Posted by taniajane on 11/4/2015 4:13:00 PM (view original):
I agree. But, the Pac 10, the Big Ten, ACC SEC etc were not ALWAYS the Prestige schools (Minus Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina). I would not mind conferences being equal in prestige and let their coaches make them prestigious as a conference. The real Life Indiana State, or Jacksonville U making the championship game are rare now, but nearly impossible in WIS.

Rare?

LMAO

By the way, there are two game variations of WIS that let you do JUST THAT.

They are called DII and DIII

Last non big 6 NC team:

Naismith: Cal Riverside(big west) season 40
Wooden: Southern Mississippi(C-USA) season 35
Rupp: Marshall(C-usa) season 80
Smith: Army(Patriot) season 35
Iba: St. Bonaventure(A-10) season 54
Allen: Southern(big sky) Season 40
Crum: Northeastern(caa) season 40
Tark: North Texas (mwc) season 54
Knight: Memphis(C-usa) season 19
Phelan: Air Force(mwc) season 24

Posted by hughesjr on 11/6/2015 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/6/2015 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 11/4/2015 11:20:00 PM (view original):
I think conference prestige will be more important, which may offset some of the pain of losing the tournament cash. There is also still the baseline prestige, which will give an advantage to Big 6 schools. I  also think that most of the Big 6 coaches are very skilled in order to have landed the Big 6 programs, so they will probably still be able to land the better players because of their recruiting abilities. I am not sure if I remember reading this, but some of the players will have pre set preferences for the kind of schools that they will go to, and some of those players may prefer the Big conferences right off of the bat. It may not make as big of a difference as it sounds. I kind of think it will be interesting to see what happens, personal, so I am not really of one opinion or the other. The game will still be a lot of fun no matter how that is handled. I do think that the system right now makes it pretty much impossible for lower echelon teams to compete in recruiting. That is probably fairly realistic though.

In this day and time I don't know too many top players saying they want to go to LIU Brooklyn or to VMI or even Parie View A&M.  Most of those players at those schools are sub 300 overall players.  They are players that are good enough for Div 1 but never get looks at the Mid Major Level and above.  Now there are players that may be good enough to go to a Big East School as a RS but will look at an A10 school to get more playing time and things like that but to say bottom schools should have a better edge to go against a Big 6 school is not realistic.  Big 6 schools get the players they want and they compete vs other Big 6 schools for recruits.  Gonzaga and others have a history of getting good quality players and once awhile a player in their back yard that is a 5 star player will consider them and go there.  Just like UNLV got a great 5 star PF from Las Vegas recently.  My point is Postseason cash is a part of the game and should not be taken away.  I respect all schools and players want to build their systems up but there is a reason why you work your way up to a Bigger conference so you can compete as a coach and get the benifits of being in a big conference.  Just my point on it but WIS will make their own decisions.

All you said is true, sort of.

This is "What If Sports" , so teams should be able to better compete.  If only the elite schools can really win, then every D-1 world will have 15 players at the top elite schools and all the other teams will be SIMs.

There is baseline prestige, which means the Big 5 teams, even if they suck, will have more prestige and get better recruits as compared to non Big 5.  But remember that UNLV and Houstion and Memphis have competed very recently with the major players.  Right now teams like Gonzaga and Wichita State are competing with the big boys.  They are getting top flight recruits.  (Not every player on their team, but some players).  Look at BYU and Jimmer Fredette as an example.

They have to actually test the new system in beta, but I think that splitting out:

1.  Scouting:  Costs lots of money.  Everyone can scout and it does not have any recruiting value.

2.  Recruiting: everyone get the same amount of home and campus visits, each one is worth more based on prestige.  Better teams will get better players because of prestige, since their effort is worth more.  BUT, they have to properly concentrate their effort on players.

That all makes sense to me.  The better teams CAN get the best players .. if they properly scout and properly focus on players with their recruiting effort.  If they either don't find the best players (don't scout) .. or if they don't properly focus on the better players, they can lose some guys.

The way it is now,  few will even challenge an A+ Div-1 team for a recruit.  So they spend enough cash to get the guy solid ($8,000) and use the rest of their cash somewhere else.  Kentucky or Duke can't recruit guys from California if UCLA or USC have an A+, etc.  In the new setup, Duke (if they are the better prestige team) can recruit against UCLA for the best player in California.  I like the whole concept of what they are trying to do.

