Ebel1331 one of the things we have created here at Warner D2 is conversation without insults. Coaches have come and gone but civility has been a mainstay. I invite you to join the crowd.

You will have to excuse Ebel1331. He is not a part of Warner. I have really enjoyed the community built in Warner D2. The ability to have these types of discussions in an intelligent and adult way adds to that community.

While I don't disagree with Pistol, I think it is hard to seriously argue that Ranger is not being patient. Or that he did not build up a team.

Posted by nacorwin on 5/1/2016 11:19:00 AM (view original):
While I don't disagree with Pistol, I think it is hard to seriously argue that Ranger is not being patient. Or that he did not build up a team.

If that's the way that it came out I apologize for sure, Ranger has stuck with it and built a program up where many would have quit. I have loads of respect for a coach that will do that!

No offense taken Pistol. The playoffs produced some great efforts. Good news is we can all give it a try again next season.

The PSAC is perfect if you are a Masochist . Still, like they say about New York, "If you can make it here , you can make it anywhere".
Still, speaking about vision, our vision is hurt yearly because we beat our own. Unless you have been Lyonzfan who has won NC's(and I heartily congratulate you LF; you done great), most of us are due some losses from our conf brothers.

@ranger1951
@nacorwin

Good discussion, but I see things a little differently. My thoughts on the things you all have said:

• Teams that win the National Championships should have an advantage over teams that don't. Just like the real world, the teams that win Championships usually are able to recruit a higher caliber of player. If not, Alabama wouldn't be so damn good under Saban. The problem with opening up the vision to be the same for everyone is that teams that consistently win should have an advantage in recruiting. So they'd have to build in some sort of prestige factor like what exists at the Elites in D1A. I hate to say it, but I'd be really ****** (as I'm sure would everyone in D2) if I won back-to-back National Championships and lost the top QB recruit to a team that has placed in the WIS 50 range for the last 2 seasons because he spent more money than me. That sort of parity wouldn't happen in real life, why does it make sense here?
• I think too many people around here think recruiting is the ultimate deciding factor. I have said it before when talking about v3.0 and I'll say it again.. Gameplanning has just as much an effect on the game as recruiting. Now, if two coaches are equally great at gameplanning, talent will probably win out. That said, I can look back on just my own history and provide you at least 100 examples of why those that state, "RECRUITING IS THE KEY." No! Recruiting is only part of the battle. A great gameplanner can overcome talent differences. Just one example.. my first championship in D1AA Wilkinson (arguably the most competitive world) came with Tennessee Tech in Season 111. I had the #17 rated GUESS team that season. Recruiting must be the key right?!?
• There is some element of luck, but I don't think it's as much as you stated. If luck played such a major role, the same teams wouldn't be able to consistently win National Championships. Turnovers are going to happen. Some simple facts.. if you play a FR/SO at QB, you are going to have a higher likelihood of throwing interceptions. If you play a FR/SO RB, you are going to have a higher likelihood of fumbling. If you play FR/SO OL, you are going to have a higher likelihood of penalties. I don't know if any of those apply to the games you mentioned, but I'd be willing to bet it may have.

If you you want to win National Championships and think you're only an average recruiter, step up your game planning. If you think you're an average game planner, step up your recruiting. If a Dynasty is what you seek.. step up both.

I'm sorry you're frustrated @ranger1951. But asking for the game to get easier or for some sort of forced parity beyond what already exists is kind of a cop out. There are loads of people that offer up advice and help. Seek someone out if you think you need to improve a facet of your game. Maybe one person won't respond because real life has them tied up... Don't give up on seeking a mentor, because there are plenty of people out there that are willing to help.

You lost me with your game planning vs recruiting statement. I have been fortunate recently to have other coaches agree to participate in some game planning/formation testing. I have been surprised and disappointed by the results so far. Different adjustment and tweaks have made very little, if any, difference in play results. I expected more. There truly is only so much you can do with this game engine.

GDreports is a good start when evaluating teams. It's not gospel though. Especially for coaches that specialize. Some of their players will be dominant but won't have good GD ratings because of specialization. Some coaches tweak the formulas to better fit their programs needs. Those teams show poorly on GDreports also.

