1. agree with OR about fixing recruit generation - shrink the gap between the very top and the next layer

2. I am torn about baseline - I want Duke and Kentucky to be prestige programs - although I am trying hard to ruin kentucky in Phelan.  I lean toward saying that it should be a smidge more difficult to recover to one's baseline.  An elite program that sucks or is mediocre for a few years should not bounce back quickly to A with a couple trips to the 2nd or 3rd round of the Dance...

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the 'have' and 'have not' system of generating uber recruits with a huge gap to the next tier of recruits - allowing 12-18 teams to sustain dominance over a long period of time.  If recruits were more even - i am pretty sure more teams would challenge every once in a while, which would keep the same teams from winning season after season and getting to then maintaining A+ prestige.  Fix the recruit generation - the cause - and the problem would go away.

OR -- I know recruit generation is a favorite topic of yours; but in regards to prestige, the one thing I notice is the very linear correlation with EEs as prestige goes up -- which feels like a great "evening-out" factor.  Yes, the A+'s get the top side of that huge talent gap -- but most of those guys don't stay 4 years on those teams, and oftentimes not even 3.  Having fewer A+'s would stretch those top recruits out more to the A's and A-'s and B+'s -- and those schools would be more likely to keep them for more seasons, allowing them to challenge the top teams even more.  

So this is in response to daalter, too: I'm not sure fewer A+'s would result in an even greater have/have not situation.  I think it might actually result in competition becoming even more fierce.

whatever you do, don't recruit as an A+ against an A during the cycle right before signings.  that is classless!

jeff - what you wrote (if I understand it) is exactly true - picture the worst case scenerio - recruit generation does not change, and all 350 some odd schools were the same prestige - the battles would be epic ..... but the fix is the same - create more equal recruits, what I tried to say, with more equality in top end recruit generation - the prestiges will naturally balance out .... and the game would be more fun for more coaches - although I must admit - 12-18 coaches in each d1 world are having a blast under the new recruit generation system - in most worlds, I love it, but that really isn't the point is it - the change was supposed to help the game - not the A+ end of the coaching tree

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/30/2011 11:53:00 AM (view original):
1. agree with OR about fixing recruit generation - shrink the gap between the very top and the next layer

2. I am torn about baseline - I want Duke and Kentucky to be prestige programs - although I am trying hard to ruin kentucky in Phelan.  I lean toward saying that it should be a smidge more difficult to recover to one's baseline.  An elite program that sucks or is mediocre for a few years should not bounce back quickly to A with a couple trips to the 2nd or 3rd round of the Dance...

mets - one reason I don't get too wired about the prestige at schools, in the old days - when I was moving from d2 to d1 - it took about 3 or 4 jumps to get to an elite conference and the team prestige's did not move much at all - the current game is much more fluid in that regard - yea - maybe it could be slightly more fluid - but I sure would hate to see an over correct.  We will never know, but certainly part of the old game was how difficult becoming a member of an elite was - I just won a d3 title in world 6 - I was qualified for a big east school not sure which one - but that is substantially different than how the game used to be - and borders on being too easy - part of that is how fluid prestige is - part is the stds for promo have been relaxed.  Again, I don't know how much further the game can go in that direction and still be something close to 'right' - although 'right' in this case may be opinion - several of us have the benefit of lots of change in this game to help fine tune our 'opinions'!

you were qualified for a BigEast school b/c you have over 1000 career wins in that world, had coached in D1 before for quite some time in that world, and just won a NC.  Not real surprising or a detraction from the jobs logic imo.  In the old days you spoke of, you likely didn't have 300 or 400+ wins in a world when moving up to D1 from D2, so you didn't get the "longevity bonus" that seems to apply for long-tenured coaches so that they can get to the Big 6 conferences (though probably not the elite Big 6 jobs).