+1 - I think it will be pretty exciting to see what will happen. I can't wait to test it. I think this system will reward coaches who do a lot of smart research. But the thing I will like most is that this system will prevent a coach from coming in on a player at signings with 100 home visits. That part has always been something that has seemed unrealistic, and it's really frustrating when it happens to you. I like the new concept a lot. I have played a lot of seasons, and this will add a whole new dimension and shake things up a bit. 

Right now it is interesting personally I see a view main opinions people have:

• Want HD to be completely fluid like D2/D3(personally I think thats stuipid)
• Want HD to be only Elites going far
• Want HD to remain as is(basically only Elites going far)
• Want HD to be more middleground where you can have more than just 1/2 built up projects getting to the S16.

Personally what I'd love to see would be the absolute elites(billy, stew, acn, johnsensing, stinenavy, kimball, jdno, etc) to take a conf(Summit, is that considered the best D- baseline conf?) and see how far they can build it up honestly each taking teams in seperate conferences would be even more interesting since they wouldn't be able to benefit each other with bonus cash and make it more like a true low end school test and not a conf building test.  Honestly I'm not sure how far these coaches could go and how how they could build a program.

Check out Gillespie, he turned out St-Bonaventure's in no time and will probably compete in the NT soon enough. It's amazing what he has done. I think it's a solid idea, they should challenge themselves going to low-end D1 teams spread everywhere and see how it goes, if it's possible to win it there.

Posted by zorzii on 11/9/2015 7:39:00 AM (view original):
Check out Gillespie, he turned out St-Bonaventure's in no time and will probably compete in the NT soon enough. It's amazing what he has done. I think it's a solid idea, they should challenge themselves going to low-end D1 teams spread everywhere and see how it goes, if it's possible to win it there.

i appreciate it, but its honestly shocking to hear that program mentioned already on the boards a few times. its really not amazing, ill break it down so anyone else can do the same thing. first season, i signed 4 guards who were awesome offensively, for a mid major. i took the hit on defense, made sure 2 could play PG, and those 4 alone can basically comprise my entire offense. its better to have a deep team offensively but its certainly not necessary and at a mid major, you don't need to get close to perfection to be good, for a mid major. so, i just run my offense through those players, and it makes us decent. one or two are like 90/90/90 spd/per/bh and the others are imperfect per scorers, but close enough for a mid major.

since then, i did nothing, i recruited some mediocre bigs, skipped the next recruting with 1 opening, half assed the last one with 2 openings... just did enough to field a team. all to say, its really all about that first class, the success of st bon, thats all you should be looking at (P.S. we only made 1 2nd round so its not like they are some super team or something. have a better team this year but who knows how it will turn out, lot of luck in your NT draw).

anyway, heres the rub. its all about marginal returns in this game. the marginal return on your first scorer on a team is always the highest. for top teams, we always talk about how the marginal return on defense is the best, when you already have a great team, which is why elite defense wins championships. well, maybe in slightly different words, but thats the essence of it. on the bottom, its basically reversed. an elite defender is still only 20% of your defense while hes on the court. an elite scorer can be 40, maybe 50%, especially at a mid major. so i just took the low hanging fruit, my scorers are basically BCS caliber in their offense only (they suck outside of that), the rest of the team is mediocre, and thats really all i did. i run press so im not competing with the masses of man teams above me, i can get by with less ath/def and deal with a crappier fg% because we still force some turnovers. i will say i put a good amount of effort into class 1, scouting, finding internationals, etc, so i didn't slack the whole way, but this certainly isn't an example of all that can be done. this is only an example of doing 1 thing well with what is essentially a super classed team...

anyway, people talk about, what if the top coaches coached crappy teams, and of course, they could succeed. i don't even believe it has to be a full conference, not to succeed like a mark few has succeeded, who is sort of the long-term gold standard of mid major coaches. the last mid major i remotely tried at was also a 4 season shot (and also started on a d+, they were a true mid major not that it matters), and half the first two season's budget was spent on international recruiting testing, right after seble pulled out unlimited letters and it was hurting my real team that he did that without warning (it was unlimited letters to internationals only which was like a 2:1 advantage over HVs). i only recruited so i wouldn't ghost ship. got lucky with the local bigs and we made the elite 8 on a fb/press in our last year - on half a recruiting budget. its really not that mid majors can't compete here - its that the good coaches want the good jobs and its pretty hard to be that much better than those guys are, to make up for it. the top guys can do it, i've never really tried but just in that 4 season stint and this one its pretty obvious its doable (it was obvious before either, just to be clear, but it has reinforced my views). 