Talent trumps game planning (other than obvious NoNos that can be taken advantage of). Also, taking advantage of the game engine flaws can also even the playing field if a team has less talent. I guess some would consider that game planning.

I think it's talent >>> roster/formation compatibility ( for instance a team that runs both Wishbone and Shotgun. Very hard to recruit enough players for that combo) >>> gameplanning. Luck can have a big impact also.

just my opinion

I would agree with Realist's order at the end of his last post.
But in spite of the fact I agree that talent trumps everything else in importance, I know I have won games over superior teams with my gameplanning.
So , yes I think talent is king. But gameplanning Is a Big Deal as well.

I still have no problem with vision. I am fine with no change, and if a change were to occur I would hope it would entail a better algorithm to compute the WIS ranking.

In some sense, games in GD are entirely luck. It is a sequence of random events. Better game planning and better players gives you much better odds, but a game in GD is a random walk. However, when I talked about luck to move up, I mostly mean other things. Getting a favorable match up in the third round is in large part luck. I personally think the two best teams this season met in the semifinals. Someone else got into the championship game - partly because they are proving to be a great coach - partially by luck. Again, I have no problem with this. I think the way to become a dominant team is to try to be a very good team and then take full advantage when you get a lucky break. I think this is a lot like real life as well.

I agree with mojo and realist. Recruiting is big, gameplanning is also big.

Game-planning plays a much bigger role then people are willing to admit. Once coaches are willing to admit this, life in this game will be easier. Game-planning is a solid second in this game. What effects the game when when rosters are set up exactly how each coach wants? We can talk about talent all day, but If I can find a match-up problem or hide a weakness in a match up its over. Talent and then game-planning in my eyes, a great game-planning coach can completely takeover a game from the start. I don't take roster set-up/formation set-up into account in this debate as any competent coach should be able to do this effectively. I'll leave it at that cause I could go on for days regarding that topic.

When it comes to vision its exactly the way it should be at the moment. Few teams should be competing for the recruits Indiana(PA) wants. They've earned that right to that advantage. Its up to everyone else to catch-up.

@realist9900
@mojolad

I agree with Anthony (Tampafla) that roster/formation compatibility shouldn't be considered all that important. If a coach hasn't figured that piece of the game out, arguing the importance of Recruiting v. Gameplanning is a moot point. That stuff should be learned at the onset.

I never said recruiting wasn't important. It's just not the only deciding, nor necessarily the most important, factor. I mean, it's very easy to say that if a team doesn't have some decent talent on the roster, or decent depth, they likely won't have an impact on the world in the National Championship picture. By the way, I don't use the same formulas as GUESS to rate my own guys. I used it as an example because it's the only perspective of the talent on a roster that everyone shares. I know that the stuff that follows is "tldr," but I implore you to walk through it because it will make you at least revisit your stance on "Recruiting>>>>>Gameplanning."

Maybe I'm the only one in GD who thinks this, but I consider Recruiting and Gameplanning to be equally important, with neither being more important than the other. If you're not at least average in both, you're not winning a Championship. If you gave me a team within a 10 school range talent wise of any other team and I feel like I have a greater than 80% chance of winning that game based on my game planning. Let's look at another example: In Wilkinson, I took over UCLA in S111. USC won the Championship in S111, so obviously the coach knew what he was doing. By the time we reached S115, I had closed the talent gap according to GUESS to a near 20 team difference. I beat USC every season from S115 - S118. According to GUESS, here were our roster rankings for those 4 seasons (S115 - S118):

• USC - 6 / 3 / 9 / 14
• UCLA - 27 / 19 / 35 / 26

Now we can agree that we may evaluate players differently than GUESS formulas. But no matter how you evaluate it, I think it's very obvious that there was a significant talent disparity between our teams. Only 1 of those games (S117) was decided by less than 14 pts (4pts). I mentioned that USC had won the Championship in S111 because it's obvious that gkaal was very good at GD. Now, it seems odd that I'd get lucky given the talent disparity in each of those 4 seasons, especially in light of knowing that only one of those games was within 2 scores, but I'll carry it a step further in arguing my point... Each of those 4 seasons, UCLA made a level 5 bowl game. The following are the bowl game/opponent/coach/GUESS roster rating and results from each of those 4 seasons:

