Posted by reinsel on 8/19/2010 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Ha ha....but seriously, and average coach at a minor D prestige school should be excited to make the NT thanks to a CT win and be thankful they don't lose by 40 to UNC.

The key is that the C prestige-level schools (MVC/CUSA/WCC/etc) with an average coach can win an NT game now and then and be competitive with the 5th-7th teams in the Big 12/SEC/etc.

I am not convinced that there is anything wrong here. 
Yet.  But in 3-4 more seasons I could be. 

Those are all great points.  My biggest gripe with d1 as it is now is that baseline prestige is based on real life teams instead of earned by our fake ones. 

Posted by brianp87 on 8/19/2010 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 8/19/2010 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Ha ha....but seriously, and average coach at a minor D prestige school should be excited to make the NT thanks to a CT win and be thankful they don't lose by 40 to UNC.

The key is that the C prestige-level schools (MVC/CUSA/WCC/etc) with an average coach can win an NT game now and then and be competitive with the 5th-7th teams in the Big 12/SEC/etc.

I am not convinced that there is anything wrong here. 
Yet.  But in 3-4 more seasons I could be. 

Those are all great points.  My biggest gripe with d1 as it is now is that baseline prestige is based on real life teams instead of earned by our fake ones. 

I like that feature. Thats what imo keeps the bcs schools desirable.

Is it not a dynasty when one team dominates the MVC or the Mountain West for 10 or so seasons, makes the NT consistantly, maybe even go deep a few times? You don't need an A+ prestige to do that.

I'm trying to think of non-bcs dynasties in RL and I'm at a loss. doesn't mean they don't exist - I just cant think of one now - any help?

How did duke become a dynasty in real life were they always good?  I know little of real life college basketball.  How bout ucla they used to be great but are not now should there prestige be grear just cause?  No it should be made that way and be help to retain excellence to keep the prestige up.  If a team sucks for 2-4 seasons but keeps a b- prestige when a team excels over that span and only reaches a b- well that is just not right.  Prestige should be earned not given.  And now wiht the new generation of recruits its going to be all that much harder (if not impossible) to even stay at a b- at a lower level.  If in real life a coach at say real life duke only made the nt 3 of 5 season then they would be fired and should be.  Does this happen now no way which is bogus.  I may way outta line but I dont believe so.

moy - I agree 100% with you - in the old game (long time ago) prestige did not change or float, being competitive at mid majors was very hard. I recall once winning a national title, and getting absolutely trounced recruiting wise the next season by schools that hadn't won more than ten games a year for the past 4 years, I wrote a ticket up and tarek explained the facts of life as they were then to me.  In lots of ways, the newest changes take us more back to the fixed prestige era competitively.  So the current game is already 'softer' prestige wise than the old game, I think taking it 100% away might be overcorrection.

By the way, I am trading tickets with seble right now (I have been avoiding doing it, but finally have decided enough was enough), finding out quite alot about the recruit generation subject.  He probably should hold a chat at some point, some of the points you guys have made might be pretty far off from what I read from him, at least his base of power should know what he has in mind, some of his answers surprised me, he has a very distinctive vision for how d1 at the elite level should work, it is less about team building with 575 guys and variety, more about star power, less about EE's more about 3 and 4 year top ten rated starters who dominate than I would have thought?  Just saying, a chat might help clear the air a little bit.

Posted by cbriese on 8/19/2010 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brianp87 on 8/19/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Im the avg coach at a mid level school and Im screwed.  In fact i couldnt even get a job at a mid major school when i saw the writing on the wall.  There is now little to no chance for me to win a title at a lower level school  with the current state off ee's, recruits and baseline prestige

Should admittedly average coaches at a lower level school have a real opportunity to win championships? Really? I mean, shouldn't you have to do an outstanding job at a low-level school to win an NT?

completely agree with briese here.

The reason why daalt and i disagree so much is that imo he tends to argue for a more even playing field (or to make it easier for the middle of the road to succeed - thats how I read it) whereas I try to argue (mostly unsuccessfully) that the tools are already available but coaches have to seek them out if they desire to succeed. for example - A coach that wants success needs to learn it takes a different style of play (and recruiting) to win at Low-DI, Mid-DI, and BCS Levels. Part of the equation imo opinion is figuring out the recruiting lay of the land (how far out can one go at what prestige, who are the major players, how many open schollies for them, what positions are needs to fill for them, how to recruit patiently), how to schedule to get in the NT (based on the conf), and how to develop a team (#of frosh, sophs, jrs, etc vs role player/stud in order to accomplish goals - large classes to get to the NT and get a new job or more even classes for sustained success).

Posted by moy23 on 8/19/2010 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/19/2010 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brianp87 on 8/19/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Im the avg coach at a mid level school and Im screwed.  In fact i couldnt even get a job at a mid major school when i saw the writing on the wall.  There is now little to no chance for me to win a title at a lower level school  with the current state off ee's, recruits and baseline prestige

Should admittedly average coaches at a lower level school have a real opportunity to win championships? Really? I mean, shouldn't you have to do an outstanding job at a low-level school to win an NT?

completely agree with briese here.