Posted by jdno on 6/30/2011 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/30/2011 11:53:00 AM (view original):
1. agree with OR about fixing recruit generation - shrink the gap between the very top and the next layer

2. I am torn about baseline - I want Duke and Kentucky to be prestige programs - although I am trying hard to ruin kentucky in Phelan.  I lean toward saying that it should be a smidge more difficult to recover to one's baseline.  An elite program that sucks or is mediocre for a few years should not bounce back quickly to A with a couple trips to the 2nd or 3rd round of the Dance...

mets - one reason I don't get too wired about the prestige at schools, in the old days - when I was moving from d2 to d1 - it took about 3 or 4 jumps to get to an elite conference and the team prestige's did not move much at all - the current game is much more fluid in that regard - yea - maybe it could be slightly more fluid - but I sure would hate to see an over correct.  We will never know, but certainly part of the old game was how difficult becoming a member of an elite was - I just won a d3 title in world 6 - I was qualified for a big east school not sure which one - but that is substantially different than how the game used to be - and borders on being too easy - part of that is how fluid prestige is - part is the stds for promo have been relaxed.  Again, I don't know how much further the game can go in that direction and still be something close to 'right' - although 'right' in this case may be opinion - several of us have the benefit of lots of change in this game to help fine tune our 'opinions'!

you were qualified for a BigEast school b/c you have over 1000 career wins in that world, had coached in D1 before for quite some time in that world, and just won a NC.  Not real surprising or a detraction from the jobs logic imo.  In the old days you spoke of, you likely didn't have 300 or 400+ wins in a world when moving up to D1 from D2, so you didn't get the "longevity bonus" that seems to apply for long-tenured coaches so that they can get to the Big 6 conferences (though probably not the elite Big 6 jobs).

thx jd - that is interesting info -  so d3 coaches with 100 career wins cannot get to low end big east jobs?  What you are saying makes sense and seems to be appropriate - did you read that somewhere or get it told to you in a ticket or experience it - just curious?

Well, I don't think I've run across a coach on the forums (and I certainly haven't observed it myself by happenstance) who has made it to Big 6 D1 after just 3 or 4 seasons in D3.  Thinking back to the last turbo worlds that opened, I remember everyone was up in arms about a single coach (think it was srunstro) that stuck around D3 for like 3 or 4 seasons and everyone else jumped to D2 after 1 season.  He tore up D3, won like back to back titles or something, and then got a D1 job, but it wasn't a Big 6 job.  Think it was San Francisco.  But everyone else had to stick around D2 a bit longer b/c they were loyalty blocked.  And I don't think that jobs have been tweaked since CS made the adjustment right AFTER that happened b/c a lot of coaches were pi$$ed.  And that was like 2-3 years ago, or however long Knight World has been around.

The stuff about the "longevity bonus" I picked up on my own from observing coaches moving up to D1 from D2, reading a lot of CC boards where they'll say stuff like I wasn't qualifed last season but am for x, y, and z this season even though they didn't do any better or anything this season vs. last, and my own experiences over the last 2 yrs when looking at jobs apps.  Even within D1, there appears to be a minimum threshold necessary to get the truly elite Big 6 jobs (seems to be ~400 wins is the threshold for the A+ baseline jobs) and stuff.  I think a lot of it is simply tied to career wins, with a heavier weighting given to wins at the D1 level, then the D2 level, then D3.  Of course, success in the most recent couple of seasons is also a prerequisite as well.

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 1:38:00 PM (view original):
jeff - what you wrote (if I understand it) is exactly true - picture the worst case scenerio - recruit generation does not change, and all 350 some odd schools were the same prestige - the battles would be epic ..... but the fix is the same - create more equal recruits, what I tried to say, with more equality in top end recruit generation - the prestiges will naturally balance out .... and the game would be more fun for more coaches - although I must admit - 12-18 coaches in each d1 world are having a blast under the new recruit generation system - in most worlds, I love it, but that really isn't the point is it - the change was supposed to help the game - not the A+ end of the coaching tree

gotta agree with OR on this one. and his last post.

