All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Realistic Lengths of Coaching Careers
1/20/2014 12:38 AM (edited)
Posted by MyGeneration on 1/19/2014 10:59:00 PM (view original):
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are just speculating without really following real life college basketball programs and their recruiting, because the real life facts run contrary to basically all your stated assumptions. Pope chose SDSU over Kansas. Kell, local kid, chose SDSU over several Big 6 programs. Cheatham -- big fish. All were 4-5-star recruits. UNLV also has recruiting success in real life that eclipses most Big 6 programs. It's ptetty interesting. I'll edit later and add more details. Cheers,
I follow it and you're right..  SDSU has a top 15 class coming in this year.  If pope can get/stay healthy he's gonna be a stud imo.  I figured he'd end up at UCLA.  Zabo was their only non-4 star.  I know WVU (im from wv but a marshall fan) was after him at one point.





1/20/2014 3:36 PM (edited)
Posted by cjones4mvp on 1/20/2014 12:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MyGeneration on 1/19/2014 10:59:00 PM (view original):
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are just speculating without really following real life college basketball programs and their recruiting, because the real life facts run contrary to basically all your stated assumptions. Pope chose SDSU over Kansas. Kell, local kid, chose SDSU over several Big 6 programs. Cheatham -- big fish. All were 4-5-star recruits. UNLV also has recruiting success in real life that eclipses most Big 6 programs. It's ptetty interesting. I'll edit later and add more details. Cheers,
I follow it and you're right..  SDSU has a top 15 class coming in this year.  If pope can get/stay healthy he's gonna be a stud imo.  I figured he'd end up at UCLA.  Zabo was their only non-4 star.  I know WVU (im from wv but a marshall fan) was after him at one point.





Thanks cjones. The 2014 class also has 5-star transfer (from AZ), Angelo Chol. All five members of the 2014 class received multiple offers from Big 6 programs. To get an idea: 3-star Zabo - W. VA, Illinois, & was atop Fred Hoiberg' s wish list at ISU; 4-star Kell - AZ, UCLA, Vanderbilt, OR; 4-star Cheatham - Memphis, New Mexico, WA, ASU; 5-star Pope: Kansas, AZ, UCLA, OR; and Chol was a 5-star coming out of high school, with offers from UNC, Alabama, & AZ.

The 2014 class is not an anomaly. Every CBB fan has seen 5-star sophomore Winston Shepard. He chose SDSU over OK State, OR, St. John's & UNLV. 4-star freshman Dakarai Allen: Colorado, Oregon State, Cal.

We get the point. The Aztecs do not lose recruiting battles with Big 6 programs 99% of the time.

"If they had a bad year, their real life prestige would plummet." No, because when a school builds a program, as opposed to having one good year of success recruiting or on the court, seasonal dips are unlikely and consecutive bad years become next to impossible barring sanctions. These programs have made the jump to the next level. HD does not recognize such leaps.

SDSU sold out its season (12,414 per game) last season and this season and has led the entire west coast in attendance for a long time, I want to say certainly 5 years, pretty sure more than 10 years. That kind of support does not disappear after one season.

If SDSU is head-to-head against any PAC 10 school other than AZ for a recruit, all things being equal, SDSU has a leg up. The fact that AZ is the only PAC 10 school to beat the Aztecs in ages probably has something to do with it. Check out how many years it has been since SDSU lost to any California school (yes, they play them all). The facts do not support the contention that schools like SDSU are at a recruiting disadvantage to mid-level BCS schools. It is simply false.

CBB followers know that SDSU is on its way to its 9th straight 20-win season and its fifth-straight NCAA Tournament. There are interesting lead stories on SDSU out today by Pat Forde of Yahoo Sports and Pete Thamel of SI.

Baseline prestige in HD is not realistic. SDSU is just one example. An easy fix would be to adjust baseline prestige after a period of sustained excellence.

