Success of Non-Big 6 Schools - Page 5 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 4243 (0)

Hall of Famer

51 33 282 40

Prospect

What does that even mean, due to contract limitations?

"the teams that won, were being built as programs for a long time by elite coaches. " What's wrong with this? Should we just allow any mediocre coach to win the NC in his first year?

NCs should only be won by great coaches who put in the time and effort to win, who stayed with their team over time. There are very few successful midmajor programs that have the same coach for more than 10 seasons. That's my entire argument. We are not seeing many midmajors succeed because their coaches jump to BCS when the opportunity presents itself.

7/25/2012 8:10 AM

car_crazy_v2

Posts: 619 (0)

All Star

32 3

Rookie

Tianyi, my point is that they were built before the major changes were made and a higher conference prestige allowed team prestiges to climb where they typically would not be capable of climbing to. From that point, it was just a matter of maintaining their level of prestige.

And by contractual limitations, I mean that there is only so much money that mid majors can offer in RL. Which is why you'll never have a full conference of coaches who don't care about their contracts like what happened in the A10 because many of those coaches will leave in search of universities who can offer bigger paychecks.

7/25/2012 11:29 AM

tianyi7886

Posts: 4243 (0)

Hall of Famer

51 33 282 40

Prospect

I showed you a bunch of examples from Phelan D1 of coaches building a team from D/C range to B/B+ range in empty conf, in the past 8-10 seasons. So how do you explain that?

7/25/2012 11:33 AM

car_crazy_v2

Posts: 619 (0)

All Star

32 3

Rookie

Troy St. was built before the big update.

Marquette was built by a very good coach, but I don't think they ever would have made the jumpy to NC contender. I'd also like to know the Horizon's conference prestige at the time because it looks like Detroit Mercy and Depaul were also doing very well at the time.

I also don't think Alcorn would have ever become a title contender. They also weren't ever any more successful than the multiple mid-majors we see making the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the NT every season.

S. Carolina St. never did anything more impressive than what Murray St. did this season. And they did it with a stronger conference than what Murray St. had.

Monmouth only made one run.

None of those schools did anything that we don't see happen nearly every season in real life.

So in the 10 worlds of HD, there are still far less cases of mid-major success and most can be attributed due to great coaches gathering and turning a crap conference into one that is arguably better than the majority of Big 6 conferences.

7/25/2012 2:48 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Your point that tianyi was responding to was about not having Murray States in HD. The reality is that is quite common. Now you're responding to his Murray State examples by saying those teams weren't title contenders. Two totally different things.

Your Murray State point is totally off base. If you wanted to focus on the notion that you think it's too difficult for non-BCS teams to really succeed in the current HD landscape, that's another story. But your Murray State point is just factually incorrect, and it's actually not that difficult for an HD team to put together that type of season.

7/25/2012 3:10 PM

mamxet

Posts: 1154 (0)

Hall of Famer

215 48 26 2 436 11

Rookie

In an environment where we know that BCS schools have advantages and where we know that conferences with a good number of human coaches have advantages, we will tend to see rather few coaches - especially rather few successful coaches - stay in empty non BCS conferences.

Surely, that makes sense.

IF that is the case, then there is a very limited sample of nearly empty, nonBCS conferences with a top coach on a sustained basis. If that is rare, then there is no surprise that major success in that situation is rare. How many cases do we have of excellent coaches staying for 10+ seasons in a rather empty non BCS conference?

7/25/2012 3:31 PM

tianyi7886

Posts: 4243 (0)

Hall of Famer

51 33 282 40

Prospect

Posted by girt25 on 7/25/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Your point that tianyi was responding to was about not having Murray States in HD. The reality is that is quite common. Now you're responding to his Murray State examples by saying those teams weren't title contenders. Two totally different things.

Your Murray State point is totally off base. If you wanted to focus on the notion that you think it's too difficult for non-BCS teams to really succeed in the current HD landscape, that's another story. But your Murray State point is just factually incorrect, and it's actually not that difficult for an HD team to put together that type of season.

This.

You made 2 arguments in this thread car.

Argument #1) Murray State is a real life example of a good midmajor in an empty conf, which do not exist in HD. I showed you 6 examples in Phelan D1, and I can show you more in other worlds. Here is one where a coach got a D baseline team from C to B+ in 5 seasons (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=4249)

Argument #2) Midmajors should be able to compete for NCs. IBA A-10 has shown that midmajors can, and has won NCs in WIS. I never disputed that building up a non BCS team to compete for NC is easy. In fact it shouldn't be easy, it should be the hardest thing to do in this game. My point here is that we do not see consistent mid major success is due to the coach who built the midmajor, jump to BCS when the opportunity arises, and who can blame them?

cars, as numerous coaches have sitemailed me about discussing stuff with you, this will be my last post on the topic because it's pointless.