its absolutely right - the system today totally favors a handful (around 15) of upper crust schools. the difference between the top 5 players in an area, the next 5, and the next 5 is staggering. i always supported elite recruits - but not fricken 50 of them!! and *especially* not with a dramatic drop off afterwards. what ends up happening im sure is the same in every world - each year, you wind up with 5-10 teams who in the old days would be huge favorites to win the NT. then, by about ~30 or 40, you have ****** sims and stuff starting to appear in the NT, winning games, because the talent gap drops off a cliff.

so, what happens is, you can coach your way to about 30 or 40 with a **** team, because you aren't that far behind. but if you are a #15 team by talent, its damn impossible to win the NT, it seems. guaranteed a couple of those top tier teams will be well coached and you have less than 10% chance to beat them. i remember having a borderline top 25 talented team at my first bcs school, having a talent disadvantage to every team i played after the 2nd round - as a 1 seed - and winning anyway. i just can't see doing that today. there is no way - there are too many teams who are too much more talented. if there is 1 or 2 teams who are fantastic in a year, thats fine, but the gap from #7 or so to #25 really should not be that big. its dramatically bigger today than it is in real life and i don't know of anything that has hurt the game more.

jd - in tark during the startup years - I stayed in d3 a little longer, then jumped straight to d1, horizon league.  I had 2 straight titles and a 3 total in the 4 year history in d3, that is what I formed the basis of my comparison with versus lakeland .... but as you pointed out, career wins were very different.  But, I had a few places with very good track records that I did jump to d1 from d2 / d3, I never was qualified for a big 6 conference .... so I still wonder if something has changed .... again .... I was more curious if what you pointed out, albeit logical and sensible, was actually documented or communicated from CS - sounds like maybe not.

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 6/30/2011 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/30/2011 11:53:00 AM (view original):
1. agree with OR about fixing recruit generation - shrink the gap between the very top and the next layer

2. I am torn about baseline - I want Duke and Kentucky to be prestige programs - although I am trying hard to ruin kentucky in Phelan.  I lean toward saying that it should be a smidge more difficult to recover to one's baseline.  An elite program that sucks or is mediocre for a few years should not bounce back quickly to A with a couple trips to the 2nd or 3rd round of the Dance...

mets - one reason I don't get too wired about the prestige at schools, in the old days - when I was moving from d2 to d1 - it took about 3 or 4 jumps to get to an elite conference and the team prestige's did not move much at all - the current game is much more fluid in that regard - yea - maybe it could be slightly more fluid - but I sure would hate to see an over correct.  We will never know, but certainly part of the old game was how difficult becoming a member of an elite was - I just won a d3 title in world 6 - I was qualified for a big east school not sure which one - but that is substantially different than how the game used to be - and borders on being too easy - part of that is how fluid prestige is - part is the stds for promo have been relaxed.  Again, I don't know how much further the game can go in that direction and still be something close to 'right' - although 'right' in this case may be opinion - several of us have the benefit of lots of change in this game to help fine tune our 'opinions'!

you were qualified for a BigEast school b/c you have over 1000 career wins in that world, had coached in D1 before for quite some time in that world, and just won a NC.  Not real surprising or a detraction from the jobs logic imo.  In the old days you spoke of, you likely didn't have 300 or 400+ wins in a world when moving up to D1 from D2, so you didn't get the "longevity bonus" that seems to apply for long-tenured coaches so that they can get to the Big 6 conferences (though probably not the elite Big 6 jobs).

thx jd - that is interesting info -  so d3 coaches with 100 career wins cannot get to low end big east jobs?  What you are saying makes sense and seems to be appropriate - did you read that somewhere or get it told to you in a ticket or experience it - just curious?

You cannot. I have gone to NC game and then won the NC in the following season in Rupp D3 and didn't qualify for any of the Big 6 jobs; I didn't qualify for any job above C prestige (I also don't think I qualified for any of the non BCS conf with a C+ baseline).