• S115 - WIS Championship - Texas - bkdries - #3 - Lost by 10pts. Won all other games, including vs. Notre Dame (#9) and Nebraska (#1) this season.
• S116 - Rose Bowl - Minnesota - ez37 - #8 - Won by 23pts. Was 3rd in Championship chase with only loss on season to Texas (#1). Won all other games, including vs. Tennessee (#15).
• S117 - Orange Bowl - Texas A&M - cebrake - #25 - Lost by 11pts. Was 3rd in Championship chase with only loss on the season before this game coming at the hands of Texas (#1). Won all other games, including vs. Tennessee (#20) and Boston College (#8).
• S118 - WIS Championship - Texas - bkdries - #2 - Lost by 15pts. Only loss on season. Also won games vs. Miami (#3) and Tennessee (#15) this season.

Anyone who knows me around here knows I like to schedule tough. Those games above mentioned in addition to the bowl game weren't the only human opponents I faced, nor the only ones with a GUESS rating higher than mine. In fact, just within the PAC-10, GUESS ranked UCLA as the 5th; 3rd; 6th; and 5th best from a talent standpoint for each of S115-S118, respectively.

Now, as I said before, you and I can agree that we may rate players differently than GUESS, but it's painfully obvious that in each of those seasons, UCLA was at not only a talent disadvantage in a lot of games, but at a significant talent disadvantage often. I listed out the coaches, because I know that each of those coaches is widely known in GD.

I'm in no way looking for a pat on the back or being braggadocios at all. If after reading through all of those facts you can tell me with a straight face that either: (i) there wasn't really a significant talent disparity that would likely hold no matter what rating calculation system you use; (ii) I somehow got "lucky" through all of those games; and/or (iii) gameplanning didn't play a significant role; then I guess we're just going to have to outright agree to disagree on the topic of the importance of Recruiting vs. Gameplanning.

Like I said, I think Gameplanning is equally as important as Recruiting.

I am sorry I did not have the time to respond to some of the comments. Let me say I viewed the responses well thought out and presented. Actual life took up most of my time lately. As we have moved into the recruiting period and now signings I have a chance to put in my 2 cent on some responses. While some maintain game planning as equal or close to equal in importance to talent I am not convinced. Maybe Orangepace made a strong argument and I agree with much of what said. But, there is always a but, I don't think the advantage should be unreasonable. If we are talking real life then the elite teams never have exclusive access to recruits. Sure the most talented recruits will tend to lean toward the most successful schools but it is not always true so in this game effort should count for something. If we were playing chess would it be fair that just because you are a national champion you get two queens while I get none and then say well learn to play better, I agree game planning becomes important when the talent is somewhat equal but if your squad is made up of mostly D1AA players not available to your opponent then I believe game planning is useless for the undermanned squad. I am not looking for forced parity but we would like to see a more equal opportunity. As signing has just completed the first cycle I looked at 2 schools that have very good vision. The first school filled all of its scholarships and still has 8 players in the D1AA classification considering that school. Where are they going to go. The second school has 2 scholarships to fill with 4 players ready to sign with the school. I have no opportunity to sign any of these recruits. There is also a ton of undecided that would be an improvement over what I most of the recruits I can choose from. Here is a thought, After the initial signing period open up the recruits to all schools. I am going to use NCCU as an example and this is not to disparage any that have or is coaching this team. Over the last 42 seasons they have been the CC 37 times and have 9 NC. Whether the team was run by Achillesred, Kevinbigham, Orangepace, PYT100 or Kevinbigham again. Though the situation is different for each it can not be argue that none achieved the same success as that when being at NCCU. Now, if I took over NCCU I might drive them right into the dumper but I am guessing my vision would be better for a couple of seasons. Those are my thoughts as we get ready for the upcoming season good luck to everyone. I think we have one of the best worlds to be in.