Way to completely gloss over the fact that I did better at low D1 than whinenavy and tkimble.  I have 3 NT wins and a lot more NT appearances than whine and tkimble did/do at low D1.  Whinenavy had 0 NT wins in 5 seasons at Eastern Washington and is trying to tell me how it is at low D1 when he's flopping his Big 12 conference **** everywhere now at Oklahoma...the guy was a hack until he got all the spoils/advantages.

Just quit pretending like you know how I play man...you're never in a conf/world with me, we never play against each other, you don't follow my teams...so you saying I suck and play all sims is just ******* laughable at this point.  I'm not the best coach ever, but I'm above average, yet you're stuck on this 2009 version of colonels19...well we're way past that, pal.  Most guys are afraid to schedule my New Orleans team because they know I'm not a pushover.  I beat Duke in the NT, I beat johnsensing's colluding *** in a game that counted, I beat jetwildcat, I battle with jaycee55 pretty routinely, and I absolutely pwn my conference mate mpate10.  There used to be 5 or 6 coaches in Knight Sun Belt...they all left...not my fault.  Get in Knight D1 and schedule my *** yearly, then we'll talk.  Again, this isn't SIUE v. AASU in Tark 2010 anymore.

you largely directed your comment to me there... i dont have to comment on our relative success... i dont really know stine and tkimble's low d1 record that well, but i am familiar with their work, and both are hands-down better coaches than you. sorry, just the reality. maybe you have more low d1 success, but the point is, you have such unimpressive low d1 success, its suggestive of a mental illness that you would respond to a post of mine about low d1 strategy, with a comment with 0 substance that simply points at your own "success", as proof that you are right. jesus, get a grip man. to give you some credit - you have done alright - but come on. you can't tell me your success means you are right when you are sitting here arguing with me - about anything, ever. im not telling you im right because i am infinitely more successful than you, im not backing you into a corner where you have to defend your record. what don't you get about that? i responded to your initial comments simply going at the ideas, giving you the opportunity to engage as an equal in the exchange of those ideas. and you point to your record as proof you are right. i seriously don't know how you don't see how ridiculous that is.

I'll wait til you're done editing to respond.........

Posted by colonels19 on 6/4/2015 10:08:00 PM (view original):
Way to completely gloss over the fact that I did better at low D1 than whinenavy and tkimble.  I have 3 NT wins and a lot more NT appearances than whine and tkimble did/do at low D1.  Whinenavy had 0 NT wins in 5 seasons at Eastern Washington and is trying to tell me how it is at low D1 when he's flopping his Big 12 conference **** everywhere now at Oklahoma...the guy was a hack until he got all the spoils/advantages.

Just quit pretending like you know how I play man...you're never in a conf/world with me, we never play against each other, you don't follow my teams...so you saying I suck and play all sims is just ******* laughable at this point.  I'm not the best coach ever, but I'm above average, yet you're stuck on this 2009 version of colonels19...well we're way past that, pal.  Most guys are afraid to schedule my New Orleans team because they know I'm not a pushover.  I beat Duke in the NT, I beat johnsensing's colluding *** in a game that counted, I beat jetwildcat, I battle with jaycee55 pretty routinely, and I absolutely pwn my conference mate mpate10.  There used to be 5 or 6 coaches in Knight Sun Belt...they all left...not my fault.  Get in Knight D1 and schedule my *** yearly, then we'll talk.  Again, this isn't SIUE v. AASU in Tark 2010 anymore.

its hysterical you point you your "absolute pwn(age)" of your ONLY CONFERENCE MATE as a key line item, when you talk about your "success". i don't think you could have reinforced my point any better than that.

again. i didnt start saying you suck as a coach. i disagreed with your ideas on their merits - not yours. you couldn't debate the ideas on their merits so you tried to move to something superficial and meaningless (in the exchange of ideas), your resume, which is just made all the more ridiculous because of how it compares to my resume. you can't ever win an argument by citing your success when you are arguing against someone with a million times more success. thats the point, its really no more complicated than that. again, im not trying to win an argument by saying, colonels, you have been at this school what 20 seasons and you never even made the s16 - while in my first 15 seasons in d1 in my life, i had 5 championships. you are doing that. but instead you are saying, i should win this argument, not because of ideas, but because ive been at this school 20 seasons and i manage to make the NT yearly, while you've only won 20 championships.

to be crystal clear... im saying, lets just debate the ideas on their merits, as more or less equals. you are saying, no im right because, look at my success, to a group of people who range from more successful to infinitely more successful. why are you doing that? why not just debate the ideas on their merits?

This started because I said I completely disagreed with tkimble's go big or go home and don't get well-rounded guys comments.  If go big or go home means battling with high D1 teams, then that's just ******* dumb.  You know what a good strategy at low D1 is?  Go after the best of what you can get without getting into ridiculous, unwinnable battles.  There are a lot of good players at D1, the talent is not finite.  If you're recruiting "a crappy big man", then you don't have an eye for talent/a feel for the game.

