All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > D1 National Championship Game is for BCS Conf.
3/12/2014 9:05 PM
How would I fix it? It's pretty easy, actually.

1. Make prestige more tied into a team's on-court performance, and less tied into their baseline prestige and that of their conference. This would enable one good coach to build up prestige on his own merits. That's huge.
2. Tweak recruit generation so that it features more players that after 3-4 seasons will develop into someone who can go to war with the big boys.

I'm not suggesting this would put non-BCS teams on a completely level playing field; I don't think that should be the case. But it would (a) make it more reasonable for someone to build up a non-BCS program into a powerhouse and (b) incentivize people to stay at these programs.

3/12/2014 10:22 PM
Posted by girt25 on 3/12/2014 9:05:00 PM (view original):
How would I fix it? It's pretty easy, actually.

1. Make prestige more tied into a team's on-court performance, and less tied into their baseline prestige and that of their conference. This would enable one good coach to build up prestige on his own merits. That's huge.
2. Tweak recruit generation so that it features more players that after 3-4 seasons will develop into someone who can go to war with the big boys.

I'm not suggesting this would put non-BCS teams on a completely level playing field; I don't think that should be the case. But it would (a) make it more reasonable for someone to build up a non-BCS program into a powerhouse and (b) incentivize people to stay at these programs.

Could #2 be solved by making IQ matter more? Hence midmajors that don't have early entries get a bonus whereas the early leavers from the big programs would hurt them.

I have a feeling that if the recruiting was changed to make more upside guys those guys would just goto the major schools anyway as backups.
3/13/2014 6:08 AM
Tanner, I can't say that would never happen, but if done properly it would definitely still be a major benefit.

And yes, ratcheting up the importance of IQ could help the little guys out, too. But I think that it would have to be a pretty dramatic shift to accomplish things on its own, and I'm not so sure that would be wise. I could probably support somewhat of a bump in iq, but I wouldn't want it to become commonplace for vastly inferior players to consistently win games, either.

3/13/2014 10:48 AM
Posted by girt25 on 3/12/2014 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the major issue is money-related (although it goes without saying that is a contributing factor). As I'm fond of pointing out, the postseason cash situation has been the same forever, and it used to be quite common for non-BCS teams to be great.

Exhibit A: In Allen (where I spent a lot of time), the following teams either won the title or finished as the runner-up between Seasons 29-40: Southern, Yale, Cleveland State, Boston U, UNLV, Maine, Weber St, Utah, Morris Brown. That's 10 teams in a 12-season span, with a bunch of others making the Final Four. And the postseason cash was just as it is now. Since then (Seasons 41-68), not a single non-BCS school has made the title game.

So what happened? What changed?

The recruits. They "fixed" recruit generation so that there wouldn't be so many elite players. And to be sure, there were way too many elite players. It was a little silly. But the fix went too far, and made it so now only the top teams can get enough top-notch players to be real factors nationally. So, with very rare exceptions, you have to be a top team, and for the most part that only exists in the BCS conferences.

But do you think mid majors should have been making deep runs at that rate? That seems awfully high. Seems like it was too easy then.

I do think baseline prestige needs to be tweaked and should be a floating thing rather than static. For example your Marshall team's baseline prestige should rise with your long run of success. But I do not think a few year stretch should offset 30 seasons of mediocrity. Likewise an A+ baseline shouldn't see their baseline drop just because they had a poor few seasons. But those situations where an A+ has struggled for a long stretch their baseline should surely be dropped. Kind of like ND in real life college football, they are no longer viewed as an A+ prestige by recruits.

3/13/2014 12:44 PM
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.
3/13/2014 1:57 PM
Posted by kmasonbx1 on 3/13/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 3/12/2014 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the major issue is money-related (although it goes without saying that is a contributing factor). As I'm fond of pointing out, the postseason cash situation has been the same forever, and it used to be quite common for non-BCS teams to be great.

Exhibit A: In Allen (where I spent a lot of time), the following teams either won the title or finished as the runner-up between Seasons 29-40: Southern, Yale, Cleveland State, Boston U, UNLV, Maine, Weber St, Utah, Morris Brown. That's 10 teams in a 12-season span, with a bunch of others making the Final Four. And the postseason cash was just as it is now. Since then (Seasons 41-68), not a single non-BCS school has made the title game.

So what happened? What changed?

