the easy fix is give a free season - required to be used in the same world - with any firing

And ramp up firings with a strong connection to baseline prestige. The higher the baseline, the higher required performance level. Firings would solve a lot of issues. AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE A MAJOR OVERALL

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/12/2016 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Baseline prestige would be defensible if high-baseline jobs came with high risks, specifically the risk of firing if the coach fails to take advantage of the baseline's benefits.

If you take over Kentucky, and Kentucky has the high baseline we know it does, one NT berth every four or seven years should not be good enough to keep that job.

If you take over Kentucky and Kentucky has the same baseline as Mississippi State, it might be a different story.

From what I read this seems to be closer to the bullseye than any other post. Baseline prestige seems to make sense and would work well enough in HD if only hiring and firing were fixed. And maybe Seble needs to consider that he doesn't need to be so timid when it comes to fixing firing for fear that people will leave. It sounds to me like that danger is at least as great if he doesn't fix firing and hiring.

Posted by CoachSpud on 3/12/2016 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/12/2016 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Baseline prestige would be defensible if high-baseline jobs came with high risks, specifically the risk of firing if the coach fails to take advantage of the baseline's benefits.

If you take over Kentucky, and Kentucky has the high baseline we know it does, one NT berth every four or seven years should not be good enough to keep that job.

If you take over Kentucky and Kentucky has the same baseline as Mississippi State, it might be a different story.

From what I read this seems to be closer to the bullseye than any other post. Baseline prestige seems to make sense and would work well enough in HD if only hiring and firing were fixed. And maybe Seble needs to consider that he doesn't need to be so timid when it comes to fixing firing for fear that people will leave. It sounds to me like that danger is at least as great if he doesn't fix firing and hiring.

I agree, but this is what I believe the problem was-is "If you take over Kentucky, and Kentucky has the high baseline we know it does, one NT berth every four or seven years should not be good enough to keep that job.

If you take over Kentucky and Kentucky has the same baseline as Mississippi State, it might be a different story"

No, I guarantee that any SEC school Coach that has one NT every 4-7 years will be gone. WIS did not want to alienate the coaches that should have been fired AT the same time they allowed SIMS to run many Big 6 programs down and wouldnt hire PAYING customers to replace them. Making rebuilds difficult for the humans that eventually DID replace a sim (Sorry folks SIM Coaches in big 6 is not realistic at all..that argument is BS).

Example> SEC Naismith...sim coaches Vandy, Alabama, Miss, Auburn, Ark....sure that's realism


Couple those factors with a High Conference and team prestige factors and mostly Human dominated conference coaches, that equates to equally higher RPI per teams and conference (other than the sims that seem to have a great resume of failure) those conferences also get more tourney money on top of the Conference and Team prestige advantage (that is base lined).
As terrible as those SIM Big 6 teams are they are also given a 300 mile recruiting advantage among the other advantages...and yes they do sign some high to mid and lower level studs with that advantage that mid and lower majors have an unfair chance to compete against them for..

Could it been solved with better firing? With eliminating SIM Big 6 coaches? Maybe. WIS Seems to have decided to attempt to appease all with a recruiting change, May work..I have doubts, but honestly I dont really understand it all or its effects until I try it.

But Div 1 recruiting was a mess. I had a Big 6 team..So .I have no sour grapes..but to Me the un-level playing field was not worth it or fun...for others it is.

Will the change make the game better - no one has a clue.

Will the changes draw in new owners - no reason to think so.

Will the changes likely alienate many existing owners for a variety of reasons - seems quite likely.

Will the owners that leave be back-filled by new owners - no reason to think so.

My prediction - I hope I like the changes, but in all likelihood a few owners will randomly figure out the new system first, those who spent the past decade earning their way to their top programs will get ****** and many will leave. Don't know if I'll be one or not, but this seems like a radical arbitrary change.

Weird business plan.

If we're going to make radical changes, we should start with radically ramping up both the ability to move up and lateral between jobs, and the ability to lose jobs.

I quit the game in the past when I moved up to D- Stony Brook in Smith, had a couple middling seasons (17-11 and 19-8, average RPIs both times), got bored, and had zero options to lateral within D1 -- if I wanted to move anywhere, I had to move back to D2.

It seems generally accepted that jobs is a mess and, compared to recruiting, would be very easy to improve. Why won't they?

