Added the Wooden, Allen, and Phelan numbers. I can get Smith up there if someone can get me the current numbers.

jjt8335 - new coaches shouldn't be taking over a-/b+ d1 jobs without prior d1 experience (or one helluva impressive d2 resume)  Also you are failing to understand why Power schools take walkons, it's not always because there are not good enough recruits, it is so they have extra money per recruit, its a tactic that has been around for some time. I never filled my roster ever at d1 (minus 1st year d1 phelan). Have you coached at d1 before? low, mid and high level?

Zhawks buddy youre failing to understand my prestige change proposal which is what he was hitting on...he wasnt suggesting a new coach should be able to take over UNC...neither was I nor the people that have agree with my change to prestige plan for hiring logic...Essentially, if a mid major with a baseline prestige of D or better has been built into a B+/A- and then opens up...Im saying for job hiring purposes the application process should be filled using the schools baseline prestige, this way that school remains filled and is not destroyed...this is to the benefit of the entire midmajor conference of that school.

zhawks - no, i never coached at di. i'm really just going off straight logic here (so please point out if i run afoul): one of the reasons that the cost of recruiting skyrockets for the tier one recruits is because of recruiting battles. battles are a result of supply and demand (high demand for low number of top level recruits). if you increase the number (i.e., supply) of recruits at the top talent level, there's less reason to battle, making signing an individual recruit that much cheaper, and freeing up money to go after other top recruits. you have to also factor in that its much cheaper for a team who has enjoyed a B+ baseline prestige to battle an up and coming mid major for the same recruit.

as for taking over a-/b+ teams, you've just raised the first argument against mmt's plan. congrats. please note that i wasn't defending his plan (no experience at di and no interest in joining), so i'll let him answer it if he wants to. i was just commentng bc it was ridiculous to me that the most vocal voices in the forum were completely missing his points and making crazy assumptions like they knew why 50+ coaches left WIS each season (though, from your last comment, it appears someone finally got it and directly responded to it). 

A couple of questions on this:

If there are only a few recruits that can be quality players on an NT team, how does having more coaches competing for them help?  In theory, a quality mid-major coach can scoop up all these gems and build a much stronger team, but if there are 15 coaches competing for these few recruits, it stands to reason that they mid-majors won't be as strong as they currently are.

I don't think we are worried about how mid-majors can get into the NT.  I agree that any semi-competent coach can get a mid-major a bid, either by winning a primarily sim-filled conference, or even pulling an at-large with smart scheduling.  What dalt, OR, ump and others are saying is that since the recruiting changes, those mid-majors no longer have a realistic shot at winning more than 1 game in the NT (and even that can be a long-shot).  Contrast this to a 12 season span in Allen (starting in Season 29, so it wasn't like humans were just getting to DI and the elites were all still SIM), where Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern won NTs.  Yes, BU, Yale and Southern were in full conferences, but Maine, UNLV and Cleveland State weren't.  That is what we are saying mid-majors have lost - not the ability to make a team that can MAKE the tournament, but a team that can WIN the tournament.  And that loss of hope is driving the vacating of low/mid DI. --- ACN --- I dont disagree with you --- I dont subscribe to the theory that HD should mimic real life in all areas and this is one of those areas where I dont think it should and midmajors should have a shot. They would have a shot if conferences had more humans...Im not going to rehash why I think that as its been discussed at nauseum over the last couple of days....I dont have access to Allen, but looking at the example you gave 3 teams you mentioned were in full conferences...what was the composure of the others (how many humans to Sims)...Also, here is a question to you...if the ACC had all Sims and 3 humans, do you think those 3 teams would be competing for National Titles?

If mid-majors can only hope to squeek in to the tournament, lose, then why are coaches going to be interested in staying there?  They may wait out a few seasons and then bolt for the first BCS opening they qualify for, or they drop the world.  I dont think this is the case, look around the various worlds in the few instances where conferences are full (Im using the term loosely as full these days in a midmajor are 8 or 9)...The conferences havent had the long term continuity as the Big 6 but have already (Less than 8 seasons) began finishing in the Top 4-7 in conference RPI have sent multiple teams to post seasons in consecutive years.  IF they dont jump to other jobs (as I recently did) and keep that conference together, they will continue to grow. Teams are not making the first round and advancing they are getting to Sweet 16s and to do so that quickly shows its possible. Fullness and continuity is the key. (By the way Im referring to the MWC in Phelan).

