Posted by Lizak on 10/17/2010 5:35:00 PM (view original):

A second class citizen is a school that will FOREVER be recruiting at a disadvantage due to baseline prestige.  In the past, it sucked to be at the disadvantage but what you could get wasn't all that bad from what the big boys were pulling in.  It was a minor annoyance but with enough effort you felt you could overcome it so you could live with the way the system worked.

You tell me what those schools prestige has moved to.  Did it jump up to an A like the elites?  Probably didn't get above an A- but after one good season, I wouldn't expect everyone to jump to elite.  Will it jump up if they do that EVERY SINGLE SEASON?  We both know the answer to that one.  No matter what they do, they will never get to the point where they can recruit on an equal basis with the elites.  That sounds like a second class program to me.  Not sure how you can see it any other way.

I didn't say a single coach can't get to an elite.  I said 95% of them won't ever have the chance.  Numbers alone make that a fact.  See the first paragraph for why that's important in the current system.

so you would like to eliminate the RL 'coaching experience' so DI HD can be just like DII and DIII?  I think thats what you are saying.  Then I challenge 'what is the point of naming the schools?'  we might as well call the conferences names like miller conf, jack daniels conf, jim beam, conf, guiness conf, etc... and create our own team names and cities.  

The reason imo that mid-majors and low -DI don't get A+ prestiges in HD (they do get A's though via success - see Dayton in Rupp) is because in RL those programs face a built in prestige challenge.  Thats how wis keeps the RL coaching experience in HD.  Thankfully they allow for success to your 'second class citizens' unlike in RL (when a non-bcs last won the nc 20 years ago) when a school like UNC-W can win it all and schools like UCF and Loyola-M can get to the NC game.  imo it would be detrimental if non-bcs couldn't get to the promised land but year in and year out its proven that they can succeed... even recently with the changes.

A major part of the HD allure is having job promotions mean something as well as having the ability to stay where you are in Low-DI to face the challenge of winning it all.  I question whether a world where the highest prestiges are not in the bcs schools would even be sustainable.  You mentioned whether most coaches would prefer having the RL 'coaching experience' is what is best for wis... yet foxsports bought a website where it was/is.  I'm an investor myself, and I guarantee they don't invest in just any garbage w/o doing their homework.  I think that says a lot about what most coaches want.  I could be wrong. 

Personally it seems like you have made up your mind and nothing I say will change it... .so I guess I will just leave off here and not bother w/ anymore arguing.

Posted by Lizak on 10/17/2010 6:32:00 PM (view original):

You have an odd definition of RL coaching experience.  I guess it makes it easier to argue against something I never said.

Fox bought a product.  They want it to continue making money.  Do you really think they debated the details of how HD worked when they purchased WIS????  It would be surprising if they could even articulate what HD was other than an online college basketball game.  But even if they did, do you say that what they bought is the same product today as it was then?  There's a lot of ex-coaches that think otherwise.  Really, don't you think it's stretching it to try and use Fox's purchase as evidence the recent changes to HD are the right direction to go?

You are right about one thing - I've decided for myself what I wanted out of the game and found it was missing.  I'll continue to hope things move back towards what HD used to be and they spend their time tweaking the things that can make the game better.

hd should mimic rl 100% on coaching experiences. I.e. if I coach at duke I get the glory, easier access to top recruits, tough acc schedule, etc. If I coach at a mid-major I get the challenge of not automatically getting the glory of a duke, trying to build a reputation that can get me some top talent, and try like hell to be like a rl zaga. If I am at low-Di I should have to try like hell to win a nt game... and the only way I'm probably getting there is by winning the ct..... but I can easily dominate my conf in low-Di.

you are just now saying that my definition of RL coaching experience is odd after 3-4 posts??? I've shown you that low-DI schools are making the championship game and that all is not doomed.... I guess its just like I said.... your mind is made up.  Jesus himself could come down here and tell you otherwise and you'd still disagree.

anyways good luck... some advice - 'hope is not a gameplan' so don't take too long waiting for wis to resort back to the 'old days'.

Posted by Lizak on 10/17/2010 8:24:00 PM (view original):

What I meant is your definition of "RL coaching experience" seems to be limited to how recruiting works in D1.  RL coaching experience is not just recruiting.  HD is way short in providing any of those other RL coaching experiences.  Player development?  Game planning?  In-game adjustments?  Those are all areas of RL coaching that are weak in HD if you are really trying to provide a RL coaching experience.

From the rest of your posting I have to wonder if you even read what I say?  I really don't think it makes a difference if the numbers show more or less BCS schools make it to the NT, final four, or whatever.  That's NEVER been my point and I think it's pretty obvious in my first post when I said that almost that exact thing.  It's about whether the game is more or less enjoyable because of the changes.  That's the bottom line.  A technically sound product is only successful if people want to buy it.

