Posted by zagsrulez on 11/28/2018 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/28/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Community question here, not a question for Zags specifically (but feel free to chime in too zags)......

Do we, as coaches, consider 8 wins in 11 NT births to be worthy of good jobs? I personally don't. And I can throw my name in the hat. My first 7 seasons at Slippery Rock I went 5-5 in the NT. Less seasons, but a higher win percentage in the NT than Zags' example at that point. I had 3 1st round exits followed up by a S16 and an E8. At that point I didn't think I should qualify for any big D1 school. I only had 2 "decent" seasons.

Fast forward a little bit, and my NT record in the 4 seasons since then (when I was 5-5), is 11-4. That's a big difference. I think this is when you should be able to start making jumps to big schools. Even if my recent seasons were 6-4 instead of 11-4, this is where I think it's time to be considered for better jobs.

8 wins in 11 appearances doesn't average out to even a 2nd round appearance every season. Am I wrong for feeling like your total wins needs to be higher than your appearance total (we'll say in the most recent 5-8 seasons) to get consideration for high D1 jobs? I know it's a game but it's odd to me to think that coaches can't make it out of a S16 matchup at D2, but "expect" D1 jobs. It falls in line with the participation trophy style of game that's been mentioned.

I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too.

Average out NT appearances is doing great disservice. I had an E8 and a couple S16 runs thank you very much. I feel like you are very wrong to hold a standard that 'someone needs to have a winning record in the NT to be eligible for higher jobs'. Why? Because that would be discrediting the success that they potentially could have had. That person could won the NT along combined with a string of 1st round and 2nd round exits, would that person be unable to move up because of the losing record?

Not even trying to say that my record is great or fantastic but that I would have qualified for any D1 school with MonsterTurtl's proposed job standard.

Zags, I'm not bashing your profile or success or any of that. And i agree with you about not using everyones FULL profile record. For the exact reasons that you stated. And congrats on your E8 and S16 runs. For coaches like you and I, that is still a great accomplishment for where we are at in our careers. I'm not speaking as if I'm miles better than you or anything like that. But where we differ is that i dont feel like you should be eligible for the big and bad D1 schools. And I also think that i should "just now" start becoming eligible for those same jobs.

Now, i didnt look over your profile when typing this, but if you say you made a S16 and an E8 recently, I've made 3 E8s and 1 NC game. So I'm barely ONE good season ahead of you and thats it. But point is, I'm not saying anything about you or i. I am just stating that i feel like my profile is just now worthy for what it should take to get those jobs. And i feel like yours is just a good season or two away from that.

I'm just stating an opinion like everyone. I just happen to be in the group that feels like it should be really really tough to reach the top. That doesnt discredit any accomplishments that you or i have reached to this point. To me personally, i just dont think it should be enough, and we need more.

Haha Zags I'm just messin with ya. Your last two seasons are alright, keep building on that and you'll get the zags job pretty soon. Good luck man!

Getting a B level program isn’t “the top”. And you still have to beat other users for those spots. Being qualified to get Gonzaga if no one else wants it isn’t quite the same thing as being handed an A+ level KU, UK, UCLA, Duke, or Cuse on the strength of 8 second round D2 NT wins. There’s plenty of real estate there, it doesn’t have to be black and white.

Zagsrulez to me should be qualified for Gonzaga.
He's already spent 6 seasons in the A-10, and brought Saint Louis from a D to a B-minus.
Gonzaga right now is a C+plus.

Running a midmajor program can be tough, especially with 8+ Sims crushing your SOS in-conference. Midmajors can have a great W-L record and strong non-conference schedule, and sometimes struggle to earn an NT bid, and if you get an NT bid, it will rarely approach an 8-seed.

Like, my Marquette team in Smith is a good example. I've beaten an RPI #9 team and played a good non-conference schedule... but a couple of human opponents had weak seasons, hurting my RPI... then i had 1 bad-sim clinker in the Horizon vs #75 DePaul which devastated my Projection Report, plopping me at that point to the mid-50's. I've climbed to 48 now, but another unlucky sim in the next two CT games and I'll miss the NT.

I had the same situation in Naismith WCC with San Francisco, so i moved on last sesson. With both my Marquette and San Francisco teams i had conference mates leave unexpectedly, and no one wanted to jump into Smith Horizon even after i asked here in the Forums and on several Coaches Corners. Maybe i have bad breath?

