I will repeat something too - the number of coaches playing d1 will be loosely proportional to the number of recruits available that give coaches a fair chance to compete - so the fix of making it easier to enter d1 for d2 coaches will accomplish nothing, even if 5 new coaches enter under remarkably favorable recruiting conditions, somewhere, 5 of the current coaches will have recruiting conditions made worse by the new fortune, balancing things out.  The only way this is not true, would be if sim teams are recruiting recruits with which sweet 16 type rosters could be assembled, which I don't think anyone is suggesting, are you?  Put another 50 or 60 capable recruits into the game, my theory says approx 20 new d1 coaches will join d1, put another 150 - 200 capable recruits into the game, and another 60 or 70 new coaches will participate, which I assume is approx the old levels.    The answer is child's play in all honesty, assuming there are enough willing participants remaining.

Posted by oldresorter on 9/12/2011 12:55:00 PM (view original):
I will repeat something too - the number of coaches playing d1 will be loosely proportional to the number of recruits available that give coaches a fair chance to compete - so the fix of making it easier to enter d1 for d2 coaches will accomplish nothing, even if 5 new coaches enter under remarkably favorable recruiting conditions, somewhere, 5 of the current coaches will have recruiting conditions made worse by the new fortune, balancing things out.  The only way this is not true, would be if sim teams are recruiting recruits with which sweet 16 type rosters could be assembled, which I don't think anyone is suggesting, are you?  Put another 50 or 60 capable recruits into the game, my theory says approx 20 new d1 coaches will join d1, put another 150 - 200 capable recruits into the game, and another 60 or 70 new coaches will participate, which I assume is approx the old levels.    The answer is child's play in all honesty, assuming there are enough willing participants remaining.

eh...I don't buy that theory.

i think if quality recruits were the driving factor in the number of coaches, you would more often see coaches moving around to find the best recruiting spots.

it kind of reminds of robert moses' theory (i believe it was robert moses) that any highway you build will eventually be filled to capacity with traffic (inferring that people will move to capitalize on where the best roads are, not necessarily the best destinations). which i only half-believe in.

jets - "i think if quality recruits were the driving factor in the number of coaches, you would more often see coaches moving around to find the best recruiting spots."  I think that is exactly what you see in d1, the top coaches move to the best recruiting spots.

As a bit of empirical proof, how did the number of coaches start at near the same number in each world d1, and how did it end at a lower number, but still nearly the same number in each world a year later?

I don't know anything about building roads, I do know a fair piece about how this game works, and number of human coaches in a given d1 world proportional to the number of quality recruits seems about as lucid a description of what has been going on the past year in d1 as any.  Although I must admit, I can think of other explanations of why the number of coaches has dropped, seemingly by near the same amount in each world.  The one CS gave me early last season was the economy by the way ....

I think another part of the puzzle in helping non-BCS programs become more attractive and competitive is team prestige.  I haven't spent much time thinking about this so feel free to poke holes in all of it, but I think some changes to prestige would make non-BCS jobs way more attractive than is currently the case.

First, I think that every world has gone through enough seasons now for baseline prestige to be abolished, including at D1.  At this point, there is no reason that South Hicksville State should be penalized in HD just because they were terrible in real life ten years ago.

Second, an individual team should be able to earn and maintain a high prestige regardless of whether or not they are in a horrible conference.  If a good human coach manages to get South Hicksville into the dance several years in a row, recruits would want to play for that coach even if their conference is weak.

Third, a rising tide should lift all boats.  If a couple of human coaches move into a weak conference and build strong, high-prestige programs, then the prestige of the other teams in the conference (especially the AI teams) should rise (not a ton, but some) in order to make the jobs more attractive.  If South Hicksville has a prestige of A and every other team has a D, then no one will take those jobs.  Prestige for everyone in a conference should be pegged in some way to the strongest program in the conference, otherwise the poor coach who builds South Hicksville into a power will just sit there all by himself forever.

Note that I am not saying to do this instead of addressing recruit generation, the hiring process, or any of the other topics already discussed in this thread.  I am saying that I think it would be a helpful change, regardless of which other issues get addressed.

Posted by davis on 9/12/2011 2:30:00 PM (view original):
I think another part of the puzzle in helping non-BCS programs become more attractive and competitive is team prestige.  I haven't spent much time thinking about this so feel free to poke holes in all of it, but I think some changes to prestige would make non-BCS jobs way more attractive than is currently the case.

First, I think that every world has gone through enough seasons now for baseline prestige to be abolished, including at D1.  At this point, there is no reason that South Hicksville State should be penalized in HD just because they were terrible in real life ten years ago.

