Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 11:18:00 AM (view original):
I really do like Fresno and being in conference with piman, (who is not the only legend in that conference, btw). I’m pretty good with all my D1 conferences right now, actually. But Fresno is probably as solid as any of them.

Fun fact, I got interested in taking on Fresno in a world a couple years ago when a HS friend of mine took over head coaching the football program over there. He’s coaching the Washington Huskies now, as of this off-season. I’m kind of attached to Fresno now, though. I had convinced myself it was a good spot, despite what others were saying about how terrible it must be to be so close to UCLA, Stanford, Zona, etc.

IMO there's room for one of cal, usc, fresno, and maybe a couple others in the mix, to be high end a/a+ level programs. its pretty hard to squeeze more than one of those in, assuming ucla, arizona, stanford are all strong. it does depend on the washington/oregon schools too, and the utah/colorado schools, i feel like if all those areas are strong then it can be real hard to work a fresno type school. but if there isn't already another strong california school and the neighboring regions aren't too crazy, i think all those lower bcs california schools are fairly workable.

the one hard truth i think to these situations, is even when you get a+, your ceiling generally isn't ucla a+ caliber. its not because of the baseline so much, its really about the recruiting competition. its way less likely to be a+ fresno (or other mid level bcs school right next to a+ baselines), and to have a favorable west coast recruiting landscape over 10-20 seasons, where you can more easily put out consistent high end NT teams - than it is for ucla or uconn etc to wind up in that position. just because for ucla, fresno is often d+ to c+ and irrelevant, but for fresno, ucla is almost always pretty darn competitive and is essentially never irrelevant. other places like colorado/utah area, texas/louisiana, you don't get this dynamic at all. those tend to be the premium lower baseline bcs locations.

Posted by gillispie on 3/18/2022 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 11:18:00 AM (view original):
I really do like Fresno and being in conference with piman, (who is not the only legend in that conference, btw). I’m pretty good with all my D1 conferences right now, actually. But Fresno is probably as solid as any of them.

Fun fact, I got interested in taking on Fresno in a world a couple years ago when a HS friend of mine took over head coaching the football program over there. He’s coaching the Washington Huskies now, as of this off-season. I’m kind of attached to Fresno now, though. I had convinced myself it was a good spot, despite what others were saying about how terrible it must be to be so close to UCLA, Stanford, Zona, etc.

IMO there's room for one of cal, usc, fresno, and maybe a couple others in the mix, to be high end a/a+ level programs. its pretty hard to squeeze more than one of those in, assuming ucla, arizona, stanford are all strong. it does depend on the washington/oregon schools too, and the utah/colorado schools, i feel like if all those areas are strong then it can be real hard to work a fresno type school. but if there isn't already another strong california school and the neighboring regions aren't too crazy, i think all those lower bcs california schools are fairly workable.

the one hard truth i think to these situations, is even when you get a+, your ceiling generally isn't ucla a+ caliber. its not because of the baseline so much, its really about the recruiting competition. its way less likely to be a+ fresno (or other mid level bcs school right next to a+ baselines), and to have a favorable west coast recruiting landscape over 10-20 seasons, where you can more easily put out consistent high end NT teams - than it is for ucla or uconn etc to wind up in that position. just because for ucla, fresno is often d+ to c+ and irrelevant, but for fresno, ucla is almost always pretty darn competitive and is essentially never irrelevant. other places like colorado/utah area, texas/louisiana, you don't get this dynamic at all. those tend to be the premium lower baseline bcs locations.

yeah couldn’t agree more. I took fresno in wooden after forgetting to renew at Mizzou. Will be an interesting rebuild.

Posted by gillispie on 3/18/2022 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 11:18:00 AM (view original):
I really do like Fresno and being in conference with piman, (who is not the only legend in that conference, btw). I’m pretty good with all my D1 conferences right now, actually. But Fresno is probably as solid as any of them.

Fun fact, I got interested in taking on Fresno in a world a couple years ago when a HS friend of mine took over head coaching the football program over there. He’s coaching the Washington Huskies now, as of this off-season. I’m kind of attached to Fresno now, though. I had convinced myself it was a good spot, despite what others were saying about how terrible it must be to be so close to UCLA, Stanford, Zona, etc.

