Hey seble, it seems you are the man when it comes to Hoops Dynasty. I was on the baseball council, but this is my game now. Anyway, I saw you were looking at revamping how coaches were percieved for new jobs. I certainly agree that you need to reward the 20-40 season guys. They are the backbone ot the game. Especially those who have tried to stick it out with a mid-major. I think they need the same if not more consideration than a guy who has 10 seasons total in the game, but has had some immediate success. I am concerned that anybody who has a little success at a mid-major or lower will jump while the getting is good rather than build a program. It can't be good for the game overall to have everyone jumping up and leaving the other conferences dry.

One example was the MVC in Naismith about 15 seasons ago. Myself and a few other decent coaches were building a good mid-major conference. We routinely had a Sweet 16 school or better. We never got 5 star players, but we found diamonds in the rough and built on that. The conference now has no human coaches even though I held on til the end. I seriously feel there needs to be a concerted effort to keep the mid-majors alive and input players which can be recruited and can grow into potential pro caliber. Think Butler, Gonzaga,and VCU for recent real teams in that genre. In real life, there are always a few guys who seemed assured of making it, but even some of those backfire. More so you have guys who were never heard of that do mature and make it as a draft pick or at least grow to that level. Think Shelvin Mack and Gordon Hayward just from Butler. Back about 15 seasons ago the recruitng in the game changed which seriously limited the number of players which could eventually grow into a serious NBA prospect. That limited the "whatif" portion of the game. I always enjoyed the opportunity to put my wits at match with other coaches and see who could do the best. I almost quit the game at that point and I am a "whatif" lifer. I liked being able to compete with Kentucky at Western Kentucky at least some years and while they might get all 5 stars, there were enough 2 and 3 stars with growth potential to make up for it in the long run at least once in awhile. There should even be a few guys ranked in the 100 level that grow more than expected. I would love to see the "whatif" aspect come back, which would make the mid-majors more appealing and that certainly has to be a boost to the game overall. I'm not saying to take away the advantage of the better conferences which have all humans in them. That will give them a boost in itself and the will get more recruiting funds for having more teams make the tournament. However, if 5 or 6 players get a mid-major rolling and it starts to fill up then they should be able to compete on occassion. Hence the 'whatif" portion of the game. Otherwise it is nothing more than a computerized version of the real thing. Actually even in real life the mid-majors are getting more and more good players. They aren't stealing the 5 stars, but they are finding more choices.

It's just a thought, but the stronger the entry schools can be and the stronger the mid-majors can be, the stronger the whole game will be. JMHO, but I would love to see some subtle changes