Now - if you wanted to argue that low/mids shouldn't have the opportunity to build a championship caliber school, that is fine.  I understand that it isn't realistic to think that Maine or Yale or BU would be a national championship contender.  But I strongly think that adding that bit of realism is a serious detriment to the game. I am not arguing or suggesting that and I agree with you on this point.

Posted by jtt8355 on 9/14/2011 4:37:00 PM (view original):
zhawks - no, i never coached at di. i'm really just going off straight logic here (so please point out if i run afoul): one of the reasons that the cost of recruiting skyrockets for the tier one recruits is because of recruiting battles. battles are a result of supply and demand (high demand for low number of top level recruits). if you increase the number (i.e., supply) of recruits at the top talent level, there's less reason to battle, making signing an individual recruit that much cheaper, and freeing up money to go after other top recruits. you have to also factor in that its much cheaper for a team who has enjoyed a B+ baseline prestige to battle an up and coming mid major for the same recruit.

as for taking over a-/b+ teams, you've just raised the first argument against mmt's plan. congrats. please note that i wasn't defending his plan (no experience at di and no interest in joining), so i'll let him answer it if he wants to. i was just commentng bc it was ridiculous to me that the most vocal voices in the forum were completely missing his points and making crazy assumptions like they knew why 50+ coaches left WIS each season (though, from your last comment, it appears someone finally got it and directly responded to it). 

Your first paragraph actually describes exactly what recruiting was before the change to recruit generation, where recruiting was basically a draft. I say basically, as there were occasional battles etc., but nowadays its an all out war.

OR --- By the way did you notice that in the season before the change, there was either a small increase in the DI population or things essentially remained the same --- but there was also an across the board drop in all 3 divisions in the season immediately following the recruit generation change...this gives some credence to Sully's point yesterday about people jumping ship before giving things a chance.  In some of the DI instances alone there were 20+ drops in the season right after the change.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 5:00:00 PM (view original):
OR --- By the way did you notice that in the season before the change, there was either a small increase in the DI population or things essentially remained the same --- but there was also an across the board drop in all 3 divisions in the season immediately following the recruit generation change...this gives some credence to Sully's point yesterday about people jumping ship before giving things a chance.  In some of the DI instances alone there were 20+ drops in the season right after the change.

I am not sure exactly when the change came on line relative to most worlds, seems like an incredible leap of faith to extrapolate the data I saw to back up that theory, but no worse than your other curve fitting efforts today.   So no I did not notice that trend, that old mass hysteria set in just at the right time -eh? 

Funny, I seem to recall the opposite feeling about the game and the changes, coaches were generally pretty stoked about the new engine, more control over game plans and match ups, and yep - recruit generation.

But, what I am even more sure of -  most d1 worlds used to be more than half full, now are significantly less.  I give you credit for throwing a pile of crap at the wall and trying to make something stick, I'm going to 'stick' with the theory recruit generation is at fault for the very real drop in coach participation.

By the way, girt is way nicer than I am, if he has a fault, he is too truthful - LOL!

Its a bit insulting that you are so dismissive regarding the data I provided. Im not the one that gave the numbers. What I did do was look up two things: 1) When did the recruit generation take affect (May 2010) 2) How many days passed since which I then divided by the total days a season takes.  Since I have no way of knowing what point each world was during that time it would be in the general arena of 9.77 to 11.2 seasons backwards. I went with 10 across the board to make things fair...the numbers are the numbers...

Look at them, I'm not even the one that posted them! What its simply coincidence that every one-a-day world supports exactly what Ive posted?

OR over the years we've agreed on one basic premise, whoever is in charge should always do what he thinks is best for the game.  On just about everything else we generally dont seem to agree, but we've had normal/respectful discourse.  Im sorry, but the same cant be said for your buddy.

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 9/14/2011 4:37:00 PM (view original):
zhawks - no, i never coached at di. i'm really just going off straight logic here (so please point out if i run afoul): one of the reasons that the cost of recruiting skyrockets for the tier one recruits is because of recruiting battles. battles are a result of supply and demand (high demand for low number of top level recruits). if you increase the number (i.e., supply) of recruits at the top talent level, there's less reason to battle, making signing an individual recruit that much cheaper, and freeing up money to go after other top recruits. you have to also factor in that its much cheaper for a team who has enjoyed a B+ baseline prestige to battle an up and coming mid major for the same recruit.

as for taking over a-/b+ teams, you've just raised the first argument against mmt's plan. congrats. please note that i wasn't defending his plan (no experience at di and no interest in joining), so i'll let him answer it if he wants to. i was just commentng bc it was ridiculous to me that the most vocal voices in the forum were completely missing his points and making crazy assumptions like they knew why 50+ coaches left WIS each season (though, from your last comment, it appears someone finally got it and directly responded to it). 