The recruits. They "fixed" recruit generation so that there wouldn't be so many elite players. And to be sure, there were way too many elite players. It was a little silly. But the fix went too far, and made it so now only the top teams can get enough top-notch players to be real factors nationally. So, with very rare exceptions, you have to be a top team, and for the most part that only exists in the BCS conferences.

But do you think mid majors should have been making deep runs at that rate? That seems awfully high. Seems like it was too easy then.

I do think baseline prestige needs to be tweaked and should be a floating thing rather than static. For example your Marshall team's baseline prestige should rise with your long run of success. But I do not think a few year stretch should offset 30 seasons of mediocrity. Likewise an A+ baseline shouldn't see their baseline drop just because they had a poor few seasons. But those situations where an A+ has struggled for a long stretch their baseline should surely be dropped. Kind of like ND in real life college football, they are no longer viewed as an A+ prestige by recruits.

Maybe that was a touch high, but there were some really good coaches there, I was the Maine coach, umpikes was @ Southern, majresorter @ Cleveland St, hoosierchap @ BU, and cbriese @ UNLV are all relatively accomplished coaches - the type who probably should be able to make those runs.

I really think that the drag a conference has on a program is much too large. The reason you need to get 9+ humans in a conference isn't just to add postseason bids and get extra cash (although that is a definite plus), it is to eliminate all those D prestiges that hold an accomplished team back. Look at my tenure at Manhattan in Tark; after the following 9 year run (newest to oldest) I was told by Admin (Tarek at that time) that they were capped at an A-, the 17th highest DI prestige in Tark.

29-4, Elite 8
30-4, Final Four
31-3, Final Four
24-8, Sweet 16
35-0, National Champ
26-7, Elite 8
29-3, Sweet 16
29-3, Sweet 16
27-5, Sweet 16
3/13/2014 2:12 PM
Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.
I don't think I agree with the idea that filling a world would make it a great time for mid-majors. If mid-majors are already having trouble recruiting players that will let them be more than a one and done team, I can't imagine that adding another 175 coaches to fight for those recruits will do anything to help.
3/13/2014 3:02 PM
The reason the BCS schools are full is because unless you recruit a bunch of people to your conference, you're at a dramatic disadvantage. I understand Duke, Kentucky, UNC, UCLA etc will be full no matter. That's great, but do you honestly think Oregon St, Iowa St, Hawaii, Fresno St, Purdue, West Virginia, etc are getting filled primarily because they are people's favorite teams?

Look again at the two resumes I posted on Page 3. Why would the first resume stay in their current situation, when a relative bottom feeder in a Big 6 ends up with the same prestige? And for the record, he didn't, he left to go to Kansas St.
3/13/2014 3:13 PM
Posted by acn24 on 3/13/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.
I don't think I agree with the idea that filling a world would make it a great time for mid-majors. If mid-majors are already having trouble recruiting players that will let them be more than a one and done team, I can't imagine that adding another 175 coaches to fight for those recruits will do anything to help.
Opt, I don't guess we will ever get a chance to find out what would happen if D1 was full.
However, currently alot of top teams don't even fight one battle while landing 3-4 five * recruits.
Add 181 more human coaches to Crum and if you don't think there is more competition for every single recruit with a star by his name... then there's not much to discuss... we just see it differently.
I am not saying it makes everything perfect. I am saying the engine was programmed with many more humans involved than there are today, and therefore we have a select few who have gotten a strangle-hold on the NT past the second round and with that comes... prestige, recruiting funds... etc,... the cycle continues
3/13/2014 3:20 PM
No, they may not be people's favorte teams but they are still apart of people's favorite conference. I took over WVU in Tark because I wanted to be in the Big East or ACC, and WVU was the best or only opening, I can't really remember.

ACN, yea that's silly. I've seen situations like that, and I don't like it. But in a way it makes sense, in real life simply because 1 school in a conference is great it doesn't mean it's going to attract a lot of top talent. The reason being these guys want to play against top competition. I'm not sure if the game should work like that, but it actually makes sense when comparing to real life.
3/13/2014 4:39 PM
Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by acn24 on 3/13/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.
I don't think I agree with the idea that filling a world would make it a great time for mid-majors. If mid-majors are already having trouble recruiting players that will let them be more than a one and done team, I can't imagine that adding another 175 coaches to fight for those recruits will do anything to help.
Opt, I don't guess we will ever get a chance to find out what would happen if D1 was full.
However, currently alot of top teams don't even fight one battle while landing 3-4 five * recruits.
Add 181 more human coaches to Crum and if you don't think there is more competition for every single recruit with a star by his name... then there's not much to discuss... we just see it differently.
I am not saying it makes everything perfect. I am saying the engine was programmed with many more humans involved than there are today, and therefore we have a select few who have gotten a strangle-hold on the NT past the second round and with that comes... prestige, recruiting funds... etc,... the cycle continues
I agree we won't ever see a full DI within a world.  I disagree that a full world will address the issue of top teams signing multiple 5 stars without competition, that is a symptom of how recruiting is structured and the fact that a good coach should be able to predict the outcome of battles with 95+% accuracy.  Add that to the recruit generation change that girt referenced, making the best recruits significantly better than any other recruits, and you have the recipe for perpetual elites.