I feel like most of my New Orleans team is built with well-rounded guys, and again, I think the team is pretty much as successful as it can be at low D1.  As discussed in this thread, the chasm between high and low D1 is enormous...the Big 6 get all the perks, baseline prestige, money, etc.  I think my team is routinely one of the upper-echelon low D1 teams, year in and year out.  I want to know what your definition of "success" is at low D1.

You'd think this would be rather simple to figure out...but I'm not going to be as successful at D1 as all of you dick-shakers because I'm never leaving low D1 (and trust me, I'm qualified for every damned job out there) due to the fact that I like coaching teams that have never had a human coach before.  If you compare me to you and johnsensing and whoever the **** else, yeah my D1 feats are going to pale in comparison because of the chasm between high and low D1...but again, I whole-heartedly believe that I'm squeezing the most out of this orange.

And again, there used to be 5 or 6 humans in the Sun Belt when I got there...all but mpate10 left...why? *shrug* because they can't beat me?

Posted by colonels19 on 6/4/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):
This started because I said I completely disagreed with tkimble's go big or go home and don't get well-rounded guys comments.  If go big or go home means battling with high D1 teams, then that's just ******* dumb.  You know what a good strategy at low D1 is?  Go after the best of what you can get without getting into ridiculous, unwinnable battles.  There are a lot of good players at D1, the talent is not finite.  If you're recruiting "a crappy big man", then you don't have an eye for talent/a feel for the game.

I feel like most of my New Orleans team is built with well-rounded guys, and again, I think the team is pretty much as successful as it can be at low D1.  As discussed in this thread, the chasm between high and low D1 is enormous...the Big 6 get all the perks, baseline prestige, money, etc.  I think my team is routinely one of the upper-echelon low D1 teams, year in and year out.  I want to know what your definition of "success" is at low D1.

the first paragraph... good! you are making points based on ideas.

second paragraph, past the first sentence... bad! you are pointing to your mediocre success again and suggesting it means you are right. stick with the ideas, you do much better there.

to answer your question, to short time low d1 coaches, all i suggest they do is try to do what you are doing. schedule easy, in an easy conference, rack up wins, squeak into the NT, get wrecked, but get your prestige and resume up in the process. but if you want to stay there and build something as close to a "low d1 dynasty" as you can hope to, thats a totally different story. you really haven't done badly. its just that its really not hard at all to play a super easy schedule, in an empty conference, and make the NT yearly. if you want to show you've got something figured out that others dont, you have to do a hell of a lot better than that. im not saying you suck at NO. im saying don't tell me you have to be right because of your resume at NO. 

to address the part of your post that isn't complete crap (the part about ideas, not your success), i don't really think its go big or go home. i don't think you are way off on that. i also don't think that's what tkimble said. i think it is a very good strategy to take walkons to have more money to fight for players who are high impact (in the context of your team - nobody is saying go for a 5 star on a C mid major). its not the only strategy. if you want to focus on having an experienced team, you have to pretty much fill up, and thats a valid strategy.

the part that we were far apart on is the well rounded vs specialized players part. tkimble said to make sure you got guys who were actually good at something, you said you couldn't disagree more, while i said its the pillar of team building strategy, fundamental to the entire game. i think you could learn something here if you'd be open minded! if you can find players who are good in all areas - like a guard with good guard skills, good defensive ability, and good scoring ability - GREAT! get him while the getting is good. but, low d1 teams often cannot get those players, and a lot of low d1 coaches who are new to d1, really struggle, because they don't realize that is the case. they look at a 50 ath/def 90spd/per/bh guard and go oh my, hes bad on defense for my d2 team. i better not get him. ill take the guy with 80 ath, 80 spd, 80 def, 80 per, 80 bh, who isn't good at anything, and that really hurts. most of the well rounded players available in low d1 suck. not all. get one of the good ones, and thats great. but most people ultimately have to supplement, and frankly, to build with, players who have meaningful strengths and weaknesses, its just the reality of what is available. some of your best players, you best offensive guys, fit that mold. 

example, giordano. hes a great slanted player. he sucks on defense, really quite a liability for NT d1 play. but offensively and guard skills, hes great! those guys are the bread and butter. i mean, you are TOTALLY misplaying him, but that's outside the point (his scoring is soooo far off, way too low, you are killing yourself there). you can sometimes find guys like beirmann, rounded AND actually good at stuff, but its not that often. frankly, you have a good bit of talent on your team. you just are playing them like ****. no way that should be a NT1 team. part of it is you never realize you are playing like **** because you have 1 game before the NT against a NT quality opponent! you cant tell how well you are playing when you play horrible sim teams all year! 