Your first paragraph actually describes exactly what recruiting was before the change to recruit generation, where recruiting was basically a draft. I say basically, as there were occasional battles etc., but nowadays its an all out war.

There were significantly more battles before. I have been continuously stunned how few battles there have been in the BCS conferences lately in Allen and Rupp.

da - I did not even want to broach this subject, but some of the current markets are ridiculous, it used to be I was making fun of Gil for being able to put together a 825 team in Colorado while I had to play with 750 teams - I saw a team that was near 900 not too long ago, and mid 800 teams are now common place.

Yet, other markets are simply battlegrounds, competitive, fair, and cut throat - many coaches do enjoy this, I know.   But the easy markets exist and put together great teams, and that is not taking account at all, any collusion or drafting that still may be going on, in which case, those coaches have so much more an edge than b4.  In the old system, I didn't really care much about the cheating (or unbalanced markets), since I could get as good a team by playing normal, now one cannot.  And just to add, I have a few teams where my markets are very good and I almost never get in battles, so I have definitely reaped some of the reward of the new system myself.

Recruting always has been the weak link in the HD game, but the combo of FSS taking away strategic molding of players thru practice plans, as well as the recent recruit generation fix, recruiting is way too important now, again, esp given the way markets are, the way recruiting is set up to be local, as well as any pockets of deceit that may exist.

I will agree with both of you, that the distribution of where recruits wind up is not evenly distributed, thats for sure...the guys in Allen and Iba must not be recruiting the same way as Naismith and Phelan then because this last go around in Naismith was a blood bath...you should read the CCs after the carnage that just occurred...every conference has coaches fighting over the ethics of recruiting...

Posted by mmt0315 on 9/14/2011 4:42:00 PM (view original):
A couple of questions on this:

If there are only a few recruits that can be quality players on an NT team, how does having more coaches competing for them help?  In theory, a quality mid-major coach can scoop up all these gems and build a much stronger team, but if there are 15 coaches competing for these few recruits, it stands to reason that they mid-majors won't be as strong as they currently are.

I don't think we are worried about how mid-majors can get into the NT.  I agree that any semi-competent coach can get a mid-major a bid, either by winning a primarily sim-filled conference, or even pulling an at-large with smart scheduling.  What dalt, OR, ump and others are saying is that since the recruiting changes, those mid-majors no longer have a realistic shot at winning more than 1 game in the NT (and even that can be a long-shot).  Contrast this to a 12 season span in Allen (starting in Season 29, so it wasn't like humans were just getting to DI and the elites were all still SIM), where Maine, UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State, Yale and Southern won NTs.  Yes, BU, Yale and Southern were in full conferences, but Maine, UNLV and Cleveland State weren't.  That is what we are saying mid-majors have lost - not the ability to make a team that can MAKE the tournament, but a team that can WIN the tournament.  And that loss of hope is driving the vacating of low/mid DI. --- ACN --- I dont disagree with you --- I dont subscribe to the theory that HD should mimic real life in all areas and this is one of those areas where I dont think it should and midmajors should have a shot. They would have a shot if conferences had more humans...Im not going to rehash why I think that as its been discussed at nauseum over the last couple of days....I dont have access to Allen, but looking at the example you gave 3 teams you mentioned were in full conferences...what was the composure of the others (how many humans to Sims)...Also, here is a question to you...if the ACC had all Sims and 3 humans, do you think those 3 teams would be competing for National Titles?

If mid-majors can only hope to squeek in to the tournament, lose, then why are coaches going to be interested in staying there?  They may wait out a few seasons and then bolt for the first BCS opening they qualify for, or they drop the world.  I dont think this is the case, look around the various worlds in the few instances where conferences are full (Im using the term loosely as full these days in a midmajor are 8 or 9)...The conferences havent had the long term continuity as the Big 6 but have already (Less than 8 seasons) began finishing in the Top 4-7 in conference RPI have sent multiple teams to post seasons in consecutive years.  IF they dont jump to other jobs (as I recently did) and keep that conference together, they will continue to grow. Teams are not making the first round and advancing they are getting to Sweet 16s and to do so that quickly shows its possible. Fullness and continuity is the key. (By the way Im referring to the MWC in Phelan).