Other than just saying 'more humans would lead to more competition' I'd love to hear an explanation about how adding 181 coaches at schools that will likely be B- or worse prestige will somehow make Michigan State have to fight for their 5 stars?  Those 181 coaches will fight the humans currently at schools with low prestige, which will just make mid-majors worse than they are now.
3/13/2014 4:44 PM
i don't think we even have to speculate on this one, about what a full world is like. worlds were WAY fuller before seble released new recruit generation. if i remember correctly, 30% of the human population in d1 was shed over approximately 6-10 months. this was primarily because recruit generation left those mid majors fighting so intensely for half way decent recruits, it was unmanageable. losing half the mid major coaches (roughly) is the only reason mid major coaches can bear the situation today, it seems to me.
3/13/2014 4:47 PM
Posted by kmasonbx1 on 3/13/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):
No, they may not be people's favorte teams but they are still apart of people's favorite conference. I took over WVU in Tark because I wanted to be in the Big East or ACC, and WVU was the best or only opening, I can't really remember.

ACN, yea that's silly. I've seen situations like that, and I don't like it. But in a way it makes sense, in real life simply because 1 school in a conference is great it doesn't mean it's going to attract a lot of top talent. The reason being these guys want to play against top competition. I'm not sure if the game should work like that, but it actually makes sense when comparing to real life.
Well, yes and no.  I think just as compelling an argument could be made that kids would rather play at a school like that, where they have a chance at a deep NT run, versus a school that is A- because they are in a power conference, make the NT, but lose in the 1st or 2nd round.  Memphis certainly didn't have any trouble recruiting elite talent.

I think a Coach prestige has been thrown around before - that would allow the game to reflect that there is a personality component to recruiting.  Calipari could recruit elite talent at any stop, he didn't suddenly become able to when he got to Kentucky.
3/13/2014 4:57 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 3/13/2014 4:44:00 PM (view original):
i don't think we even have to speculate on this one, about what a full world is like. worlds were WAY fuller before seble released new recruit generation. if i remember correctly, 30% of the human population in d1 was shed over approximately 6-10 months. this was primarily because recruit generation left those mid majors fighting so intensely for half way decent recruits, it was unmanageable. losing half the mid major coaches (roughly) is the only reason mid major coaches can bear the situation today, it seems to me.
Interesting conversation from some sharp coaches.

DI was definitely quite a bit more full before recruit generation was changed. People felt it had gotten too hard to compete outside the major conferences, and although some of this was a bit exaggerated, generally I think they were correct.
3/13/2014 9:56 PM
Just to put in my 2 cents as someone who has seen the situation from a different perspective than some others. 

The game is about having fun, not trying to simulate college basketball.  I think too little emphasis in development decisions has been around the fun factor.  I'd go so far as to say it's been given no priority over making things "real".  If I'm looking at the HD bottom line, I'm not sure I'd be happy that replicating the overall success of real life conferences won out over keeping paying customers.  It's almost as if success of HD is defined by the lack success by 80% of their customers.

For me (and I think a lot of others) the game became a lot less fun when the number of good recruits really dried up and it felt like unless you were one of the elite, you were just screwed.  Maybe that's not entirely true but if the perception of the non-elite coach is that he can't really compete, then it's no surprise they find the game less fun and leave.  IMO, the recruit generation change was the worst thing to happen to this game.  If they were going to stop development I wish it had happened prior to that.  Perhaps they wouldn't have lost so many coaches?

I'm all for the BCS schools having an advantage.  It does help keep the game on a somewhat recognizable footing.  But if there were more good players available, the BCS schools would just have an advantage, not a death grip, on success at the NT level.
of 6
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > D1 National Championship Game is for BCS Conf.

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.