mmt -- I think you're getting the cause and effect mixed up.  Players are abandoning the mid-majors because those teams have no chance at real success.  I would expect that most worlds have at least one mid-major conference where coaches have congregated in an attempt to be at least decent -- but those conferences aren't getting teams to the Final Four anymore.

It's one thing to be beaten by BCS schools in the tournament, it's another to be so completely outclassed by BCS conference also-rans that you would question the validity of the game engine if you did actually beat them. 

I'm in an excellent Mountain West Conference in Smith. -- I've had a very good team year after year.  And in the current version of the game I don't think I have any chance of making a Final Four.  Every season, earlier and earlier in the tournament, I face BCS teams that are monstrosities -- that appear to be from an entirely different division, higher than D1.  I mention this only because I believe that is the most common reason for people leaving the game -- it's no fun if you have no chance.

Posted by cornfused on 7/19/2011 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jslotman on 7/19/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Reading this thread makes me think that Allen is somehow the land of parity.  Despite the ACC winning something like six of the last seven NT's, the runners-up in many of those tournaments were from a variety of conferences.  And one only has to go back about nine seasons to see Southern as the big winner. 

Allen's got the best conference in HD, I think - and probably the worst Big Six conference in HD, too... but the parity 2-5 and particularly 2-4 (sorry, SEC) is just great.

Well, to be fair, there was also a time not so long ago where the Big Sky was probably the best conference in Allen.  I suppose that proves the point folks are trying to make in so far as recruit generation goes. 

Update on the Two-Headed Superconference Monster in Wooden: The Big 12 and the Big East combined to sign 27 of the top 30 players.

Posted by jslotman on 7/20/2011 7:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cornfused on 7/19/2011 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jslotman on 7/19/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Reading this thread makes me think that Allen is somehow the land of parity.  Despite the ACC winning something like six of the last seven NT's, the runners-up in many of those tournaments were from a variety of conferences.  And one only has to go back about nine seasons to see Southern as the big winner. 

Allen's got the best conference in HD, I think - and probably the worst Big Six conference in HD, too... but the parity 2-5 and particularly 2-4 (sorry, SEC) is just great.

Well, to be fair, there was also a time not so long ago where the Big Sky was probably the best conference in Allen.  I suppose that proves the point folks are trying to make in so far as recruit generation goes. 

It's so clearly related to the change in recruit generation, it's stunning to me that there are some vets who disagree.

Before recruit generation was changed, there was a ton of parity. Lots of low/mid teams were successful, often on a national level. This is because there were recruits that could be signed outside of 4/5 stars that could develop into players who could compete with the big boys. Now there are far, far fewer of the those types of players.

It was a very direct, obvious cause-and-effect after the change in recruit generation. People realized they had a huge mountain to climb at non-BCS schools, and many abandoned them. I'm not saying it's impossible to win big at a non BCS/A-10 school, but there's no question that it's extremely difficult -- much more difficult than it used to be.

And whether you think that resembles real life or not  -- and to a point it might, but it's taken even that too far, as you can see with worlds that have roughly zero non-BCS top 25 rpi teams -- the reality is that it's crippled DI in HD, so it's a very bad thing.

In Allen, there is one non-BCS team in the top 25 rpi (Temple). That is also the only team in the top 25 highest-rated schools. And not to take anything away from the coach, who's done a great job there, but that team has nine upperclassmen and has a baseline equivalent to a good # of BCS schools. (Just saying that it's not exactly equivalent to doing that at Canisius.) 

And this is particularly stark because, as has been mentioned, for a long time Allen was the absolute hotbed of low/mid DI success. Schools like Yale, Southern, Cleveland State, Boston U, Maine, etc. won the title, and there were a slew of other really strong teams, including UWGB, Montana, Idaho State, Creighton, Rice, N. Iowa and many others.

I just randomly pulled up the NT seedings from Season 38. You have the following 11 low/mid teams among the top 7 seeds:

1 seed Montana, 2 seeds Rice and UWGB, 3 seed Weber State, 5 seeds Birmingham Southern and Florida Atlantic, 6 seeds Southern and Cleveland State, 7 seeds W Carolina, S. Alabama and Wyoming. (And in case you think that was a fluke, I just looked at seasons 37-40, and there were double digit teams like this every time in the top 7 seeds, including 16 in Season 37.)

Then I pulled up the seedings from last season. Only two among the top seven seeds -- TCU (now a sim) and 6 seed Montana State (which was a sim at the time!)

i can't even remember the rationale for the recruit changes anymore...hope it worked on some level I suppose...

Posted by girt25 on 7/29/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jslotman on 7/20/2011 7:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cornfused on 7/19/2011 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jslotman on 7/19/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Reading this thread makes me think that Allen is somehow the land of parity.  Despite the ACC winning something like six of the last seven NT's, the runners-up in many of those tournaments were from a variety of conferences.  And one only has to go back about nine seasons to see Southern as the big winner. 

Allen's got the best conference in HD, I think - and probably the worst Big Six conference in HD, too... but the parity 2-5 and particularly 2-4 (sorry, SEC) is just great.