I hope for the best but if it becomes cumbersome I will take my eight years of playing with various coaching names in the worlds and say good bye..if the new changes make the game better and just as easy to play I will stay. On the other hand, I would be staying if there were no changes to recruiting..that has not been my problem with the game. Big risk as longtime players like me with significant teams involved don't like the change we will say bye bye and that will be that.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/12/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/6/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
...I think it's broken...

I think you're a ****...

And I know this is uncalled for. Grow up please.

Posted by vandydave on 3/12/2016 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Will the change make the game better - no one has a clue.

Will the changes draw in new owners - no reason to think so.

Will the changes likely alienate many existing owners for a variety of reasons - seems quite likely.

Will the owners that leave be back-filled by new owners - no reason to think so.

My prediction - I hope I like the changes, but in all likelihood a few owners will randomly figure out the new system first, those who spent the past decade earning their way to their top programs will get ****** and many will leave. Don't know if I'll be one or not, but this seems like a radical arbitrary change.

Weird business plan.

This...I think lack of marketing/advertising has always been the problem for this game/site

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

Agreed. Get rid of baseline prestige. If you did this, there would be no need for all of these proposed recruiting changes. And then you could leave the job logic alone.

If the game wasn't such a mess, I would be ok with having baseline prestige. Problem is in this game, nobody gets fired. It's very hard, harder than real life, to move up to a decent Big 6 school, not talking about Hawaii, Nebraska etc etc. Not having baseline prestige fixes a lot of issues.

So not having Duke as an elite school isn't like real life? Neither is having a team of 90+ in athleticism and defense.

I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Personally I'm against getting rid of baseline prestige completely. I'm not sure who brought this up, but I'd love to see a "hybrid" where baseline prestige is less of a factor, however it is still important, but baseline is now floating maybe say a 20 season period, and it can be increased/decreased based on success, similar to real life. Duke wasn't really anything before Coach K, Indiana, UCLA, Georgetown while were at times at the top right now they probably aren't top 10 teams if baseline was translated to real life. Midmajors can be built, I think their shouldn't be a ceiling, and it should be challenging, however just less so than it is now, I'd be fine seeing non big 6 teams win the NC, I'm just not sure I want to see it completely like D2/D3 where there is no baseline at all.

ramp up firings, esp for high baseline prestige jobs

give a free season when you get fired

improve a handful of other easy improvements

take the budget allocated to the new model of recruiting and spend it on advertising - use it for adverts on every Fox sports website - where presumably there is a "cost" but a low cost for an affiliated company

watch usage grow

OR, do none of the above, change the game radically and watch usage shrink. I'm cutting back - because I would not get five teams in a new game. WIth small fixes, I would increase participation.

bad business plan.

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/13/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Personally I'm against getting rid of baseline prestige completely. I'm not sure who brought this up, but I'd love to see a "hybrid" where baseline prestige is less of a factor, however it is still important, but baseline is now floating maybe say a 20 season period, and it can be increased/decreased based on success, similar to real life. Duke wasn't really anything before Coach K, Indiana, UCLA, Georgetown while were at times at the top right now they probably aren't top 10 teams if baseline was translated to real life. Midmajors can be built, I think their shouldn't be a ceiling, and it should be challenging, however just less so than it is now, I'd be fine seeing non big 6 teams win the NC, I'm just not sure I want to see it completely like D2/D3 where there is no baseline at all.

If WIS wasn't so inflexible, they could have worlds with different programming (I'm talking about DI here) to see which one draws the most users. One world could have the current baseline prestige, a second could have a floating prestige and a third could have no baseline prestige at all. If the goal is to make money, WIS would get clear data as to which concept people prefer.

It'll never happen. Better to guess than to actually know.

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/13/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Personally I'm against getting rid of baseline prestige completely. I'm not sure who brought this up, but I'd love to see a "hybrid" where baseline prestige is less of a factor, however it is still important, but baseline is now floating maybe say a 20 season period, and it can be increased/decreased based on success, similar to real life. Duke wasn't really anything before Coach K, Indiana, UCLA, Georgetown while were at times at the top right now they probably aren't top 10 teams if baseline was translated to real life. Midmajors can be built, I think their shouldn't be a ceiling, and it should be challenging, however just less so than it is now, I'd be fine seeing non big 6 teams win the NC, I'm just not sure I want to see it completely like D2/D3 where there is no baseline at all.

Why should an HD coach's program be penalized when their team's real life counterpart hits a slump? That makes no more sense than having baseline prestige in the first place.