Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/13/2014 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 1/13/2014 4:32:00 PM (view original):The only positive element to conference realignment is for new users. Established users are accustomed to the setup but a new user, who's dream is to coach their alma mater, might not enjoy the game as much knowing they are forever locked into the wrong conference. As a South Florida alum (if I was new to HD,) I would expect to be in the American or at worst the Big East. I guess I could even stomach Conference USA. To be relegated to the Sun Belt, a league the Bulls haven't played in for 20 years, is a joke.
I think almost everyone would like to see the conferences in HD reflect the actual landscape of college basketball, but I have to agree that it probably wouldn't be a positive addition to the game as it exists today.
Another thing I would like to see have a larger impact on the simulations is BLK as it applies to guards, especially in those situations were they are defending a shot taken in the lane and/or from the interior. However, I admit that I might be incorrect in thinking that it doesn't play a big role in defense or certain defensive situations, so this might not be something needing adjustment.
The needs of veterans has to come first because we are paying to keep this game afloat but, at some point, to attract new players that are fans of Missouri, Notre Dame, Louisville, Texas A&M, Syracuse, etc. something will eventually need to change.
It's interesting you wrote this because when I first signed up for the game (about 4 or 5 months ago) as a new user, this was the first question I asked the admins. I am a UNLV alum and eventually may want to coach that team but it's in a version of the MWC that is unrecognizable to me. That is even less extreme than the changes in the other conferences.
This is one of those issues that seems like it's a net lose because of the veterans having to change affiliations but I actually think if you poll most veterans (like yourself), they might be more open to it. A little change might actually be refreshing. If you can keep your same program, in most cases its a step up or an improvement. I doubt they will EVER consider this because of the level of work involved. But if there was ever a time to start thinking about it, it's now. I think only at the D1 level.
I also think someone's made the point about incentivizing coaches to want to coach a mid-major at the D1 level. I know a lot of coaches who prefer D2 or D3 for a host of reasons. Seems to me that this is a big area of concern that somehow needs to be ironed out a bit more.
Totally agree that regular season conference champ should be automatic to at least PI. Not hard to determine. Take the team with the best conference win/loss record regardless of division. If two teams tie, then go with tie breaker or highest RPI (or both).
Your points on Top 25 are dead on. To me, this is one of the most frustrating confusing parts of the system. In "real life" a team who is pre-season ranked #1 simply does not drop in the rankings without a loss. Now I get why in this game that may engender bitterness or anger among some. But the truth is that the rankings are as meaningless in this game as in "real life" with regard to the post season. But they could be less confusing if teams don't drop with a "win". Or at the very least, maybe the rankings should be capped on how far a team can fall with a win. Or maybe even update every 2 games (which is what really happens anyway). Not sure how to fix this but definitely want to see more thought put into this logic. Later in the season seems like it runs much better than early. I've had teams pre-seasons ranked who fall from top ten completely out of the rankings with one loss. Or teams pre-season ranked who go unranked without EVER losing. It's just illogical. I also wonder how the system determines a "good" or "bad" win that early in the season anyway.