Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 9:56:00 AM (view original):
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.

I was about to post something similar, so I'll just say that I completely agree with you! I simply would not be interested in a game where it was just as easy to succeed at Army as it was at Syracuse, or where the BCS conferences did not have fundamental structural advantages over low and mid major conferences. It would be too far a departure from reality, and getting too close to a video-game type mindset. There'd be no point to having real-life schools and conferences if you had true floating prestige. But what about the "what if" in whatifsports, some say? I'd counter by saying that HD has struck a good balance by virtue of the fact that it is still far easier to have success at low and mid level jobs than in real life. Is it harder than at a BCS school? Yes. Can prestiges get to elite levels at such schools? No. But that's all a good thing, IMO. It should be more of a challenge to win at such schools, even after sustained success.

Now, whether that balance has swung too far in favor of the BCS schools with the new recruit generation is an open question. But up until now, I've had no problem with it.

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 9:56:00 AM (view original):
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.

The BCS are always going to be the most desirable:

-Major name recognition. People are excited by the prospect of coaching UCLA, not Pepperdine. I honestly think that this alone would be enough to keep the BCS well above everyone else.
-Significant additional NT money. This is huge in DI.
-Significant built-in prestige advantage. Again -- huge.

These built-in aspects will easily keep the BCS conferences elevated above the riff raff. You don't need to add this huge disparity in recruits to accomplish that.

Posted by reinsel on 8/20/2010 9:41:00 AM (view original):
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.

OK, so here' s my follow-up:

Why is it better for HD to have the BCS teams be more dominant?

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

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.

Thanks i'll try when I get home.

Posted by daalter on 8/20/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 9:56:00 AM (view original):
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.

The BCS are always going to be the most desirable:

-Major name recognition. People are excited by the prospect of coaching UCLA, not Pepperdine. I honestly think that this alone would be enough to keep the BCS well above everyone else.
-Significant additional NT money. This is huge in DI.
-Significant built-in prestige advantage. Again -- huge.

These built-in aspects will easily keep the BCS conferences elevated above the riff raff. You don't need to add this huge disparity in recruits to accomplish that.

Like I said. I love the built in features that keep the DI Tiers separated. It would be an embarrassment if a dII coach gets a UK job after 4 seasons of playing hd imo. The tiers are good for the promotion / job process (even though that part of hd needs help). I love how the bcs schools get the money and glory as they do in rl. I think its important hd keep this mimicry intact. If a person wants an equal playing field per se then they can stay in dII imo. In dI there are different challenges at the different levels.

Take your Montana team for instance. At a B+ prestige you are recruiting players w 100 plus ratings higher than your other conf mates w C and D prestiges. This should lead to low-DI dominance imo. You should have no problem consistently making the nt with this advantage and it has been proven that teams like Montana can win it all in hd.

Now take a low-bcs team at C prestige playing against the mighty b and a prestiges.... imo the hardest teams to build to success. If they had the freedom to drop to a D prestige I think its terrible for hd. Bcs confs will be less filled imo. That's why the floor prestige is built in.

Now back to montanas a- ceiling prestige. Relating Montana back to rl.... can they constantly land the top recruits. No. If they fall off the face of the planet for a few seasons would they instantly get back to fame. No. Ucla however in rl can to 3 consecutive sweet 16 games then have a losing record the next 2 seasons and a 18-11 first round exit.... then like nothing go championship game, final 4, final 4. Solid recruits still want to be there.

Like briese said... hd is set up well to mimic rl with baselines and conf $. Montana, Delaware, unc-w etc are set up well enough in hd to win the nc as proven before.

Is the recruiting gap too big now. Maybe. It's all speculation now. Seble has put more thought into this than anyone. His livelihood depends on it. I for one would like to see less 700 recruits and more of the 590s where Seble chose to level the recruits off increased to about 610-615. 610s will end up non-ee and will probably be near 800 players by their Sr nt.

"Take your Montana team for instance. At a B+ prestige you are recruiting players w 100 plus ratings higher than your other conf mates w C and D prestiges."

