honestly though... I think what seble means is that most EEs will still be juniors like it is now.  I'm fine with the EEs staying as is until we see how the new recruits pan out in say season 4-5 since the change.  Changing too many variables at once will lead to a bigger disaster imo.  I don't think this change is that bad despite the differing opinions about the middling recruits being to low.  If anything, at season 4-5, tweak the recruit talent curve and level it out for a while at the 600ish recruit mark bringing up some more of those 580s, 570s guys to the 600ish level... if the mid-level schools are struggling for talent.    

Posted by oldresorter on 8/19/2010 8:39:00 PM (view original):
actually VD - that is why I suggested he have an open chat - I will even volunteer to not participate - so he can freely pass out the cool aid - LOL

I don't think he ever has said anything other than his goal was to create elite players, what I challenged him on was are any of his frosh posting elite stats, here is a snipet of his answer: "This isn't just to create one-and-done freshmen, it's to create star players, however long they stay in school. There was really no such thing under the old system because all the elite teams had 5 or 6 guys that were 95+ in core ratings"

IN fairness to him, this seems consistent with what he has said b4, just inconsistent with the notion posted on this thread that EE's would even out  the game, which was the main point in my post.

Just to repeat, that is why I suggested seble have a chat with everyone, so truth is served, otherwise forum fact becomes fact, which is not good for the game.

to completely oversimplify, it seems like all these changes were done to create star players. and while i guess i can see how making the vast majority of players much worse will allow a few players to clearly rise to the cream of the crop, whether EE or not, you really have to ask yourself 1)why should this have been the goal 2)was this the only way to reach this goal and 3)how can people be blind to how this will severely impact mid-low level d1?

to oversimplify again, is the HD seble wants the HD the wis community wants (vet, noob or otherwise)?

I can't figure out how to post a damn graph from excel.  I suck,

I have been watching this thread since the beginning and have posted a couple of times on it (which is quite often for me).  I am not sure yet about the new recruiting system, it seems like it might work after some of the research done by Iguana and some of Moy's anecdotal recruiting evidence.  Making it HARDER for elite teams to get elite talent may actually even some of the teams out on a given year (not sure if that is good or bad but an observation).  Having had this "summed up" a couple of times here already, I am going to take a little different tack and maybe even try to start a new discussion, worthy of its own thread, a corollary to this one if you will.

When I was a new coach, I had a fairly long and detailed discussion with Daalt  and Maj and a couple of other coaches about how this game mirrored Real Life.  At the time, I was so green that I did not understand the game concepts and mechanics behind what was happening.  Well, I am not that green beginning coach any longer.  And if I am not a national title power coach, (which I am not), I think it is fair to say that I am at the very least an adequate coach and maybe a bit better.than that. for those of you who have never talked to me.

I am so tired of hearing this is like real life or this is not like real life.  The reality of this "game" is that it is nothing like real life and it does not even do a good job of approximating it.  It never has and it never will.  NOR SHOULD IT.   If it did, there would be no point to it at all, it becomes a predictive tool just as it is used for the superbowl, the NCAA March Madness, the baseball playoffs and Team vs Team simming.  All fun and good but not something that makes a game. 

 With that stated then, the question really becomes is this a good change for the game?  How does it interact with other parts of the game?  What is the effect on the strategy and the affect on other portions of the game?

If we make the supposition that one of two things happens A)  The change fixes recruiting or B) The change does not fix recruiting (meaning that it is either the same or worse) what does this mean to the game?