The reason why daalt and i disagree so much is that imo he tends to argue for a more even playing field (or to make it easier for the middle of the road to succeed - thats how I read it) whereas I try to argue (mostly unsuccessfully) that the tools are already available but coaches have to seek them out if they desire to succeed. for example - A coach that wants success needs to learn it takes a different style of play (and recruiting) to win at Low-DI, Mid-DI, and BCS Levels. Part of the equation imo opinion is figuring out the recruiting lay of the land (how far out can one go at what prestige, who are the major players, how many open schollies for them, what positions are needs to fill for them, how to recruit patiently), how to schedule to get in the NT (based on the conf), and how to develop a team (#of frosh, sophs, jrs, etc vs role player/stud in order to accomplish goals - large classes to get to the NT and get a new job or more even classes for sustained success).

I agree in a way that there are ways to be competetive at the lower levels but not nearly likeI would like but then again maybe im in the few that think this way.  Everyone has there choice and right to a view.  I wish we knew what was happening so we can decide to keep playing or change the way we play. 

What about firings.  This is a big problem also there to leanient at the higher programs

I just looked in rupp:  

UCLA - 4 coaches, 30 seasons
UNC - 1 coach - 27 seasons
Duke - 4 coaches - 28 seasons
UK - 1 coach - 28 seasons
KU - 1 coach - 31 seasons
UConn - 1 coach - 29 seasons
Arizona - 2 coaches - 30 seasons
Stanford - 2 coaches - 29 seasons 
MSU - 1 coach - 23 seasons
UofI - 4 coaches - 30 seasons
'cuse - 2 coaches - 26 seasons
MD - 2 coaches - 31 seasons
Florida  - 2 coaches - 27 seasons

so - I exaggerated - however I still think these numbers are fine turnover-wise for the top teams.  If you look at the coaches and performance at the majority of these schools they won't be fired anytime soon even with higher standards.

Posted by acn24 on 8/19/2010 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 8/19/2010 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Ha ha....but seriously, and average coach at a minor D prestige school should be excited to make the NT thanks to a CT win and be thankful they don't lose by 40 to UNC.

The key is that the C prestige-level schools (MVC/CUSA/WCC/etc) with an average coach can win an NT game now and then and be competitive with the 5th-7th teams in the Big 12/SEC/etc.

I am not convinced that there is anything wrong here. 
Yet.  But in 3-4 more seasons I could be. 

The first part of your argument is spot on for real life college basketball.  I don't think that, some bizarre collection of attributes aside, anyone would argue that the changes to the recruiting pool is a step towards more realism in HD. 

However, that doesn't necessarily make it an improvement to HD as a whole - and that is the real crux of this argument. 

Exactly. If the only goal here is to emulate real life, then that's one thing.

But it's not.

There are scores of things in HD that don't resemble real life one bit, and for good reason.

Reinsel ... what's best for HD?

Posted by moy23 on 8/19/2010 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/19/2010 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brianp87 on 8/19/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Im the avg coach at a mid level school and Im screwed.  In fact i couldnt even get a job at a mid major school when i saw the writing on the wall.  There is now little to no chance for me to win a title at a lower level school  with the current state off ee's, recruits and baseline prestige

Should admittedly average coaches at a lower level school have a real opportunity to win championships? Really? I mean, shouldn't you have to do an outstanding job at a low-level school to win an NT?

completely agree with briese here.

The reason why daalt and i disagree so much is that imo he tends to argue for a more even playing field (or to make it easier for the middle of the road to succeed - thats how I read it) whereas I try to argue (mostly unsuccessfully) that the tools are already available but coaches have to seek them out if they desire to succeed. for example - A coach that wants success needs to learn it takes a different style of play (and recruiting) to win at Low-DI, Mid-DI, and BCS Levels. Part of the equation imo opinion is figuring out the recruiting lay of the land (how far out can one go at what prestige, who are the major players, how many open schollies for them, what positions are needs to fill for them, how to recruit patiently), how to schedule to get in the NT (based on the conf), and how to develop a team (#of frosh, sophs, jrs, etc vs role player/stud in order to accomplish goals - large classes to get to the NT and get a new job or more even classes for sustained success).

You're basically correct about my feelings there, and I push for a game where a higher percentage of people can reasonably be competitive because that's best for the overall health of HD.

A game where only a very select group can be competitive at DI is hazardous to the healh of the game.

Posted by oldresorter on 8/19/2010 4:43:00 PM (view original):
moy - I agree 100% with you - in the old game (long time ago) prestige did not change or float, being competitive at mid majors was very hard. I recall once winning a national title, and getting absolutely trounced recruiting wise the next season by schools that hadn't won more than ten games a year for the past 4 years, I wrote a ticket up and tarek explained the facts of life as they were then to me.  In lots of ways, the newest changes take us more back to the fixed prestige era competitively.  So the current game is already 'softer' prestige wise than the old game, I think taking it 100% away might be overcorrection.

By the way, I am trading tickets with seble right now (I have been avoiding doing it, but finally have decided enough was enough), finding out quite alot about the recruit generation subject.  He probably should hold a chat at some point, some of the points you guys have made might be pretty far off from what I read from him, at least his base of power should know what he has in mind, some of his answers surprised me, he has a very distinctive vision for how d1 at the elite level should work, it is less about team building with 575 guys and variety, more about star power, less about EE's more about 3 and 4 year top ten rated starters who dominate than I would have thought?  Just saying, a chat might help clear the air a little bit.

if seble has a secret vision for what he desires a competitive d1 team to look like then this should certainly be shared, especially because much of the above sounds counterintuitive (or maybe its just OR's phrasing, a couple phrases in there sound almost antithetical) to both the whatif premise as well as college hoops as we know it.

VD hates secrets 

and I hate forum facts