Second, an individual team should be able to earn and maintain a high prestige regardless of whether or not they are in a horrible conference.  If a good human coach manages to get South Hicksville into the dance several years in a row, recruits would want to play for that coach even if their conference is weak.

Third, a rising tide should lift all boats.  If a couple of human coaches move into a weak conference and build strong, high-prestige programs, then the prestige of the other teams in the conference (especially the AI teams) should rise (not a ton, but some) in order to make the jobs more attractive.  If South Hicksville has a prestige of A and every other team has a D, then no one will take those jobs.  Prestige for everyone in a conference should be pegged in some way to the strongest program in the conference, otherwise the poor coach who builds South Hicksville into a power will just sit there all by himself forever.

Note that I am not saying to do this instead of addressing recruit generation, the hiring process, or any of the other topics already discussed in this thread.  I am saying that I think it would be a helpful change, regardless of which other issues get addressed.

I have said for quite a while we need a moving baseline prestige that takes into account x number of HD seasons back as well as a small portion of current fixed baseline. You can then use this moving baseline prestige in the formula that creates the prestige that we all see on the team pages.

i'll be happy if they undid a few recruit generation changes to only increase the quality of recruits for d1 mid-major to lower BCS schools. ...like sorta how it was before 2010. my thoughts are we still have a d1 recruiting pool that resembles an hour glass with a far larger button diameter. alright amount of upper echelon recruits (say, 665 rated or better) that are attainable by only the better prestige schools, not much above avg kids (like 2010 and before), and way too much 'junk' (say, 560 rated or less) at the bottom. even with potential, there are just not enough quality recruits for schools with B prestige or decent programs from non-BCS confs with little recruiting budgets.

just 2 cents from my 5 years of HD experience.

If people didn't give it a try and left right away, then why did all of the Big Sky coaches mentioned above all spend 2-6 seasons in the conference after the change? That doesn't add up.

Do I think there are a handful of contributing factors that have lead DI to being a ghost town? Sure. But the major one is still that they made recruits unattractive enough where people felt that they didn't have a legitimate shot to compete in a meaningful way.

There are other factors, but the truth is that those factors existed before -- and low/mid DI was quite healthy and successful. (Could one of those factors be that some people panicked and left before giving it a chance? Perhaps. Maybe a few. But scores and scores of coaches throughout all worlds at the same time? That's just not remotely credible.) 

From what I've read, that ONE conference had guys stay for 2-6 seasons.  When coaches left for other jobs then the conference fell apart.  So, what mmt was saying was that if those schools could have been filled immediately, then there would not have been a drop off.  But, since it went SIM for 4 seasons before it could be filled the team went to **** and no one wanted it.

I think changes could be made to recruit generation but if the hiring process was fixed I think the mid-major confernces would be much better off.

And, people had basically made up their mind right away even if they didnt leave right away.

I think it would be really useful if WIS could pose some specific questions, say start 4 or 5 threads on topics about which they would find input potentially useful, and see what current users come up with over a couple of weeks - suggestions and evidentiary or analytic support for suggestions.

Posted by fd343ny on 9/12/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I think it would be really useful if WIS could pose some specific questions, say start 4 or 5 threads on topics about which they would find input potentially useful, and see what current users come up with over a couple of weeks - suggestions and evidentiary or analytic support for suggestions.

+1 - but one caveat - the game could use a little visionary leadership right now too (rather than fixing 3 or 4 squeaky wheels).  Change in this game has a way of creating secondary consequences, right now, the game could use the right changes, such that the changes move in a big picture direction to a better place.

Posted by sully712 on 9/12/2011 4:10:00 PM (view original):
From what I've read, that ONE conference had guys stay for 2-6 seasons.  When coaches left for other jobs then the conference fell apart.  So, what mmt was saying was that if those schools could have been filled immediately, then there would not have been a drop off.  But, since it went SIM for 4 seasons before it could be filled the team went to **** and no one wanted it.

I think changes could be made to recruit generation but if the hiring process was fixed I think the mid-major confernces would be much better off.

I agree that there could be a better way to handle the jobs process in these situations.

But you're still not addressing the core problem here, just applying a bandaid.

Also, I don't know of any conferences who had all their guys just up and leave immediately without giving it a try. Maybe there is one. If so, I'd be curious to see it.

agree fully - HD has two key characteristics that tend to lead to unintended consequences

1. it is a complex system - not all effects can be intuited

2. it is a dynamic system

    a. inside the game itself, changing one function, feature, rating etc will have multiple interactive effects

    b. users make dynamic decisions in light of the current game, in response to changes and in response to what other users do