anyway, your way of recruiting, really does look fine. your problem is that you don't grasp exactly what is the centerpiece of our original disagreement - how important it is to get players with clear strengths (taking clear weaknesses as you must), to align those strengths in a meaningful way, and to do everything you can to exploit those strengths as much as you can. your best scorer is 3rd at 9.1 ppg, at best half of what he should be, given your team. your team really suffers because your guard skills are so limited, you have a bunch of talent but its arranged poorly which forces you to start johnson at sg, even though he is basically dog **** for a team like yours. delarosa would be much better at sg but you can't play him there because you recruited these guys like johnson who dont make any sense, probably because you are 1) too worried about filling up instead of getting guys who can contribute and 2) getting guys who are well rounded instead of good at something worth a **** (gee, that sounds just like what tkimble said!!)

your top half players are actually worthwhile. but then you have guys like johnson, soles (what the hell were you thinking?), and jones. those guys blow. they aren't fit for a NT quality d2 team. why not just take walkons, instead of those beyond useless bench warmers, so you can upgrade some of the other guys you have that aren't that good, up to the level of guys like biermann and giordano (your best player)? if you did that - you'd have some S16s.

We inherently recruit differently, and I'm probably much further "off the grid" than most coaches.  I don't go into recruiting thinking I want X at P, or Y at ATH, or Z at DEF...I FSS, what I do, I look at the recruits and "watch" who I deem to be good players.  I don't want to and am not going to change how I recruit...I'm not billyg, I'm not whinenavy, I'm not tkimble, I'm not trentonjoe, I'm not johnsensing, I'm not mamxet, and I don't want to be.  I'm not looking for advice and I never was.

BTW, I'm amused that you keep digging at me/my team/my tactics, but then tell me not to bring up my "success".  Again what is success at low D1 according to you, and let's see what you've done at low D1.

Posted by colonels19 on 6/4/2015 10:53:00 PM (view original):
We inherently recruit differently, and I'm probably much further "off the grid" than most coaches.  I don't go into recruiting thinking I want X at P, or Y at ATH, or Z at DEF...I FSS, what I do, I look at the recruits and "watch" who I deem to be good players.  I don't want to and am not going to change how I recruit...I'm not billyg, I'm not whinenavy, I'm not tkimble, I'm not trentonjoe, I'm not johnsensing, I'm not mamxet, and I don't want to be.  I'm not looking for advice and I never was.

BTW, I'm amused that you keep digging at me/my team/my tactics, but then tell me not to bring up my "success".  Again what is success at low D1 according to you, and let's see what you've done at low D1.

you don't want to and am not going to change how you recruit? not looking for advice and never was? please, continue to preach to me about open-mindedness...

the only reason i mention your lack of success is because of how much you try to lean on that success. its the natural reaction. don't try to prove a point by pointing to a mediocre resume and i won't point out that said resume is mediocre.

Again I didn't ask for help.  You come off as a pompous know-it-all and that's why i suggest that you're closed-minded.  As for me?  I just really like doing everything on my own, I don't want advice, I don't want to be someone's protege/*****, I don't want that fuckstick billyg to tell me how to run my team...none of it...and if my "lonewolf" demeanor makes me seem closed-minded, well then it comes with the territory.  I will win and lose on my own merit, and if you can't respect that well then deal with it.

And again, stop skirting my question...what is success at low D1?  And let's see how "successful" YOU were at low D1.

5 NT wins at Northridge in 8 seasons...wtg guy...

sorry colonels, when you have reached the level of delusion where you think your resume may give you some high ground on me in terms of experience or success, i just can't continue that exchange. im not saying being successful makes me right (thats you), so i don't have to justify anything on that front, and frankly i can't go outline in detail why i am way more successful than you, without sounding like an arrogant dbag.

I'm just asking you what defines success at low D1, and the tough guy disappears all of a sudden.  That's how I know you've got nothing left...you refuse to answer a simple (and perhaps the most legitimate) question.  For as pompous as you are, you continually underwhelm me...guys that haven't played low D1 in forever, trying to tell newbies "how it is"...ltm.  Keep hiding behind your Big 6s

I think you guys discussion is a deadend. Colonels likes it at NO because he is the only coach that the team has had. He is doing quite well considering we all know that low end D-1, with no rollover money, can't compete with the big boys. I checked Tarkanian yesterday, saw many D1 big 6 teams (full divisions) that get nowhere near the success Colonels has had, heck i'd fire a lot of them. He could qualify to a big 6 team but it's not his thing. I am not defending him, just stating the facts. So, if you want to judge his success, you have to compare his achievements to low end D-1 teams, almost alone in their division... Cause some low-end divisions are filled and get more money, which is key to the game. So Colonels, if I was you, I'd take on a real big 6 program, somewhere else... You already have NO... So you could leave Loyola MD... to a big six programs when the time has come and face Gillespie (Kansas).

On the other hand, Gillespie is thinking that D1 success is based on NT wins, which is also right. So, unless you guys talk about the same thing, talk about how success should be measured but with the same premisses, I'd say stop arguing.