All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > .500 Record Requirement for D1 Postseason(Poll)
5/16/2014 10:10 PM
So now you're criticizing me for my winning percentage in the Big East, as well as for playing in a "sim dominant" league? I'm currently coaching Villanova and SHSU. I previously coached Campbell. I've never claimed to be a great coach--or even a particularly good one. Not sure what you're trying to prove about me, Taniajane.

(Also, your FAU team is in a "sim dominant" league, so why would you criticize me for being in one with one of my teams?)
5/16/2014 10:58 PM
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/16/2014 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by possumfiend on 5/16/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stewdog on 5/16/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I agree with wildcat. 
In Iba ACC, every coach is ridiculously good. we regularly have 10 make the NT. 
the problem is that the other 2-3 coaches (depending on the year) often go 9-1 or 10-0 out of conference and then get 1-2 conference wins. They finish under .500, but would be NT teams if they were in any other conference. 

They do NOT make the NT, and they shouldn't. But PIT is a good consolation prize and well deserved. They regularly make it far in the PT, though  they are low seeds (7-8 even) that have 10ish wins, thus proving they deserve to make it. 
Well you have me.  I am in no way the self proclaimed "ridiculously good" coach you profess yourself and the other members of Iba's ACC to be - I'm quite the opposite actually.  But where you see a team with an overall rating of 757 that goes 8-19 (2-14 in conference) heading into post season play as "deserving" of the "consolation prize" that is the PIT, I see a team that underperformed and was nowhere near deserving of post season play - but again, I am not a "ridiculously good" coach so I probably don't see things with your clarity.  That being said, it really is a false argument to talk about how a 2-14 ACC team would be an NT team if they were in any other conference because that is deceptively true.  Yes, it's probably true that this team, as is and as it was recruited as part of the ACC with ACC recruiting dollars, is probably good enough to win any of the non Big Six conferences and make the NT, and they should be.  But take away the ACC recruiting dollars and conference prestige and stick this team in the Big South and this team (as it is with the current roster) would never exist.  And if it did and remained there consistently, well then I'd show you a "ridiculously good" coach.   Conversely take any team from the Big South, as is, put them in the ACC and you probably have a team that will lose all of its conference games.   If you want to talk about how good a team would be if they played in the Big South, or any other conference, then go pick up a team in that conference and show me how good they would be because any other comparison is just conjecture.

Just so we are clear, the .500 rule, if implemented, would have meant that Iba's ACC would not have had one team play two games in the PIT this past season.  That would have cost your conference a whopping $833 per team in recruiting dollars and next recruiting season you would have to somehow still recruit those top tier players with just $46,917 in extra cash instead of the $47,750 you are actually getting.  And yes that would probably mean that a non Big Six conference like the Big South might have gotten those funds instead and would be recruiting with $2,500 per team rather than the $1,666 they are actually getting.

Of course, having put those numbers out there, I now see why you oppose this idea.  I mean how will any of the Big Six schools survive with this kind of competitive balance upheaval?  Seriously though, I don't ask for this game to be completely equitable, I think there should be advantages in place for the Big Six schools and the traditional powerhouses, just not with the current level of disparity.

So yes, by all means, continue to stand by the disjointed notion that the Iba ACC (or any other Big Six power conference) represents any semblance of reality and that these kind of dominant Big Six conferences are not artificially induced by giving the coaches within an over abundance of advantages (recruiting dollars, baseline prestige, recruiting dollars, conference prestige, oh, and did I mention the recruiting dollars?) that allow them recruit the best players year in and year out.  I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little to make the game more enjoyable.  But what do I know?  I'm just a crappy coach who plays this game for fun.
I'm just now dipping my toe in high-major water, and also have a team in the low-major category. Here's the thing: all you have to do to get that extra cash for the Big South is schedule better in the non-con, so your RPI is such that if you miss the NT, you'll be in the PIT. Simple as that.
True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season. 
5/16/2014 11:19 PM
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching
5/16/2014 11:21 PM
Posted by possumfiend on 5/16/2014 10:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/16/2014 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by possumfiend on 5/16/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stewdog on 5/16/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I agree with wildcat. 
In Iba ACC, every coach is ridiculously good. we regularly have 10 make the NT. 
the problem is that the other 2-3 coaches (depending on the year) often go 9-1 or 10-0 out of conference and then get 1-2 conference wins. They finish under .500, but would be NT teams if they were in any other conference. 

