Mmt you are correct that a large part of the problem in the non-BCS conferences is the lack of human coaches.  However, I contend that the lack of human coaches is a result of the recruiting changes which made it impossible to compete for teams in those conferences.  Hear me out.

For the small conferences,  the recruiting change meant that once the BCS schools (even the crappy ones b/c of tournament money) were done gobbling up the 5 and 4 stars, there was little to pick from.  The lower end BCS teams jump all over the 1/2/3 star kids with better potential leaving little or nothing for all the non-BCS teams to battle for.  So coaches left.

The half empty conferences are now empty or close to empty.  Nobody is joining these conferences because instead of being extremely difficult to go deep into the NT with one of these teams, it is now virtually impossible.  The solution has to begin with changing the distribution of recruits to add more medium (2,3,4 star guys) to the pool.  Then coaches need to agree to fill up one or two of the empty conferences...leaving the others empty for now. 

This game was thriving 15 seasons ago.  It had problems (the 12 senior teams being the most obvious) but there was a great level of competitiveness, right across the board.  Now, there might as well be nothing but the BCS conferences because the rest is dead weight. 

mmt, you can't honestly think that it's not significantly harder for non-BCS teams now, can you? It's way harder.

I had a significant amount of success at a small DI school (Southern) before the recruiting changes. There is absolutely no way I could achieve that level of success now. You just can't get many guys who can eventually develop into the level to compete with the big boys. Before you could, now you can't.

It's weird to me that you can't see that. It's really obvious.

Im not saying its not harder...Im saying two things 1) Its harder but it should be harder...the easiness of building midmajors in the past into contenders was laughable; 2) Its not impossible, and the bigger problem is keeping those schools filled which boils down to prestige and the job process.

sounds like I'm staying in DII...

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/11/2011 11:31:00 AM (view original):
Im not saying its not harder...Im saying two things 1) Its harder but it should be harder...the easiness of building midmajors in the past into contenders was laughable; 2) Its not impossible, and the bigger problem is keeping those schools filled which boils down to prestige and the job process.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is more of a personal agenda, since both of your DI teams are high majors. If that's the case, then you're certainly entitled to push for things that benefit you.

If that's not the case, then I'm kind of baffled, because that stuff you're saying is so far removed from reality. You've been getting your *** completely handed to you throughout this little debate, and it's because what you're saying simply doesn't reflect what's actually happening (or already happened). The talent differential between the top players and everyone else is ridiculous, and that's why so many people have left.

(Remember, most of the people that have abandoned their teams aren't even on the forums, they're not getting influenced by what anyone says. Personally I have three close friends that I brought into HD, and all gave up their DI teams that were outside of the BCS conferences because they felt the new recruits made it too hard to compete, and they don't even know the forums exist. What you're saying just doesn't hold water.)

IMO it would be pretty simple to solve what ails the recruiting situation.  1-there definitely need to be more guys that are competitive once they top out.  However you want to package them, guys who end up being srs in mid-majors should be on a competitive footing with sophs and some jrs at BCS schools.  2-guys building programs at mids and mid majors should have a shot at sticking around a little before being fired.  We've had a couple of guys in Iba, in the Mountain West, that were building good programs but were fired right before the opportunity came to take them to the postseason level.  3-make starts and pt a little more valuable.  Not that good players wouldn't want to play together, but kids today want exposure.  Starts and pt get them there.  There may be a baseline of school at which a 3 star, 4 star, etc will play at, but if a start and 20 or 25 minutes of pt are worth 3/4 a letter grade, with all else being equal, then all of a sudden you've changed the dynamics of the battles you can have.  Also, it should change what happens during the course of games because teams at the upper levels, even B's and C's, can't stockpile players on the bench and changes the amount of depth everyone has.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/11/2011 11:31:00 AM (view original):
Im not saying its not harder...Im saying two things 1) Its harder but it should be harder...the easiness of building midmajors in the past into contenders was laughable; 2) Its not impossible, and the bigger problem is keeping those schools filled which boils down to prestige and the job process.

I have to disagree.  It is impossible to build a mid-major into a contender.  Can you give me any examples of mid-majors in the final four or even the elite 8 over the past 4 seasons? It certainly has not happened in Naismith where I have my only team presently.  

It might be possible in a conference like the MWC with BYU provided that the conference was 90% humans but in ALMOST every other non-BCS conference it is impossible.  If the only way to compete with a mid-major is to transfer, how is that different from impossible?

I'll readily admit I didn't read this entire debate... might go back and read it a little later. What I do think on these issues is 1) mmt is right, there is a lack of coaches at d1, would increasing the number of coaches (by way of a relaxed job process selection) increase the competitiveness of worlds? Absolutely because the other option is good 'ole Simmy. I don't think that in and of itself that shows that the recruit generation is perfect though. I don't think it needs an overhaul, nothing like that, but I do think that something can be done, not to make it easy, but to give the mid-major and below schools more of an ability to compete. Maybe it is the recruiting process, maybe it is increasing transfers at elite schools that never play and could be a star at a mid-major... but I think that between both what grit says and what mmt says there is a middle ground that would make the game much more enjoyable for everyone, regardless of what level of d1 you coach at.

I say WIS pays for every coach to go to Las Vegas for a conference on these subjects.