1/20/2014 1:36 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 1/19/2014 7:45:00 PM (view original):
i agree, if those programs got in a crappy coach and had a few bad seasons, i think they would lose much (but not all) of what they've gained. i still dont buy the number of lofty incoming freshman going to the zags or sdsu is anywhere near that of the top bcs programs. they've broken through, IMO, to more of a middle of the pack BCS status, and are (on the merit of prestige) still disadvantaged to the bigger programs, and i just dont mean the top 5. 

in that sdsu class, im curious, where were those recruits ranked? winning a 3 star over a bigger program is much easier, arguments about getting the spotlight etc. weigh heavily on certain recruits. also, what about the locality? local factors can outweigh prestige for many players.

i think one way the game could be improved is to have prestige be a larger effect on bigger recruits than smaller ones. i can see sdsu going head to head with the kinds of programs you listed for local guys who aren't really the mcdonalds all american types. but for a top 10 guy? rarely a local guy picks the local school (and its usually still big 6) over the elites, who is in the top 10 or so, but it seems to me its at best very rare for that kind of thing to happen with top non-bcs programs.
The BCS conferences should have a prestige boost. Everyone else should be equal. No reason why a coach should be able to suck it up at Duke for five seasons and still pull in top 25 after top 25 recruiting classes.
1/20/2014 1:48 PM
MyGeneration, I agree with you 100%. The game is not set up correctly I would be ok with a boost for a BCS team, but not one so large that a coach could take over say Xavier or Butler in this game and build them into a national power. This game does not allow for Non-BCS teams to be competitive it takes tons of luck and normally going up against a bad coach just to make it out of the first round...insane. If the developers of this game think that is ok then we have a huge problem. I love the game and want to see it improve, GD's logic is better when it comes to prestige. It is by no means perfect but 100x better then what HD offers.

I say look at the Greydog products. In their game you have prestige set in the very first season and after that its every man for themselves. If you have a bonehead who takes over and does a crappy job, the next coach has to clean up the mess. One season will not fix the problem.  Only sustained success would bring Syracuse back from five years of below average results.
1/20/2014 4:45 PM
Forcibly removing long-time coaches from a job: Comes up every so often, worst idea since New Coke. Next ...

Prestige: Certainly can be improved. Middling BCS schools hold on to it too easily, and for non-BCS schools it's probably too difficult to build up. Lots of way to go here. Current system certainly isn't perfect.

1/20/2014 7:54 PM (edited)
But incentives for long-time coaches to move on, try new challenges could be very useful.  

Encourage folks to leave their comfort zone at an elite and try to make something of a midmajor - say with a chunk of free seasons (say 5) if you leave a BCS school after at least 20? seasons? 25?  some number like that - perhaps provided that your prestige when you leave is at least A?

oh, and only available if you move to a non BCS school and the seasons are not usable at a BCS school if you later move back to one - so you really need to move down.....or maybe just the new school has to have B or lower prestige....

1/20/2014 7:50 PM
Posted by MyGeneration on 1/19/2014 3:58:00 PM (view original):
80 seasons at a school is not only unrealistic, it makes the game less fun for others, because of the inequality programmed into the game. This SIM has many built-in advantages for high prestige D1 jobs and with guys camped out at a school for 5 real life years or more, it's a tough road to hoe to obtain one of those once-in-a-blue moon opportunities. And so we see guys that choose to stay at D3 or D2 rather than grind it out with a low baseline prestige D1 program for the same price somebody pays for the A+ lifestyle. If baseline prestige was eliminated, while your favorite school might remain locked up for a real life decade, you could have the same experience elsewhere.