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here’s a way to look at it. In 1-a-day worlds, a season is about 7 weeks long. Let’s say Zags career trajectory is about average. Based on his Knight performance in isolation, it looks like he’s spent about $10 per season. Let’s say this is what an average new player is looking at (just for arguments sake, no offense, zags).

An average new user would expect to spend well over 2 real life years and ~$200 to be at that level - not yet eligible for high mid-major teams.

So put another way, a D3 job costs $5. A D2 job costs between $5-$16 and a 7 week time investment (if one jumps directly to D2 after the initial season). Gonzaga apparently costs >$200 + a 2++ year investment for the hypothetical average new user.

IMO, there really shouldn’t be any wonder why this game has trouble attracting and retaining users.

Nicely put! That in a nutshell sums up the retention problem.
How do you all feel about a true "Universal" aspect being part of a job change process. I for one have ALWAYS thought it utterly ridiculous that any Human with over 500 games in One World automatically starts at D3 if he joins another World. That also does a nice job of killing retention. I really and truly think that the "Universal Overall Record" should have a place in the Job Change Process. I may be the only person in HD that thinks that, but that is why we have forums. Wish more people took the time to post their feelings and not just the two dozen or so of us that do.

PS: I miss Coachward too! Miss that guy in game play and the forums.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/26/2018 7:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 6:40:00 PM (view original):
LOL@ “elaborate math,” AKA adding. It isn’t a straw man. Those are the actual costs, in terms of time and money.

I haven’t proposed SLU and Gonzaga being the same. What I’ve said in the past is some version of:
*D3 is a free to play sandbox with no incentives.
*New users start paying at D2.
*After 1 season, eligible for D prestige D1 teams.
*After 5 seasons or 3 tournament wins (D2 or D1), eligible for C prestige D1 teams.
*After 7 seasons or 5 tournament wins, eligible for B prestige D1 teams.
*After 10 seasons or 8 tournament wins, eligible for A prestige teams.

Gonzaga would still be a higher reach, and require a better resume. But both would be significantly cheaper.

If this is the alternative to the current system, let's keep the current system. Your system would hand out good jobs as participation trophies. We can do better.

You have me rolling tonight. Winning 8 NT games and/or spending more than a year and probably at least $50, likely more, is worthy of something called a “participation trophy”. Ok. Look, I understand the resentment, the thought that these young kids should have to go through the same tedious bullsh!t I went through. Thing is, it’s harming the game. Every single person I’ve tried and failed to turn on to the game has cited this ridiculous cost of time and money to get to the level they are thinking about when considering an NCAA basketball game when saying nah. It’s why it took me 7 years before I even gave the game a chance.

And its pointless. It’s conditioned by the stupid, short-sighted setup of having multiple levels that people aren’t interested in. Having 3 levels isn’t necessary. No other college game I’ve ever played has made you start in D3. Why stop at D3? Why not start your career as a grad assistant, or better yet, intramural player/coach, or middle school church league coach? Tons of fun. What, aren’t you up for a challenge, you just want those fancy Summit League jobs as “participation trophies?”

Forced stratification is stupid, especially when it’s this absurdly steep.

I would like to see D2 and D3 Merged, and have two separate National Tournaments instead of a NT and a PIT. I makes a ton of sense what you are saying.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here’s a way to look at it. In 1-a-day worlds, a season is about 7 weeks long. Let’s say Zags career trajectory is about average. Based on his Knight performance in isolation, it looks like he’s spent about $10 per season. Let’s say this is what an average new player is looking at (just for arguments sake, no offense, zags).

An average new user would expect to spend well over 2 real life years and ~$200 to be at that level - not yet eligible for high mid-major teams.

So put another way, a D3 job costs $5. A D2 job costs between $5-$16 and a 7 week time investment (if one jumps directly to D2 after the initial season). Gonzaga apparently costs >$200 + a 2++ year investment for the hypothetical average new user.

IMO, there really shouldn’t be any wonder why this game has trouble attracting and retaining users.

You seem to be making a good point regarding users for whom it is Gonzaga or nothing. Or Duke or nothing. Or Kentucky or nothing. Or any absolute top team or nothing. And for sure there are such users. Someone else observed that we live in an instant gratification world, and that is certainly true for a lot of people.

