Posted by girt25 on 7/22/2012 10:39:00 PM (view original):
Flash forward to Season 57 in Allen, and there isn't a single non-BCS team in the RPI Top 25.

My question is, with the recent changes, do you need a full (or even mostly fully) conference to succeed as a non-BCS team? (And I suppose that may depend on what your definition of "succeed" is, too.) 

Part of me is tempted to just take a completely random low DI team and see what I could do. I think it would be possible, though quite difficult. I don't think in that circumstance it would be possible to consistently have the level of success I had at Marshall, but I do think you could become an every season NT team with the occasional chance to make it to the S16. I do still think to build a program that's really a part of the national conversation, you have to be in a human-populated conference. (And even then, it's still very difficult.)

Posted by girt25 on 7/23/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
tianyi, the difference I'm seeing from before is small -- no more than 1/3 of a grade. I would not term anything you outlined above as a major difference at all.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 7/22/2012 11:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 7/22/2012 10:39:00 PM (view original):
Flash forward to Season 57 in Allen, and there isn't a single non-BCS team in the RPI Top 25.

My question is, with the recent changes, do you need a full (or even mostly fully) conference to succeed as a non-BCS team? (And I suppose that may depend on what your definition of "succeed" is, too.) 

Part of me is tempted to just take a completely random low DI team and see what I could do. I think it would be possible, though quite difficult. I don't think in that circumstance it would be possible to consistently have the level of success I had at Marshall, but I do think you could become an every season NT team with the occasional chance to make it to the S16. I do still think to build a program that's really a part of the national conversation, you have to be in a human-populated conference. (And even then, it's still very difficult.)

Right, and you're one of the elite coaches in HD right now. If you ever do elect to attempt the scenario you mentioned, please start a topic on it because I would love to track it and use it as evidence to seble that DI still needs major fixing. 

I think that many 'good-to-great' coaches could take a low-DI school and eventually get them to the tourney and maybe even appear in the Top 25 at some point, but the point is that those teams will likely never compete for a National Championship in the games current state. But I suppose they'll have an excuse for a few more seasons as we wait to see the effects of the prestige changes. 

I just don't see how that's going to make much of a difference. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/23/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 7/23/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
tianyi, the difference I'm seeing from before is small -- no more than 1/3 of a grade. I would not term anything you outlined above as a major difference at all.

It's only been one season though. The move upwards has been about 1/3 more than before for non-bcs teams, but the drop for the bottom BCS teams have been huge. I'm seeing alot of BCS teams drop from B- to C, B to C+, and with a few teams in the D+ range (which I don't remember seeing). 

I bet after 3-5 seasons, we will see more pronounced effects. 

OK, I'll bite -- why do you think we'll see more pronounced effects?

Posted by girt25 on 7/23/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/23/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 7/23/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
tianyi, the difference I'm seeing from before is small -- no more than 1/3 of a grade. I would not term anything you outlined above as a major difference at all.

It's only been one season though. The move upwards has been about 1/3 more than before for non-bcs teams, but the drop for the bottom BCS teams have been huge. I'm seeing alot of BCS teams drop from B- to C, B to C+, and with a few teams in the D+ range (which I don't remember seeing). 

I bet after 3-5 seasons, we will see more pronounced effects. 

OK, I'll bite -- why do you think we'll see more pronounced effects?

Posted by girt25 on 7/23/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):
I think there will be some effects as you describe. I'm not sold on how large they'll be. Cash is the great equalizer.

I think a midmajor who gets to be better than a Sweet 16 on something other than pure gameplay luck almost always has a superior class for a "reason." 

Some of those reasons might be (i) a really lucky class where a couple of guys mature even better than would have been expected, (ii) a recruiting class where every A/A+ around it has a 0/1/AI recruiting class so the mid-major picks up guys they otherwise wouldn't have, (iii) getting really lucky with a foreign player where you have a geographic advantage (I got a stud C from Montreal when I was at Dartmouth) and act on imperfect information, or (iv) some luck on redshirting/staying for SR-5.  I'm sure there are more.

And, you know what?  That's how it should be.  It's how it is in the NCAA. 

Once that happens, coaches tend to move up.  Again, that's how it should be.

I don't think the prestige changes will matter all that much -- a team still needs to get to the C+/B level and then catch a break or two.  

Suggest you lay off the Sky Is Falling stories for a bit. 

Posted by lakevin on 7/23/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):

I think a midmajor who gets to be better than a Sweet 16 on something other than pure gameplay luck almost always has a superior class for a "reason." 

Some of those reasons might be (i) a really lucky class where a couple of guys mature even better than would have been expected, (ii) a recruiting class where every A/A+ around it has a 0/1/AI recruiting class so the mid-major picks up guys they otherwise wouldn't have, (iii) getting really lucky with a foreign player where you have a geographic advantage (I got a stud C from Montreal when I was at Dartmouth) and act on imperfect information, or (iv) some luck on redshirting/staying for SR-5.  I'm sure there are more.

And, you know what?  That's how it should be.  It's how it is in the NCAA. 

Once that happens, coaches tend to move up.  Again, that's how it should be.

I don't think the prestige changes will matter all that much -- a team still needs to get to the C+/B level and then catch a break or two.  

Suggest you lay off the Sky Is Falling stories for a bit. 

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 7/23/2012 8:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by lakevin on 7/23/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):

I think a midmajor who gets to be better than a Sweet 16 on something other than pure gameplay luck almost always has a superior class for a "reason." 

Some of those reasons might be (i) a really lucky class where a couple of guys mature even better than would have been expected, (ii) a recruiting class where every A/A+ around it has a 0/1/AI recruiting class so the mid-major picks up guys they otherwise wouldn't have, (iii) getting really lucky with a foreign player where you have a geographic advantage (I got a stud C from Montreal when I was at Dartmouth) and act on imperfect information, or (iv) some luck on redshirting/staying for SR-5.  I'm sure there are more.

And, you know what?  That's how it should be.  It's how it is in the NCAA. 

Once that happens, coaches tend to move up.  Again, that's how it should be.

I don't think the prestige changes will matter all that much -- a team still needs to get to the C+/B level and then catch a break or two.  

Suggest you lay off the Sky Is Falling stories for a bit. 

It's not how it is in RL. Because in WIS, there is too much importance on the success of coaches within your conference. If I want to go to Random School A who is a low major, but has no decent human coaches in the conference, I won't be able to build them into a contender. Even if I'm the best coach in HD, blessed with great luck, and stay there for 50 seasons. Baseline and conference prestige will always drag me down and mid major don't have the access to the same recruits that they used to. 

I think that IQ's need to be more based on playing time (where only a 4 year starter should have an A+ by the end of their career) and there needs to be softer caps on potential.