That world for d1 would not interest me. If I want that world, I will stay in d2.

Posted by tbird9423 on 5/16/2012 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I see more agreement coming together than disagreement.  I can't be sure yet but I do think that prestige and firing are somewhat correlated but I'll yield to those of you with more experience/information.  The whole reason I got involved in this thread is I thought it was important to have the insight from someone realtively new to the game debating on their future with the game.  I am looking to coach a good DIV I team and be successful and if that is not possible, there is no reason for me to buy another pack of seasons.  I have no desire to coach (long-term) any DIV II or DIV III schools and it also appears to me that the engine works 'better' at the DIV I level.  I provide a higher margin to WIS so I (and other new players) should be the target market for WIS.  There are some other major issues preventing more newbies from sticking around (mostly in the lacking of updated and reliable information), but the prestige factor seems to be the major issue. 
 
Tiyanni-- as I mentioned before, we are stating the same case with just a different perspective and never meant anything personally.  I do take the comment,
 
"And Mercer can become the best program in the world. I have already said that in IBA, there are A-10 (I know it's B baseline, not D like Mercer) winning NCs. It's not impossible for midmajors to win NCs, just more difficult in D1." 

as agreeing with my and others points.  If it is more difficult to win a championship with Mercer, that means the oppositte is also true, that it is easier to win with Duke or NC (don't think anyone will argue with that) and that was the original point.  To me, that lessens the "winning" of a championship with those teams so what's the point of winning when you know your competition is handicapped.  I don't golf from the ladie's tee and then celebrate my victory over those playing from the men's box, and I would think to at least some level, you could see that logic.  I understand your point (and mean nothing personal) that you want to play from the men's box and overcome those playing from the ladies box, but I don't think that is a way to retain new customers.  Even when you do beat those others, it is not because you outcoached them or outbuilt them, but rather that you have coached well enough to join them in the ladies box while many others are still back a few yards.  I am hopeful that makes sense.  Becoming coach of those "favored" teams doesn't require being the best, as some examples here have illustrated,  only that you are good and have paid, (i meant played so fruedian slip there but same thing really) more. 

I love GoMiami's suggestions as a starting point and definetely never wanted to take anyone's game away from them as I hear terrible stories of what happens when someone has wrapped up their identity in a game and the developer's pull the plug. 

Anyone on board with a world such as Go Miami suggested and using that as a starting world for new players?  If you want to challenge the entrenched dynasties, you can always pursue one of the existing worlds but you would have the opportunity to start in a world where a more level playing field exists.  I would like to see users be as proactive as possible in finding agreeable solutions to problems and then being able to present those to WIS in a united fashion.  Rather than being normal Americans who gripe and point fingers, lets get together on this and help with change. 

Have a good week all...

I agree with most of what you've said here, but there is one point where you are very mistaken.  To say that winning a National Title with a top level school "lessens" that title is ludicrous.  The hardest thing to do in this game is to compete consistently and win at the highest levels of D1.  The competition at the top, the very best of the best, is the fiercest part of this game.  Until you've made it to that level and have experienced it, it may be hard to comprehend just how difficult it is, but when you get there eventually, you'll see that just because you're at a top school and win a title that it doesn't "lessen" it by any means.  In fact, to even suggest that without having been to that level is frankly a bit insulting.

**Edit**  After reading you post again, I think I'll have to change my stance and say that I, in fact, disagree with most of your premises.  Get to the top level of D1 first, experience it for yourself for several seasons, and then if you still think that winning with a top team "lessens" the accomplishment, I'll agree to disagree, but will still respect your opinion.  But without having experienced the bloodbaths of upper level D1, to make a statement like that is again horribly uninformed and again rather insulting.

tbird...thank you for considering my suggestions noteworthy.  I will respectfully agree with emy about winning a National Championship.  Back when I was very serious about this game, (I play now more for fun and to maintain contact with certain coaches) I regularly made the Elite 8/Final Four.  If you look at my profile, I have 0 National Championships.

Why?  My teams were every bit as good on paper as my opponent but I usually ran into an HD legend (oldresorter, lostmyth, etc.) who simply was better at this game than I was.  I got outcoached 75% of the time and ran into RNG bad luck the other 25%.

There is no such thing as a lessened title in this game.  To win one in any division is an accomplishment. 

I saw Seble is making some changes and some in line with our discussion so great to read that and sounds like could be a major improvement.  I must say that some seem to want to argue just to argue and its always funny to see logic get overridden by emotion in such a glaring example. 
   Maybe some of the confusion comes from text and the subjective way it is read but I must say that if we all agree that winning a title is harder with a "small" school, then that would be more of an accomplishment than winning with a "big" school.  I agree totally that either seems to be a major accomplishment (for some of the reasons we have been discussing) but stand by my stance that one has a higher value as more of an accomplishment than the other.  Real life offers a great example of that in all sports (see under/over achiever).

   Finally, truly not trying to be insulting but if that black and white logic hurts, then there is probably a reason for that as if it was truly ludicrous, it wouldn't be insulting.  I do think this thread has been very helpful but am hoping this will be my last word. 

So. . you just claim your argument is logic and everyone else is just arguing to argue?  Its not even possible that they actually believe they have a point and that you could be WRONG, is it?  