They do NOT make the NT, and they shouldn't. But PIT is a good consolation prize and well deserved. They regularly make it far in the PT, though  they are low seeds (7-8 even) that have 10ish wins, thus proving they deserve to make it. 
Well you have me.  I am in no way the self proclaimed "ridiculously good" coach you profess yourself and the other members of Iba's ACC to be - I'm quite the opposite actually.  But where you see a team with an overall rating of 757 that goes 8-19 (2-14 in conference) heading into post season play as "deserving" of the "consolation prize" that is the PIT, I see a team that underperformed and was nowhere near deserving of post season play - but again, I am not a "ridiculously good" coach so I probably don't see things with your clarity.  That being said, it really is a false argument to talk about how a 2-14 ACC team would be an NT team if they were in any other conference because that is deceptively true.  Yes, it's probably true that this team, as is and as it was recruited as part of the ACC with ACC recruiting dollars, is probably good enough to win any of the non Big Six conferences and make the NT, and they should be.  But take away the ACC recruiting dollars and conference prestige and stick this team in the Big South and this team (as it is with the current roster) would never exist.  And if it did and remained there consistently, well then I'd show you a "ridiculously good" coach.   Conversely take any team from the Big South, as is, put them in the ACC and you probably have a team that will lose all of its conference games.   If you want to talk about how good a team would be if they played in the Big South, or any other conference, then go pick up a team in that conference and show me how good they would be because any other comparison is just conjecture.

Just so we are clear, the .500 rule, if implemented, would have meant that Iba's ACC would not have had one team play two games in the PIT this past season.  That would have cost your conference a whopping $833 per team in recruiting dollars and next recruiting season you would have to somehow still recruit those top tier players with just $46,917 in extra cash instead of the $47,750 you are actually getting.  And yes that would probably mean that a non Big Six conference like the Big South might have gotten those funds instead and would be recruiting with $2,500 per team rather than the $1,666 they are actually getting.

Of course, having put those numbers out there, I now see why you oppose this idea.  I mean how will any of the Big Six schools survive with this kind of competitive balance upheaval?  Seriously though, I don't ask for this game to be completely equitable, I think there should be advantages in place for the Big Six schools and the traditional powerhouses, just not with the current level of disparity.

So yes, by all means, continue to stand by the disjointed notion that the Iba ACC (or any other Big Six power conference) represents any semblance of reality and that these kind of dominant Big Six conferences are not artificially induced by giving the coaches within an over abundance of advantages (recruiting dollars, baseline prestige, recruiting dollars, conference prestige, oh, and did I mention the recruiting dollars?) that allow them recruit the best players year in and year out.  I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little to make the game more enjoyable.  But what do I know?  I'm just a crappy coach who plays this game for fun.
I'm just now dipping my toe in high-major water, and also have a team in the low-major category. Here's the thing: all you have to do to get that extra cash for the Big South is schedule better in the non-con, so your RPI is such that if you miss the NT, you'll be in the PIT. Simple as that.
True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season. 
The same could be said of teams who stack up 20 win seasons in low-major conferences with lots of sims, though.

