Posted by gillispie1 on 7/30/2020 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 7/29/2020 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 7/29/2020 11:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 7/28/2020 9:49:00 PM (view original):
Doing multiple consecutive title runs is more difficult in HD 3.0 @ D1 mainly due to the EE mechanics. No comparison on how much easier to replace EEs under HD 2.0 than it is now under HD 3.0 (never mind the randomness of dice rolls).
i agree with your point, but not necessarily the conclusion. it feels to me like there are two major things pushing the other way, the first being the much lower population, the second being how much crappier the average high end d1 team is. back in the day, you had a plethora of 850 overall teams, even though some were poorly crafted. how do you create separation? today with such less talented high d1 teams, there is a lot more room for separation.
so, i feel like that 1st and 2nd title in the run are markedly easier today. but the 3rd and up? i definitely get your EE point. i remember in the middle of the aforementioned 5peat, in my 3rd season (the critical one - i just came back for the 3peat - so i'd have lost the whole thing if i lost that middle season) - we had 5 EEs instead of the expected 2ish. that would be impossible to overcome today. although back then, it was still essentially miraculous. definitely part of the 3peat game is consistent excellence, but the other part is avoiding really bad rolls. the former seems a lot easier today, the latter a lot harder. where does that leave the overall effort? its debatable.
I just feel that in HD 2.0 when you had that 5 title run, other coaches would be crazy to battle Kansas for recruits so that instance where you did get 5 EEs, you were highly likely to come out of that with 5 quality recruits. Today, if you had 5 EEs, that implies you had almost *NO* resources to open up sufficient spots to replace those (and even if you did, you were likely at a HUGE disadvantage unless nobody fought you for the 1 opening you were trying to fill in RS1 (I have experienced trying to fill 4+ EEs with 1 opening and I can tell you it is not doable at all (at least not with high quality recruits).
EEs (and avoiding them) is paramount in HD3.0 in separating the pretenders from contenders which makes title runs very difficult to maintain over extended periods of time. HD 3.0 now has even non-Power 5 teams winning multiple D1 titles which was unheard of in HD2.0.
[Edit: As for D1 population, yes its way down but under HD 2.0, even if every single team was human coached, how many of those teams would be considered title contenders year in year out? Even if a coach like yourself went to a D+ baseline school in HD2.0, you would never likely compete for a title. Today, you would like be able to at least compete if not annually, at least some of the time making it more difficult for a single team to dominate the post season. See Vanderbuilt in Phelan where you/chap are co-coaching and competing every season now. Do you think you'd be able to do it similarly under HD 2.0?]
the only thing i disagree with is the last bit. not being able to even compete for a title from a d+ baseline? thats just taking it too far. the built in advantages of the top schools were big, but not THAT big. i would expect a number of better coaches from 2.0 could have at least competed for a title at a d+. i can't imagine a world in which i did a long stint at a d+ school with a focus on winning, and at least wasn't competing regularly. really i can't imagine not at least winning one, but luck is more a factor there. the vandy one is easy, for sure yes, in that case i have the experience to 100% back it up, but really both of them... no question in my mind. it was definitely harder but then as now, the importance of a+ prestige and especially baseline is over stated.
I agree with buddha about the D baseline part. Did anyone win any title from a D baseline in 2.0? I can't imagine many of these teams were making deep runs with any consistency - not even close to right now.
Additionally, there was a hard cap on what players you could recruit in 2.0. I don't remember the exact cutoff but C prestige teams couldn't recruit 4 stars right? So rebuilding to even GET to an A- prestige was much more difficult.
And then finally, the D baseline prestige teams were in bad conferences - so no conference postseason cash. I think that might be one of the biggest advantages of higher baseline prestige teams - they were were in good conferences which gave a ton of extra recruiting money.
For the populations - I don't think they're *way* down in D1. Some worlds are in the 110-120 range which is right around where they were for the last couple years of 2.0 (maybe slightly less but not way down). D2/D3 populations on the other hand are a wasteland.