Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 11:01:00 AM (view original):
mmt, I've watched you get your butt kicked all over in this conversation, dating back to the other thread. (And also watched as your responses have become nastier and nastier the more you get your clock cleaned.)

What you've been saying doesn't make sense and isn't supported by facts.

It is very clear that you think you know a lot more than you actually do.

Ump --- this is the exact type of response Girt would give. How exactly has my butt been kicked?  There seemed to be a bunch of coaches that agreed with me there. Two, I find it comical that you focus on my responses but neglect to comment on others. I try not to be insulting (See my dialogue with OR, as we couldnt disagree with each other more, but speak to each other politely) but when people like Girt are condesending, I will be the same. 

Actually, everything Ive said is supported by fact, to the contrary Girt has spoken in generalities and tried to make his opionion fact. My statistical breakdown is pretty factual. But thanks for the input, its been very useful to the overall discussion.

mmt, I'm reading the numbers on this page like you are, and you seem to be trying to misrepresent them in a desperate attempt to prove your point.

I'm also speaking from first-hand experience and seeing with my own eyes what happened to DI in Allen, which tells me how wrong you are that recruit generation isn't the major culprit.

For point of reference, Season 45 in Naismith was the first year under the "new" engine (and therefore probably hit about that same time on many of the original one-a-day worlds). Any mass exodus of D3 coaches from the ranks in the Seasons 45-47 timeframe in that world probably is largely due to the free/reduced season promotional teams and the promo + 1 season coaches expiring and not getting picked back up. Probably a fairer comparison would be to grab the Season 43 data or so and compare that to the present day to minimize the effect of the "new release" promotions on the entry division.

Not coming down on any side here, just saying that to avoid apples vs. oranges types of comparisons it's best to probably ignore the 1-3 years right after the new engine came out in all worlds. Those wanting to prop up the new engine could grab pre-change data  and compare it to a season or two after the release and claim it supports that the new engine has been a success. Those against the engine could grab data from the year or two after the release and compare it to the present day and assert the engine is driving people away in droves. In reality, neither use of data would paint a fair or viable picture of the true effect of the changes.

Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 11:40:00 AM (view original):
mmt, I'm reading the numbers on this page like you are, and you seem to be trying to misrepresent them in a desperate attempt to prove your point.

I'm also speaking from first-hand experience and seeing with my own eyes what happened to DI in Allen, which tells me how wrong you are that recruit generation isn't the major culprit.

What did I misrepresent?  They are pretty direct and speak for themselves. I used the 10 season time frame which is when the change took affect. If he would provide the number for 17-18 seasons ago for the 2-day world we could look at those also.

Youre also missing the point.  The point of this entire conversation is why have the DI midmajors become less competitive, I contend it becuase they arent full, not because of the recruit generation. Again, if the numbers have gone down (regardless of the reason) it would only strengthen my point. 

I get the point. It's just that suggesting that recruit generation isn't the main culprit for DI's dwindling numbers puts you in a fundamental disagreement with most of the top coaches who understand the game the best. (And I'm not suggesting I'm in that group.) I haven't seen anyone post in the forums or cc's whose opinion I really respect who feels there isn't a problem with DI recruit generation.

MMT, your numbers support the decline of DI which appears, based on your data, to coincide with the recruit generation change.  In the three one-a-day worlds you point to there is approximately a 25% decline in the number of human coaches.  Seems pretty large to me.  I am ignoring the two-a-day worlds because they are not apples to apples as OR has suggested.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 11:40:00 AM (view original):
mmt, I'm reading the numbers on this page like you are, and you seem to be trying to misrepresent them in a desperate attempt to prove your point.

I'm also speaking from first-hand experience and seeing with my own eyes what happened to DI in Allen, which tells me how wrong you are that recruit generation isn't the major culprit.

What did I misrepresent?  They are pretty direct and speak for themselves. I used the 10 season time frame which is when the change took affect. If he would provide the number for 17-18 seasons ago for the 2-day world we could look at those also.

Youre also missing the point.  The point of this entire conversation is why have the DI midmajors become less competitive, I contend it becuase they arent full, not because of the recruit generation. Again, if the numbers have gone down (regardless of the reason) it would only strengthen my point. 