IMO there's room for one of cal, usc, fresno, and maybe a couple others in the mix, to be high end a/a+ level programs. its pretty hard to squeeze more than one of those in, assuming ucla, arizona, stanford are all strong. it does depend on the washington/oregon schools too, and the utah/colorado schools, i feel like if all those areas are strong then it can be real hard to work a fresno type school. but if there isn't already another strong california school and the neighboring regions aren't too crazy, i think all those lower bcs california schools are fairly workable.

the one hard truth i think to these situations, is even when you get a+, your ceiling generally isn't ucla a+ caliber. its not because of the baseline so much, its really about the recruiting competition. its way less likely to be a+ fresno (or other mid level bcs school right next to a+ baselines), and to have a favorable west coast recruiting landscape over 10-20 seasons, where you can more easily put out consistent high end NT teams - than it is for ucla or uconn etc to wind up in that position. just because for ucla, fresno is often d+ to c+ and irrelevant, but for fresno, ucla is almost always pretty darn competitive and is essentially never irrelevant. other places like colorado/utah area, texas/louisiana, you don't get this dynamic at all. those tend to be the premium lower baseline bcs locations.

Most of the advantage you’re talking about is directly baseline; the rest is based on perception.

It’s pretty easy for UCLA and UConn to maintain an A+, once they’re solidly there. That’s baseline. And then yeah, once at that level, they’re always going to be relevant, always going to be a factor both on the recruiting trail and in the CT/NT (for as long as the coach is paying attention). I coached Rutgers under the old handle, and the primary difference is the volume of teams that are at or above your teams baseline prestige recruiting in your area is much higher in NJ. That makes it much more difficult. Fresno is actually in a pretty sweet little geographic spot, in a triangle between LA, LV, and SF. Reaching into northern and southern Cali is no problem, NV is solidly your territory, and Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah are all within reach, often getting distance guys on the low end of the “good,” which is gold. A lot of good quality recruits are *usually* generated in this area. And when they aren’t, it’s a good place to go Int’l from.

Now if I had the mindset that I had to consistently beat UCLA and Zona for the best regional recruits in order to compete, I think your conventional wisdom would be more convincing, but as you know, that’s not how I play. For what it’s worth, Fresno and USC have been in the title game 2 of the last 3 years. I’ve had to rebuild Fresno since, but they will be strong this coming year, and very strong after that (barring a recruiting disaster). USC doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere, either.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 3/18/2022 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 11:18:00 AM (view original):
I really do like Fresno and being in conference with piman, (who is not the only legend in that conference, btw). I’m pretty good with all my D1 conferences right now, actually. But Fresno is probably as solid as any of them.

Fun fact, I got interested in taking on Fresno in a world a couple years ago when a HS friend of mine took over head coaching the football program over there. He’s coaching the Washington Huskies now, as of this off-season. I’m kind of attached to Fresno now, though. I had convinced myself it was a good spot, despite what others were saying about how terrible it must be to be so close to UCLA, Stanford, Zona, etc.

IMO there's room for one of cal, usc, fresno, and maybe a couple others in the mix, to be high end a/a+ level programs. its pretty hard to squeeze more than one of those in, assuming ucla, arizona, stanford are all strong. it does depend on the washington/oregon schools too, and the utah/colorado schools, i feel like if all those areas are strong then it can be real hard to work a fresno type school. but if there isn't already another strong california school and the neighboring regions aren't too crazy, i think all those lower bcs california schools are fairly workable.

the one hard truth i think to these situations, is even when you get a+, your ceiling generally isn't ucla a+ caliber. its not because of the baseline so much, its really about the recruiting competition. its way less likely to be a+ fresno (or other mid level bcs school right next to a+ baselines), and to have a favorable west coast recruiting landscape over 10-20 seasons, where you can more easily put out consistent high end NT teams - than it is for ucla or uconn etc to wind up in that position. just because for ucla, fresno is often d+ to c+ and irrelevant, but for fresno, ucla is almost always pretty darn competitive and is essentially never irrelevant. other places like colorado/utah area, texas/louisiana, you don't get this dynamic at all. those tend to be the premium lower baseline bcs locations.

Most of the advantage you’re talking about is directly baseline; the rest is based on perception.

It’s pretty easy for UCLA and UConn to maintain an A+, once they’re solidly there. That’s baseline. And then yeah, once at that level, they’re always going to be relevant, always going to be a factor both on the recruiting trail and in the CT/NT (for as long as the coach is paying attention). I coached Rutgers under the old handle, and the primary difference is the volume of teams that are at or above your teams baseline prestige recruiting in your area is much higher in NJ. That makes it much more difficult. Fresno is actually in a pretty sweet little geographic spot, in a triangle between LA, LV, and SF. Reaching into northern and southern Cali is no problem, NV is solidly your territory, and Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah are all within reach, often getting distance guys on the low end of the “good,” which is gold. A lot of good quality recruits are *usually* generated in this area. And when they aren’t, it’s a good place to go Int’l from.

