Quote: Originally Posted By thethrill10 on 2/11/2010You do only have 3 Sr. on the roster right now, I would tend to stay where you are right now unless a job you really want opens up, or you lose like your whole team to the NBA

Maybe...but one of the reasons I've had success is that CUSA has a handful of Sim AI teams and human coaches who inevitably come in to not-great situations. I do have a good thing going there, but it's not really a place where I can compete for a title someday. And if I do miss out on recruits one year, my prestige may go plummeting again.

Another reason to leave Tulane: in Rupp, the Big 12 and SEC are dominant. I think the SEC had 3 of the Final Four teams last year and each team had more than $40K in bonus money. It's no fun always having to wait for your neighbors to eat.

JP - the other thing I thing to think about with that extra money you can get from a Big 6 conference is that you will start to see guys leaving early. My Grambling St. team lost a 90ATH, 60 SP, 99 REB, 99 DEF, 84 LP 3 year starter early after last year's run and I know it would have been really hard to replace him (had I stayed). With a Big 6, you get that extra money to recruit guys that can contribute right away. It makes your life a lot easier.

Recruiting in the Northwest pretty much sucks, so I'd go for BC or Fla. State.

BC is definitely the best job of the three of those, no question. It's far better to be in a crowded recruiting area and have fallback options than it is to depend on the generation of good recruits in your area. Hawaii has its state locked down but they rarely are able to compete. BC is almost always a stronger program than FSU.

I coach Miami in Wooden, and while there are usually enough recruits in Florida to go around, sometimes there isnt, and position needs dont match up, so it makes it tough. Granted, Miami is pretty far south, and it is harder to recruit in GA etc...than it would be from FSU, I would just be aware that recruits arent quite as plentiful as you might think.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/12/2010No, we're comparing the Pac-10 to the ACC, not the Big Sky, et al. Yes, I would assume that the Pac-10 would, on average, bringin more revenue than smaller conference in that area. But that's true in all worlds. The key variable from world-to-world that I was pinpointing is that there may be other (even numerous) non-BCS schools in the area with the ability to make your life very difficult.

I know what was being compared, dalter, I was merely commenting on your analysis on Oregon in regards to Allen (or any other world).

Doomey, the fact that the Pac-10 will be more successful than the smaller conferences around it is a relative constant from world-to-world.

What is not a constant is that in some worlds, other teams/conferences will be very strong and provide stiff recruiting challenges, while in others there will be practically no real challenge. That is what's being compared here, so the fact that the Pac-10 might have more $ than the Big Sky, etc. is not germaine to my point (which jskenner, the Oregon coach in question, already agreed with).

For crying out loud, dalter. When you say you need to take into account the other higher prestige schools in the area, and I point out the agreed fact that the PAC 10 money can mitigate some of those higer prestige schools, what is the argument? It IS germaine to the point when you just said that other teams/conferences might be strong, but we both agree they won't be as strong as the PAC 10. You are just agruing something that doesn't need to be argued at this point.


Dalter: That wouldn't be so easy in another world (like Allen) where Gonzaga is B+, Montana A-, Idaho State B, Utah B, Wazzou A-, etc (<-- TEAMS FROM OTHER CONFERENCES)

Doomey: But the PAC 10 generally makes more money for Oregon than those schools will, that would mitigate.

Dalter: We aren't talking about other conferences.

Will it be closer in some worlds, yes, but it isn't an arguement. It's simply a concideration for choosing a school. He asked a question, you answered, I added an addition concideration. Neither is wrong, no need to post about it or moderate an open discussion.

Dude, you need to slow down and think for a second.

The PAC-10 is generally going to earn more than the lesser conference in every world. That is a constant. We know that. It doesn't need to be pointed out, and is not germaine to my point, which is ...

Coaching Oregon in a world where Gonzaga/Montana/Idaho State/Utah/etc. are all really strong is harder than coaching Oregon in a world where those teams are all weak.

Agrreed, dalter. So? That is not the point you made. You made a general point, with an example, and I specified on it. Nothing wrong with that, but you have to admit you jumped the gun saying what you did. We both were saying that you have to mitigate the benefits of Oregon with the surrouding mid-majors, I just further definded what the mitigating factors would be. It's not a factor of being right, it's about giving the guy everything he needs to know to make an informed desision. You gave an accurate assessment, but it was incomplete, there is nothing wrong with fine tuning and not every thread needs to be a challenge to your HD knowledge. You know your stuff, but others can refine it and that should be okay. It's not a challenge to your knowledge to have it clarified.

What we have here is a failure of communication. For whatever reason, and it may be my fault, you decided I was contridictory or OT, when in reality I was refining a statement. NOT a big deal, but when people try to score "credibility" points, the community at-large loses. And that is what you did, jumping in with the your "YOU ARE WRONG" attitude, like many others, when you never even ask for claffication on the point you are conflicted about. It's just about you and your rightness. That doesn't help anyone. All I was doing was adding to your own assessment, but you decided it was more beneficial to the new person to agrue a refinement of your presumably infallable initial statement, which is, you have to admit, more than slightly arrogant concidering.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, I don't know, but there are far too many users willing to be confrontational about the symantics of posts to make conversations useful. That goes for everyone. If someone makes an unclear post, ask for clarification instead of assuming your veiwpoint and being negative. Calling them inept. Assuming some sort of thread authority. If someone has a contrary view, LISTEN (key point) and make a counter arguement instead of claiming absolute knowledge and arrogant dissmissal. THAT is how new people can be helped, and how civil people debate issues. Complain all you want about rewards and tell all the tales you wish about helping people, but nit-picking here is just as detrimental as anything WIS can implement.

Hey if someone is dead wrong about a fact, let them know, but you don't hove to be a jerk about it. Do you? Does that retain coaches? It may make you feel better, but for all the talk of teaching, there are far too many vets making a mockery of an question a new person has here in the forums.That is not consistant with what is expressed as the community ideal.

The whole rewards thread was about how vets can help new people. We/You can help by not engaging in one-upsmanship. This inane need to prove that you know more than the next guy about the topic. If a person is dead wrong, yes, call that out, but reserve that for necessity and be tactful. As I said, ask for clarification instead of denouncing. THAT is how community is bred. Belittling someone doesn't bring them back, and reserve the nit-picking to things that are really important.

You want to build a new HD? Then quit sniping. That is a general comment, not to dalter. For all the talk of helpfulness, there is a deep vien of confrontation that doen't help fostering new people.

The bottom line? Don't be arrogant and be helpful. THAT is what will help HD grow. You can be helpful to a single confrencemate, but that last exchange can reach all worlds. Do we want to score "I'm better than you" points, or do we want to engratiate new people and make them feel like we are a community and can converse as equals? I think so.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm just tired of all this BS and chestbeating. You want to teach, then teach. You want to be an online know-it-all whose opinions cannot be boached, then you'd better be right 100% of the time and you'd better be man enough to admit when you are not. You lead by example, and being adversarial in the forums sets a pace.

Done here. Will still strive to help when I can and I know I can be wrong. Can you say the same?

Sorry for being too confrontational.