd or 4th year, you should be making the NT.

FOR ME:
I took 9 seasons at Rhode Island to go to Oregon.
It took 9 seasons at UAB to go to Vandy
Took 8 seasons at Fordham to go to Colorado
Took 5 seasons at Binghamton to get to Iowa State.

I agree with chapel. also remember no matter which direction you choose remember to schedule properly!

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/14/2015 9:50:00 PM (view original):
I disagree with most of the posts. I would rather be in a conference that has a lot of human coaches, especially if it is in an area where there are lots of recruits, or if it is in a conference where the teams are spread out. If you are in a conference with few humans, your RPI is likely to suffer to the point that if you blow it in the conference tournament, you may not make the NT. Plus, you will get very little cash for the number of games your conference plays in the post season. If you can get in Conference USA, Horizon, or the Atlantic 10, those all have higher baseline schools. The main thing though is the first couple of years, try to get players that have really high potential. By the 3rd or 4th year, you should be making the NT.

FOR ME:
I took 9 seasons at Rhode Island to go to Oregon.
It took 9 seasons at UAB to go to Vandy
Took 8 seasons at Fordham to go to Colorado
Took 5 seasons at Binghamton to get to Iowa State.

I think one thing to take into account is you know how to recruit at DIA so increses your chances of sucess very quickly.  by reading his post he says hes never had one,  Im assuming a DIA job so hes used to the more relaxed DII recruiting that allows for way more mistakes.  I dont think coaching will be anywhere near as big of a transition as recruitng will be.  thats where winners and losers are decided in DIA.

Just to clear up, I've coached at D1 before - about 8 seasons in the WCC in another world, and did reasonably well - but I've never had a Big 6 job. That's my eventual goal, and if it takes 8-10 seasons at a low or mid D1 to get there, that's fine with me.

Interesting variety of advice so far - I appreciate all of it. So it sounds like people are agreed that my goal should be to make the NT as often as possible, but disagree about whether it's easier to do so from an empty conf or a largely human-filled one with more cash. Am I interpreting that correctly?

I think you are reading it right.  more full conference means (in theory) more postseason cash spread among the teams for recruiting.  If you're eligible, any team open in Conference USA in Rupp would be the best non big 6 conference (I'm guessing) for getting post season cash.  That's the remains of the mid major challenge conference, and there are still competitive teams there (options still has Marshall at #5 in the country).

Big sky, Big West, there are several lower conferences that have multiple coaches and might get you ~$7k from postseason cash.  Keep in mind that more human coaches means (hopefully) more postseason cash, but also tougher games obviously.  You need to win games and make the NT, that gets you to Big6.

On the flip side, if you go to an empty conference like the CAA you, in theory, should be winning the CT and going to the NT every year after the first couple seasons to settle in.

There's always more than one way to do it.  For some people it might be more fun to be in a full conference.  For some it's more fun to take an empty conference and win 25+ games for sure.  From what I understand of the engine, wins and NT success are weighted fairly equally.  There was a quote somewhere from cbg that seble said sweet 16 and a team that goes 29-1 and loses in round one should be fairly equal (something like that).

I think it's probably easier to get to the NT from an empty conference, but it's much easier to make some noise from a full conference. I prefer a full conference because it's just more fun if you have an active Coaches Corner, but, as chapel said, it's nice when your conference is spread out geographically, and you're not fighting each other for recruits.

I don't think you need to worry about proximity to large schools, as they won't be interested in the same recruits as you anyway.  

Athleticism, athleticism, athleticism.

Potential, Potential, potential.

Don't try to "protect" any recruits, ever. A B range school isn't going to care if a recruit is listed as "tight" with you -- they'll get him easily regardless. There's just no point in spending more money than it takes to get a guy to list you. (Now, if you end up in a fight with a similar prestige school, then so be it.)

I like to find guys who have great potential, but one fatal flaw that will keep big schools from jumping in. A guard who will eventually be super athletic and fast and has great defensive potential is often there for the taking if he's a horrible passer. And that guy is so much more valuable that a 40A 80S 70D guy who's 90BH 90P.

Just my 2 cents.  Good luck!