7/25/2012 3:35 PM (edited)

car_crazy_v2

Posts: 619 (0)

All Star

32 3

Rookie

Well you must have missed where I conceded that Murray State was a bad example. And I went a year further back to Butler/VCU and your only counter-argument to that is that there have been a couple occurrences within the 10 worlds of HD where mid-majors have turned conferences into high-major conferences. You've still yet to show me where a mid-major has done anything impressive since the update because the examples you gave were conferences that were turned into powerhouses.

7/25/2012 4:33 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

VCU wasn't a team that built up a legit Final Four contender, it was a team with a horseshoe up its *** for a few games.

So what's your argument here -- what is your actual beef? That's gotten lost in all the wandering side arguments.

7/25/2012 5:13 PM

drsnell

Posts: 79 (0)

Hall of Famer

170

Prospect

I think the problem is all the empty D1 conferences in the first place. And I think the biggest reason there are so many empty conferences is that people don't feel they have any chance to win a national championship unless they are at one of the Big 6 schools.

There have been at least 130 HD seasons played since teams were filled with the current-style recruit generation, and the only non-Big-6 national champions that I know of were the two from Iba A-10 in seasons 52 and 54.

In the "What If" vs. Real Life debate, I think the answer is to do whatever is best for the game, and it seems to me the game was best when more people were playing. And that was when every team could potentially be built into a national champion.

When I just had teams in Smith and Wooden, I looked into the success of mid-majors with the old recruit generation. I only used the seasons 20 through 47. By season 20 I figured a world had "matured," since most A+ teams had human coaches, and while there were new-style recruits in season 47, the dominant players were still of the old-style.

In those 54 seasons, 15 small conference schools played in the national championship game, 7 of them won championships.

So in the old system, smaller schools won titles about 13% of the time, in the current system they win approximately 1.5% of the time.

It doesn't seem to me that the current system is either more realistic or more fun.

7/25/2012 5:21 PM

mamxet

Posts: 1154 (0)

Hall of Famer

215 48 26 2 436 11

Rookie

So I decided to move down from one of my BCS schools to a mid major. So long Big East, I'm moving on down to Grambling. Been ages since I had D prestige but I hope to make a long term go in the WCC.

In the interest of enhancing mid major competitiveness, remind me - who will talk to me at D? will one stars even treat us as a backup possibility? how about guys in the 100-150 range? guess I'll see, but would love a quick refresher on life at D prestige

7/26/2012 8:54 AM

car_crazy_v2

Posts: 619 (0)

All Star

32 3

Rookie

Posted by girt25 on 7/25/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
VCU wasn't a team that built up a legit Final Four contender, it was a team with a horseshoe up its *** for a few games.

So what's your argument here -- what is your actual beef? That's gotten lost in all the wandering side arguments.

Part of it's the engine changes, which made strings of upsets like Butler's and VCU's impossible.

Part of it is that it is no fun to play with a mid or low major. Which is bad for the game IMO. (Unless of course you have a nearly full conference)

7/26/2012 9:20 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by drsnell on 7/25/2012 5:21:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem is all the empty D1 conferences in the first place. And I think the biggest reason there are so many empty conferences is that people don't feel they have any chance to win a national championship unless they are at one of the Big 6 schools.

There have been at least 130 HD seasons played since teams were filled with the current-style recruit generation, and the only non-Big-6 national champions that I know of were the two from Iba A-10 in seasons 52 and 54.

In the "What If" vs. Real Life debate, I think the answer is to do whatever is best for the game, and it seems to me the game was best when more people were playing. And that was when every team could potentially be built into a national champion.

When I just had teams in Smith and Wooden, I looked into the success of mid-majors with the old recruit generation. I only used the seasons 20 through 47. By season 20 I figured a world had "matured," since most A+ teams had human coaches, and while there were new-style recruits in season 47, the dominant players were still of the old-style.

In those 54 seasons, 15 small conference schools played in the national championship game, 7 of them won championships.

So in the old system, smaller schools won titles about 13% of the time, in the current system they win approximately 1.5% of the time.

It doesn't seem to me that the current system is either more realistic or more fun.

Extremely well put.

I'd copy, paste and put in a ticket to seble.

7/26/2012 10:52 AM

car_crazy_v2

Posts: 619 (0)

All Star

32 3

Rookie

Making HD less expensive would help matters greatly, but not sure if they'd be willing to experiment with that.

7/26/2012 5:25 PM

patsrule755

Posts: 410 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 434 201 1

Prospect

i agree with what u last said car about making it less expensive because ive talked to many peolpe who said the game looks fun or that they tried the game but its just too expensive to keep doing i dnt know if they would consider lowering the price but i think it would bring in more people to play the game and stay playing the game.

7/26/2012 5:43 PM

Forums

Success of Non-Big 6 Schools Topic

Search Criteria