But that isn't everyone. It isn't even everyone playing HD. Some people here have the patience to build a coaching resume, and the interest in doing so. Some people are here for the strategy, for the thought required, for the process by which one thing builds upon another. Some people don't need instant gratification, trash talk, players flying over the backboard turning triple somersaults doing a monster dunk. Some people are here for thought, not testosterone.

That said, I agree that the job process needs improvement. But let WIS improve it for thoughtful people, not merely dumb it down to satisfy cravings for instant gratification. Let them materially improve the game, not trash lower divisions or give away top jobs regardless of the merit of a coaching resume. (And fer crisssakes, WIS, do some marketing, eh?)

"(And fer crisssakes, WIS, do some marketing, eh?)"

LOL Spud.

How about you fix the issues that exist in the game first. Maybe make it fun to play for new people. Crazy idea I know.

Don't pick on Spud. That's one of the least snarkiest and thoughtful posts he's ever made.

Posted by l80r20 on 11/29/2018 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here’s a way to look at it. In 1-a-day worlds, a season is about 7 weeks long. Let’s say Zags career trajectory is about average. Based on his Knight performance in isolation, it looks like he’s spent about $10 per season. Let’s say this is what an average new player is looking at (just for arguments sake, no offense, zags).

An average new user would expect to spend well over 2 real life years and ~$200 to be at that level - not yet eligible for high mid-major teams.

So put another way, a D3 job costs $5. A D2 job costs between $5-$16 and a 7 week time investment (if one jumps directly to D2 after the initial season). Gonzaga apparently costs >$200 + a 2++ year investment for the hypothetical average new user.

IMO, there really shouldn’t be any wonder why this game has trouble attracting and retaining users.

You seem to be making a good point regarding users for whom it is Gonzaga or nothing. Or Duke or nothing. Or Kentucky or nothing. Or any absolute top team or nothing. And for sure there are such users. Someone else observed that we live in an instant gratification world, and that is certainly true for a lot of people.

But that isn't everyone. It isn't even everyone playing HD. Some people here have the patience to build a coaching resume, and the interest in doing so. Some people are here for the strategy, for the thought required, for the process by which one thing builds upon another. Some people don't need instant gratification, trash talk, players flying over the backboard turning triple somersaults doing a monster dunk. Some people are here for thought, not testosterone.

That said, I agree that the job process needs improvement. But let WIS improve it for thoughtful people, not merely dumb it down to satisfy cravings for instant gratification. Let them materially improve the game, not trash lower divisions or give away top jobs regardless of the merit of a coaching resume. (And fer crisssakes, WIS, do some marketing, eh?)

1. No, Gonzaga is not an “absolute top” job. Not in this game, anyway. It’s a high mid major, B to B+ baseline. The WCC is rarely going to be near filled. It is not a typical high value “terminal destination”. We can argue whether or not any “jobs” should exist as shiny trophies in this game in the first place, but regardless of the preference, Gonzaga is not among that group that currently exists.

2. You can build your resume at whatever speed you like. Allowing those who would like to make different choices to have access to those choices in a reasonable amount of time and money investment (ie something much less than 2 years and $200) does not impede your ability to progress at your chosen pace.

3. Forced stratification harms the game. New and potential players don’t care about how EEs affect high D1 recruits, nor do they mind having access to D1 labeled recruits no higher level teams prioritize, as long as the acccess isn’t hidden from them. They do tend to care a great deal about how long and how much money they will actually have to spend to get access to the level they have in mind when thinking about playing a college basketball game.

Posted by mullycj on 11/29/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Don't pick on Spud. That's one of the least snarkiest and thoughtful posts he's ever made.

Great point. My apologies to Spud.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/30/2018 7:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 11/29/2018 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here’s a way to look at it. In 1-a-day worlds, a season is about 7 weeks long. Let’s say Zags career trajectory is about average. Based on his Knight performance in isolation, it looks like he’s spent about $10 per season. Let’s say this is what an average new player is looking at (just for arguments sake, no offense, zags).

An average new user would expect to spend well over 2 real life years and ~$200 to be at that level - not yet eligible for high mid-major teams.

So put another way, a D3 job costs $5. A D2 job costs between $5-$16 and a 7 week time investment (if one jumps directly to D2 after the initial season). Gonzaga apparently costs >$200 + a 2++ year investment for the hypothetical average new user.

IMO, there really shouldn’t be any wonder why this game has trouble attracting and retaining users.

