Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

Posted by joeykw18 on 3/11/2016 5:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

Totally agree with this....I don't want to see small conference teams in the championship. As the previous poster said if you want a level playing field D1 isn't for you. I'm sorry if your dream is for Idaho St to be a dynasty...


Id be ok with once in a blue moon a Sr led Butler-like team made the final four....but this speaks to recruit generation, not a recruiting overhaul

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/11/2016 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

The name of the website is What if Sports and this is a fantasy sport, not a simulator.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/12/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):
"Every Big6 team can and has (with I believe the exception of Fresno St) won the national championship in HD, so I don't know why you're limiting it to the team you listed. Also Marshall has won the NC in HD, so that leads me to believe that it is possible for a CUSA, MTN West, or A10 school to win a NT in HD (probably about the same chance as they do in real life)."

"...By Sr led team I mean a team with a large group of SRs, who had crap ratings out of HS, but high WE. They guys were developed not quite to the level of the Big-6 talent, but the equalizer would be IQ (SR led teams would have high IQ), which is why I suggested a slight IQ bump."

I don't think it was you who made the comments about Idaho St., but you did seem to indicate that you were in the camp of the "this is a simulator game" and results should echo real life, no? So my point, and perhaps I made it poorly or it was unclear, is that in so doing you're actually drawing a very arbitrary line and I'm just trying to understand how and why you're deciding who the winners and losers should be in this game.

You seem to be saying that only Big Six teams should have a legitimate shot at winning in HD and that you'd be okay if, on occasion, a "Sr. led" mid major could compete. And my question is why on both accounts? Why should it have to be a "Sr. led" team (i.e., why can't the best player be a junior or sophomore)? And why should this game be skewed to all Big Six teams as if all are created equal in the real world?

Is it because you think it mirrors reality? Because if you're looking for a game that mirrors reality then why should Northwestern or Boston College ever complete for a title in WIS? Neither has ever won a real life national title game. Why should Oregon or Stanford be able to "compete" for a championship in WIS? They have both won NCAA titles but not since 1942 when the game was different (as emy also pointed out previously). Shouldn't we apply the same "they can compete once in a blue moon if they are a Sr led team" standard to teams like this as well?

Are you advocating that we give all of the WIS Big Six teams like Providence a pass just because they're an HD Big 6 team? Even if historically they've won just as many real life NCAA titles as Binghamton or Norfolk State? Should they get a pass even if they have fewer real life NCAA titles than Holy Cross or CCNY or San Francisco? This all seems inconsistent with reality to me.

Again, If realism is the goal, then why do you appear to be advocating that a team like Purdue should be able to compete for national titles in this game but then also appear to advocate that a team like UNLV (which has actually won a championship in real life) should only be able to make deep runs "once in a blue moon" and provided they are "senior led"?

What I'm trying to understand is if you're that bent on the winners and losers in HD mirroring real life results then who cares which teams have historically won in "HD", why not advocate changing the game so that ONLY Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Duke, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St., North Carolina, Syracuse, UCLA, UNLV, and Villanova can win championships in HD because they are the ONLY teams that have done so in in real life since the NCAA moved to a 64 team field.

That would be realistic and consistent ... and probably not much fun ...

Posted by CoachWard95 on 3/11/2016 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/11/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
Looks like a lot of coaches don't realize there's a difference between prestige and baseline prestige.

Can you tell me the difference so I can understand what other coaches don't? Perfer pm.

Posted by timjmiller on 3/12/2016 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/12/2016 10:15:00 AM (view original):
"Every Big6 team can and has (with I believe the exception of Fresno St) won the national championship in HD, so I don't know why you're limiting it to the team you listed. Also Marshall has won the NC in HD, so that leads me to believe that it is possible for a CUSA, MTN West, or A10 school to win a NT in HD (probably about the same chance as they do in real life)."