its like ive said before, people have to stop trying to play a mid major like the big boys are playing their BCS schools. you can never win playing their game. mix it up, do something different, run your fb/press or give zone a shot. i really wanted to write a d1 mid major guide years ago but i just never have, i turned it into a full HD guide and never finished, its maybe, at best, half way done. i should have just stuck to the d1 mid major guide but i pulled in too much about team composition and stuff and it just got out of hand. but the crux of it was, you have to focus on the bang for your buck, offense, your passing in pg, your reb at the 4/5, focus on those things first. you almost have to play like d2/d3 but even more extreme because of who is above you. and really, enough man defense at mid majors... you can do it, but i really don't recommend it. just take over a program, focus on the key ratings at the key positions, and get your prestige up, and repeat. the reality is, at a mid major, a D+ vs a C+ doesn't even matter that much. the obviously good guys, you aren't getting with either. i mean, it does help, for sure, but you can absolutely build a team capable of pulling in multiple NT wins over their tenure, on a D+. don't try to brute force, gotta find the guys who nobody else is looking at, find the high/highs in the right areas...

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/9/2015 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Right now it is interesting personally I see a view main opinions people have:

• Want HD to be completely fluid like D2/D3(personally I think thats stuipid)
• Want HD to be only Elites going far
• Want HD to remain as is(basically only Elites going far)
• Want HD to be more middleground where you can have more than just 1/2 built up projects getting to the S16.

Personally what I'd love to see would be the absolute elites(billy, stew, acn, johnsensing, stinenavy, kimball, jdno, etc) to take a conf(Summit, is that considered the best D- baseline conf?) and see how far they can build it up honestly each taking teams in seperate conferences would be even more interesting since they wouldn't be able to benefit each other with bonus cash and make it more like a true low end school test and not a conf building test.  Honestly I'm not sure how far these coaches could go and how how they could build a program.

you are all over this game so im assuming you are familiar with CUSA rupp? girt lead that project, i had a team for a couple seasons but wasn't part of accomplishing anything, but it was filled with a top notch cast of coaches. they were without question the #1 conference in that world, and marshall won 3 championships, one under girt, two under acn (although acn's first was like his first or maybe second season, so it was girts players, so they sort of get joint credit for that one). 

not sure if you are saying because that was a C prestige mid major conference, that it doesn't count? is it limited only to d+ mid majors (i don't think there are d- baseline confs, i think the worst schools are d+)? anyway it seems to me the mid majors have 2 issues, prestige, and money, and taking a situation without either is obviously the hardest - but generally the guys with success outside of BCS aren't taking the absolute worst case positions, either (IRL). seems to me having 1 of the 2 disadvantages is probably enough.

Posted by gillispie1 on 11/9/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/9/2015 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Right now it is interesting personally I see a view main opinions people have:

• Want HD to be completely fluid like D2/D3(personally I think thats stuipid)
• Want HD to be only Elites going far
• Want HD to remain as is(basically only Elites going far)
• Want HD to be more middleground where you can have more than just 1/2 built up projects getting to the S16.

Personally what I'd love to see would be the absolute elites(billy, stew, acn, johnsensing, stinenavy, kimball, jdno, etc) to take a conf(Summit, is that considered the best D- baseline conf?) and see how far they can build it up honestly each taking teams in seperate conferences would be even more interesting since they wouldn't be able to benefit each other with bonus cash and make it more like a true low end school test and not a conf building test.  Honestly I'm not sure how far these coaches could go and how how they could build a program.

you are all over this game so im assuming you are familiar with CUSA rupp? girt lead that project, i had a team for a couple seasons but wasn't part of accomplishing anything, but it was filled with a top notch cast of coaches. they were without question the #1 conference in that world, and marshall won 3 championships, one under girt, two under acn (although acn's first was like his first or maybe second season, so it was girts players, so they sort of get joint credit for that one). 

not sure if you are saying because that was a C prestige mid major conference, that it doesn't count? is it limited only to d+ mid majors (i don't think there are d- baseline confs, i think the worst schools are d+)? anyway it seems to me the mid majors have 2 issues, prestige, and money, and taking a situation without either is obviously the hardest - but generally the guys with success outside of BCS aren't taking the absolute worst case positions, either (IRL). seems to me having 1 of the 2 disadvantages is probably enough.

yes I familar with the conf(now in shambles) and I know girt and acn won many titles there(I believe they were the only 2).

