RE: Girt's bleak future in at a D+ school in DI Rupp. It's not quite as bleak as it would be if that conference wasn't populated completely with outstanding coaches. I'd bet on the success of CUSA in Rupp before i bet against it. I think that conference and group of coaches has a chance to be very successful because they are operating as a whole. Thru smart scheduling, gameplanning, recruiting, etc. they will have multiple teams in the NT in no time and then start bringing in the tourney money and increasing the conference prestige as a whole. I think that's pretty much the only way it can be done at the moment. A D+ school (shoot, even a C+ school) in a conference full of sims really stands no chance at all.

Posted by girt25 on 3/29/2011 8:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/29/2011 8:25:00 AM (view original):
Why should it be as easy to win at Cleveland State as it is for Purdue?

Shouldn't it be easier to recruit from a Big 6 school than from a Mid Major?

Do we want the Div-1 game to be 324 teams where each team has the same chance to win / recruit ... or do we want it to model real life where the McDonalds All Americans congregate at teams like Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Texas, etc.

I am just starting out in Div-1, but I do not expect my Dartmouth or IUPUI team to be able to recruit as well as Indiana or Syracuse.  Do we really want that to be able to happen?

No one is saying it should be just as easy, that they should be equal.

People are simply saying that right now the divide is too great.

yeah seriously. it is way past old, hearing people say "should team X really get as good of players as UK, UNC, etc" every time people bring up recruit generation issues or "should team X really be on even footing with <insert elite>" when people bring up the disadvantage of non big 6 teams. in the old engine, the elite programs and the big 6 schools had *major* advantages. very, very significant ones. nobody is saying they shouldn't. but it is important for the game that mid majors can be competitive. very important? yes. extremely important? definitely. if i had the link to that thread where i posted the world population data for d1, i would link to it, but the summary is there is an unprecedented drop in the d1 population - not the other worlds - and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify that the major change in the new engine to d1 that was not to the other divisions was - you got it - recruit generation! which thereby makes it damn near impossible for mid majors to compete. 

Posted by girt25 on 3/29/2011 6:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 3/29/2011 5:42:00 PM (view original):
The other thing I wonder is if coaching skill had something to do with it.  In all seriousness, a lot of the top coaches left the mid-majors in allen, and then they went south.  Not the other way around.  So maybe if there were just better coaches there, it would be ok?  I can't tell, but girt you have a D+ prestige team, how bleak is it?

Well, I hope we're not D+ for long, lol.

Too early to tell, this is my first season with them. I signed a 5-man class, only one guy was in the top 50 at his position, although I feel that all have solid long-term potential. I think competing with the BCS teams as a D+ is very tough (although I did beat C- West Virginia for my highest-rated guy) ... the question is, if I can get them up to the C+ to B range, how much will I be able to step up as far as recruit quality? I have no illusions about taking on the A-level BCS teams, but I promise you that I'll throw a scare into the B-level programs.

I think I'll be able to turn them into a perennial NT team. What I don't know is if I'll be able to turn them into the kind of team I had at Montana, a perennial national contender. Honestly, I think that's a long shot, but I'll find out ...

the real problem is if it seems very unlikely a coach like girt would be able to take a mid major to one of the top schools in a world, then what happens when you have coaches coaching mid majors who are, you know, not girt? IMO, if you take an elite coach at a mid major, he should be able to out perform a mediocre coach at an elite school. clearly, this would model real life. and clearly, HD used to perform this way. the question is, does it today? i think not. 

Jamespastine +1

I only brought it up because someone said pretty much exactly that, Gil.
Other than that, while I perhaps don't feel as strongly about it as some, I don't disagree with ninty five  percent of the thread.

The way I would like to see it is if I am a B prestige then I should be equal to any other B school, have a slight disadvantage to a B+ and a slight advantage over a B-.  If I choose the right prospect and spend more wisely than a B, B+ or even A- prestiqe school then I should get that recruit.  It should be determined on whether there is an underlying bias against my conference or for another conference.  I would like to see all schools on equal footing and let that team's owner decide their fate.   
 

in naismith the eliete 8 cosist of......2 big 12, 2 pac 10, 2 acc, 1 sec and 1 big east in the eliete 8...imagine that majors ruling

Posted by arssanguinus on 3/30/2011 6:25:00 AM (view original):
I only brought it up because someone said pretty much exactly that, Gil.
Other than that, while I perhaps don't feel as strongly about it as some, I don't disagree with ninty five  percent of the thread.

