Posted by sully712 on 9/12/2011 4:11:00 PM (view original):
And, people had basically made up their mind right away even if they didnt leave right away.

Sully, not saying you are guilty of this, but somehow this change similtaneously is being accused by some of causing 60 d1 coaches to up and leave the game in each world near immediately due to fear (except for 2-6 coaches in one world), yet the change is being hailed by those same folks as being loved by all but a few malcontents.  The odds of both of those being true would not seem very good.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/12/2011 5:03:00 PM (view original):
60 coaches in each world?  And what are the DII numbers in the same period?

I don't recall bringing up d2?  Since you brought it up, what are the numbers?

I don't even know if 60 is right, seems a bit high to me actually, going off what I recall someone else wrote?  BUT ....

The POV of your question  seems like you want to bring into play into this debate the validity of the assertion that the numbers of d1 human coached teams is down substantially?  Isn't that the basis upon which you started the discussion that standards need to be relaxed in allowing d2 coaches to assume d1 jobs?

And, you conveniently did not address the issue I raised, which is how can a mass fear exodus exist over a change that near everyone loves?

mmt / sully / others - please don't take any offense to what I wrote about this issue personally, most of what I am writing now I had out in a heating email, not sitemail exchange with seble during beta testing, so yes, I am not a happy camper over this issue.  My last exchange over it was the day the new recruits came out live, over a year ago, when I told seble, if he continues, there will be no turning back, as it will take 6 months for the recruits to filter through, and 6 more months for the general population to digest how much the game has changed.

I simply do not subscribe to band aide fixes to prestige or to job hiring to fix a recruit generation issue - even if I do agree that either prestige or job hiring are indeed great candidates for fixes.

At this point, I still think there is no chance to turn back.  I hope Seble can take what he learned (the hard way unfortunately), and find a smart way out of this.  I have a certain degree of faith he can fix this, especially given the seemingly renewed interest by his team for working on the game.

I will not continue this back and forth, I hope my input contributed in a positive way.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/12/2011 11:53:00 AM (view original):
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.

coming to this game late... anyway i can see where you are coming from. make it more reasonable for people to fill the good mid majors, and they will stay fuller. i buy that. i would buy it a LOT more when good mid majors were regular. but that is somewhat of a different and also circular point.

while i can appreciate how this would keep the good mid majors fuller, the reality is that if you had like 20 good mid majors, the rest of the mid majors would be so much more screwed than they are now, it would be a complete joke. i honestly am not convinced your idea would not be the ultimate death of d1- while i support it - it is very possible 20 good mid majors emerge and it becomes damn near impossible for anybody but a top 50 type coach to work their way in. so you would pretty much have a "cap" of under 100 coaches per d1 and that would screw the game up pretty badly, IMO. worse than it is now? maybe - 100 coaches would be "Good" in most d1 worlds now probably but still the amount of disenfranchizement that would occur from not being able to even compete with the established mid majors would be horrible. you would create more of a ladder than ever existed. and the good mid majors would have to align in a conference or else all those people would get ****** off, too - at having such a disadvantage to the big boys in $$s that could not be overcame.

all in all, i support your change, because COMBINED with a required change to recruit generation, it could actually work to turn d1 around. the simple reality is there just aren't enough recruits to support a large population today and nothing except a change to recruit generation, or a major overhaul of recruiting itself, is going to fix that (i.e. nationalize recruiting, move away from auction style recruiting, a healthy combo of those both could make existing recruits work).

Question, I'm pretty new at HD, in my 5th season or so. Would generating more good recruits at the D1 level have an impact on the recruits that are available to low-majors in D1 and all schools in D2, and D3? So would there be a ripple effect in recruiting for the guys that are in D2 and D3?

Posted by salag on 9/13/2011 9:14:00 AM (view original):
Question, I'm pretty new at HD, in my 5th season or so. Would generating more good recruits at the D1 level have an impact on the recruits that are available to low-majors in D1 and all schools in D2, and D3? So would there be a ripple effect in recruiting for the guys that are in D2 and D3?

Very small if any effect on those recruits. It might mean a few players that may have been recruited at d1 fall to d2 but it would have a very very small impact if any.

Or --- My point was (and I sorta took a step back in the conversation) where are the actual numbers on how many coaches left DI?  Also, the reason I brought up DII is, if there was a similar drop off cant there be a different cause, namely this game has been ignored for nearly 1 full year?

Posted by oldresorter on 9/12/2011 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/12/2011 5:03:00 PM (view original):
60 coaches in each world?  And what are the DII numbers in the same period?