Supposition A:
If this change fixes recruiting, what would we expect to see?  Bigger fights for the best talent with all or most of all of a scholarships cost being used to aquire top talent.  What I mean by this is that it is not rational, under the premises of this game, that a 5 star recruit costs the same as a no star to recruit.  I mean lets face it, if you were going to talk one of the very elite players into going to your school vs. going to the NBA (yes that is what we are talking about now) you better believe that you are going to pay more for that than you would to get  the guy listed at 295th at his position(I realize they do not go that far on the list here but they do in Real Life ;)  I have heard people stating that they have had to pay more for one of these super recruits than they ever did before, well, this would seem to be a point in its favor, meaning that the elite talent will spread out between elite teams instead of all cluster in one place.  It will also leave elite teams less recruiting cash to go after the B List players meaning that the mid-majors might have a better shot at their local B-List talent, sounds good so far as well.  Lastly, well, the small schools may just be SOL or are they?  Maybe with the lower grouping of talent, they will actually have a shot of winning an NT game or two, at least not be prohibitive underdogs.  That is about how it is now with a few great or lucky coaches that do better than that so maybe that is at least no worse than now.

So if this happens, and it works, what is wrong?  Well, as some have pointed out in here, the problem may then only be with the elite schools. The competition for recruits is stacked either for or against you based on geography and random chance.  Since recruits are randomly scattered by geographic area somewhat correlated to the number of schools in a given area, all schools below the midpoint of that geographic density have the odds stacked against them.  Since it is impossible to compete geographically for a recruit with a school of the same prestige, these national recruits may make it nearly impossible for a school like Kansas to actually compete for the top recruits (over time) since there will not statistically be enough of them within the magic 300 mile circle.  Most of the top recruits will be where the population of D1 schools are, East Cost, Central Cal, SE coastal area, Texas, and the western rust belt.  For all other schools, this would be a good change (under supposition A)

Supposition B:
It does not fix recruiting.  Well, the process is broken now whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  Top schools get whatever they want for talent as long as they are geographically close enough to compete.  Low Big 6 and top Mid Majors get the rest with an occasional Bonadventure getting into the picture as well.  Why do I say this is broken?  It would seem to mirror RL.   Well, it is broken because this is a game.  Not everyone wants a job in a big 6 conference yet I do not think that there is anyone in here saying I want to be a mediocre coach when I get to D1 after I have invested many months and years of playing time, dollars for all of the season and hours of work and preparation time.  Yep, I want to go to my alma matter and be a 7 and 13 coach for my career.  I will grant you that there are coaches that will be that as not everyone can be the best but I believe that there is less to do with the quality of a coach than there is to do with random events well beyond the coaches control.  What time did you come into a world?  Where is your school located and what recruits were generated within your sphere of recruiting?  What other human coaches are within your sphere of recruiting?  What are the prestiges of those other schools?  Who are the other coaches in your conference?  Are you going to have the same record against an emy or moy that you would against joeblow or the notorious Ghost Ship John?  After these initial problems, what jobs open up that you qualify for?  Do you get them or do you go through a couple of up and down cycles?  Etc.

The aforewritten paragraph was not a rant but rather a recitation of what we currently have.  As the new recruiting goes forward, and it does not fix recruiting, what was its effect on the game?  Well, in my opinion, very little.  You took a broken system and left it broken.  It is not necesarrily more broken (I mean lets face it, if your engine in your car is broken, and your car does not run, it cannot get more broken, only cost more to fix).  The real things that are being said in this thread, at the risk of summarizing, is that certain aspects of the game are broken such as geographical costs (recruiting) prestige (not recruiting) job retention (not recruiting) job selection (not recruiting) competitiveness (partially recruiting) career tracks (not recruiting), recruit generation (recruiting) recruit location (recruiting) and probably a few that I missed.  

So, where does that leave us?  It leaves us with nothing to lose by trying it and it leaves me disappointed   Not because of this effort but because the core root problems do not seem to be addressed, even in this discussion.  The game is called Hoops Dynasty, not Predetermined Hoops, not Preordained Destiny, and not Real Life Dynasty.  While it may be comfortable to fall back in the Real Life chair, it is, at the end of the day, a simple crutch that is wielded in a haphazzard manner not as a tool to help one arrive at ones destination but rather as a bludgeon to make sure that others take you there.