The way I would like to see it is if I am a B prestige then I should be equal to any other B school, have a slight disadvantage to a B+ and a slight advantage over a B-.  If I choose the right prospect and spend more wisely than a B, B+ or even A- prestiqe school then I should get that recruit.  It should be determined on whether there is an underlying bias against my conference or for another conference.  I would like to see all schools on equal footing and let that team's owner decide their fate.   
 

i actually hadn't read as far as your post when i posted... i did see what you were responding too and agree. making them on even footing in d1 is retarded. its called d2. and d3. 

Ok.  Just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was trying to do what you were talking about. 

Well, OR, I didn't mock your prediction then, but I certainly didn't back you up -- mostly because it never occurred to me that we would only play a few seasons in the test world.  We didn't even get through four seasons of play, so we never really tested the affect of the recruit generation, which was confusing because I thought that was the point.

Wish I would have fought alongside you.  I apologize  for not doing so -- but I was stunned, after we just kept rewinding seasons and replaying them, to see that the changes were being implemented before I felt we were done testing them.

To the point of mirroring real life, it seems pretty clear to me that it's now EASIER for non Big-6 teams to succeed in RL than it is in HD.  And that's crazy. 

Butler's in the F4 two years in a row.  We have a CAA and a Horizon team in the Final Four this year -- is that happening in any of the HD worlds?  It's not happening in either of the two I'm in.

Instead teams like Colorado and Northwestern -- and other Big 6 also-rans -- are often powerhouses.  Where is the realism there?  Those teams have no basketball tradition whatsoever.

Here's a probably wacky idea I've been mulling for a few days:

What if the HD credits/points you earn for a DI NT berth were related to your school's (and conference's) baseline prestige? The lower your school's baseline prestige, the more points/credits you earn for your NT appearances.

If we're going to insist on having baseline prestiges, why not an extra reward for those coaches who take the challenge of trying to take a low-major or mid-major school to the tournament?

I think one major problem is....Baseline prestige. I think it is necessary or at least beneficial to give certain teams a bonus and others a much larger bonus for being consistantly successful in real life. But there's a time in which this should become a non factor. In Naismith, Boston College (no dis to their current coach who just picked them up) has a total of 2 winning seasons and no NT appearances in the past 17 seasons. Their best season in the last 6 years was 8-19. They have obviously not been to the postseason, and have a conf record of 3-93 with zero conf wins in the past 3 years. But they have stayed at C+ throughout this time.  I'm all for having a big 6 team quickly jump make a big jump towards  its baseline prestige if they get a bunch of Jared Dudley recruits and make the NT next year, but I also think they should drop a hellofalot quicker when they blatantly suck for this long.

Posted by jbasnight on 3/31/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Here's a probably wacky idea I've been mulling for a few days:

What if the HD credits/points you earn for a DI NT berth were related to your school's (and conference's) baseline prestige? The lower your school's baseline prestige, the more points/credits you earn for your NT appearances.

If we're going to insist on having baseline prestiges, why not an extra reward for those coaches who take the challenge of trying to take a low-major or mid-major school to the tournament?

I don't play in DI, but I really like this idea.

I agree there needs to be more incentive for coaches to take on a mid-major with the current state of DI.  

I mentioned a similar idea in a sitemail with another coach.  I do not think that more incentive needs to be given to those schools in the BCS conferences no matter how bad they are.  BCS schools are already compensated well with extra tourney monies and an above average conference prestige.  It is not that hard to improve them if you are willing to hang around for a few seasons. 

What needs to be addressed is the void of human coaches at the mid-majors as I have mentioned before I doubt recruit generation is enough.  Additonal reward dollars would probably help.     

It is better to take a perinneal loser in a Big 6 conference rather than take any Mid Major.  The inherent bias towards the Big 6 in prestige and bonus money will allow them to move up even when playing a tougher schedule.  Actually it will allow you to make a tournament iwth a losing record if you have a good group of owners especially if the Mid Major has only 4 or 5 owners.  No shot for the Mid Major if they only have 3 or less owners.