The baseline prestige element is unrealistic too. Georgia, Vanderbilt, Hawaii -- these programs have higher prestige than SDSU? In real life college basketball, the "thing" being simulated, programs have next level jumps in prestige where they are not thereafter vulnerable to a prestige topple after one rebuilding season. Gonzaga and San Diego State can recruit with anyone -- we've seen a next level jump with those programs. But this artificial construct of baseline prestige does not allow those jumps to happen in HD. Baseline prestige makes the game easier and more fun for some at the expense of others. It would only make sense if it was necessary to preserve realities (& if that was valued more than an equal gaming experience), but that's not the case.
I normally choose to stay at DII or DIII because they are the true "what if" divisions where any school can eventually become the dominant A+.  I find it funny that a company called What if Sports would be so interested in maintaining the status quo and removing the "what if" suspense out of most of DI.
1/20/2014 7:56 PM
I agree with gomiami.  I've been playing for 9 years and have never had a DI team. 
1/20/2014 8:36 PM
In the interest of full disclosure, Al still has one more year to go in his show-cause penalty, so we'll see how that plays out ...
1/21/2014 2:05 AM
Yeah I had thought about trying to build up to a DI program, but I have heard so much negativity that I decided against it. I am having fun with my current team, which is really the point of playing.
I do disagree a bit with an earlier post. I think it is realistic to see non-BCS schools have consistent success in DI basketball. Look at what Butler did...I agree the staying power may not be there, but now that are in the new Big East, who knows. Then take the case of a Xavier...they played in upper mid-major for years, and had 3 straight Sweet 16s and 2 Elite Eights. There are many, many BCS schools that have not had even a sniff of that kind of success. It would be realistic to assume (as it has happened in real life) that they can compete in recruiting against the powers. I agree that the top top tier of teams would always get the nod, but outside of a small handful of schools, a team like Xavier would be able to recruit and get 4 and 5 stars. WIS does not allow this to happen.
1/21/2014 9:20 AM (edited)
Posted by bobmeyer on 1/21/2014 2:05:00 AM (view original):
Yeah I had thought about trying to build up to a DI program, but I have heard so much negativity that I decided against it. I am having fun with my current team, which is really the point of playing.
I do disagree a bit with an earlier post. I think it is realistic to see non-BCS schools have consistent success in DI basketball. Look at what Butler did...I agree the staying power may not be there, but now that are in the new Big East, who knows. Then take the case of a Xavier...they played in upper mid-major for years, and had 3 straight Sweet 16s and 2 Elite Eights. There are many, many BCS schools that have not had even a sniff of that kind of success. It would be realistic to assume (as it has happened in real life) that they can compete in recruiting against the powers. I agree that the top top tier of teams would always get the nod, but outside of a small handful of schools, a team like Xavier would be able to recruit and get 4 and 5 stars. WIS does not allow this to happen.
After a few years, Xavier became sensitive about the mid-major label.  In the weekly mid-major poll, Xavier refused to be listed.   They're also a proud program. When they didn't make the NCAA last season, they stayed home rather than go to a different tournament.   They've rebounded nicely this year, though. Picked to finish 7th in the new Big East, they are 5-1 in conference play, only losing 96-89 at Creighton.
 WIS  needs to change so such programs are possible here.

 

The latest mid-major poll includes Gonzaga and BYU. Those programs probably don't consider themselves as 'mid-major' either

1/21/2014 10:28 AM
i totally understand where gomiami/alblack are coming from, but i think making d1 as flexible as d2/d3 would be a massive mistake. to me, there is already not much purpose in having d3 and d2, although i recognize the budget does make things somewhat different. i do believe baseline prestige should be fluid, but very slowly - something like baseline starts at 100% original baseline, and each HD season starts to count for 2%, reducing original baseline by 2%, down to a minimum of say 50%. once there are more than 25 seasons, you could have something like the last 15 seasons count for 2% and the 20 before count for 1%, or something like that.

