Once again only Big 6 schools ranked or even getting any votes.  Something is way out of wack.  Not to mention it is darn near impossible to move up to a big 6 job even if the school is being coached by a SIM.

who should be there that's not? TCU?

I'm assuming his problem isn't with the voters as much as the fact that it is very hard for a non big 6 team to crack the top 25 skill wise

As opposed to real life when there are sometimes as many as 2-3 pre-season top 25 schools from outside the Big 6 conferences.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/17/2012 5:24:00 PM (view original):
As opposed to real life when there are sometimes as many as 2-3 pre-season top 25 schools from outside the Big 6 conferences.

I get where you are going but 3-5 is a more fair number. 4 2 years ago, 3 last year and  5 in an unoffical early 25 for next year. Not a ton but 3-5 is still much different than consistently 0

 espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7767401/indiana-hoosiers-continue-moving-2012-13

When will people realize that you can't compare this situation to real life. The difference in the quality of the coaches and then add to it the advantages BCS conferences have, makes it like comparing apples and oranges. The non BCS conferences are filled with sim AIs, which suck at recruiting and suck just as badly at game planning. In real life there are many non BCS coaches who are better recruiters and better game planners than their big school counterparts. That is rarely the case in HD.

Kmason, I think the point is that many people want increased realism. If the price for HD was lower, there would be more coaches, hence less Simmies and more competitiveness. I don't think the OP is saying that there were teams that deserved to be Top 25; I think he's pointing out that non-BCS teams are becoming increasingly less able to compete. 

As long as they filled with human coaches they will be able to compete, and it has been proven. Pretty sure there are a couple of non BCS conferences that made a conscious effort to pass some of the BCS conferences and they've been succesful. There is just this massive negativity on the boards where everybody wants to believe it's impossible when it really isn't. Take any great BCS conference, and transplant those coaches to any non-BCS conference and I guarantee you they will do well. They won't do as well, because fact is they shouldn't, but they will routinely send 4+ teams to the NT, win a title here and there, and be considered one of the best conferences in the world.

Posted by kmasonbx on 6/17/2012 9:20:00 PM (view original):
As long as they filled with human coaches they will be able to compete, and it has been proven. Pretty sure there are a couple of non BCS conferences that made a conscious effort to pass some of the BCS conferences and they've been succesful. There is just this massive negativity on the boards where everybody wants to believe it's impossible when it really isn't. Take any great BCS conference, and transplant those coaches to any non-BCS conference and I guarantee you they will do well. They won't do as well, because fact is they shouldn't, but they will routinely send 4+ teams to the NT, win a title here and there, and be considered one of the best conferences in the world.

Gotta agree with this 100%.

Never made it to Div 1  so I read the arguments here about it. My Only question has there ever been or recently ever been a non BCS school in the 2nd 3rd round of nt, etc? If not it is unrealistic and a weighted game that perhaps discourages people from div 1.

i have no clue on asnwer here. Real life this happens..."three different teams (Butler, Milwaukee, Cleveland State) were sent  to at least the 2nd round of the NCAA Tournament every year for the last seven years, and 11 of the last 14 years."

I liked the kenpom post that showed the preseason poll is usually a better predictor of the tourney than the end of conference tournaments poll. 

"Once again only Big 6 schools ranked or even getting any votes."

That to key is the kicker...in Knight's preseason poll, not a single non-BCS team even gathered any votes.  That is absurd. 

Now, non-BCS teams have consistently worked their way into the rankings during the season, and the final poll usually includes 2 or 3 non-BCS teams.