Talk about being insulting.
 

I think he just worded it poorly. His point, I think, was in saying that he'd rather win a title outside a BCS league than in won. That's fine, a lot of people feel that way.

Never having played DI, yes, it would be hard to see the difficulty in going from a perennial top 25 team to a top 5 team.

Dont think he was trying to insult the coaches who coach in the BCS conferences.

Posted by ekswimmer on 5/17/2012 1:08:00 AM (view original):
I think he just worded it poorly. His point, I think, was in saying that he'd rather win a title outside a BCS league than in won. That's fine, a lot of people feel that way.

Never having played DI, yes, it would be hard to see the difficulty in going from a perennial top 25 team to a top 5 team.

Dont think he was trying to insult the coaches who coach in the BCS conferences.

No argument here that's it harder to win from a smaller school than a larger school, I think everyone would probably agree to that.  But to suggest that because a coach is wins a title at a bigger school means his championship is "lessened" IS insulting, whether he wants to admit it or not.  Let him try to win at a bigger school first before he makes a blanket statement about how much "easier" it is, then his "lessened" comment will hold more weight.  Hell, let him coach ANY D1 school first.  However, since he hasn't (unless he has an alternate ID, which is possible), his "lessened" remark is, as I said earlier, ludicrous.

EK, you're an intelligent person.  In fact, we were in the same conference many, many moons ago.  If that wasn't a dig at BCS coaches (see his several references of playing from the women's tee in golf) then what exactly would you classify it as?  Go back and read one of his posts in this thread where he takes a shot at Tianyi and the success he has had and how he claims that if a new world was opened using no baseline prestiges, that any accomplishments made in any of the worlds WITH baseline prestige wouldn't be as valued.  The guy has been throwing out subtle jabs this whole thread, only people have either been glossing over them or just failing to respond.  Here's a not so subtle jab.  Given his track record so far, I don't think he'd have to worry about getting to a top school in a new world regardless if it had baseline prestige or not.  The way this guy writes and some of the things he says makes me think we're dealing with another Fredpaull alias.  Geez, I hope not. 

Posted by reinsel on 5/16/2012 8:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2012 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Dear WIS,

1.  Make a small adjustment to baseline prestige for individual schools.

2.  Eliminate conference prestige.  This is already reflected in individual baseline prestige and is thus redundant.

3.  Guarantee a PIT spot for every regular season conference champ if they do not survive their conference tournament.  Think of it as a token redistribution of wealth.  Please see real life as a blueprint.

Sincerely,

gomiami1972

I agree and add one more.

Change the amount of money given to a conference at D1 to match what it is at the other levels. 
D3 NT game = $3000
D3 Scholarship = $3000

D2 NT Game = $5000
D2 Scholarship = $5000

D1 NT Game $20,000
D1 Scholarship = $15,000

Since the vast majority of NT games are played by the top BCS conferences, making each game worth $15,000 would help the little guys.  OR just increase the money per scholarship to $20,000, either way I am good with.

+1

I've never really understood why the above discrepancy in recruiting money exists in D1. 

What isn't to understand?  YOu would be able to set formulas in the search engine for what you think a point guard, shooting guard, etcetera should have - and then use that filter as a sorting mechanism for recruits.

It will be nice not to have to use a spreadsheet for recruiting anymore. It would be more fair to those who do not know how to use a spreadsheet. I like that list of updates.

ditto on the conference prestige reinsel.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 5/17/2012 9:29:00 AM (view original):
It will be nice not to have to use a spreadsheet for recruiting anymore. It would be more fair to those who do not know how to use a spreadsheet. I like that list of updates.

ditto on the conference prestige reinsel.

You don't have to use a spreadsheet to recruit.  See yatzr's thread and you'll find several coaches who use the "eyeball" method.  Nothing wrong with spreadsheets, mind you, but they are certainly NOT a necessity to be a good recruiter.

Posted by emy1013 on 5/17/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mykids_31206 on 5/17/2012 9:29:00 AM (view original):
It will be nice not to have to use a spreadsheet for recruiting anymore. It would be more fair to those who do not know how to use a spreadsheet. I like that list of updates.

ditto on the conference prestige reinsel.

You don't have to use a spreadsheet to recruit.  See yatzr's thread and you'll find several coaches who use the "eyeball" method.  Nothing wrong with spreadsheets, mind you, but they are certainly NOT a necessity to be a good recruiter.

I agree. However everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Some coaches are not good at the eyeball method, will be able to sort their recruits in more detail.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 5/18/2012 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 5/17/2012 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mykids_31206 on 5/17/2012 9:29:00 AM (view original):
It will be nice not to have to use a spreadsheet for recruiting anymore. It would be more fair to those who do not know how to use a spreadsheet. I like that list of updates.

ditto on the conference prestige reinsel.

You don't have to use a spreadsheet to recruit.  See yatzr's thread and you'll find several coaches who use the "eyeball" method.  Nothing wrong with spreadsheets, mind you, but they are certainly NOT a necessity to be a good recruiter.

I agree. However everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Some coaches are not good at the eyeball method, will be able to sort their recruits in more detail.

Agreed.