Now if I had the mindset that I had to consistently beat UCLA and Zona for the best regional recruits in order to compete, I think your conventional wisdom would be more convincing, but as you know, that’s not how I play. For what it’s worth, Fresno and USC have been in the title game 2 of the last 3 years. I’ve had to rebuild Fresno since, but they will be strong this coming year, and very strong after that (barring a recruiting disaster). USC doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere, either.

i honestly can't even hazard a guess where you take exception. but for what its worth, 0 of the usc, fresno, cal schools in tark are a/a+ schools, and absolutely you can cram a ton of b/b+ schools in. a good coach can always muscle a b/b+ school into anywhere. i would be pretty surprised, but not shocked, if more than 1 of those 3 schools maintained a/a+ prestige for several seasons, any time in the pretty near future (largely because of my faith in the coaches of ucla, stanford, arizona). which was my point, sort of. neither fresno nor usc had championship caliber teams in the past 3 seasons, either. which definitely wasn't my point... kudos to you both for the good coaching and good fortune!

bottom line - i generally was agreeing with the premise that schools like fresno are workable. i do think it is situational though, at least to some extent. not if you call b/b+ workable - that is always workable. i am talking about running them like high end programs - a/a+ prestige. which is generally pretty workable to maintain at quality b/b- baseline schools. which again, i think a school like fresno can be - sometimes. situationally. it definitely gets a worse rap than it deserves! folks don't look so unkindly on USC, but to me, they are similar.

Posted by camelspider on 3/18/2022 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 3/17/2022 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Speaking of new Coaches. UNC Maryland and Illinois open in Tark.

North Carolina, Maryland, Illinois, and Ohio State were all open.
Kentucky, South Carolina, and Oklahoma are now open. Big time domino effect.

Domino effect leading to St. Johns (A-) and Iowa St (A-) both becoming available.

Posted by gillispie on 3/18/2022 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 3/18/2022 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/18/2022 11:18:00 AM (view original):
I really do like Fresno and being in conference with piman, (who is not the only legend in that conference, btw). I’m pretty good with all my D1 conferences right now, actually. But Fresno is probably as solid as any of them.

Fun fact, I got interested in taking on Fresno in a world a couple years ago when a HS friend of mine took over head coaching the football program over there. He’s coaching the Washington Huskies now, as of this off-season. I’m kind of attached to Fresno now, though. I had convinced myself it was a good spot, despite what others were saying about how terrible it must be to be so close to UCLA, Stanford, Zona, etc.

IMO there's room for one of cal, usc, fresno, and maybe a couple others in the mix, to be high end a/a+ level programs. its pretty hard to squeeze more than one of those in, assuming ucla, arizona, stanford are all strong. it does depend on the washington/oregon schools too, and the utah/colorado schools, i feel like if all those areas are strong then it can be real hard to work a fresno type school. but if there isn't already another strong california school and the neighboring regions aren't too crazy, i think all those lower bcs california schools are fairly workable.

the one hard truth i think to these situations, is even when you get a+, your ceiling generally isn't ucla a+ caliber. its not because of the baseline so much, its really about the recruiting competition. its way less likely to be a+ fresno (or other mid level bcs school right next to a+ baselines), and to have a favorable west coast recruiting landscape over 10-20 seasons, where you can more easily put out consistent high end NT teams - than it is for ucla or uconn etc to wind up in that position. just because for ucla, fresno is often d+ to c+ and irrelevant, but for fresno, ucla is almost always pretty darn competitive and is essentially never irrelevant. other places like colorado/utah area, texas/louisiana, you don't get this dynamic at all. those tend to be the premium lower baseline bcs locations.

Most of the advantage you’re talking about is directly baseline; the rest is based on perception.

It’s pretty easy for UCLA and UConn to maintain an A+, once they’re solidly there. That’s baseline. And then yeah, once at that level, they’re always going to be relevant, always going to be a factor both on the recruiting trail and in the CT/NT (for as long as the coach is paying attention). I coached Rutgers under the old handle, and the primary difference is the volume of teams that are at or above your teams baseline prestige recruiting in your area is much higher in NJ. That makes it much more difficult. Fresno is actually in a pretty sweet little geographic spot, in a triangle between LA, LV, and SF. Reaching into northern and southern Cali is no problem, NV is solidly your territory, and Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah are all within reach, often getting distance guys on the low end of the “good,” which is gold. A lot of good quality recruits are *usually* generated in this area. And when they aren’t, it’s a good place to go Int’l from.

