5/8/2013 7:19 PM

Have the D1A Elite teams changed in awhile?  I think it would be cool if WIS could look at the real NCAA every (real) couple years or so and tweak the Elite list...

I have a buddy coaching Oregon in the PAC-12 and they really should be an Elite, as should a few other teams.  And some Elites should have their licenses revoked.. :)
5/8/2013 8:10 PM

Good idea, not the way to do it. Elites should be based on in game performance. But it should take some huge achievements to get there. I.E Georgia in Dobie.

5/8/2013 9:54 PM
Posted by tampafla on 5/8/2013 8:10:00 PM (view original):

Good idea, not the way to do it. Elites should be based on in game performance. But it should take some huge achievements to get there. I.E Georgia in Dobie.

If you are going to do this, this is the way to do it.  Reward good players at non-elites and under-performing elites get the can.
5/9/2013 12:48 AM
+1
5/9/2013 9:10 AM
Just curious as to why "What if Sports" even has built in elites.  Shouldn't it be whoever is playing at an elite level is elite like the other divisions? 
5/9/2013 12:22 PM
It should just be like HD does it.  That model would work fine in GD.
5/9/2013 2:09 PM
Posted by moranis on 5/9/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
It should just be like HD does it.  That model would work fine in GD.
I have advocated this for years.
5/9/2013 4:03 PM
Posted by cadelu on 5/9/2013 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Just curious as to why "What if Sports" even has built in elites.  Shouldn't it be whoever is playing at an elite level is elite like the other divisions? 
++++1000
5/9/2013 4:30 PM
Posted by ermackey on 5/9/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 5/9/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
It should just be like HD does it.  That model would work fine in GD.
I have advocated this for years.
For those of us that haven't played HD, how exactly does HD do it?
5/9/2013 11:09 PM
The most frustrating thing about the GD elite tag is when teams that are not elite are given that moniker (i.e. Tennessee). There are many teams that were apparently given elite status when the game was originated but have stunk it up on the real gridiron ever since. I too agree that it should be based on in game performance but I kind of like the idea that our teams are linked to the real teams performance too. I mean, that was the reason or establishing elites in the first place. The UGA Dobie is a great example because of all the non-elite schools, I argue UGA is one of the toughest to get and stay at an elite level due to all the other SEC/ACC schools taking talent from Georgia. Particularly the elites at Florida, Alabama, FSU, Miami, and the aforementioned Volunteers. Add to that Auburn, Ga Tech, Clemson, S. Carolina, etc and it makes for a difficult climb out of non-elite status. It'd also be great if there was a status meter or something less ambiguous that elites/non-elite.
5/9/2013 11:54 PM
I don't think we should have "elites" at all.  The other divisions don't have them and niether should DI. 
5/10/2013 11:27 AM
I am too lazy to search for the post but I always thought the elite system---if you are going to have a fixed elite system---was implemented in a silly, noncreative way.  The Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc., etc.  of the worlds will ALWAYS have takers.  Even if the're "abandoned."  I never understood from a business standpoint why you would essentially have customers claim those teams and keep them with even minimal success.  And usually play for free off the reward points.  $HIT, they could probably charge double for each season at an elite and there would always be takers.

Here's some things that they could do: 
(1) Substantially increase the firing standards.  If you can't be elite, at an elite, then you shouldn't be coaching an elite.  Top 15 every year or you drop.  A level five bowl appearance every year or you drop.  A level five bowl win every two years or you drop.  Whatever those metrics may be.  Increased firings will stir the pot and can give some incentive for guys to stick around DIA if they think there is a reasonable chance in the near future to have an elite open up;
(2) Change reward points at elites.  Taking ND to a level 3 and taking Kent State a level 3 is not the same thing.
(3) Increase reward points at non-elites.  Fill the worlds.  Give guys an incentive to coach Montana, Middle Tennesse State
(4) Increase reward points for "rebuilds."  Turning around schools adds to the quality of the world.  And then someone can come in and cherry pick.
(5) Make offers to successful coaches to switch schools with deals.  A coach has a nice run at Georgia and he gets an email offer at the end of the season to take over some dormat or underachiever.  E.g., Come take over Purdue and turn this program around.  Then give him metrics with reward points tied in.  Bowl win in year 2 = x reward points, etc.  This, I believe, would increase populations because some coaches would move and others would cherrypick a successful program left behind.
(6) Possibly tweak the firing formula based on the quality of available candidates.  In a vacuum, a coach's performance might not be be that bad to get fired.  But, if the coach at Boston College ranks #1, wins an NC, and the ND coach loses a level 3 twice in a row in the same season...ND makes the switch.  "Sorry coach, a decent run but we have a commitment from a championship-level coach."  Coaches, before each season, could list a top three schools that they would commit to switching if an offer was made.
5/10/2013 5:01 PM
Posted by trajon12 on 5/9/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 5/9/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 5/9/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
It should just be like HD does it.  That model would work fine in GD.
I have advocated this for years.
For those of us that haven't played HD, how exactly does HD do it?
Your team increases and decreases its prestige based upon its own records over 4 or 5 years. The more you win against top competition, the higher your team presitige.
5/11/2013 1:02 PM
I really like potter's and mackey's suggestions.  However, I'm afraid if we make the firing standards too high at elites...people will be gun-shy to take them after a while.  I like all the suggestions regarding incentives and rewards.  Ultimately, I agree that an elite's status should be based on their performance.  One additional point, when taking over a dormant or historically bad team the coach should be rewarded for improving the team not punished.  An example: Montana goes 3-10 over the past five season...a human coach takes them over and improves their record each season, 4-9, 5-8, etc. but eventually gets fired due to some random standard that doesn't make sense particularly when he's improving the team every season.  The team is taken back over by a SIM and back to 3-10.  A team would never fire a coach that is consistently making progress.
5/11/2013 6:43 PM
Please get rid of elite status. It adds noting to the game but frustration for most of us. Let players make their own elites via success. I liked it better when I coached Liberty in Hayes. I loved the rivalries with Dartmouth, northwestern state, and Alcon state. Those rivalries felt every bit as important as Oklahoma - Texas or. Ohio state - Michigan.
of 2

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.