Posted by marica on 8/20/2010 12:55:00 AM (view original):
I have been watching this thread since the beginning and have posted a couple of times on it (which is quite often for me).  I am not sure yet about the new recruiting system, it seems like it might work after some of the research done by Iguana and some of Moy's anecdotal recruiting evidence.  Making it HARDER for elite teams to get elite talent may actually even some of the teams out on a given year (not sure if that is good or bad but an observation).  Having had this "summed up" a couple of times here already, I am going to take a little different tack and maybe even try to start a new discussion, worthy of its own thread, a corollary to this one if you will.

When I was a new coach, I had a fairly long and detailed discussion with Daalt  and Maj and a couple of other coaches about how this game mirrored Real Life.  At the time, I was so green that I did not understand the game concepts and mechanics behind what was happening.  Well, I am not that green beginning coach any longer.  And if I am not a national title power coach, (which I am not), I think it is fair to say that I am at the very least an adequate coach and maybe a bit better.than that. for those of you who have never talked to me.

I am so tired of hearing this is like real life or this is not like real life.  The reality of this "game" is that it is nothing like real life and it does not even do a good job of approximating it.  It never has and it never will.  NOR SHOULD IT.   If it did, there would be no point to it at all, it becomes a predictive tool just as it is used for the superbowl, the NCAA March Madness, the baseball playoffs and Team vs Team simming.  All fun and good but not something that makes a game. 

 With that stated then, the question really becomes is this a good change for the game?  How does it interact with other parts of the game?  What is the effect on the strategy and the affect on other portions of the game?

If we make the supposition that one of two things happens A)  The change fixes recruiting or B) The change does not fix recruiting (meaning that it is either the same or worse) what does this mean to the game?

Supposition A:
If this change fixes recruiting, what would we expect to see?  Bigger fights for the best talent with all or most of all of a scholarships cost being used to aquire top talent.  What I mean by this is that it is not rational, under the premises of this game, that a 5 star recruit costs the same as a no star to recruit.  I mean lets face it, if you were going to talk one of the very elite players into going to your school vs. going to the NBA (yes that is what we are talking about now) you better believe that you are going to pay more for that than you would to get  the guy listed at 295th at his position(I realize they do not go that far on the list here but they do in Real Life ;)  I have heard people stating that they have had to pay more for one of these super recruits than they ever did before, well, this would seem to be a point in its favor, meaning that the elite talent will spread out between elite teams instead of all cluster in one place.  It will also leave elite teams less recruiting cash to go after the B List players meaning that the mid-majors might have a better shot at their local B-List talent, sounds good so far as well.  Lastly, well, the small schools may just be SOL or are they?  Maybe with the lower grouping of talent, they will actually have a shot of winning an NT game or two, at least not be prohibitive underdogs.  That is about how it is now with a few great or lucky coaches that do better than that so maybe that is at least no worse than now.

So if this happens, and it works, what is wrong?  Well, as some have pointed out in here, the problem may then only be with the elite schools. The competition for recruits is stacked either for or against you based on geography and random chance.  Since recruits are randomly scattered by geographic area somewhat correlated to the number of schools in a given area, all schools below the midpoint of that geographic density have the odds stacked against them.  Since it is impossible to compete geographically for a recruit with a school of the same prestige, these national recruits may make it nearly impossible for a school like Kansas to actually compete for the top recruits (over time) since there will not statistically be enough of them within the magic 300 mile circle.  Most of the top recruits will be where the population of D1 schools are, East Cost, Central Cal, SE coastal area, Texas, and the western rust belt.  For all other schools, this would be a good change (under supposition A)