You seem to be making a good point regarding users for whom it is Gonzaga or nothing. Or Duke or nothing. Or Kentucky or nothing. Or any absolute top team or nothing. And for sure there are such users. Someone else observed that we live in an instant gratification world, and that is certainly true for a lot of people.

But that isn't everyone. It isn't even everyone playing HD. Some people here have the patience to build a coaching resume, and the interest in doing so. Some people are here for the strategy, for the thought required, for the process by which one thing builds upon another. Some people don't need instant gratification, trash talk, players flying over the backboard turning triple somersaults doing a monster dunk. Some people are here for thought, not testosterone.

That said, I agree that the job process needs improvement. But let WIS improve it for thoughtful people, not merely dumb it down to satisfy cravings for instant gratification. Let them materially improve the game, not trash lower divisions or give away top jobs regardless of the merit of a coaching resume. (And fer crisssakes, WIS, do some marketing, eh?)

1. No, Gonzaga is not an “absolute top” job. Not in this game, anyway. It’s a high mid major, B to B+ baseline. The WCC is rarely going to be near filled. It is not a typical high value “terminal destination”. We can argue whether or not any “jobs” should exist as shiny trophies in this game in the first place, but regardless of the preference, Gonzaga is not among that group that currently exists.

2. You can build your resume at whatever speed you like. Allowing those who would like to make different choices to have access to those choices in a reasonable amount of time and money investment (ie something much less than 2 years and $200) does not impede your ability to progress at your chosen pace.

3. Forced stratification harms the game. New and potential players don’t care about how EEs affect high D1 recruits, nor do they mind having access to D1 labeled recruits no higher level teams prioritize, as long as the acccess isn’t hidden from them. They do tend to care a great deal about how long and how much money they will actually have to spend to get access to the level they have in mind when thinking about playing a college basketball game.

Your #3 is not entirely correct. EEs is the most important thing to me in this game. I may be in the minority on this. But it's the ONLY reason I will never play D1. It's the ultimate deal breaker for me. I play this to watch my team develop and players develop and see how good they can become, and how good I can become. I don't wanna recruit a player and have him for 1 season, he leaves, and now my franchise is a mess because I can't recover immediately.

It might not bother others, but to me, it's huge. I don't even recruit jucos or transfers (unless they are 4 year transfers. I have a couple of those now). You don't get full value from players you don't have for 4 seasons. I've probably signed 1 juco in all 90+ seasons. And I just say 1 because I probably have. I don't remember signing one tho.

So I care about EEs. Even when I was new. (Not "1st season" new. But new enough that I wanted to stick around, while thinking how crappy it would be to lose players that you worked so hard to recruit).

Posted by Benis on 11/30/2018 8:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 11/29/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Don't pick on Spud. That's one of the least snarkiest and thoughtful posts he's ever made.

Great point. My apologies to Spud.

I would apologize to Mike before I apologize to Spud. Not to mention he probably hangs out at the marsh all day and smells like wet dog.

Let's engage in some open-minded conversation, shoe.

1. Read it again. I didn't say Gonzage was an absolute top team. I made a very brief list of teams to which your argument seems to apply. My point was the narrowness of your argument.

2&3. Merely repeating your position and ignoring my points doesn't advance the conversation. Your heels are dug in -- I understand that. But I find that conversations between people with open minds are more fruitful. Let's talk about the jobs process. WIS might be listening.

And for the eavesdroppers here, I don't remember seeing a single post by Spud for a long, long time. I don't think he's even around any more.

Edited to remove typo.

1. Yeah, what you said includes Gonzaga in that group of “absolute top”. If you didn’t mean to imply that Gonzaga was in that group, you should phrased it differently. The point here, as I said to doggg, is that there is a difference between teams like Gonzaga and those very top level teams, which is why my proposed change stops at what it takes to qualify for B level teams, ie high mid majors and low to mediocre big 6 conference teams.

2. My proposal doesn’t change how you have to play. Your protest appears founded in resentment, that other people might have other choices, that they might get something you don’t think they “deserve”. I encourage you to let go of that. Make the choices you want to make, and allow others the same.

3. Getting to upper level D1 costs far too much time and money for most folks who should otherwise be interested. Sure I repeat this one, because it’s still true and it’s foundational. Don’t worry about what my heels are doing, give me a valid alternate explanation or counter narrative if you want discourse on this.