Please, don't nerf job selection any more.  You now need a pulse to get to DII, and one good season there to get to DI.  The problem isn't job selections, if it were, we would have 300+ humans "stuck" at DII in each world.  The problem is the lower total population.

TwJared --- Im going to comment on this subject once more as the lack of understanding is baffeling to me.  First, you need a bit of a history lesson.  Ive been arguing that DI needs to changes the way prestige works for job hiring for over 2 years --- This is the same argument Daal (Girt), myself and OR have had for a very long time.  During the course of that time I spent most of my time coaching midmajors --- to suggest I have some sort of personal agenda in a simulated game is laughable, and really tells me something a bit pathetic about the accuser. As for your other nonsubstantiated blanket statments what is so difficult to get? Why dont you go back and look in those forums and you'll see that in many of them more than half the people agree with me ---

DII and DIII have something going on which doesnt exist at DI --- every team has equal prestige and the impact of winning and losing thereby has an equal impact.  In DI that is not the case and the Major Programs therefore have an easier time of program building as a result of the upward swings in prestige cause by short term success and the general lack of punishment as a result of long term failure.  By example (just in case Im right and this is somehow lost on you.). Lets say UNC (an elite) is Sim coached for 10 seasons and they lose every game, their prestige will never drop below a B.  If the have one good season it will immediately be back to a B+ or an A- and two good seasons will be back to an A. There are various reasons for this, the two most important are UNC's baseline prestige and the conference prestige (The ACC is generally somewhere between B+ to A-)  By comparison, take a team in a midmajor --- extended success (multiple NT appearances in a row) will generally have a team in the B to B+ range, even with Finals appearances or in some cases National Titles, the prestige wont rise above B+ to A-.  This is based on the same factors, baseline prestige of the school and the conference prestige (typically C- to C).  The reason, Im bringing this up is to demonstrate that I get the inherint advantage that there is with elite conferences. I also dont take issue with it, if people want all things equal play DII or DIII.

The next point is where the problem sets in for midmajors.  Elites have carry over --- and by carry over Im talking coaches staying at schools and not having large periods of Simmy at the helm.  Take a look at the various elite conferences --- Coaches have been at their schools in many instances for 15, 20+ seasons...even in stances where a coach has left, he is typically replaced by another human within a season or two. This means the overall talent isnt affected by Sim coaching and the prestige never hits the doldrums.  This is caused by various reasons 1) People reaching destination jobs; 2) People reaching destination conferences; 3) and the general desire to coach big named teams.  The conference in turn is never placed in a precarious position and most importantly has continuity.

Over 80% of midmajor conferences have 5 human coaches or less (I actually would guess this number is greater); Coaches are rarely at these teams for more than 10 seasons.  When a coach has any type of success and then leaves, it isnt filled and any work that was put into building up a program disappears within a couple of seasons as the prestige drops back to the baseline before it can be filled.  The reason these positions arent filled is simple.  Lets say a coach builds a program at a mid major to a B+ and then leaves.  The only people qualified to take those jobs are coaches who are qualified for Big 6 jobs and the Big 6 job always takes precedence.  If WIS would allow coaches to appply based on the baseline, the schools would not be destroyed by virute of being handed over to the Sim.  With mid majors having this continuity they would then be able to compete. 

There are examples of this, take a look at the MWC in Phelan, while they arent competing with the ACC or the Big East (most arent) they are annually competing with the Pac-10, SEC and others --- thats with only 8 or 9 coaches --- Its also no surprise that the schools with the most success have had their coaches there the longest.

How long did your "Three friends"  give after the recruit generation change before they quit?  People didnt give it a chance, they simply couldnt continue getting elite talent with no competition as they did before and they ended up quitting.  Others like Kobo were put in bad situations trying to compete in a midmajor with only 2 or 3 conference mates and those conference mates I can tell you from experience didnt know what they were doing in terms of recruiting, which didnt help him. Kobo however still had a succesful program year in year out, despite all these disadvantages. Anyhow, Ive wasted to much time on this, but next time why dont you fact check before making baseless claims which have nothing to do with the point being discussed.  Or in the alternative, leave the big boy conversations to the big boys.

From the looks of things you left after a FF and most of the other coaches left after having seasons which were in line with their schools history, Im failing to see this sticking around and trying to make things work.

And what I was saying is exactly on point, but Ill say it as clearly as possible --- THE PROBLEM WITH DI IS THE JOB HIRING PROCESS.  FIX THE JOB HIRING PROCESS AND DI MID MAJORS WOULD BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE.

DI Midmajors used to be competitive because of the overflow of DI talent, it was a joke what was available back then. Therefore despite all the advantages and disadvantages we both mentioned, midmajors could compete with little effort (Im sorry but I coached plenty of midmajors with success back then two so I can tell you it was not all that challenging)...However, WIS then made a change to recruit generation and as a result there CLEARLY HAS BECOME AND ISSUE with midmajors competing.  I dont doubt that.  However, the solution which is always the go is: add more recruits.  Thats not a solution, thats undoing the change which I along with many others like.  My solution is premised on the fact that now because the advantages and disadvantages are more prevelant filling midmajor conferences would even things out.  As a result of the hiring process however, it is simply not possible.

mmt, no one is saying to undo the change. They're just saying that the right balance would be some sort of happy medium between new and old.