Now - if you wanted to argue that low/mids shouldn't have the opportunity to build a championship caliber school, that is fine.  I understand that it isn't realistic to think that Maine or Yale or BU would be a national championship contender.  But I strongly think that adding that bit of realism is a serious detriment to the game. I am not arguing or suggesting that and I agree with you on this point.

mmt - Out of curiosity, who were the coaches in the MWC?  I'm part of an experiment in Rupp (C-USA) to see if we can do this, but I'd suggest that our experience there may or may not prove to replicable - I consider myself quite good at this game, and there are at least 3 coaches in this conference who are much better than me and others who may be better than me - while we may be able to do it, I'm not sure that our success means that a group of coaches coming in from DII would be able to.

Regarding the other 3 Allen conferences, they were about half and half human sim.  As I recall Cleveland State and UNLV may have had one or two other human teams that made the postseason, Maine did not.

If I have missed this through another thread, I apologize, but what are your suggestions for actually filling low/mid DI?  It is not that difficult currently to move from DII to DI.  I think at this point, the perception is that the talent gap is so big that there is no incentive to leave a successful DII school, people don't think they'll ever compete.  Say you're a successful DII coach in Allen, what is your incentive to join 6 other humans in the MAC?  The hope that if everyone stays there for 8 seasons (roughly 1 calendar year), you may be able to compete with the big boys?  You look at one of the best programs in the conference, C+ prestige N. Illinois, this season they signed Joshua Patterson and James Justice, solid recruits.  You know your recruits won't be that good for a few seasons.  But then you see that Maryland signed kids like Shad Shelley and Christopher Cornell.  How can you compete when the talent gap is that large?

ACN --- the MWC is not made up of a whose who of HD coaches, and I was quite impressed by the job they have done and continue to do.  As you said, I think the top notch coaches can fill any conference and rise to the top, but like you also said that shouldnt be the guage.

As I really think this is important for the long term health of the game, I dont mind repeating this idea. My idea for filling these conferences is really predicated on changing the hiring standards across HD and redoing prestige.  I think there should be two different prestiges. 1) Current prestige, which is basically the same as how prestige works now. It is determined by a schools results and is the mechanism used for recruiting.  Current prestige would have ZERO impact on hiring standards.  2) Baseline/Hiring prestige --- This prestige would be used for one thing and one thing only.  Hirings.  Lets face it, while HD doesnt mimic real life in all regards once thing is certain, the supply and demand factor of available jobs. Lets say we lived in a world where DI was like DII and DIII; there would still be 10 coaches that wanted to coach UNC for every one that wanted a CSU Fullerton.

What my baseline/hiring prestige would do is keep the job hiring process constant for each school regardless of the schools success.  The impact I think would be dramatic and here is why.  If I coached a midmajor, lets say Northern Illinois and I built them up into a B+/A- program and then decided to leave, what generally happens?  The vacancy never gets filled, the school becomes sim coached and the program is destroyed which hurts the rest of the conferece.  The reason this happens is the only people qualified for that job are the same guys qualified for jobs at Big 6 conferences OR they've already built their own Midmajor into a similar position.  No one is making that move, it simply doesnt happen in HD. 

If however, Northern Illinois' baseline/hiring prestige was used for hiring (Probably a C-/D+) a qualified coach whether at a lower rung DI or high end DII would have plenty of incentive to take over the school as the situation they'd be walking into would be great, they'd have a established program with a B+/A- recruiting base.  This would do several things, it would keep the midmajor strong (or atleast stronger than if a Sim took over), it would keep the conference strong, and most importantly it would keep other coaches in the conference from leaving as they wouldnt feel their conference was falling apart. I saw this happen first hand in our old Big West conference --- In that conference we were 9 human coaches, we had guys make national title appearances and also win 1.  Our RPI was annually ahead of our rival Pac 10.  What happened though? Pork left LBS (B+) for Kentucky, the job never filled and the school dropped to a D before someone finally took over. I left Fullerton (B+) at the time for Kansas, same thing happened, Armst left for Pitt, his program never recovered, McCabemi left Northridge (B+), they are currently a C- and havent been filled...and eventually, the coaches left behind didnt get the recruiting money and couldnt keep up...if those jobs were filled others would be encouraged to join and the ones left behind wouldnt be in dire straights.

Bottom line is, I thought this needed to be done before the change. It is even more imortant now with fewer recruits as the ability to battle is determined by money and prestige which is only obtainable through fuller conferences. This notion however that midmajors cant compete because of the change is silly.