Supposition B:
It does not fix recruiting.  Well, the process is broken now whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  Top schools get whatever they want for talent as long as they are geographically close enough to compete.  Low Big 6 and top Mid Majors get the rest with an occasional Bonadventure getting into the picture as well.  Why do I say this is broken?  It would seem to mirror RL.   Well, it is broken because this is a game.  Not everyone wants a job in a big 6 conference yet I do not think that there is anyone in here saying I want to be a mediocre coach when I get to D1 after I have invested many months and years of playing time, dollars for all of the season and hours of work and preparation time.  Yep, I want to go to my alma matter and be a 7 and 13 coach for my career.  I will grant you that there are coaches that will be that as not everyone can be the best but I believe that there is less to do with the quality of a coach than there is to do with random events well beyond the coaches control.  What time did you come into a world?  Where is your school located and what recruits were generated within your sphere of recruiting?  What other human coaches are within your sphere of recruiting?  What are the prestiges of those other schools?  Who are the other coaches in your conference?  Are you going to have the same record against an emy or moy that you would against joeblow or the notorious Ghost Ship John?  After these initial problems, what jobs open up that you qualify for?  Do you get them or do you go through a couple of up and down cycles?  Etc.

The aforewritten paragraph was not a rant but rather a recitation of what we currently have.  As the new recruiting goes forward, and it does not fix recruiting, what was its effect on the game?  Well, in my opinion, very little.  You took a broken system and left it broken.  It is not necesarrily more broken (I mean lets face it, if your engine in your car is broken, and your car does not run, it cannot get more broken, only cost more to fix).  The real things that are being said in this thread, at the risk of summarizing, is that certain aspects of the game are broken such as geographical costs (recruiting) prestige (not recruiting) job retention (not recruiting) job selection (not recruiting) competitiveness (partially recruiting) career tracks (not recruiting), recruit generation (recruiting) recruit location (recruiting) and probably a few that I missed.  

So, where does that leave us?  It leaves us with nothing to lose by trying it and it leaves me disappointed   Not because of this effort but because the core root problems do not seem to be addressed, even in this discussion.  The game is called Hoops Dynasty, not Predetermined Hoops, not Preordained Destiny, and not Real Life Dynasty.  While it may be comfortable to fall back in the Real Life chair, it is, at the end of the day, a simple crutch that is wielded in a haphazzard manner not as a tool to help one arrive at ones destination but rather as a bludgeon to make sure that others take you there.

Very well put Marica.

i agree with much of what marica said with one major disagreement, if this game isnt based upon real life then what should it be based on? we use real lfe schools, the basic conferences, the basic elements of basketball, the actual stats of college hoops guide how the engine runs and the results it aims for. you can certainly argue that certain elements of the game shouldnt (and cant) replicate actual college hoops, but how can actual college basketball not be the basic blueprint for this college basketball game?

so if real life isnt the basis, then what is?

So Daalter asked me a good question on what is best for HD, and I've thought about it a bit.

I think that in general having final fours with power 6 teams is a good thing for HD, but it should not be impossible for the MVC/Mtn West teams to compete given smart (certainly above average) coaching.  I think it might be very very difficult now for Daalter to compile his crazy 5 E8 in a row run at Montana, like he did in Allen.  That probably isn't good, but even a great coach should have a really tough time winning a title there. 

I agree mostly with VD around real life.  We have to be kind of close to it.  If not, why not just let everyone make up their team name?  I got excited when I beat Kentucky for the first time.  Not quite as excited as my first win over Missouri State.

Posted by brianp87 on 8/19/2010 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 8/19/2010 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brianp87 on 8/19/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Im the avg coach at a mid level school and Im screwed.  In fact i couldnt even get a job at a mid major school when i saw the writing on the wall.  There is now little to no chance for me to win a title at a lower level school  with the current state off ee's, recruits and baseline prestige

Should admittedly average coaches at a lower level school have a real opportunity to win championships? Really? I mean, shouldn't you have to do an outstanding job at a low-level school to win an NT?

I have as many tiles as you in 1/3-1/2 the games.  SO yes I expect to win alot more.

You were the one that admitted you were average, not me. And I certainly never claimed any expertise at this game.

But if you are claiming that one cannot win an NT with a low-level D1, well you are incorrect. There are a number of examples of that happening. 

If you are claiming that one cannot win an NT with a low-level D1 with the new changes in recruiting, you are simply premature. No one has yet had the opportunity to do so.

As for promotions, if you succeed at any level, there are always opportunities to move up. Always.