Taking a step back for a minute -  do you agree or disagree with the idea that in general, the changes to DI recruit generation the best recruits got a lot better, and the rest of the recruits got worse?  Obviously there are examples of 5-stars who aren't that great, and no-stars with great potential, but generally do you agree with this statement?

Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I get the point. It's just that suggesting that recruit generation isn't the main culprit for DI's dwindling numbers puts you in a fundamental disagreement with most of the top coaches who understand the game the best. (And I'm not suggesting I'm in that group.) I haven't seen anyone post in the forums or cc's whose opinion I really respect who feels there isn't a problem with DI recruit generation.

until WIS gets a survey of why coaches left, any answers as to why coaches left DI are purely speculative and academic at best. what mmt is saying, i think, is that if the recruit generation stays the same, you can level out the di playing field as follows: make it easier for human coaches to take over successful mid-major programs by letting human coaches apply based on baseline prestige. so, more mid-major programs will have humans applying for those jobs because who doesn't want to take over a dii B+/A- program that probably has talent on the roster? when that happens, the mid-major conferences will enjoy more post season success (at a minimum, they will keep the success that they already built) and therefore have more money to compete for the recruits that the bcs conferences are targeting. when that happens, it thins out the talent that is currently being concentrated in the bcs conferences bc the bcs schools won't be able to spend all of their money getting the top recruits with little to no competition from non-bcs schools, especially if those schools are simmy coached.

if the recruit generation is changed so that di is flooded with talented prospects, you still have a situation where the bcs schools will get the best available; only there will be more available for the top schools to sweep up so that they don't have to take walk ons. in naismith for example, the top 25 teams have a combined 21 walkons; in knight, the top 25 rpi teams have 21 walkons. these "holes" in the rosters should likely hinder long term success, giving mid-majors better opportunity to compete. before anyone says its just not statistically true (which i don't know) becuase the open spot increases recruiting $$$ for the next season, i would counter that every coach prefers to have 5 decent frosh to a walk on for a bump in recruiting money.

with that in mind, i can't imagine any of the caoches - the greats daalt and OR included - would suggest that mmt's suggestion wouldn't be beneficial. in fact, no one has. everyone just takes offense that he and other caoches aren't critical of the recruiting engine. but like i pointed out, whatever upside there is to altering the generation comes with a downside; i don't see one to changing the hiring process to base it on baseline.

i don't coach @ di so i have no skin in this fight. but its ridiculous to me that some coaches can't adjust their necks to look up as mmt's points are cruising over their heads.

Thecommodore, Im not saying there wasnt a decline --- I think the numbers are pretty clear that there was.  This stems from another discussion, and I'll rehash it for you briefly:

There is a group of people who believe that the change in recruit generation, killed midmajors ability to compete thereby leading to a mass exhodus which in turn killed DI. They further contend (and use as the basis of their proof) that the decline was limited to DI. Their underlying point and what they want is for either recruit generation to be put back to the way it was OR for more recruits to be added to DI.

I and others contend that there were a variety of reasons people left HD in general and it wasnt limited simply to DI, the numbers discussed and cited to by you (Ill also stick to the one-a-day worlds) clearly show that as DII suffered the same rate of loss and DIII was far worse...There are a multitude of reasons for the diminishing numbers: the engine change, the lack of response from Admin, the lack of game development, the expiration of FREEHD etc...

The lack of people in DI only supports my point that as numbers of human coached teams in midmajors decline so did the competitiveness of DI mid majors.  The reason I cite to the numbers is not some sort of nonsensical attempt to show there hasnt been a decline, rather, to show that contrary to people's contention that the decline was limited to DI because of recruit generation, there was actually a consistent drop across the board.

Posted by acn24 on 9/14/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 11:40:00 AM (view original):
mmt, I'm reading the numbers on this page like you are, and you seem to be trying to misrepresent them in a desperate attempt to prove your point.

I'm also speaking from first-hand experience and seeing with my own eyes what happened to DI in Allen, which tells me how wrong you are that recruit generation isn't the major culprit.

What did I misrepresent?  They are pretty direct and speak for themselves. I used the 10 season time frame which is when the change took affect. If he would provide the number for 17-18 seasons ago for the 2-day world we could look at those also.

