Posted by gillispie1 on 10/3/2015 2:39:00 PM (view original):
yeah, the game is totally skewed towards the top tier of d1. its been that way for a long time, ever since the recruit gen changes. when i started this game, it was pre-potential, but potential came out while i was just barely getting started in d1. i can't imagine today, trying my hardest, being able to move up nearly as quickly as i did then. my d1 path went like this: first 4 seasons, at c- steven f austin: 4 NT1 losses (2 low end at large bigs, 2 CT only bids), grew to c+/b-. made a total mess of recruiting like everyone else. moved to C colorado. missed the post season, made the PIT, then, went 34-1 winning the national championship, having recruited exactly 1 elite player in my career (who was a soph backup on the team). the guys i won with were mediocre enough that the last coach probably would have missed the NT with them, but good enough to compete with the big boys (we were probably slightly outside of the top 25 by talent).

back then, the difference between the good and great teams in terms of talent wasn't a giant chasm. at the time, d1 was coined "coin flip dynasty" because so many teams were so good, evidenced by the fact that a C prestige team with players i didn't even recruit, was talented enough to have a dominant season, yet could still be easily coached out of the NT. i feel bad because i was one of the folks who said elite players would be a good idea - but i didn't mean 15 teams full - and always asked for national recruiting on said elite players. the idea was to lower the talent pool and leave some really good players that would be so good people would have to fight over them, which necessarily required nationalized recruiting or something similar. but having 50 teams who were talented enough win a title (albeit probably not built for it, team composition wise, that was the thing people really sucked at then because practice planning was reduced and potential meant you had to plan ahead, nobody was ready for that), anyway having 50 teams like that in a given season, that probably was taking it too far. i loved it, i was a great coach, a **** recruiter, so that version of the game fit me like a glove. but i think a happy medium between then and now is necessary.

by the way, because prestige, bonus money, etc, meant so little back then, in terms of how it impacted low BCS and mid major's ability to compete, thats why i don't support totally abolishing those things, and why i don't agree they are the root problem. recruit gen was extremely generous to the mid majors then, too much so, probably moving recruit gen to favor the big boys moderately while moderately pushing back the advantages of prestige and bonus money, would be the nice happy medium.

edit: that is moving from then. from here, recruit gen would obviously have to be slid back to be more equitable...

i've enjoyed and hated both sides. i've been wanting a good guy in an area where nobody would contest the big school, which meant i couldn't, either. but i've also had 2 openings, like just recently, i had 2 openings, an a- school had 5, and we battled for a guy where he had distance and was the favorite (almost cancelling my prestige advantage as an a++). he had other stuff going on though. i signed the 1 and like my class, and the WOTS was definitely leading me so the other guy wasn't remotely close, either. i wasn't worried that he could beat me all in because he couldnt afford to go all in. i've played the little guy side of that too, with less prestige and less money, and won battles because i could go all in on 1 guy, even with 4 openings, while the other coach had most of a 6 man class to still fill, even if he won.

i think in general, the lower money guy under estimates the advantage he has of being able to risk it all, to show himself in a battle. also, considering credit is more important than folks give it credit for, if you have 3 openings and go all in early on 1 guy, that considering credit stacks up over time and can easily win you a battle vs a guy who jumps in at signings.

so, all of that said, i think the problem is actually less than people make it out to be, and i've enjoyed being on the flip side of the coin quite often. but, i do think its still an issue. i see primarily 2 ways to address it:

first, a 5 star guy who is like, insanely elite, should probably not sign with a d1 school for 440 bucks (hv + scholarship). but he will, and often does. FSS helped some, because many folks will make the effort to get players tight, which is like 6k for an A+, roughly. a d3 school needs 440 to sign some local shmuck who isn't even fit to play on a d3 team, yet an  a+ d1 can sign lebron james for the same 440. doesn't really make sense, and also, it means guys can fill most of their class ultra cheap through intimidation, and then wreck their lone challenger due to bigger pocket books.