Now if I had the mindset that I had to consistently beat UCLA and Zona for the best regional recruits in order to compete, I think your conventional wisdom would be more convincing, but as you know, that’s not how I play. For what it’s worth, Fresno and USC have been in the title game 2 of the last 3 years. I’ve had to rebuild Fresno since, but they will be strong this coming year, and very strong after that (barring a recruiting disaster). USC doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere, either.

i honestly can't even hazard a guess where you take exception. but for what its worth, 0 of the usc, fresno, cal schools in tark are a/a+ schools, and absolutely you can cram a ton of b/b+ schools in. a good coach can always muscle a b/b+ school into anywhere. i would be pretty surprised, but not shocked, if more than 1 of those 3 schools maintained a/a+ prestige for several seasons, any time in the pretty near future (largely because of my faith in the coaches of ucla, stanford, arizona). which was my point, sort of. neither fresno nor usc had championship caliber teams in the past 3 seasons, either. which definitely wasn't my point... kudos to you both for the good coaching and good fortune!

bottom line - i generally was agreeing with the premise that schools like fresno are workable. i do think it is situational though, at least to some extent. not if you call b/b+ workable - that is always workable. i am talking about running them like high end programs - a/a+ prestige. which is generally pretty workable to maintain at quality b/b- baseline schools. which again, i think a school like fresno can be - sometimes. situationally. it definitely gets a worse rap than it deserves! folks don't look so unkindly on USC, but to me, they are similar.

No need to guess, the “exception” (quotes because that’s your terminology, not mine) I take is when you attribute the difficulty in maintaining a high prestige at a place like Fresno - and it is difficult - to things other than baseline prestige. Everything you talk about goes directly back to the baseline difference.

Fresno is actually in a little better position than USC, and this is what I was arguing when trying to recruit a coach for that spot in Smith when I was maintaining an A+ program in Oregon. Getting and maintaining a high prestige with a middle baseline is less about being able to beat A+ schools for regional 5-star recruits, and more about being able to avoid getting beaten too often by them on the court. USC can’t avoid playing UCLA, Zona, and Stanford at least 6 games every season. Fresno is not in that division, so the schedule tends to be more forgiving; but it IS in the more recruit rich region of California. That is an advantage, for coaches who care to do things a little differently. Like I said before, if you’re going to approach it like you need to be able to beat those high prestige schools for x% of the best regional recruits, well that’s not likely to work well long term, as you say. But if you approach it with the abundance of the region in mind, the game opens up a bit.

oh ok. well its not fresno's baseline... fresno's baseline is fine. its more a product of the regional high baseline schools almost always being populated by competent coaches. which if you want to call baseline, fine, but to me that is really more about the regional recruiting landscape. of which, baseline is a factor, but there are other big things like which coaches randomly happen to be near you and how dangerous they are, and all that (also UCLAs name contributes, not just their baseline)

so maybe a tomato, tomato type of difference here? i actually agree with you that fresno is a little better than usc, because usc is 5 inches from ucla and fresno at least has a bit of different territory. that is interesting about the divisions, too. i always want the tough division because that is who i am, but i can definitely see how that makes it easier. the main point i was making is, i think fresno is fine, it is unfairly **** on, on the boards here, IMO. and i think we generally agree there? although i was also kinda pontificating on... where fresno comes up short relative to a texas or colorado type school. or why, perhaps. i definitely think fresno's range is on the whole worse than the range for those kinds of programs. but i still think it can be good!

Posted by Benis on 3/18/2022 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/17/2022 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Seble was wrong a lot.

He was pretty clueless about how to make a good game IMO.

Yet here we all are, playing HD and considering it one of the best around.

Posted by StillWaters on 3/19/2022 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/18/2022 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/17/2022 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Seble was wrong a lot.

He was pretty clueless about how to make a good game IMO.

Yet here we all are, playing HD and considering it one of the best around.

yah this game is elite.

Posted by cubcub113 on 3/20/2022 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 3/19/2022 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/18/2022 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/17/2022 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Seble was wrong a lot.

He was pretty clueless about how to make a good game IMO.

Yet here we all are, playing HD and considering it one of the best around.

yah this game is elite.

Haha, yeah, I’m not sure how “seble was wrong about this one thing” turns into “seble didn’t know anything, this all sucks, what am I doing with my life?” Actually I do know.

I complain about certain aspects of the game, game engine stuff especially (and to be clear, I doubt seble ever had much, if anything to do with how the game engine functions). But even though it’s a ways from perfect, and like this dumb new coach reduction + visit cap when the old coach maxed out visits, there are/were obvious flaws that really should have been fixed a long time ago. But all in all, the game is still pretty damned good.

So why would a coaching change drop a recruit from a VH considering level to low? Does all previous recruiting effort go away when a new coach is hired?