I guess personally I'd classify the C-USA as a "mid-major" conf since it's all C?  I'm absolutely not taking any credit away because of that, I just figured doing the same thing from a D baseline would maybe provide a test to see what the limit is, since we know a great group of coaches can come together at the mid major level and build the top conference.(I don't think they're any D+ or D- baseline conferences?

Honestly I think a lot of people want to big a correction, what you said is true, that the reason you can't take a low D1 school to the S16 and beyond is because all of the capable coaches of doing that are all at Big 6 jobs.  I think it maybe a little too hard at the moment, but personally think it's not too far away from being the right balance of competition.

Sort of a reply to what you said about St. Boneventure, I guess I started the hyping of that squad, but you already went to the 2nd round in season 3(I didn't catch who you played and what their roster was like), but you already got twice as far as the majority of coaches have even once they get up to B- prestige.

gillispie, great post up above...

Just want to ask... you stressed getting elite guards because you were running a fullcourt press and fastbreak, right?
But if you were running a triangle, then great scoring PF-C types could be targeted?

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/9/2015 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 11/9/2015 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 11/9/2015 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Right now it is interesting personally I see a view main opinions people have:

• Want HD to be completely fluid like D2/D3(personally I think thats stuipid)
• Want HD to be only Elites going far
• Want HD to remain as is(basically only Elites going far)
• Want HD to be more middleground where you can have more than just 1/2 built up projects getting to the S16.

Personally what I'd love to see would be the absolute elites(billy, stew, acn, johnsensing, stinenavy, kimball, jdno, etc) to take a conf(Summit, is that considered the best D- baseline conf?) and see how far they can build it up honestly each taking teams in seperate conferences would be even more interesting since they wouldn't be able to benefit each other with bonus cash and make it more like a true low end school test and not a conf building test.  Honestly I'm not sure how far these coaches could go and how how they could build a program.

you are all over this game so im assuming you are familiar with CUSA rupp? girt lead that project, i had a team for a couple seasons but wasn't part of accomplishing anything, but it was filled with a top notch cast of coaches. they were without question the #1 conference in that world, and marshall won 3 championships, one under girt, two under acn (although acn's first was like his first or maybe second season, so it was girts players, so they sort of get joint credit for that one). 

not sure if you are saying because that was a C prestige mid major conference, that it doesn't count? is it limited only to d+ mid majors (i don't think there are d- baseline confs, i think the worst schools are d+)? anyway it seems to me the mid majors have 2 issues, prestige, and money, and taking a situation without either is obviously the hardest - but generally the guys with success outside of BCS aren't taking the absolute worst case positions, either (IRL). seems to me having 1 of the 2 disadvantages is probably enough.

yes I familar with the conf(now in shambles) and I know girt and acn won many titles there(I believe they were the only 2).

I guess personally I'd classify the C-USA as a "mid-major" conf since it's all C?  I'm absolutely not taking any credit away because of that, I just figured doing the same thing from a D baseline would maybe provide a test to see what the limit is, since we know a great group of coaches can come together at the mid major level and build the top conference.(I don't think they're any D+ or D- baseline conferences?

Honestly I think a lot of people want to big a correction, what you said is true, that the reason you can't take a low D1 school to the S16 and beyond is because all of the capable coaches of doing that are all at Big 6 jobs.  I think it maybe a little too hard at the moment, but personally think it's not too far away from being the right balance of competition.

Sort of a reply to what you said about St. Boneventure, I guess I started the hyping of that squad, but you already went to the 2nd round in season 3(I didn't catch who you played and what their roster was like), but you already got twice as far as the majority of coaches have even once they get up to B- prestige.

The Summit in Allen has a few teams up to a B, and conference prestige up to C+, although I think they may have had a net loss of coaches this season, with 9 humans and 3 sims.  I think the MWC in Crum is really strong - but if you're considering the C-USA a mid-major conference the Mountain West would be too.  Girt and I were the only 2 win titles (and all 3 of the conferences titles were from Marshall, I never did at UAB), and as gill mentioned, it was probably 1.5 each, since I did win my first year at Marshall.  