The game has to mirror some aspect of rl college hoops or we probably wouldn't play it. For instance I love the separation between bcs/midmajor/low dI and how it mirrors rl for a lot of reasons (continuation of job promotions, keeping the bcs desirable, levels of competition and differing challenges at each level, ...for some). I also love the fact that hd does nor mirror rl to the point that a bcs school has won the nt every year since the runnin rebs in 1990. It's good that hd allows for teams like Delaware, UNC-W, Toledo, etc to win it all.

BTW great post marica.

cb - again, my contention is not about no mid or low level team ever winning it all, it is about the odds getting worse as result of the change

I can use written words from seble to back my contention up

does anyone know how to post an excel graph on here? I'd like to post something here to assist with the argument daalt, OR and others are making but I can't figure it out. I'm all for tweaking - nothing major - but I'd like to post what seble has done based on Iguana's numbers and how I envision the tweak. Thanks

Posted by oldresorter on 8/20/2010 9:54:00 AM (view original):
cb - again, my contention is not about no mid or low level team ever winning it all, it is about the odds getting worse as result of the change

I can use written words from seble to back my contention up

While you may be right, OR, is that how it should be? Floating prestige enhanced the ability to turn a program into a Gonzaga, and rightly so. But should it put Gonzaga at the same level as Kentucky and Duke? In reality, Gonzaga has to maintain that status every year to be considered there. Kentucky can have a few down years, and make it back to a top program with a good season or two. HD seems to be able to replicate that model now.

And should a Pitt, or Vandy, or Northwestern be provided a better opportunity of winning an NT simply because of their conference affiliation? I don't have an answer; I think it's an interesting question.

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 10:01:00 AM (view original):
does anyone know how to post an excel graph on here? I'd like to post something here to assist with the argument daalt, OR and others are making but I can't figure it out. I'm all for tweaking - nothing major - but I'd like to post what seble has done based on Iguana's numbers and how I envision the tweak. Thanks

Save it as an image, moy.

Posted by cbriese on 8/20/2010 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 8/20/2010 9:54:00 AM (view original):
cb - again, my contention is not about no mid or low level team ever winning it all, it is about the odds getting worse as result of the change

I can use written words from seble to back my contention up

While you may be right, OR, is that how it should be? Floating prestige enhanced the ability to turn a program into a Gonzaga, and rightly so. But should it put Gonzaga at the same level as Kentucky and Duke? In reality, Gonzaga has to maintain that status every year to be considered there. Kentucky can have a few down years, and make it back to a top program with a good season or two. HD seems to be able to replicate that model now.

And should a Pitt, or Vandy, or Northwestern be provided a better opportunity of winning an NT simply because of their conference affiliation? I don't have an answer; I think it's an interesting question.

CB - if you put me in charge, I would have an answer - but I'd have to research it and get input from coaches in this game, as well as some real life contacts I have, I think the entire game has to be looked at - at once - the big picture - the problem is this elite thing has been done in a vacuum.

All I am saying is this change made those odds worse, possibly significantly, possibly not. 

But maybe even worse, and certainly concerning me as a coach directly, based on markets and locations, even elite school fortune will be radically changed, those in uncompetitive or bountiful markets are going to have a remarkable advantage over everyone else, of this I am pretty sure, I have recruited either once or twice with all 8 of my elite teams, I have seen a vast inequity between 'easy' and 'hard' recruiting, even with A/A+ prestige.

The only cure I know for that is nationalized recruiting.  By the way, nationalized recruiting would make this game at the high level an absolute blood bath, how could anyone who is remotely 'friends' not be in some sort of non-compete pact, I would think the primary criteria for competing would be to try to stop other coaches.  It is not exactly real life that coach K or roy williams or john calipari can't get recruits because they are too good, but I would guess nationalized recruiting would lead us there.

this stuff is not easy, but as I said, needs to be looked at all at once, by someone who understands how action A affects B, C, D, all the way to Z, and anticiaptes the consequences, not asks us all to wait a year to see how it turns out????????