Youre also missing the point.  The point of this entire conversation is why have the DI midmajors become less competitive, I contend it becuase they arent full, not because of the recruit generation. Again, if the numbers have gone down (regardless of the reason) it would only strengthen my point. 

Taking a step back for a minute -  do you agree or disagree with the idea that in general, the changes to DI recruit generation the best recruits got a lot better, and the rest of the recruits got worse?  Obviously there are examples of 5-stars who aren't that great, and no-stars with great potential, but generally do you agree with this statement?

I agree that the starting point has created a larger gap. I think with the advent of potential, teams that properly recruit can still put together NT type teams.  I dont think the gap is a bad thing nor do I think not all players looking the same is a bad thing either.

I agree with you that recruit generation alone is not the sole reason for the void at the mid-majors.  But I believe that recruit generation played a larger role than the others you mention.

Posted by oldresorter on 9/14/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
mmt - you gotta go back further in the 2 a day worlds than 10 - I am guessing, but at 28 days per season, and a year and a some odd change months in the books since recruit generation came on board, I would guess 15 seasons back in worlds 8,9,10.  Some pretty maticulous analysis was done more around the time of the change, I thought 60 was the approx number that I came up with, I see nothing in the data to change my mind on that.  Also, I think you are seeing the effects of free HD, not only on d3, but also on d2, a small one, but look at naismith season 44 vs 45, a jump of 40 in d3 and 41 in d2, while d1 only jumped 8.

Season: 45	194	208	254
Season: 44	186	169	214

Just to add one more thing about change in this game.  If Girt or mmt  or I were in charge of the game, all of us would have to make choices and decisions that some coaches would not agree with.  Changing this game should never be a popularity contest among the coaches, but should be done with the game's best interest at heart. 

I know many of you do not speak highly of Tarek, but I think he excel'd at trying to do what was right for the game, damned the consequences, not popular, but not exactly wrong either.  From my dealings with him, he really understood the game, I once recall being mad at him about some minor point, his response was something along the line there are about two dozen coaches who know the details of playing the game better than I do, my record vs some of you as a coach speaks to that, but ..... I have to do what is best for everyone, given my POV.   He got me with that one, I have tended to cut him slack ever since.  

I have not spoke highly about Seble since he took over, some of that is because I liked Tarek, but I also  felt he simply was working off a to do list of complaints when he started with no regard for the big picture.   But ..... at this point, I think Seble is coming around.  I actually think the one year break was good for him, and having to re-write the code put him in that 'knowing' position that none of us possibly can repudiate.  So I am just going to go with the flow for a while, 'it is what it is' so to speak!

OR I totally agree with you on what needs to be done is what's best for HD, not what most people want. 

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 9/14/2011 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 11:40:00 AM (view original):
mmt, I'm reading the numbers on this page like you are, and you seem to be trying to misrepresent them in a desperate attempt to prove your point.

I'm also speaking from first-hand experience and seeing with my own eyes what happened to DI in Allen, which tells me how wrong you are that recruit generation isn't the major culprit.

What did I misrepresent?  They are pretty direct and speak for themselves. I used the 10 season time frame which is when the change took affect. If he would provide the number for 17-18 seasons ago for the 2-day world we could look at those also.

Youre also missing the point.  The point of this entire conversation is why have the DI midmajors become less competitive, I contend it becuase they arent full, not because of the recruit generation. Again, if the numbers have gone down (regardless of the reason) it would only strengthen my point. 

Taking a step back for a minute -  do you agree or disagree with the idea that in general, the changes to DI recruit generation the best recruits got a lot better, and the rest of the recruits got worse?  Obviously there are examples of 5-stars who aren't that great, and no-stars with great potential, but generally do you agree with this statement?

I agree that the starting point has created a larger gap. I think with the advent of potential, teams that properly recruit can still put together NT type teams.  I dont think the gap is a bad thing nor do I think not all players looking the same is a bad thing either.

A couple of questions on this:

If there are only a few recruits that can be quality players on an NT team, how does having more coaches competing for them help?  In theory, a quality mid-major coach can scoop up all these gems and build a much stronger team, but if there are 15 coaches competing for these few recruits, it stands to reason that they mid-majors won't be as strong as they currently are.