Really I think it is very difficult for a lone coach to do this by themselves, having a full conference is so important, both in potentially earning additional recruiting cash and especially in removing the worst teams that will artificially cap a team's prestige.  For reference, I had this run at Manhattan, early in Tark (so people were just getting to DI and filling in at elites, so it isn't as impressive as it may be if it happened today):

19	johncannon	29-4	11-1	12-2	6-1	16-0	3	7	64	A-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
18	johncannon	30-4	12-1	11-2	7-1	16-0	6	7	50	A-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Final Four)
17	johncannon	31-3	12-0	12-2	7-1	16-0	2	5	28	B+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Final Four)
16	johncannon	24-8	8-4	11-3	5-1	14-2		31	85	C+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
15	acn24	35-0	13-0	13-0	9-0	16-0	1	1	42	C	Conf Champion CT Champion National Champion
14	acn24	26-7	11-2	9-4	6-1	14-2		28	101	C	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
13	acn24	29-3	11-0	13-2	5-1	15-1	2	1	9	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
12	acn24	29-3	10-1	14-1	5-1	16-0	7	23	187	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
11	acn24	27-5	10-2	12-2	5-1	15-1	17	8	23	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
10	acn24	24-6	10-2	11-3	3-1	12-4	19	64	300	-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (1st Round)

During a sitemail exchange with Tarek, I was told that I was essentially capped at A- unless more coaches joined.  This was very early in the development of prestige, and before potential adn the recruit generation update.

Yeah, I think no system is perfect. Just level it a bit, make it a bit easier for mid-major or low-end to compete.

1) Cashover cut to 50 % in D1 is allright.

2) Make recruiting tougher for players D1 elites won't use. Players don't want to sit on the bench. I had JBas of Syracuse on a player I really liked, threw a lot of money, but he became tight with the player (I was just trying to see how much it would cost since I already had locked up what I needed). And the player is sitting on his bench at 5.5 minutes a game while he would play 15 on mine. So let say I can promise 15 minutes and he does offer 5, wouldn't be something to consider? Say I go starting.. I could of done it, he was a three stars players I think.

This is what needs to be thought over and everything will be great.

I'm starting to feel that everybody is shopping on empty stomachs. Gill said how a mid. Major can win now I feel were handicapping the game because people can't recruit the right players. Everyone can't get five star players even at mid majors. Your lucky to really get a four star player at a mid major. I think this was a bad idea and punishes good coaches because you have to be a good coach to get a high prestige and elite program. People flame out at bcs level all the time. We should give more respect to good coaches.

Posted by npb7768 on 11/9/2015 3:09:00 PM (view original):
gillispie, great post up above...

Just want to ask... you stressed getting elite guards because you were running a fullcourt press and fastbreak, right?
But if you were running a triangle, then great scoring PF-C types could be targeted?

i stressed getting elite guards offensively, because guard offense is the most efficient especially at the lower levels of the game. its only really high d1 where big man offense even comes close. also, elite scoring bigs are WAY harder to come by, because high ath is ultra coveted. whats the odds of me signing a 90 ath 90 lp big as a d+? its roughly 0. i mean, actually the last d1 team i tried on i had 2... but still ;) that was a fluke, i still don't know how that happened, i remember wishing my championship d1 team i had in the same world could steal a player from that d+ team, it was pretty weird. but anyway, guards are a lot easier to come by. a 50 ath 50 def 90 spd 90 per guard is really not that coveted, but especially if they have solid bh, they are guys who could score 15 ppg efficiently for a middle of the pack (NT round 2) BCS team. of course, they suck at other things, but that kind of player can be huge for a mid major, especially if they don't play man to man.

triangle doesn't really need bigs any more than motion (which is what i play at st bon). i played fb/fcp at san fran cisco in tark ages ago, where i made the elite 8, and there, actually, it was our bigs who were elite. we literally had a 90 ath/reb/def/lp big and two others who could start on most BCS teams. you have to take the elite talent you can get, if you can somehow get it down low (i still have no idea, that SF team was WAY more talented than my st bon team, they barely lost in the elite 8 and had better bigs than at least half a dozen championship teams of mine) - but in triangle, no, i'd definitely still be prioritizing guards. 

Posted by iwanturmind2 on 11/9/2015 10:17:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to feel that everybody is shopping on empty stomachs. Gill said how a mid. Major can win now I feel were handicapping the game because people can't recruit the right players. Everyone can't get five star players even at mid majors. Your lucky to really get a four star player at a mid major. I think this was a bad idea and punishes good coaches because you have to be a good coach to get a high prestige and elite program. People flame out at bcs level all the time. We should give more respect to good coaches.

they were all 0 stars who i signed... maybe a 1 star, maybe one 1 star i mean.