"20 wns, 21 wins, 22 wins over all this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season"

And I can speak from direct experience: it's harder to go 13-15 in a high-major than it EVER was getting 20+ wins in a low-major.
5/16/2014 11:22 PM
Posted by taniajane on 5/16/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching
Scheduling well is part of being a good coach. I looked at yours. You have 1 top 50 RPI team scheduled for next season, 2 top 100, and the rest are awful. You're shooting yourself in the foot at a low-major with that schedule.
5/17/2014 2:07 AM
I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little

And some people don't, at least not this particular one. The current seeding formula is pretty fair IMO. I could live with some kind of artificial restriction I suppose if need be so that the people apparently not good enough to build a program up to get themselves into one of those super sweet BCS gigs where money rains from the sky and life is easy (except its not really like that) but having that bar set at .500 is not something I favor. There is no cool shorthand for it, and I don't have a hard value in mind, but a few games under .500 (maybe 13-14 or 12-15 for instance, maybe even 11-16 if they've got some good wins, etc) ought to get into the PIT if they place highly enough on the projection report. 

I still don't think that the 8-19 teams or whatever happen with enough frequency or volume to rewrite the game for though.

I'm not sure why folks are talking about the money aspect like it matters. Same poster I spot quoted above showed how little difference the money makes either way. 

5/17/2014 4:54 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 5/17/2014 2:07:00 AM (view original):
I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little

And some people don't, at least not this particular one. The current seeding formula is pretty fair IMO. I could live with some kind of artificial restriction I suppose if need be so that the people apparently not good enough to build a program up to get themselves into one of those super sweet BCS gigs where money rains from the sky and life is easy (except its not really like that) but having that bar set at .500 is not something I favor. There is no cool shorthand for it, and I don't have a hard value in mind, but a few games under .500 (maybe 13-14 or 12-15 for instance, maybe even 11-16 if they've got some good wins, etc) ought to get into the PIT if they place highly enough on the projection report. 

I still don't think that the 8-19 teams or whatever happen with enough frequency or volume to rewrite the game for though.

I'm not sure why folks are talking about the money aspect like it matters. Same poster I spot quoted above showed how little difference the money makes either way. 

I think everything said here is fair.  The current seeding formula is relatively fair but could be improved.  I'm agreed that there is no cool shorthand for it and can't say I had a hard value in mind either when I came across this forum topic.  I decided the .500 was reasonable because it approximates what the RL PIT utilizes.  A line would need to be drawn somewhere and .500 is as good as any IMO.  8-19 or whatever teams making the PIT might not happen frequently but it's my opinion that if it happens once it's too much.

The only other comment I have is that I understand it is difficult having one of those super sweet BCS gigs where money rains from the sky and life is easy, and it should be difficult.  I don't profess to be great at this game, but I've done okay.  A better coach might have built Minnesota into a reasonably competitive team quicker than I did but I understand the game a lot better now than when I took it over and this is my dream job so I have no desire to go anywhere else.  All that being said, I don't think the game is difficult enough for the BCS teams.  I think the real issue here is that either recruit generation needs further revamping or that recruiting itself needs a complete overhaul but since I don't expect either of those to happen anytime soon, a fix like this seems to be the next best alternative.
5/17/2014 9:05 PM
dacj501: "...the people apparently not good enough to build a program up to get themselves into one of those super sweet BCS gigs where money rains from the sky and life is easy (except its not really like that)..."

Look, I haven't had a BCS gig, and I also have never assumed it's a piece of cake. I have immense respect for coaches who get to consistent top-25 level success in D1, because obviously they're achieving that against truly great competition. But I do have the experience of being in a full mid-major with 9-10 very talented coaches, where we got up to the #5 conf RPI two years in a row, and we still had teams getting overlooked for postseason bids vs our nearest BCS conference, which had 4 consistently excellent teams and 5-6 coaches who were, frankly, floundering given their advantages. If you honestly think our coaches getting
mid-major programs up to B / B+ simply weren't as dedicated / talented as the BCS underachievers, I mean, I don't know what to tell you.

