is it true that the CT operates under a diferent set of rules than the regular season? Did that UMKC team receive a conference "bump"?
I do think there is a major disconnect among the Big 6 coaches relative to how easy it is for them to make the NT compared to a non-Big 6 team. I don't need examples to prove I'm wrong, as there are so many more examples of where I am right. At the same time, building a "dynasty" in most of the conferences is impossible or nearly impossible and so would like to see the marketing slogan be more honest and say, "Come get kicked in the balls while somebody who has been around a long time and got to where they are in a different system and therefore have really no clue of the current situation tells you that you need to recruit or schedule better."
Unless the top guys are afraid of competition, if my DIV 1 team has a higher RPI than a sim coached team for 3 years, then that job should be mine. If you want to make it 5 years, 7 years, 10 years that is fine. The firing logic doesn't need to change because with new blood, at least some of the usual winners will become usual losers relative to having to play better competition. After all, even though no one in the Big 6 wants to play conference sims, there are many that owe those games to their staying in D1.
Hang in there wildcat, someday you and I are going to be kicking balls and then we can tell WIS to even the playing field so we can compete against 100 user-coached teams rather than the 25 currently vying for ongoing championships. I see the last few years going down as the "Steroid Years of WIS" in the distant future with us old and grey and reminiscing about the time when the game was so slanted towards the past success of the teams one has taken over rather than the work they did on a level playing field. You'll get plenty of old-timers who will support you in sitemail on that and only a handful that come to the board without a grasp on reality and pretending to speak for the majority.