Nope. We had a BCS quality conference going -- top 3 to 5 conference rpi for a bunch of seasons in a row. There may have been a couple teams recruiting lower-end guys, but MT, Idaho State, Southern, Weber, Sac State, Jackson State, etc. were going after legit players. Over a four-year period we put the second-most teams in the NT after the ACC.

"Now back to montanas a- ceiling prestige. Relating Montana back to rl.... can they constantly land the top recruits. No. If they fall off the face of the planet for a few seasons would they instantly get back to fame. No. Ucla however in rl can to 3 consecutive sweet 16 games then have a losing record the next 2 seasons and a 18-11 first round exit.... then like nothing go championship game, final 4, final 4. Solid recruits still want to be there."

First, we did get top recruits. I didn't sign anyone who wasn't quite strong. But more to the point, how long does a school need to have success before breaking through these artificial barriers?

MT now has 11 straight NT appearances, 13 straight 20-win seasons, two Finals Fours, three more Elite 8's and another S16. Would that meet your criteria?

"Now take a low-bcs team at C prestige playing against the mighty b and a prestiges.... imo the hardest teams to build to success. If they had the freedom to drop to a D prestige I think its terrible for hd. Bcs confs will be less filled imo. That's why the floor prestige is built in."

This is simply a straw man. I haven't seen anyone say that there shouldn't be a floor built in or that BCS schools should drop to a D.

Again, the discussion here revolves around whether the recent recruiting change goes too far in separating the haves from the have nots. Since there are already some very strong factors in place to accomplish that, I think it's clearly overkill and bad for the fragile competitive balance of HD.

i am not for standardized national recruiting.

I am not for national recruiting either but would support a change to the current cost structure past the magical 360-370 mile area. Decrease costs between 370-1000 by 1/4 or 1/3 and it would make things a little more interesting.

daalter, your team compares to Gonzaga but a little bit better. Ask yourself do you think Gonzaga has gotten to the point where they are considered in the same breath as the traditional elites? Look at a school like Utah in football or Boise State, they fit the same description. All of these schools are in mid major conferences but have BCS school results but I don't think anybody considers them on par with the traditional powers. It takes a very long time to reach that level.

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2010 6:09:00 PM (view original):
daalter, your team compares to Gonzaga but a little bit better. Ask yourself do you think Gonzaga has gotten to the point where they are considered in the same breath as the traditional elites? Look at a school like Utah in football or Boise State, they fit the same description. All of these schools are in mid major conferences but have BCS school results but I don't think anybody considers them on par with the traditional powers. It takes a very long time to reach that level.

I don't even think they ( the zags etc) can make the elite status of the unc dukes in rl.... no non-bcs has that I know of.

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2010 6:09:00 PM (view original):
daalter, your team compares to Gonzaga but a little bit better. Ask yourself do you think Gonzaga has gotten to the point where they are considered in the same breath as the traditional elites? Look at a school like Utah in football or Boise State, they fit the same description. All of these schools are in mid major conferences but have BCS school results but I don't think anybody considers them on par with the traditional powers. It takes a very long time to reach that level.

Umm ... I think you need to brush up on your college basketball, friend. A little bit better than Gonzaga?

Gonzaga has been past the Sweet 16 once in the program's history.
Montana made two Final Fours, three Elite 8's and a Sweet 16 in six seasons amidst a still-active strong of 11 straight NT appearances. Montana was a 1 or 2 seed for 4-5 straight seasons.

Gonzaga does not compare.

If 13 straight 20-win seasons with that kind of postseason success doesn't do it, then nothing will. Schools like UNLV and Memphis became national powers with elite prestige and recruited the top studs, and their success was sustained over a way shorter period of time.

You're off base here.

Posted by girt25 on 8/20/2010 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2010 6:09:00 PM (view original):
daalter, your team compares to Gonzaga but a little bit better. Ask yourself do you think Gonzaga has gotten to the point where they are considered in the same breath as the traditional elites? Look at a school like Utah in football or Boise State, they fit the same description. All of these schools are in mid major conferences but have BCS school results but I don't think anybody considers them on par with the traditional powers. It takes a very long time to reach that level.

