Posted by bagger288 on 10/17/2014 10:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rogelio on 10/17/2014 9:32:00 PM (view original):
Someone on the forums recently said anything below S16 on average was failure. If the bar is that high, then it would be difficult. If you just meant consistently be in line for at-large bids (on the off chance of losing the CT in an empty conference) and win a game in the tourney every other year, then sure.
The way I see it, the best bet is one of two possibilities play: (A) zone and make sure to have 6 open schollies every season (or nearly that) or (B) press and set up a 6060 structure. You can get very good ATH & DEF to play man, but it's almost impossible to get enough to run with the big dogs.
the S16 thing I saw was for D2, basically I've been told and believe if you can build a team to make it to the S16 you have built a solid team and could compete in or out of a SIMAI conference. I've never seen anyone say S16 or failure. I have seen CT Championship or bust in a SIMAI conference but never a S16
I'll say it. If you can build a team up to
average a S16 loss, then this game pays for itself (after an initial investment). Anything below that means you are coming out of pocket to play. I would grant that is a tough standard to judge "consistency", but that's one obvious place to put the bar.
I'm just figuring out what "consistently" should mean. At a school in an empty D1 conference with the default baseline prestige, IMO, averaging a S16 appearance is higher than you can really expect to achieve, but you need to set the bar at qualifying for an at-large bid to the NT every season.
If I'm allowed to define an "empty" conference as one in which any team receiving an at-large bid is a rare event, then you can find a few miracle F4 or E8 runs by such teams, but "consistently" winning has got to mean something between 1/2 a NT win per year and S16 loss.