There indeed was a post a month or 2 earlier, in which a D3 coach with 700+ wins (maybe close to 1k) who qualified for Big East teams. 

Posted by coach_billyg on 6/30/2011 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 6/30/2011 1:38:00 PM (view original):
jeff - what you wrote (if I understand it) is exactly true - picture the worst case scenerio - recruit generation does not change, and all 350 some odd schools were the same prestige - the battles would be epic ..... but the fix is the same - create more equal recruits, what I tried to say, with more equality in top end recruit generation - the prestiges will naturally balance out .... and the game would be more fun for more coaches - although I must admit - 12-18 coaches in each d1 world are having a blast under the new recruit generation system - in most worlds, I love it, but that really isn't the point is it - the change was supposed to help the game - not the A+ end of the coaching tree

gotta agree with OR on this one. and his last post.

its absolutely right - the system today totally favors a handful (around 15) of upper crust schools. the difference between the top 5 players in an area, the next 5, and the next 5 is staggering. i always supported elite recruits - but not fricken 50 of them!! and *especially* not with a dramatic drop off afterwards. what ends up happening im sure is the same in every world - each year, you wind up with 5-10 teams who in the old days would be huge favorites to win the NT. then, by about ~30 or 40, you have ****** sims and stuff starting to appear in the NT, winning games, because the talent gap drops off a cliff.

so, what happens is, you can coach your way to about 30 or 40 with a **** team, because you aren't that far behind. but if you are a #15 team by talent, its damn impossible to win the NT, it seems. guaranteed a couple of those top tier teams will be well coached and you have less than 10% chance to beat them. i remember having a borderline top 25 talented team at my first bcs school, having a talent disadvantage to every team i played after the 2nd round - as a 1 seed - and winning anyway. i just can't see doing that today. there is no way - there are too many teams who are too much more talented. if there is 1 or 2 teams who are fantastic in a year, thats fine, but the gap from #7 or so to #25 really should not be that big. its dramatically bigger today than it is in real life and i don't know of anything that has hurt the game more.

Yep. Nail on the head.

And OR, as you know, I do wholeheartedly agree re: recruit generation. You and I were the ones banging that drum very, very early on. Personally, I hadn't brought it up in this thread largely because I felt it was such a commonly accepted notion.

Jeff, et al ... you do have me thinking about whether fewer high prestige teams would be good or bad. I'd always felt bad and I think that is still my gut, but you have me thinking about it...

I'm still a recruit generation heretic to some extent. I do concede that it's highly unlikely you'll be able to compete for a title without elite recruits. However, you can put together a successful program with less than elite recruits (guys in the 20s and 30s at their position) and boost your prestige to the point where you can start signing the elite guys. Unless you take over an A program, getting to that level is something you have to work for.

Posted by antonsirius on 7/1/2011 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I'm still a recruit generation heretic to some extent. I do concede that it's highly unlikely you'll be able to compete for a title without elite recruits. However, you can put together a successful program with less than elite recruits (guys in the 20s and 30s at their position) and boost your prestige to the point where you can start signing the elite guys. Unless you take over an A program, getting to that level is something you have to work for.

 

To me the bigger problem is still that non-Big 6 conferences aren't full. We aren't going to see a Gonzaga or Butler because they're in conferences with nine Sim schools, which drags down conference prestige (and thus their school prestige) and prevents them from climbing that ladder. You can make a chicken and egg argument - recruit generation is perceived as a no-win scenario for non-big 6 schools, which keeps people out of DI, which leaves non-big 6 conferences empty and keeps those who are actually coaching those schools down - but I still don't think the current recruit generation system would be a problem in a nearly full world.

You can still do relatively well with an empty conference... the MWC in Iba has been pretty empty lately, but last season I managed an RPI of 28... counting a conference loss..I was also a 5th seed in the tournament (which really didnt make sense)

In my last 6 years, I've had 2 first rounds, 2 Sweet Sixteens and 1 Final Four.... I'd guess that is fairly successful for a run of the mill mid major.