I don't think we are worried about how mid-majors can get into the NT.  I agree that any semi-competent coach can get a mid-major a bid, either by winning a primarily sim-filled conference, or even pulling an at-large with smart scheduling.  What dalt, OR, ump and others are saying is that since the recruiting changes, those mid-majors no longer have a realistic shot at winning more than 1 game in the NT (and even that can be a long-shot).  Contrast this to a 12 season span in Allen (starting in Season 29, so it wasn't like humans were just getting to DI and the elites were all still SIM), where Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern won NTs.  Yes, BU, Yale and Southern were in full conferences, but Maine, UNLV and Cleveland State weren't.  That is what we are saying mid-majors have lost - not the ability to make a team that can MAKE the tournament, but a team that can WIN the tournament.  And that loss of hope is driving the vacating of low/mid DI.

If mid-majors can only hope to squeek in to the tournament, lose, then why are coaches going to be interested in staying there?  They may wait out a few seasons and then bolt for the first BCS opening they qualify for, or they drop the world. 

Now - if you wanted to argue that low/mids shouldn't have the opportunity to build a championship caliber school, that is fine.  I understand that it isn't realistic to think that Maine or Yale or BU would be a national championship contender.  But I strongly think that adding that bit of realism is a serious detriment to the game.

Well said ACN!

Posted by jtt8355 on 9/14/2011 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by umpikes on 9/14/2011 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I get the point. It's just that suggesting that recruit generation isn't the main culprit for DI's dwindling numbers puts you in a fundamental disagreement with most of the top coaches who understand the game the best. (And I'm not suggesting I'm in that group.) I haven't seen anyone post in the forums or cc's whose opinion I really respect who feels there isn't a problem with DI recruit generation.

until WIS gets a survey of why coaches left, any answers as to why coaches left DI are purely speculative and academic at best. what mmt is saying, i think, is that if the recruit generation stays the same, you can level out the di playing field as follows: make it easier for human coaches to take over successful mid-major programs by letting human coaches apply based on baseline prestige. so, more mid-major programs will have humans applying for those jobs because who doesn't want to take over a dii B+/A- program that probably has talent on the roster? when that happens, the mid-major conferences will enjoy more post season success (at a minimum, they will keep the success that they already built) and therefore have more money to compete for the recruits that the bcs conferences are targeting. when that happens, it thins out the talent that is currently being concentrated in the bcs conferences bc the bcs schools won't be able to spend all of their money getting the top recruits with little to no competition from non-bcs schools, especially if those schools are simmy coached.

if the recruit generation is changed so that di is flooded with talented prospects, you still have a situation where the bcs schools will get the best available; only there will be more available for the top schools to sweep up so that they don't have to take walk ons. in naismith for example, the top 25 teams have a combined 21 walkons; in knight, the top 25 rpi teams have 21 walkons. these "holes" in the rosters should likely hinder long term success, giving mid-majors better opportunity to compete. before anyone says its just not statistically true (which i don't know) becuase the open spot increases recruiting $$$ for the next season, i would counter that every coach prefers to have 5 decent frosh to a walk on for a bump in recruiting money.

with that in mind, i can't imagine any of the caoches - the greats daalt and OR included - would suggest that mmt's suggestion wouldn't be beneficial. in fact, no one has. everyone just takes offense that he and other caoches aren't critical of the recruiting engine. but like i pointed out, whatever upside there is to altering the generation comes with a downside; i don't see one to changing the hiring process to base it on baseline.

i don't coach @ di so i have no skin in this fight. but its ridiculous to me that some coaches can't adjust their necks to look up as mmt's points are cruising over their heads.

So basically what this argument is saying is that human coaches are better than simmy? I think that is obvious, except humans have to pay to keep their jobs, simmy doesn't - so he is ok recruiting 4th tier players and making the NT out of luck every once in a while.

To say that "if recruits got better, the Power Schools will still get the best" as an argument is crazy, of course they will! But if there are more good recruits they can't take them all, it levels the playing field in which the mid-majors have to succeed. 

Nobody has stated that we are trying to pull the big boys back down, only need the ability to level the playing field a bit more by increasing the overall of recruits. If you reduce the overall of recruits you only continue to prop the big boys up higher.