Well, to be fair, there was also a time not so long ago where the Big Sky was probably the best conference in Allen.  I suppose that proves the point folks are trying to make in so far as recruit generation goes. 

It's so clearly related to the change in recruit generation, it's stunning to me that there are some vets who disagree.

Before recruit generation was changed, there was a ton of parity. Lots of low/mid teams were successful, often on a national level. This is because there were recruits that could be signed outside of 4/5 stars that could develop into players who could compete with the big boys. Now there are far, far fewer of the those types of players.

It was a very direct, obvious cause-and-effect after the change in recruit generation. People realized they had a huge mountain to climb at non-BCS schools, and many abandoned them. I'm not saying it's impossible to win big at a non BCS/A-10 school, but there's no question that it's extremely difficult -- much more difficult than it used to be.

And whether you think that resembles real life or not  -- and to a point it might, but it's taken even that too far, as you can see with worlds that have roughly zero non-BCS top 25 rpi teams -- the reality is that it's crippled DI in HD, so it's a very bad thing.

I think you have to question what the game is supposed to be at this point.  Given this and the firing logic (i.e. how difficult it is to lose a big 6 job) I think you would have to conclude that WIS is not looking for a game with DI full of humans.  They are pushing the humans towards the big 6 schools and keeping the lower DI levels relatively empty.  This keeps the big 6 schools good which has always seemed to be part of the agenda.  Perhaps they also reason that they keep/attract more customers by neglecting low DI.  The players looking for parity go to DII/DIII.  Maybe it's not a grand plan, but it is where we are.

Posted by mmt0315 on 7/18/2011 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/17/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's actually recruit generation that has caused this. I think it's people who play the game being stuck in their ways and because they thought recruit generation sucks when you're not in a BCS conference so the lower levels of D1 are very empty. It's even hard to get people to take over the weaker BCS schools because of the perceived disadvantages.
 
If you put the best coaches in a mid major conference where they were the only human coach do you think they would still have success? Of course they would. What ACN posted I've seen the occasional post talking about how great a D1 conference is ever since I started playing this game so it's nothing new. I do admit it happens more often these days but I think it's more of a perception thing then an actual fault in recruit generation.

In Tark the ACC and Big East have dominated for a long time and the Pac 10 and Big 12 have always been very solid conferences but now the Big Ten and SEC are also beginning to be threats, showing that the stranglehold can be broken. The biggest test of this is the SEC in Phelan, last season the conference earned a total of 60k postseason money and I've been there for I think 8 seasons and we've never even gotten 15k per team in my time. Problem is the Big 12 and the ACC are the 2 best conferences and it makes it tough for the SEC schools to breakthrough. It's to the point where LSU has been empty for 5 seasons simply because the conference isn't good and LSU has turned to crap and it's a very tough rebuild now.

I agree 100%, the reason the Big 6 are so dominant, are they are filled, and remain filled and not only are they filled, but with the top coaches...There are few if any midmajors that are full of human coaches and even the ones that have 5-6 coaches, those coaches generally leave...Recruiting is really not the issue, the issue is how many Sims coach midmajors.

this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem, but i think you have it backwards here. when new recruit generation came out, there were mid majors - but it was so ridiculously hard to compete, they got wiped out. i posted the population data with a simple analysis back then, and it was pretty staggering, the dropoff.

now, mid majors are much more viable IMO - not to win titles - but rather to make the NT. simply because you still have the same 30-40 or so teams guaranteed to make the NT, so out of the 25 spots left, if there are only another 60 human coaches, it makes your odds a lot better than if there are 160.

I don't know about other folks, but making the NT is not enough for me to be satisfied. Of course, the answer is get into a BCS conference...

Posted by dacj501 on 7/29/2011 5:20:00 PM (view original):
I don't know about other folks, but making the NT is not enough for me to be satisfied. Of course, the answer is get into a BCS conference...

Or create your own BCS conference, right?

Posted by girt25 on 7/29/2011 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 7/29/2011 5:20:00 PM (view original):
I don't know about other folks, but making the NT is not enough for me to be satisfied. Of course, the answer is get into a BCS conference...

Or create your own BCS conference, right?

or that

Of course it does seem kinda hollow in the dust bowl that is Rupp...

I think having more of the lower rated players with higher potential would go a long ways toward making the game better in DI.

Posted by oldresorter on 7/17/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
there is no doubt you can win from the mids - the issue is you have less a chance in the mid's because you can no longer get your hands on the type of recruit required to win it all - this  is not under debate, the entire purpose of the change was to LESSEN the number of top recruits.  As far as the top teams winning more or not, isn't that the premise this thread is built on - that indeed they are (my last 2 conferences, world 2 big east got 8 teams into the sweet 16, world 9 texas;s conf got 9 into the dance, just to add to the list), I did not think that was even under discussion - you have difficulty keeping on one issue KM.