Posted by drsnell on 10/15/2015 8:53:00 PM (view original):
I think it's probably easier to get to the NT from an empty conference, but it's much easier to make some noise from a full conference. I prefer a full conference because it's just more fun if you have an active Coaches Corner, but, as chapel said, it's nice when your conference is spread out geographically, and you're not fighting each other for recruits.

I don't think you need to worry about proximity to large schools, as they won't be interested in the same recruits as you anyway.  

Athleticism, athleticism, athleticism.

Potential, Potential, potential.

Don't try to "protect" any recruits, ever. A B range school isn't going to care if a recruit is listed as "tight" with you -- they'll get him easily regardless. There's just no point in spending more money than it takes to get a guy to list you. (Now, if you end up in a fight with a similar prestige school, then so be it.)

I like to find guys who have great potential, but one fatal flaw that will keep big schools from jumping in. A guard who will eventually be super athletic and fast and has great defensive potential is often there for the taking if he's a horrible passer. And that guy is so much more valuable that a 40A 80S 70D guy who's 90BH 90P.

Just my 2 cents.  Good luck!

"I like to find guys who have great potential, but one fatal flaw that will keep big schools from jumping in. A guard who will eventually be super athletic and fast and has great defensive potential is often there for the taking if he's a horrible passer. And that guy is so much more valuable that a 40A 80S 70D guy who's 90BH 90P."

just curious of why you feel that way?  do feel passing and ball handling affect the game much less than ath?  I can see that being true on Def (obviously) but on O do value the PG more as a scoring option than a facilitator?

My experience is that athleticism trumps everything. It actually affects perimeter shooting -- which seems a little silly to me, but it's undeniably true as far as this game goes.  (I've seen that over the years and it's in the FAQ.)  An athletic guy will do everything better than you expect him to, and he'll get to the free throw line waaaay more than one that's average or below average. An athletic guard with decent speed who can shoot free throws? Gold.

I've coached a lot of seasons at low level D1 and the most important thing to be competitive in the NT is athleticism. it's dangerous to compare a sim game to real life, but in this instance I think the game has it right --  a tremendously athletic team is going to beat a team that's average or below average athletically almost every time, regardless of how fundamentally sound those ordinary athletes are.

The biggest mistake HD coaches make is settling for poor athleticism in too many players. Can a single player who's tremendously skilled but not athletic succeed? Yes. But teams that are not athletic are going to fail. You're not going to beat a Big 6 program that has 90 ATH with a team that has 60 ATH. Not often enough to be worth trying. If you have a team that has 80 ATH -- well, you have an actual chance.

I have had some success at IUPUI, empty conference, right away. I had offers, after 4 seasons, at Arkansas (applied did not get it), Pittsburgh (applied did not get it), Hawaii, Fresno St (applied did not get it) and one other I do not remember. I felt it was not that hard to recruit from there in Tarkanian even if Notre Dame and Indiana pretty close. Anyways, I was going from D-. I did not get the best jobs. I decided to leave for a mid-major team. Without me, my team still did some damage, IUPUI went 16-12, 18-11- 21-9 (to the NT) and it's 17-9 this season with only one player left from the team I built. The prestige never went up from C+, which is what I left the team at. It even went to C and was kept there.

At La Salle, I still haven't been able to post a better team then my best one at IUPUI. It took me four years to be back in contention but battling top teams is tough on a D+ reputation and being surrounded by a lot more teams than I had to face at IUPUI. I am probably going NT this season, sitting at 55 and needing a bit of luck. But still, once you get to a team, if it's low-end or mid-major, remain there until you make the jump.

One problem with an empty conference is what I am experiencing at Maine this year. We are 13-4, but have a 96 RPI. I lost one bad game to Hartford. But 7 of the teams, all sims, have RPIs over 200. My RPI has gotten much higher in conference play because we play such bad teams. Now, I have to make the CT Championship to make the NT. Otherwise, I probably have to win just about all of the rest of my games just to make the PI. I played 7 humans in non-conference to try to offset the poor teams in conference. And if I remember, my RPI after non conference was in the 40s. But now it is 96, even though I am 6-1 in conference play. It's really frustrating to me.