so, i think raising the minimum to even get considered on a 5 star, to be closer to 10k, would definitely help. it would also mean guys who showed up in a battle, would have something invested, and would be more likely to battle. i think if scouting could take place before effort, which i strongly support (i'd love in season scouting and post season recruiting, i think the way seble has it mixed is dumb but you still get scouting before hand), where you can get the full information on a player, before you ever spend money, would help, too. preferably, with a longer-than-2h first cycle. that way, people would have to spend a bunch to even get considered, and if battles showed, they would be followed up on more often. then, a 6 opening school who signed 4 cheap would have less of an advantage over the 2 opening guy. 

but roughly, i figure a 6 opening guy, if he can go roughly all in on 1 player, should always beat a 2 opening guy. i don't see a problem with that, it has to work that way, or big opening schools would be totally screwed.

to me, the better answer, of the 2 i can come up with (and really it should probably be a combination of both), is to increase competition for the top tier of recruits. i was a big supporter of making elite recruits, which seble attempted and royally screwed up. but i always thought elite recruits should be distance-agnostic, or at least less distance focused than today. today, a local school has a huge advantage, and the 200+ or 360+ schools have little chance. that would be ok, but the set of schools who can compete for a given player is just way too small. if it was like 500 miles and 1000 miles, the cutoffs, some far schools couldn't compete, but there would be at least multiple local guys who could. you have to increase the competition for the elite recruits, its fundamentally critical to a functioning d1. today, most of the elite recruits, most high d1 coaches could do an assessment and tell you who would sign them. for more than 50% of recruits, most coaches could point them out with a high degree of accuracy. thats ridiculous, and its at the heart of the problem. when one guy has 6 openings and 3 guys nobody will fight him on, it means he can fight ridiculously hard for the 4th or 5th. but make it so he can get fought on all of his recruits, and suddenly, he can't afford to go for 4 elite recruits out of the gate - he will end up showing in 3-4 battles and absolutely cannot win them all.
 

Posted by possumfiend on 10/3/2015 5:08:00 PM (view original):
theonly - I think you missed my point, which was that addressing firings before you address in the imbalance at D1 is putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing that firing/hiring doesn't need to be addressed and I agree there needs to be a path for coaches to rise up the ranks but I am asking why you would bother making it a priority over fixing the imbalance that exists at D1? 

"Because their a bunch of coaches in Big 6 jobs who don't really seem to know what they are doing."
I don't think this is true.  Maybe it is in some cases but I think it has more to do with other metrics in play.  I would further argue that you are just dooming the "up and coming coaches" to lackluster performances if you don't FIRST address the imbalance.  Here is the track record for the recently departed coach at A- Prestige Indiana in the Crum Big 10 (he left on his own volition this past off season after 19 seasons):

77		13-14	8-8	5-5	0-1	5-11		129	85	C+
76		17-11	11-6	5-4	1-1	6-10		119	116	B-
75		12-15	9-6	3-8	0-1	2-14		126	59	B-
74		11-17	4-6	6-10	1-1	5-11		107	58	B
73		19-9	6-3	13-5	0-1	10-6		56	84	B	PI (1st Round)
72		20-10	11-4	7-4	2-2	8-8		61	65	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (2nd Round)
71		12-15	9-6	3-8	0-1	4-12		122	52	B
70		14-14	3-9	11-4	0-1	7-9		84	57	B+	PI (1st Round)
69		20-10	5-5	13-3	2-2	10-6		29	29	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (2nd Round)
68		20-12	15-3	4-7	1-2	8-8		66	60	B+	PI (Final Four)
67		14-14	2-7	12-6	0-1	6-10		75	56	B+	PI (1st Round)
66		20-11	6-7	13-3	1-1	8-8		43	48	B+	PI (3rd Round)
65		23-6	14-2	8-2	1-2	13-3		41	73	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (1st Round)
64		7-20	5-9	2-10	0-1	5-11		165	35	B+
63		19-11	9-3	8-6	2-2	8-8		31	25	A-	NT At-large Bid
											NT (2nd Round)
62		16-13	6-5	9-6	1-2	9-7		39	20	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (1st Round)
61		21-8	9-1	11-5	1-2	11-5		32	77	B	NT At-large Bid
											NT (1st Round)
60		10-17	10-7	0-9	0-1	3-13		160	55	B
59		8-19	2-8	6-10	0-1	2-14		100	24	B+

Should he have been fired?  Maybe some would make a case for that, but I don't think you would convince many people it was because he didn't know what he was doing.  This is a guy who was interviewed in the WIS "User Interview" section within the last two years so it clearly wasn't because he didn't know what he was doing and I don't think these circumstances are unique to him.