i think a system like that would make sense because a highly fluid baseline would just result in the low level conferences becoming the BCS conferences - why would anybody ever leave? i think the ladder system is a vital carrot on a stick, and also, the big schools have a ton of fans so from a business standpoint, it makes sense to keep them good. maybe this suggestion is too slow, but i think if you could say average an a at a c prestige school, and eventually get them to a B (combining 50% of an A with 50% of a C), that would be plenty high enough - i think high end coaches can fairly easily keep an a range prestige on a b- prestige (low end BCS) school, so there isn't much need to allow you to take someone all the way up to a+ baseline. note i don't mean you need A prestige in a given season for 50 seasons, but just the non-baseline component, the success of teh season component, to be an A. i'd also support something where over 100 seasons or so, HD results totally replace baseline, but i would be absolutely against something quick like 10-20 seasons comprising the lion's share of baseline prestige. 
1/21/2014 10:55 AM
Great discussion everyone. Another thing to consider as far as the difficulty of D1 and competing at the non-elite programs is that in HD, there is no one and done rule. In real life, the one and done is the largest contributor to schools like Butler and San Diego State having the success that they have enjoyed in recent years. If you had a situation in real life where players were staying in school longer, the elite programs would have a very significant advantage (which they did have in the past). In playing a simulation, I want the game to feel as realistic as possible. Yes, I want a chance to build a dynasty but I want it to be a challenge.
1/21/2014 4:22 PM
Posted by alblack56 on 1/19/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):
"or the coach would just die."  I'm 59 and would rather not be reminded of my mortality. LOL  But, if I have to die in WIS, can I at least pick my method?

 I'd like to be killed by a tortoise dropped by an eagle that had mistaken my bald head for a rock suitable for shattering the shell.

It would have to be something cool like that...I'd hate it to say, "you died of diabetes" or cancer or something.

Mine would be dying when my parachute didn't open while sky-diving. The rapture of falling followed by the splat of finality.

1/22/2014 1:53 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 1/21/2014 10:29:00 AM (view original):
i totally understand where gomiami/alblack are coming from, but i think making d1 as flexible as d2/d3 would be a massive mistake. to me, there is already not much purpose in having d3 and d2, although i recognize the budget does make things somewhat different. i do believe baseline prestige should be fluid, but very slowly - something like baseline starts at 100% original baseline, and each HD season starts to count for 2%, reducing original baseline by 2%, down to a minimum of say 50%. once there are more than 25 seasons, you could have something like the last 15 seasons count for 2% and the 20 before count for 1%, or something like that.

i think a system like that would make sense because a highly fluid baseline would just result in the low level conferences becoming the BCS conferences - why would anybody ever leave? i think the ladder system is a vital carrot on a stick, and also, the big schools have a ton of fans so from a business standpoint, it makes sense to keep them good. maybe this suggestion is too slow, but i think if you could say average an a at a c prestige school, and eventually get them to a B (combining 50% of an A with 50% of a C), that would be plenty high enough - i think high end coaches can fairly easily keep an a range prestige on a b- prestige (low end BCS) school, so there isn't much need to allow you to take someone all the way up to a+ baseline. note i don't mean you need A prestige in a given season for 50 seasons, but just the non-baseline component, the success of teh season component, to be an A. i'd also support something where over 100 seasons or so, HD results totally replace baseline, but i would be absolutely against something quick like 10-20 seasons comprising the lion's share of baseline prestige. 
I will respectfully disagree, gillispie. 

In the real world, Kentucky has 1000 fans for every 1 Morgan State fan and most of the college basketball revenue can be generated by and flow through a small number of elite schools, then get somewhat redistributed to everybody else through NCAA tournament payouts, road game checks and the like.  In the real world, that is a successful business model.

For What if Sports, there might be 1000 Kentucky fans for every 1 Morgan State fan but the revenue stream is 1:1.  Only 1 fan is going to coach Kentucky.  The other 999 either need to find an alternative school while waiting for the Wildcats to open or not play the game at all.  Morgan State can also have 1 coach.  So, each school has the potential to generate the same $12.95 revenue each season for WiS. 

What makes the WiS business model even more absurd is, because of the rewards structure and baseline prestige, the only schools worth spending money on (as a pay-to-play user) are also the same schools that will generate the least amount of revenue.  BCS schools make more and deeper post-season appearances because of their built-in advantages, meaning those users are getting bigger reward credits and paying less per season.

If the goal for What if Sports is to make HD profitable for the company, making 70% of DI a disincentivized, SIM AI wasteland that generates 0 cash flow is the dumbest business model of all time.
of 3
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Realistic Lengths of Coaching Careers

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.