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. 

Really the easiest thing to do would be to have more of the lower tier players have better potential. It can frustrating at times to see 70-80% of recruits that have almost no room for growth as incoming freshman.

John, I respectfully disagree with your position...the conference was never as strong as you portrayed. You made 1 appearance in the E8 and never advanced beyond  the 1st round in 16 seasons. You would consistently overshoot for recruits and then complain when the Big 12 coaches would easily come in and take 5-star recruits when you were trying to recruit them with a B- or C+ prestige. The same thing would happen if you were overrecruiting at a C+ or B- school in a major conference. The reason you consistently were able to be one and done in the tournament is because with smart scheduling and a conference with only 4 or 5 humans someone is going to get into the NT is making the PI is fairly easy. I appreciate the fact that you want midmajors to do well and certainlyagree the ability to do so is good for the game but you put an idea in your head many seasons ago which I always felt was contrary to the actual results.  There was once a big cry in the forums (which thankfully has died down) regarding the inability to win at mid-majors...but then forum after forum after forum kept appearing which showed examples of not only mid-majors doing well but making the FF and winning national titles. I firmly believe it should be harder to win at those schools because it prepares people for coaching in elite conferences at non elite schools which IMO is the hardest thing to do in this game...In fact Ive noticed the newest trend is coaches coming to elite conferences and leaving after three or four seasons back to the midmajors becaue they cant adapt to the burtality of recruiting there. (Take a look at the revolving door of coaches in the Big 12 Naismith and SEC Phlen for two examples as it seems we lose two coaches every season who simply quit). The problem is people get to DI and think they can recruit like its DII...its is an entirely different animal which is very difficult to conquer...I think the game is fine as do many people...its just those of us that do dont take the time to respond to each post like one of these...

IMO there are options for midmajors to get the ball rolling and become competitive, you just need to know how to get them.

at TSU I have 0 5*s and 24*s... both of the 4*s were 10 miles from me, otherwise i would not have even gone for them.


but my center, both of my PFs and my backup guards are all 2*s or below that came with good potential and were given time to grow. I expect this team to make the NT and maybe even make some noise.


I will agree I think there needs to be more potential farther down the rankings, but IRL there are only so many pro potential players. most college players have no shot at the NBA and are best used as role players.