I'm not asking for a summary of some marginal Big 6 coaching records out there, I want to understand why anyone thinks firing should be a priority over fixing the imbalances.

Posted by emy1013 on 10/3/2015 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by weirdrash on 10/3/2015 4:27:00 PM (view original):
BINGO on your study tooslim!  I advocate more drastic change than you do, but your study clearly solidifies how broken the game is.

Its also why I advocating having each world reset after 100 seasons or so and start it over.  I think most coaches would admit that starting a new world is a very fun time. All coaches have hope of working their way up to top D1 Schools and everyone starts on even footing and races to get there.

And the best coaches would still end up at the elite schools and then the ********, griping, and moaning would be repeated all over again.  Not meant to be directed at you personally WR, we go way back as you know and I consider you a friend in this game.  But in this game, like many others, the cream rises to the top and with a new world it still would.  I think anyone honest with themselves knows how that movie ends.

Posted by tooslim on 10/2/2015 11:25:00 AM (view original):
I am working on some data on D1 and the coaches who do well at it. I hope to be able
to post some of it this weekend.

A question popped into my head in the initial stages of compiling this data:

Has anyone who started playing HD in 2010 or after ever won an D1 National Championship?

Posted by all2matt on 10/5/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
an easy way to get it so mid majors can sign better recruits is require starts and minutes!!!!!!!!!!   if a 5 star requires 95% games started and 20+ minutes per game & the 4 star requires 15+ minutes then they cant be hidden on the bench by elite teams.  If they sit the player then they leave 100% of the time.  This will automaticly open up recruits because the 4*/5* will just transfer thus making the recruitng of him useless by the elite teams unless they plan to play them early and often. 

"I don't assume you are lying to me, so given the pedigree and the complete drop-off are you sure that the coach wasn't merely ghosting or mostly-ghosting through the last of his credits on that account or in that world? that doesn't look like someone who is trying to be frank. "

You could be right about the last three or four seasons. But if I were to buy into the beliefs proffered by many on these boards that the "best coaches" always rise to the top and those who complain about the current inequalities at D1, are just guys who can't compete and seek to promote communism/socialism, I guess I would expect a much better performance from someone with this pedigree than 3 NTs and 5 PI’s at an A- prestige program over the last fourteen seasons. 

"and who cares if its because he "didn't know what he was doing"

You’re right. That quote was a response to an earlier post and my response was to provide some empirical evidence that performing poorly at D1 is not necessarily attributable to not knowing what one is doing.  There are people who clearly have great knowledge of how to play this game that don’t always succeed and I believe the biggest reason many people struggle in this game has less to do with lacking some superior knowledge and more to do with the imbalances that exist between Big 6 and non Big 6 programs and the imbalance between the high level Big 6 programs (which includes lower prestige schools with favorable geographical locations) and those that are not.  Hiring and firing need to be fixed, but only AFTER the imbalances are addressed.

"But seble has said that things are going apparently the way you want them, so why even carryon the issue? The big recruiting shmozzle will fix D1, then everything will be rainbows and unicorns I am sure. "

I’m sorry I didn’t realize I shouldn’t voice my opinion (in response to the opinions of others) on your sacred message board.

That being said I do believe there are things in the game that are broken and I have advocated for changes to recruiting but it’s erroneous to suggest things are going "the way I want them". seble’s proposal is far more ambitious than I imagined. I haven’t bought into it hook, line and sinker because it remains to be seen how those changes will impact the game but I’ll keep an open mind and hope the changes lead to a more enjoyable game. 

Here is the "crazy" list of suggestions for change I sent to CS in December 2014:

recruit generation needs more variety (fewer high end superstars and more players with discernible weaknesses in at least one core attribute to their position); distance penalties shouldn’t be as extreme so as to open recruiting up; and recruiting shouldn’t just be about the A+ prestige schools finding the 5 star stud 20 miles from their campus and/or entering into a recruiting battle and sending wave after wave of CVs or HVs (depending on distance). 

