Spreadsheet Link

Some interesting things I just compiled in ~20 minutes so we can see how non "big 6" teams are in real life.

important to note I only put non big 6 wins over big 6 teams, so if a team isn't listed when they were there it meant they were playing another non big 6 team.  Total teams advancing includes the total number of non big 6 teams advancing to that round.

I didn't gather HD stats, but I can if this isn't enough.

Most important Stats:
Avg of 10 non b6 teams advance to the 2nd round each year
3.8 S16 teams on average from non big6
1.3 E8 teams on average from non b6 teams

and an average of 7.2 non big 6 at large bids awarded

So I don't think with the updates we are trying to make it possible to build A+ schools year in and out with non big 6 teams, but its trying to help out non big 6 teams who clearly play a factor in the NT every year

Will compile data on how non big 6 teams recruit top 50 prospects

I'd love it if you also compared data from the upper crust Big 6 teams to the also ran Big 6 teams that don't have A or A+ baselines for comparison there too (In HD I mean obviously). I don't necessarily think that the 2 types of Big 6 team ought to be referred to as the same necessarily...

Are you counting Marquette as non Big 6 in 2008 and 2013? And Xavier in 2015? Both were in the Big East at the time (although very, very different versions of the Big East). But even in Xavier's BE in 2015, it was a very good conference. Better than the SEC top to bottom.

And FYI-

You also have a small typo in 2010 with Florida vs BYU - BYU should be bolded not Florida. And you missed bolding Xavier in 2010 1st round and Mercer in 2014 1st round.

These numbers do largely hold up historically since the NCAA expanded to a 64 team field in 1984-85. Obviously there are some problems with the data (e.g., Louisville won the championship in 1986 as a Non B6 school out of the Metro Conference) that result because teams move around, and in and out of B6 conferences as Benis points out.

Still the RL data on Non B6 going back the last 31 years is:  
10.6 (2nd Round),
3.6 (S16),
1.45 (E8).  

Six Non B6 schools, including Butler (twice), Memphis, Utah, UNLV and Louisville have played in the championship game and other than Louisville in 1986, only UNLV (1990) has won a championship.

Yes I will try to measure non high baseline teams as well.

I counted some teams as midmajors the whole time like Xavier and marquette, I think Utah as well which skews the data a tiny bit

Will go back and fix mistakes in a bit.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2015 8:40:00 AM (view original):
These numbers do largely hold up historically since the NCAA expanded to a 64 team field in 1984-85. Obviously there are some problems with the data (e.g., Louisville won the championship in 1986 as a Non B6 school out of the Metro Conference) that result because teams move around, and in and out of B6 conferences as Benis points out.

Still the RL data on Non B6 going back the last 31 years is:  
10.6 (2nd Round),
3.6 (S16),
1.45 (E8).  

Six Non B6 schools, including Butler (twice), Memphis, Utah, UNLV and Louisville have played in the championship game and other than Louisville in 1986, only UNLV (1990) has won a championship.

and thats basically the exact same numbers I got in my smaller period and generally about double what the most "non b6 friendly" worlds are where 5 2nd round teams from non-bcs is a "good" example of non b6 teams sucedding.

Before one compares this data to HD results, do keep in mind that every one of those non Big 6 teams in real life had a human coach.

Summit league in Allen got two teams to the second round this season and four total to the Dance.  Because we have 9 reasonably good human coaches.

Need to think about cause and effect before making inferences about HD

Exactly!

Most of the worlds have a smaller conference with good coaches that put multiple teams in the NT. Invariably those coaches and up moving on to larger schools and there is a rebuild. But I'd say its more about coaches wanting to stay at small skills vs. the dynamics of recruiting. In Naismith, MMT took CSU Fullerton (Big West) to the elite 8 as he and several other coaches built that conference into a top 6 contender.

Tweaking the ceiling and baseline of D1 prestige to move to a moving average would have been all that was needed to help successful low level programs maintain success. We really didn't need (or want) a major overhaul.

Posted by mamxet on 9/22/2015 8:30:00 AM (view original):
Before one compares this data to HD results, do keep in mind that every one of those non Big 6 teams in real life had a human coach.

Summit league in Allen got two teams to the second round this season and four total to the Dance.  Because we have 9 reasonably good human coaches.

Need to think about cause and effect before making inferences about HD

A full conference can do wonders - the Summit has done great, and below are the past 20 seasons for Marshall in Rupp; a full C-USA can have a member team compete nationally too:

Season	Coach	Overall W-L	Home W-L	Road W-L	Neutral W-L	Conf W-L	Rank	RPI	SOS	Prestige	Notes
83	options	10-1	5-0	5-1	0-0	1-0	5	6	41	-
82	options	28-4	9-0	14-3	5-1	16-0	12	10	44	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
81	options	28-3	9-1	15-1	4-1	15-1	11	28	96	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (2nd Round)
80	options	34-1	9-0	16-1	9-0	15-1	1	4	25	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion National Champion
79	options	29-2	8-1	17-0	4-1	16-0	9	25	96	A	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (2nd Round)
78	options	31-2	12-1	13-0	6-1	15-1	6	7	25	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
77	options	26-5	13-0	10-3	3-2	15-1	12	15	37	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Sweet 16)
76	options	31-3	10-0	15-1	6-2	15-1	4	5	28	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Final Four)
75	options	31-4	9-0	14-3	8-1	14-2	2	4	5	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Championship Game)
74	options	26-6	8-3	14-1	4-2	13-3	4	10	12	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Final Four)
73	options	31-3	14-1	10-1	7-1	14-2	1	3	2	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid National Champion
72	girt25	27-4	13-0	10-3	4-1	13-3	8	3	4	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (2nd Round)
71	girt25	32-3	13-0	11-2	8-1	14-2	2	1	1	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Championship Game)
70	girt25	29-3	13-0	12-1	4-2	15-1	5	3	2	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Elite 8)
69	girt25	28-4	13-0	11-2	4-2	14-2	3	3	2	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Final Four)
68	girt25	31-3	14-0	10-2	7-1	14-2	3	1	1	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Final Four)
67	girt25	30-3	14-0	11-1	5-2	15-1	2	1	1	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Championship Game)
66	girt25	31-1	14-0	12-0	5-1	16-0	3	1	2	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
65	girt25	30-2	13-0	12-1	5-1	15-1	6	2	6	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Sweet 16)
64	girt25	33-2	12-1	13-0	8-1	15-1	1	1	1	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid National Champion

Posted by mamxet on 9/22/2015 8:30:00 AM (view original):
Before one compares this data to HD results, do keep in mind that every one of those non Big 6 teams in real life had a human coach.

Summit league in Allen got two teams to the second round this season and four total to the Dance.  Because we have 9 reasonably good human coaches.

Need to think about cause and effect before making inferences about HD

+1
This cannot be emphasized enough.

The HD results will never mirror real life as long as the worlds are dominated by sims. In HD, a lesser conference full of human coaches will perform well.
A b6 conference with too many sims will underperform (often, the WAC with many humans will perform worse than an SEC with many sims).

We shouldn't expect a mirror as long as sims are in the equation.

I would agree that you probably can't compare HD vs RL for reasons of the sims but also due to the talent level of the human coaches themselves.

In real life a very good (or great depending on who you ask) coach like Brad Stevens can turn Butler into a title contender but then he gets poached by the NBA. Or he could get an offer from Kentucky or some blue blood program for millions of dollars, something that Butler couldn't offer. There are obviously tons of examples of this in basketball and football where coaches take a much higher paying gig (and more prestigious but hard to say which is the greater influencer). 

But in HD, you're not leaving your school to go make millions in the pros or at another school. You could certainly move around if you want to but some very good coaches are fine playing at lower levels and have no interest in moving. Hard to say no when there aren't millions of dollars throw at you.

No offense to real life GT but they're not really a premier college basketball program. So if Stewdog was the real coach of GT and won 4 straight national championships (or probably even just 1), I'm sure he'd be fielding a TON of lucrative offers to coach somewhere else and then GT would fall back to the middle of the road, like in RL.

How that affects the bottom line comparing this all, I'm not sure and I don't have any specific data. But it's still a pretty big difference between HD and RL, IMO.

Posted by mamxet on 9/22/2015 8:30:00 AM (view original):
Before one compares this data to HD results, do keep in mind that every one of those non Big 6 teams in real life had a human coach.

Summit league in Allen got two teams to the second round this season and four total to the Dance.  Because we have 9 reasonably good human coaches.

Need to think about cause and effect before making inferences about HD

I have thought about cause and effect and agree that world user population absolutely contributes to the imbalance that occurs within each of the worlds.  Identifying a cause doesn't change anything though, the numbers are still what they are. So what's the fix? You seem to suggest that it's filling the NB6 conferences with more human coaches but that won't happen unless the game can attract more users and you can give them better incentive than having two teams advance to the 2nd Round.  Sparse user population is the reality of HD - the worlds are all operating at about 1/3 capacity so increasing the number of full NB6 conferences doesn't currently appear obtainable or sustainable.

I'm not arguing that there aren't many ways WIS could address these issues. Based on the divergent opinions presented on these boards there are plenty of ideas to go around, some seemingly easier than others.  If correcting this particular imbalance (and this is just one among several imbalances within the game) was the sole focus of seble's actions then tweaking recruit generation would probably be a logical solution. However, recruit gen would not help accomplish his stated primary goal, "the overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players."

 

The point is that the horizon league is not the problem so we need to give them a better shot... That's not realism at all. The point is that sim filled leagues shouldnt achieve as much here as Im real life, whether it's the sim filled ACC or Ivy League or horizon.
For real data, see early years before humans were in D1. There were runs by lesser teams. And as humans took over, the best teams were lower level human teams... Now the best coaches are attracted to the best competition. Make no mistake though, bottom dwelling teams in B6 conferences have a shot to build but it is TOUGH and most coaches hate trying to turn around Virginia tech when MD, UVA, UNC are good. It's not easy.