Posted by Baums_away on 3/20/2022 11:04:00 AM (view original):
So why would a coaching change drop a recruit from a VH considering level to low? Does all previous recruiting effort go away when a new coach is hired?

no, there's a new coach penalty where all effort accumulated on a recruit is reduces drastically - in the 2/3rds ballpark. 2/3rds reduction, so 10 hvs becomes 3, basically. this essentially makes guys with moderate or heavy effort un-recruitable, unless nobody else was interested to start with. my first season of 3.0 i did a RS2 only where the last coach had 10hvs and a cv on a guy, i did the other 10, it was a total waste of money (that was the only guy he had unlocked, a juco, and someone else was interested - as is normal for good LATE players).

looking into it since then is where i came up with that 2/3rds figure. also i didn't write it down and it was a study based on 1 man. so don't look at this as gospel, but IMO its as much understanding as i care to have for the rest of my HD career, so it should probably serve for others, too?

Posted by shoe3 on 3/20/2022 1:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 3/20/2022 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 3/19/2022 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/18/2022 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/17/2022 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Seble was wrong a lot.

He was pretty clueless about how to make a good game IMO.

Yet here we all are, playing HD and considering it one of the best around.

yah this game is elite.

Haha, yeah, I’m not sure how “seble was wrong about this one thing” turns into “seble didn’t know anything, this all sucks, what am I doing with my life?” Actually I do know.

I complain about certain aspects of the game, game engine stuff especially (and to be clear, I doubt seble ever had much, if anything to do with how the game engine functions). But even though it’s a ways from perfect, and like this dumb new coach reduction + visit cap when the old coach maxed out visits, there are/were obvious flaws that really should have been fixed a long time ago. But all in all, the game is still pretty damned good.

i don't disagree with anything you said opinion wise re: seble in this post or others in this thread. however, i will comment on the 'and to be clear, I doubt seble ever had much, if anything to do with how the game engine functions'

seble made a couple significant contributions to the core sim engine logic, but this was mostly pretty long ago. timeline wise, potential came out perhaps a dozen years ago, and was a complete disaster. the most unambiguously disastrous release in my time. seble essentially had to 'save' the game by moderating the rate of increase for potential (freshman were maxing out in some cases - high potential ones), and he did a fine job on that release. some folks wanted more, but basically what he did really stabilized things and was universally praised (none of this was sim engine change).

anyway, after that, his big initiative was to re-write the sim engine in a 'more modern' language, something along those lines. while doing so, he made some pretty significant sim engine changes, and then there were several knock-on releases to address or clean up various aspects. i don't really recall the full breakdown of all of those, but across the sim engine re-write and the several releases that came shortly after (within a year or two), seble did the following:

- drastically re-balanced press defense in terms of the fg% defense portion, shifting a great deal of weight from speed to ath/def. this is when the ath/def paradigm we know now came to be. ath/def may have also been increased for man and zone teams, i'm not honestly sure.

- drastically adjusted fatigue and to a lesser extent, foul trouble. this had to be re-adjusted because it was too severe, i mean press was dead as a doorknob after this change. but after all was said and done, fatigue was increased substantially, and i think fouls became more dependent on ath/def in the press (perhaps elsewhere too?). net effect of this change and the ath/def adjustment, was a massive improvement on the competitive balance between press and the other sets, the 'magic press' was perhaps the top complaint of the community prior to seble's work.

- adjusted 2pt and lp scoring. this was over-tuned and then re-tuned, with the net effect being a great improvement in the competitive balance between lp and per scoring. i think per scoring still has an edge today, but maybe its just my style - i would estimate today's per scoring edge to be about 1/3rd of what it was, and in some ways, its infinitely better, because a pretty good lp scorer was borderline unusable on a top end team back then (by my standards anyway).

- added a component to the game for a point guard to get his team mates better open looks, resulting in higher fg% and 3pt% for team mates in the presence of an elite pg. this factor is not limited to pg, basically everyone's passing and iq now contribute to the shooting %s of team mates. this is a relatively small factor, but it is a meaningful addition to HD and a significant improvement in my book.


these are the big 4 that come to mind, i am sure there are more. however, in all cases, it really showcases seble's strengths. my thoughts on seble's weaknesses are fairly extensively documented in the HD forum archives... so i will just say, where seble was at his best was listening to the community to understand our pain points, and in making that a 2-way dialogue. of course, we always want more, but what we got from seble was significantly above average in my book. also, he was willing to reconsider and retune, and relied on the community's sense of balance for direction, which basically helped turn his fatigue and 2pt% scoring changes, from semi-disasters (they were initially way over tunes) to major successes.