I’d like to see players with different preferences that impact recruiting (player stays close to home vs. wants to play far away, prefers a certain offensive or defensive style, considers their role on a team … will they be relegated to a backup role or will they start immediately). I’d also like to see HD take a page out of HBD and add something like this: 

• Projected ratings give you an idea of how good this player could potentially be. Your Advanced Scouting budget will dictate the accuracy of your projected ratings. In other words, every owner will see different projected ratings for each player. 

I’m sorry I didn’t realize I shouldn’t voice my opinion (in response to the opinions of others) on your sacred message board.

Posted by dacj501 on 10/5/2015 10:28:00 PM (view original):

I’m sorry I didn’t realize I shouldn’t voice my opinion (in response to the opinions of others) on your sacred message board.

Look, my frustration is with seble not you. I never said you couldn't post, and if anyone treats something that is sacred the way I treat this message board they are doing it wrong. You don't have to be a dick you know...


ETA: It occurs that maybe you took umbrage at my comment that seble is doing basically what you wanted or however I said it - and by that I only meant that I believe you have shown support for seble's plan, but if I misrepresented you I apologize. At the risk of sounding like a dick (go figure...) I honestly have lost track of who all is all in and who is cautiously in and I am too lazy to double check **** just to post 

Posted by tooslim on 10/3/2015 12:04:00 PM (view original):
By looking at the length of time coaches who have played HD on here who have won NC's and have highly ranked teams in D1--it has confirmed what I have come to think after playing HD for almost 2 years and D1 for 1 year: While unintentional, the D1 game caters to coaches who have been here for 8 to 10 years. They pay little money to play this game as they earn credits from their entrenched power 6 conference teams. Only 2 coaches who have started since 2010 have been mentioned as winning NC's at D1. In the several worlds I looked at (and I looked at a few more than I posted data for) only 1 coach has a top ten ranked team currently that started after 2010--though I would guess there are 2 or 3 more in a world I did not look at or could see.

Obviously for the health of the game this needs fixed. . Right now there is a microscopic size window of hope for new coaches joining HD and moving up to D1-- where they are familiar with the teams and have favorite teams. Certainly it shouldn't be a drastic fix, but that microscopic window of hope needs to be made into a small window of hope that can be achieved in a couple year period by hard work, paying your dues, and studying the game.

I started in HD a little less than 2 years ago and at D1 in HD about a year ago. I grew up in Michigan and am a lifelong Michigan St. fan. I moved to Colorado 30 years ago and am also a CU fan. When I joined this game I was hoping that maybe in a 2 or 3 year period I could work my way up and coach one or both teams. I wasn't expecting miracles or instant gratification. I got to where I now have 7 D1 teams thinking that the more worlds I am in the greater my chances to coach one of my favorite teams. As the game is constructed today, I have come to realize that I have no chance of achieving this in 2 or 3 years. I would put my odds at 10% of achieving this in 5 years. I am not a bad coach or a great coach. My coaching ability needle probably registers in between the average and good categories and probably a little closer to the good category. The amount of money I will have to spend to achieve the goal of coaching MSU or CU is ridiculous especially when compared to the entrenched coaches on here who pay little or no money to play this game. It is easy to see why the future of HD is very bleak. This is very sad because it is a great game with some small correctable flaws.

The question being can they fix some of the flaws to better the game overall and even the playing field out a little so there is more of chance to compete for newer customers while not ******* off the 8 to 10 year customers.

I will give the new updates a chance. I will probably cut down from my 7 D1 teams to around 4. IF it gets better I will continue and might get back into some of the worlds I am going to leave. IF the updates leave the game in virtually the same state it is now with just a different recruiting method or the updates make the game worse, I doubt I will continue playing this. I am guessing there are a lot of coaches in the same boat I am in.

He had to do something but seble is really rolling the dice by making such drastic changes when just a few tweaks brought up by the veteran coaches might have made a difference that would improve the game and keep the newer coaches like me engaged in the game. I have seen this movie before. I started out in GD and went through this process already and it made GD a ghost town. I wouldn't play GD now if it was free. There were a few things needed to tweak a good game and they ignored the small fixable problems for a grand reshuffling of the whole game and screwed it up. I will give seble some credit: he appears to listen to the veteran players some (but not enough in my opinion) whereas the GD re-writer did not listen to anything the veteran coaches told him.

I wish seble good luck and am looking forward to the beta testing.