"...By Sr led team I mean a team with a large group of SRs, who had crap ratings out of HS, but high WE. They guys were developed not quite to the level of the Big-6 talent, but the equalizer would be IQ (SR led teams would have high IQ), which is why I suggested a slight IQ bump."

I don't think it was you who made the comments about Idaho St., but you did seem to indicate that you were in the camp of the "this is a simulator game" and results should echo real life, no? So my point, and perhaps I made it poorly or it was unclear, is that in so doing you're actually drawing a very arbitrary line and I'm just trying to understand how and why you're deciding who the winners and losers should be in this game.

You seem to be saying that only Big Six teams should have a legitimate shot at winning in HD and that you'd be okay if, on occasion, a "Sr. led" mid major could compete. And my question is why on both accounts? Why should it have to be a "Sr. led" team (i.e., why can't the best player be a junior or sophomore)? And why should this game be skewed to all Big Six teams as if all are created equal in the real world?

Is it because you think it mirrors reality? Because if you're looking for a game that mirrors reality then why should Northwestern or Boston College ever complete for a title in WIS? Neither has ever won a real life national title game. Why should Oregon or Stanford be able to "compete" for a championship in WIS? They have both won NCAA titles but not since 1942 when the game was different (as emy also pointed out previously). Shouldn't we apply the same "they can compete once in a blue moon if they are a Sr led team" standard to teams like this as well?

Are you advocating that we give all of the WIS Big Six teams like Providence a pass just because they're an HD Big 6 team? Even if historically they've won just as many real life NCAA titles as Binghamton or Norfolk State? Should they get a pass even if they have fewer real life NCAA titles than Holy Cross or CCNY or San Francisco? This all seems inconsistent with reality to me.

Again, If realism is the goal, then why do you appear to be advocating that a team like Purdue should be able to compete for national titles in this game but then also appear to advocate that a team like UNLV (which has actually won a championship in real life) should only be able to make deep runs "once in a blue moon" and provided they are "senior led"?

What I'm trying to understand is if you're that bent on the winners and losers in HD mirroring real life results then who cares which teams have historically won in "HD", why not advocate changing the game so that ONLY Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Duke, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St., North Carolina, Syracuse, UCLA, UNLV, and Villanova can win championships in HD because they are the ONLY teams that have done so in in real life since the NCAA moved to a 64 team field.

That would be realistic and consistent ... and probably not much fun ...

Well, I personally think baseline prestige is important to have in D1 but that is just my opinion. It adds another aspect to the game, getting a big six job can be viewed as an end game and that is currently what I am trying to do in 2 of the worlds I play in. Without it all divisions would be pretty much the same, just recruiting slightly better players at each level. With that being said, I have stated my argument and you have yours, we can agree to disagree since we probably won't be convincing each other to think otherwise.

Edit: this comment is also directed at bistiza and gomiami

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/12/2016 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Baseline prestige would be defensible if high-baseline jobs came with high risks, specifically the risk of firing if the coach fails to take advantage of the baseline's benefits.

If you take over Kentucky, and Kentucky has the high baseline we know it does, one NT berth every four or seven years should not be good enough to keep that job.

If you take over Kentucky and Kentucky has the same baseline as Mississippi State, it might be a different story.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/12/2016 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Baseline prestige would be defensible if high-baseline jobs came with high risks, specifically the risk of firing if the coach fails to take advantage of the baseline's benefits.

If you take over Kentucky, and Kentucky has the high baseline we know it does, one NT berth every four or seven years should not be good enough to keep that job.

If you take over Kentucky and Kentucky has the same baseline as Mississippi State, it might be a different story.

We're aware that firings aren't working very well. It's always been a tough thing for us, because we don't want to encourage anyone to quit playing the game, which could happen in the case of a firing. But it definitely needs some work. That's on our list to improve.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/12/2016 12:01:00 PM (view original):
tim - I too like baseline prestige and I am not advocating for a flat, "everyone is equal game" ... I think baseline prestige should be floating based on real life results and updated each year after the NCAA tournament. I'd be fine if D2 worked that way as well. D3 I'd leave alone only because I think its where people come to learn the game and equal footing is probably best for that environment.