Umm ... I think you need to brush up on your college basketball, friend. A little bit better than Gonzaga?

Gonzaga has been past the Sweet 16 once in the program's history.
Montana made two Final Fours, three Elite 8's and a Sweet 16 in six seasons amidst a still-active strong of 11 straight NT appearances. Montana was a 1 or 2 seed for 4-5 straight seasons.

Gonzaga does not compare.

If 13 straight 20-win seasons with that kind of postseason success doesn't do it, then nothing will. Schools like UNLV and Memphis became national powers with elite prestige and recruited the top studs, and their success was sustained over a way shorter period of time.

You're off base here.

UNLV had Tark the Shark and Memphis had Calipari. Maybe the coaches, and not the actual program, played a more important role in those school's rise to prominance and top level recruits.

HD can't account for a coach's "prestige" like those RL examples. I'm sure Coach Cal can go to any mid major school and land the top recruits, but because of him and not a school's "prolonged success"

UNLV was only really good from 1987-1991.  I would not even put them close to a Duke/UNC prestige at any point in their history.  Point proven by the fact that unlv never rebounded and got top talent after 91.  Duke could have a few bad seasons and they still would get top talent.  

Memphis has only been really good since 2006 and still have not won a NC.

Despite the success I still don't think either of these schools are the elite powerhouses that UCLA, UNC, or Duke are. 

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 8:55:00 PM (view original):
UNLV was only really good from 1987-1991.  I would not even put them close to a Duke/UNC prestige at any point in their history.  Point proven by the fact that unlv never rebounded and got top talent after 91.  Duke could have a few bad seasons and they still would get top talent.  

Memphis has only been really good since 2006 and still have not won a NC.

Despite the success I still don't think either of these schools are the elite powerhouses that UCLA, UNC, or Duke are. 

moy, I agree -- I don't think that Memphis is at the UNC/Duke level.

However, UNLV in their heyday and Memphis now were/are elite basketball schools. They can compete for the bluest of the blue chip recruits.

And you're right about the relatively short time frame of each of their dominance. However, that only enhances my point ... those schools were able to elevate themselves to the top level of programs in a very short time. Montana has had significantly more sustained excellence, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to reach at least the UNLV/Memphis level, and really higher (11 straight NT appearances). And of course, when it comes to coaching, I'm the perfect combination of Tark's good looks and Calipari's old school values and humility.

Posted by usc4life on 8/20/2010 8:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/20/2010 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2010 6:09:00 PM (view original):
daalter, your team compares to Gonzaga but a little bit better. Ask yourself do you think Gonzaga has gotten to the point where they are considered in the same breath as the traditional elites? Look at a school like Utah in football or Boise State, they fit the same description. All of these schools are in mid major conferences but have BCS school results but I don't think anybody considers them on par with the traditional powers. It takes a very long time to reach that level.

Umm ... I think you need to brush up on your college basketball, friend. A little bit better than Gonzaga?

Gonzaga has been past the Sweet 16 once in the program's history.
Montana made two Final Fours, three Elite 8's and a Sweet 16 in six seasons amidst a still-active strong of 11 straight NT appearances. Montana was a 1 or 2 seed for 4-5 straight seasons.

Gonzaga does not compare.

If 13 straight 20-win seasons with that kind of postseason success doesn't do it, then nothing will. Schools like UNLV and Memphis became national powers with elite prestige and recruited the top studs, and their success was sustained over a way shorter period of time.

You're off base here.

UNLV had Tark the Shark and Memphis had Calipari. Maybe the coaches, and not the actual program, played a more important role in those school's rise to prominance and top level recruits.

HD can't account for a coach's "prestige" like those RL examples. I'm sure Coach Cal can go to any mid major school and land the top recruits, but because of him and not a school's "prolonged success"

Well, sure, HD absolutely could account for a coach's prestige like RL does. And they should, because you're right, the coach is huge. So far they just haven't.