I don't recall bringing up d2?  Since you brought it up, what are the numbers?

I don't even know if 60 is right, seems a bit high to me actually, going off what I recall someone else wrote?  BUT ....

The POV of your question  seems like you want to bring into play into this debate the validity of the assertion that the numbers of d1 human coached teams is down substantially?  Isn't that the basis upon which you started the discussion that standards need to be relaxed in allowing d2 coaches to assume d1 jobs?

And, you conveniently did not address the issue I raised, which is how can a mass fear exodus exist over a change that near everyone loves?

To answer your two questions: 1) Yes, I am questioing 2 things are the numbers of DI coaches down substantially, and if so what is the cause? 2) No, my basis for hiring standards to be relaxed is to make mid majors competitive again under the new conditions created as a result in the change of recruit generation.  It wouldnt matter if not a single coach dropped, the bottom line is midmajors arent as competitive as they used to be.  Prior to recruit generation a person could be in a midmajor with two-three other humans and have a national contender simply because of the overflow of talent.  Once recruit generation was changed that went out the window. Under the new environment, I believe midmajor can still compete (which is the opposite of the premise others have taken).  However, I think integral to that ability is having midmajors full of human coaches. 3) I dont think I ever said there was a mass exodus, I also dont think I ever said it was caused by the change in recruit generation (I think Sully raised that point). That said, the two are not mutually exclussive ideas. There could have been people leaving based on fear, but those people that stayed and gave it a chance like it.  There was a prior thread on this subject and it was very interesting to see how many of the people who commented liked the change.  But like you said, nowadays people arent really checking the forums anymore.  

I never take offense to anything said here, even by the people who dont know how to discuss a point without being insulting! :) 

Billy, the last point you make might be the ultimate solution.  I just wish before changing recruits again, they would give my idea a chance and if there were still a lack of players as you and others contend, they can make the needed adjustment.  The problem with HD in general is that every change made has impacts on other areas of the game. In other words 1 factor (like the number of top level recruits generated) impacts 10 other areas.  People playing the game fail to see this and they fail to adapt which ends up in cries that the change actually failed. 

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/13/2011 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Or --- My point was (and I sorta took a step back in the conversation) where are the actual numbers on how many coaches left DI?  Also, the reason I brought up DII is, if there was a similar drop off cant there be a different cause, namely this game has been ignored for nearly 1 full year?

The last #'s that were posted reflected a clear decline in DI and a relatively static number at D2/D3.

Also, you can simply scroll through the non-BCS DI conferences and see how empy they are ...

Posted by hughesjr on 9/14/2011 4:37:00 AM (view original):
I spent a lot of time looking at about 20 years worth of real life NCAA Tourney results.

In my data, 14% of the elite 8 teams where not from the big 6 conferences. The number was slightly higher for sweet 16.

What it boiled down to is this ... about 1 team in the elite 8, 2-3 in the sweet 16, and 1 every other season in the final 4 came out of non Big-6 conferences (on average).

I think the numbers in most HD worlds are similar to that.

When was the last time a Non Big 6 won the championship in real life? 1990 UNLV, 1977 Marquette, 1966 Texas Western

So, why would there by a huge number of mid-majors in the final 4 in HD ... wouldn't it be a problem if we had a huge number of Non Big 6 teams in the final 4?

I've read most of this thread, and it's great (and challenging) to read so many well developed ideas, from all sides of the "non-BCS DI is empty because of X" debate. For those who are taking relatively adversarial positions in defending opposing camps of a job-promotion vs a recruit-generation cause, I have an honest question: What would be wrong with "fixing" both? For that matter, what would be wrong with "EEs" as well? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something obvious in how such a dual or triple solution would cause some unintended consequence few coaches want. I don't think so, but maybe I've missed it. Even if you tend to think your cause is the only cause, and the other conditions are red herrings, do you think it might be better to "support" both (or more) causes, so that seble gets a relative consensus of veteran opinion on the fixes he should attempt?

It seems to me there are large groups of coaches who are annoyed by: 1) job process (include me on that one, even though it hasn't much affected me) and 2) lack of talent depth in DI (I'm not as annoyed, but I totally appreciate those who are) and 3) EE logic (include me on that one) and probably some others of significance I'm leaving out. Now, I realize that fixing multiple issues will likely take longer than fixing one, and like I said, some may think that fixing some of those will cause worse problems. I also realize that one man's fix is another's travesty. But ultimately, people leave for different reasons, and I think if all those 3 (or more) big issues are "fixed," it stands a good chance of improving the user experience of a majority of coaches.