I also like the idea that it be more challenging to build a mid-major or a low tier D1 team into a powerhouse than say a Duke or Kansas but I don't think it should be improbable. Conversely I don't think it should be easy for Duke or Kansas to stay on top just because they're Duke or Kansas. Personally I think the game skews way too heavily to the top tier teams right now. Probably has a lot to do with recruit generation (too many high end players), but I think the prestige advantage is too significant and I don't like post-season cash. I don't have an answer for how to best balance it and that's not my job. I just don't think it works well where it is right now.

My argument above is really just to say I don't think it's right to systematically eliminate the ability for 78% to compete at D1 by virtue of the conference they play in and then point to real life as the reason why you're doing so. Make this game tough to compete season in and season out ... more ebb and flow ... for ALL teams and not simply a perpetual stamp of dominance because one plays as a Big 6 school.

Posted by joeykw18 on 3/12/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
First i want to apologize for my writing.....it's not my strong suit, especially the organization of it. Numbers are more my thing.

My opinion is the mid-major jobs should be stepping stones to Big-6 jobs just as they are in real life. Take VCU for example, they had a nice run....they had luck on their side....but by no means were they a dynasty. Now coach Smart is at Texas. There are no examples of mid-majors having long term success outside of Gonzaga's 18-year NT stretch and even there it's been limited NT success. What baseline grade would you give them in HD? a "B" seems fair. If a coach wants an even playing field across every school in the division, what's wrong with just playing DII or DIII? You get that there.

You mentioned Purdue. As we speak they're the #13 team in the country, in my opinion that is a chance to win the NT this year. Likely? probably not, but it seems Purdue is ranked year in year out. So what's the difference between Purdue and Indiana? Relatively same geographical area, but one is considered a traditional power. The answer is Bobby Knight and his long run of success there. Same comparison can be make for Arizona and ASU...relatively the same, but Luke Olsen's long run of success is the difference. This seems to lead to a sliding scale for Baseline Prestige individually in each world, but still leaning toward the Big-6 schools traditionally being at the top.

Geographical position was also mentioned.....doesn't this idea also lead to the true issue being recruit generation?

When I first found HD and clicked on the "take the tour" button I thought it was really cool game with one exception. On the RPI page you see schools like Boston U, Gardner-Webb, Princton.....to me it wasn't realistic. I prefer those jobs to be stepping stone jobs to the Big-6 schools. Now on the flip side, I understand that there are others who want to see any given school be able to build a dynasty in DI and I can respect that. It's just a difference of opinion. Sounds like we're all on the same page here at least :)

My biggest gripe with the overhaul in recruiting is history shows that when an update of this magnitude happens on any WIS game, participation numbers drop. I don't believe this is because the updates are bad, but due to the lack of advertising to attract new coaches. The end result is the loyal users don't want to learn a new system. My shared opinion is the biggest issue is the recruit generation which would have been a minor fix that would have improved the game drastically and if it didn't we could have worked from there (worst case it would have at least improved the game). At least we would all agree that the worst thing that could happen is HD completely die off.

Posted by timjmiller on 3/12/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/12/2016 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Baseline prestige would be defensible if high-baseline jobs came with high risks, specifically the risk of firing if the coach fails to take advantage of the baseline's benefits.

If you take over Kentucky, and Kentucky has the high baseline we know it does, one NT berth every four or seven years should not be good enough to keep that job.

If you take over Kentucky and Kentucky has the same baseline as Mississippi State, it might be a different story.

I definitely agree that firings need to be stepped up. I submitted a ticket about it recently and this was the response from WIS:

We're aware that firings aren't working very well. It's always been a tough thing for us, because we don't want to encourage anyone to quit playing the game, which could happen in the case of a firing. But it definitely needs some work. That's on our list to improve.