Here's the thing: if there were more firings in high D1 for mediocre coaching performances, more relaxed BCS hiring rules later in the signup process so you don't end up with a Sim instead of giving a shot to a pretty well-qualified mid-major coach, and if baseline advantages for BCS schools were dampened a little more in the face of year-after-year mediocrity, I probably wouldn't be advocating any change in the PT formula. But my point is, if WIS isn't going to make any of those changes, at least give good mid-majors a shot in the PT over 11-win teams.
5/18/2014 1:29 AM
i thin what you are saying bhansalid is pretty reasonable. i think there is also a huge difference in top, middle, and low bcs. top and middle teams have huge advantages over mid majors, true. low bcs teams often have low prestige - lower than solid mid majors - although they do get money to compensate. however, they also have a bunch of top and middle tier bcs teams in conference, who have huge prestige advantages over them, which makes it very hard to win conference games. so when guys walk into that spot, its usually a lot harder to make the NT than it was at their old school, which makes it hard to get prestige up, to the point where they do have major advantages over mid majors. i think that C -> B- move at a BCS school is actually harder than at a mid major.

that said, i think your points are all pretty reasonable. baseline and conference prestige have already been lessened recently, by seble, making it even harder for those low BCS teams to build up, and reducing the advantages for BCS teams in general - albeit only slightly, when you get into that upper tier. so thats a start. i think there is more to do, and i can see eliminating some terrible W/L bcs teams, but i'd rather see the playing field leveled in organic fashion.
5/18/2014 9:21 AM
Posted by taniajane on 5/16/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching
From an HD perspective, intelligent scheduling IS a hugs part of great coaching.    if you are not taking advantage of being able to control your schedule then you are not a complete coach.
5/18/2014 10:13 AM
Posted by mullycj on 5/18/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by taniajane on 5/16/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching
From an HD perspective, intelligent scheduling IS a hugs part of great coaching.    if you are not taking advantage of being able to control your schedule then you are not a complete coach.
Of course it is. But sorry but I wont buy into a Big 6 school that schedules 4-6 Sims and mixes in a Mt St Mary's and a Delaware at home and still barely has a .500 season as being a great coach.
5/18/2014 10:37 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/18/2014 1:29:00 AM (view original):
i thin what you are saying bhansalid is pretty reasonable. i think there is also a huge difference in top, middle, and low bcs. top and middle teams have huge advantages over mid majors, true. low bcs teams often have low prestige - lower than solid mid majors - although they do get money to compensate. however, they also have a bunch of top and middle tier bcs teams in conference, who have huge prestige advantages over them, which makes it very hard to win conference games. so when guys walk into that spot, its usually a lot harder to make the NT than it was at their old school, which makes it hard to get prestige up, to the point where they do have major advantages over mid majors. i think that C -> B- move at a BCS school is actually harder than at a mid major.

that said, i think your points are all pretty reasonable. baseline and conference prestige have already been lessened recently, by seble, making it even harder for those low BCS teams to build up, and reducing the advantages for BCS teams in general - albeit only slightly, when you get into that upper tier. so thats a start. i think there is more to do, and i can see eliminating some terrible W/L bcs teams, but i'd rather see the playing field leveled in organic fashion.
Can you elaborate some on your comments regarding seble lessening baseline and conference prestige already?  When did this happen?  It seems from reading your posts you maintain a pretty open dialogue with seble.  I guess my question is if this kind of thing is happening why isn't it being addressed in the Release Notes? (Maybe it was and I missed it).  It would be nice to know when changes like this are being made - even if they are minor - and if we could have some kind of communication as to how those changes might impact the game.
5/18/2014 10:47 AM
it was in the release notes, i actually wasn't even aware until someone else pointed it out, not too long ago. i don't really know anything beyond the release notes, it seems like a fairly modest change on both fronts, though, the kind of thing one could easily not notice if nobody told them. so i don't think it greatly changed the landscape, but it probably was a good step, at least.
 
5/18/2014 12:52 PM
The lessening of baseline and conference prestige was 2 years ago. It had a very small effect.
5/18/2014 1:32 PM
Thanks guys.  I did find it back in June 2012.  I was hoping there might have been something a little more recent than this but I am happy that the game is getting some attention right now even if it has all been largely cosmetic in nature.
of 12
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > .500 Record Requirement for D1 Postseason(Poll)

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.