Again, to keep you on topic, either mass hysteria changed the game last june (your words not mine) or the change changed the game, I vote the change did it.

i really am not a fan of the characterization of "mass hysteria" for what KM is saying. KM may not be explaining it very well, but there is unquestionably an effect in this game, that goes roughly like this. game changes. vets/existing users are slow to adapt, and blame the changes for problems which are in part a consequence of their slowness or unwillingness (as the case may sometimes be) to change. the masses start complaining, which makes it easy for others to blame change for their problems, instead of looking to their own actions for the source of the problems.

KM is very right that this effect played a part in the most recent set of major changes (recruit generation). particularly, the perception of the quality of recruits was being linked to people's idea of what a quality recruit looks like, instead of valuing a recruit on their own merits, in relation to the other recruits. it is, of course, perfectly natural this would happen - it takes time for our impressions and understandings to evolve, so while that is taking place, we compare to what we know. which is no longer as relevant as many make it out to be.

that is not to say there isn't a major problem with recruit generation, where mid majors coaches are about as likely to win a title as to win the lottery. i've complained about that one enough, that i don't see the point in beating that horse any further.

i would argue the effect KM describes also played a huge part in the coin flip dynasty disaster, that you use to some degree as a parallel to the new engine - and i think that is a reasonable thing to do. but anyway, potential was categorically dismissed by coaches as a terrible idea, because they did not like the implementation. i would bet a million dollars that if seble's patch that you describe as fixing potential (and i agree) came out as the initial potential release, there still would have been a good deal of uproar. people just simply do not like change.

but moreover, coaches of this game seem to cling to the irrational belief that they should be able to do the same thing they did before a change, without sacrificing anything in results. its true that at the time, there were a large number of highly talented teams. but i also can distinctly recall my amazement with respect to how many highly talented teams had terrible results. you would regularly see 680 overall teams outpacing 780 overall teams by a good margin. those coaches of the 780 teams seemed to claim it was because everybody had 780 rated teams - but if that was the case, there should not have been 680 rated teams kicking their but. i don't remember a time when there was less correlation between raw talent and results - the impact of raw talent went down considerably because the ability to shape that talent to your will went down considerably - instead, the importance of recruiting the right kind of player you need in the first place went up, and with it, the importance of team planning. so while those coaches of 780 ovr teams were sitting around complaining the engine was broken and their hard work in recruiting wasn't worth a damn, and that they were tired of flipping coins - a complaint with some merit - there was plenty those same coaches could have done to improve their situation. there was plenty other coaches were doing to bridge the talent gap or lack there of. i believe that is all kmason is saying about the new engine - people are quick to blame change for their difficulties, much quicker than they are to make needed changes to their own strategy  - and i think he is absolutely right.

Very well put Jeff.

I was considered a top 20 type coach really early in the game, I started season 7 in most the older worlds, probably by about season 12 or 14 I was pretty well known & included in discussions as a top coach, mostly as a d3 coach and disregarded by the top d1 coaches, who said winning in d3 doesn't count - LOL.  I used to say back then, the secret to this game is to embrace the change.  Nothing has changed since then, it still is the secret.  IMO, I adapt better than most, for any given change, 5 or 10 coaches may figure it out b4 me, but usually, I am quick to learn, a few changes I have really figured out quick, some less so.

My point for the history lesson, this is not about slow to change.  All the top coaches know what needs to be done to win right now, we are all doing the same thing if you look.  The problem is, there are not enough recruits to go around in d1, so it is not fun for those who can't get them.  It is actually much more fun for those who can, sort of a blast.

One thing that was not so obvious about the change, that I am pretty sure is true, is the game actually has gotten more even, in the range of the first thru oh - maybe 30th best teams, or lets say best coaches.  Due to the lack of recruits, some seasons the top coaches get shut out, it just happens unless your market has no competition, which seldom happens, since most the top teams play in the same 3 or 4  conferences.  Anyhow, this shutting out factor makes d1 runs that girt, clone, lostmyth, maybe myself had gotten, much more difficult to accomplish.  In that sense, the change probably has been lots of fun for many of the coaches I see in support of it.  I think LM or clone or even you gill would say, if you give me a top five rated team, I will give you a pretty high chance of winning it all.  Under the system lacking recruiting depth, the odds of having a top 5 rated team year in and year out has gone down. 

But, the odds for the teams or coaches that are the 30th thru the 150th best in a world participating in the race to get enough of those players, it pretty much has dwindled to zero.  That is why d1 numbers have dropped.  By the way, if d1 numbers hadn't dropped, it would be absolutely miserable for those coaches, at least with few human competitors there are some OK recruits floating around, just not good enough to compete with the teams getting top recruits.

I understand why some of you good coaches like it, it is great for you guys ... to tell you the truth, it is pretty good for me ... look up my username, my teams are not exactly tanking it, but the ? is, was it good for the game, really gil - seriously - honestly - I respect you - if you think it is good for the game and you think mass hysteria caused the problem (which requires hundreds of independent decisions to be made by many guys who don't even read the boards) and not seble's ill conceived notion (a single decision that coincides nearly to the moment the problem started & b4 there was widespread support that the change was bad) - then I will not argue the point with you - here is my test when I work with kids or even some of my peers - if going to heaven or hell was riding on the accuracy of your call - would you say the change is at fault or mass hysteria?  How is that for pressure!