Posted by kmasonbx on 6/17/2012 9:20:00 PM (view original):
As long as they filled with human coaches they will be able to compete, and it has been proven. Pretty sure there are a couple of non BCS conferences that made a conscious effort to pass some of the BCS conferences and they've been succesful. There is just this massive negativity on the boards where everybody wants to believe it's impossible when it really isn't. Take any great BCS conference, and transplant those coaches to any non-BCS conference and I guarantee you they will do well. They won't do as well, because fact is they shouldn't, but they will routinely send 4+ teams to the NT, win a title here and there, and be considered one of the best conferences in the world.

i agree with the premise, that if you take for example the ACC in allen, and put them *anywhere*, they will compete at a high level. i think there should be very little to no doubt on that one.

the real question is, what is that worth? in my opinion, next to nothing. just because you can toss 12 elite coaches in a non big 6 conference and they can succeed, really doesn't mean the game is balanced. that is a totally unrealistic scenario (unless you get a champion to go find the coaches and fill them up). in reality, the experience that the average coach is VERY different from having 11 of the games best and brightest to call conference mates. you likely have more than a half dozen sims, and a few human coaches who may or may not have ever made the NT in their d1 career, and who you certainly cant count on for significant amounts of bonus money.

the real question is, can a GOOD coach succeed in that situation? i know a great one can, and certainly one (or 12) hall of fame coaches can, but that shouldn't be the measure. and i simply have not seen coaches do much more than make the NT at those lower schools, except for guys like girt over at marshall in rupp, but he can't be the measure, what a guy who is arguably a top 5 coach in HD history can do doesn't mean much.

the other question is, what SHOULD be the measure? i don't expect every guy who comes to d1 to succeed. but i do think if you are a smart coach, say a borderline top 25 in your world coach, by ability (meaning team planning, recruiting, game planning, scheduling, the whole shebang), then i think you should be able to consistently make the NT, win a game or two every few times you make the NT, and move up easily. if you are more like 10-15th in your world, i would like to see that coach fairly consistently able to win games in the NT. i don't mean deep runs, but i mean that in 10 seasons maybe they should make 8 NTs and win 6 games or something like that. nothing stellar but solid, where that coach is able to pick up something other than a bottom of the barrel big 6 program, sitting in the C prestige range. and sometimes, you should see non-hall of fame mid major programs, with a lot of upperclassmen, manage to make the sweet 16 and elite 8. not all the time, but occasionally.

i personally have no idea how to verify the above, as its impossible to rank coaches in the manner i am speaking. HOWEVER - when seble released the new engine, the number of d1 coaches dropped off, dramatically. that should make it easier to make the NT, and to win a game, shouldn't it? top 32 of 130 is a lot easier than top 32 of 180, i would think. the scraps of good recruits that do make it to the mid majors would be spread over a wider number of coaches, so even though there would be MORE non big 6 coaches, im not sure that would help the non big 6 representation in the NT. its not clear how that goes to me - you have a higher % of big 6 schools now, so should see a higher % of big 6 schools in the NT - however, from the view of a single mid major coach, except if recruit generation is the cause, its now easier to make the 2nd round or sweet 16 due to the significantly smaller number of coaches.

but anyway, with these changes, i seem damn near no mid majors make the 2nd round or further. i would have no problem if 29 or 32 were big 6 schools, but i don't think its that way. it seems now, the strategy of, stay at a mid major till a medium (b+ or so) big 6 job comes open, is off limits except to the elite of HD's coaches. now, you just have to take the first big 6 job you can, no matter how ****** (ok, within reason), because theres a good chance you won't get another chance for a while, and when you do, who knows how long it might take? that further depletes the non big 6 conferences of good coaches - you often used to have better coaches at a dozen of the better mid majors, than the worst dozen big 6 coaches. i really don't think that is the case today. which again, makes the scenario of 12 great coaches going into a mid major conference, largely irrelevant.

In no way was I suggesting TCU should be getting any votes.  I would like to believe that if a non Big 6 conference were filled with humans it would be more competetive, but that is just unrealistic.  There aren't enough humans playing to keep the non Big 6 conferences filled and if anybody ever gets a chance to move to a Big 6 they will probably take it because they have no shot of staying competetive at a smaller school.  Maybe there could be a discount for coaching non Big 6 teams?