I'm sorry - I had no idea this thread was about game-planning, player devel, ingame adj, etc.  I must have glazed over those posts.  Reread the bolded - for the third time.  a tough acc schedule if you are at duke has more to do with than just recruiting.  replicating zaga's success is by no means limited to just recruiting.  taking a low-DI to the championship game has more to do with than just recruiting. 

please clarify - what is your point?  From your posts its sounds like its 'A technically sound product is only successful if Lizak wants to buy it"

You just argue around in circles don't you?

"so you would like to eliminate the RL 'coaching experience' so DI HD can be just like DII and DIII? "

Those are your words in an earlier post.  They imply that removing baseline prestige (the mechanic that differs from D1 to D2/D3) is removing the "RL coaching experience".  What exactly did you mean if not that?  I just tried to point out that there is SO much more to coaching than recruiting (which is the only thing baseline prestige really affects).  From your words above, it seemed you needed to have someone remind you of that.

As for my point, I've said it over and over.  Changes to the game must be looked at from an enjoyment aspect, not from a "Is this going to make the game more like RL".  It's a subtle thing that some people seem to miss.  Some people get too concerned about making something technically perfect and miss the fact that if it won't sell, it won't succeed regardless of how "good" it is.

Posted by Lizak on 10/17/2010 9:45:00 PM (view original):

You just argue around in circles don't you?

"so you would like to eliminate the RL 'coaching experience' so DI HD can be just like DII and DIII? "

Those are your words in an earlier post.  They imply that removing baseline prestige (the mechanic that differs from D1 to D2/D3) is removing the "RL coaching experience".  What exactly did you mean if not that?  I just tried to point out that there is SO much more to coaching than recruiting (which is the only thing baseline prestige really affects).  From your words above, it seemed you needed to have someone remind you of that.

As for my point, I've said it over and over.  Changes to the game must be looked at from an enjoyment aspect, not from a "Is this going to make the game more like RL".  It's a subtle thing that some people seem to miss.  Some people get too concerned about making something technically perfect and miss the fact that if it won't sell, it won't succeed regardless of how "good" it is.

correct.   I'm saying that removing baseline prestige removes the RL coaching experience from DI and will make the game less enjoyable -to the point we might as well not have teams mirror RL at all.  yes - it will hurt the game in a big way.

Removing baselines does more than effect recruiting.  It means that the bcs confs will NOT maintain elite status or even average status (thats 72 schools of 350 or so).  That means Duke will be playing the likes of a bad low-dI  montana team year in and year out because UNC is at a D prestige.  hell, duke might as well be montana at a D prestige.  baseline prestige is what keeps the differing rl coaching experiance intact from Low-DI to mid-Major to BCS and provides the differing challenges.  w/o it there would be no point to the job process.  you might as well get to vermont from DII and stay there once you get to DI.  Or just open up HD to naming your own team - what difference would it make?  RL has been completely removed with exception of the school names and just the names.   

I guarantee you that wis is looking at the few coaches you are seeing leave the game and comparing it to the 100s that are joining.  Thats called business. It doesn't take an MBA to know that.  On another note - if a few coaches are leaving then that means good schools are opening up for others.  A healthy amount of turnover is good for HD or else you would be right - no one would ever get their dream school.

btw Lizak - you are in the wrong thread if you are talking about gameplanning, etc.  The Mid-Major debate of this thread is over the new recruit generation and how they affect the game, not ingame settings.  I could be wrong, I suppose.  ps - this might be the first time I am not talking in circles.  I just reread our entire exchange.  daalt- am I speaking in circles?  I value your opinion this once ;)

Dude, listen to this (and I'm typing very slowly for you) - I only brought up all the other aspect of coaching because you say that without recruiting advantages in D1 there is no RL coaching experience.  By that logic, D2 and D3 have no RL coaching experience to them when the truth is, they have almost all the same mechanics and rules that D1 has.

I have not said baseline should be removed.  Only that it was a disadvantage that was frustrating for coaches but something they could accept under the previous recruit generation process because it's impact was so much less.  This is another case where you spin some aspect of my post (or in some cases just make up stuff) which leads me to say you are talking in circles.  Perhaps that was a poor phrase.  Maybe random wondering is a more accurate description. 

I'm sure someone is looking at the overall trend of HD.  It's interesting that you say it's that 100's of coaches are joining while HD loses only a few.  That would be a trend that says HD is definitely moving in the right direction although I don't know how you could attribute new coaches joining to the recent changes.  New people would have no way to know about the changes would they?  It would seem that a trend like this would be filling up worlds quite quickly.  I must have missed that as my reading of the recent postings on this topic seem to indicate coaches are leaving D1.

Phelan regular season just ended - 11 teams in the top half of the NCAA bracket are non BCS - 11 of 32 seems pretty good

Phelan mid-major NT update - Just one of the Sweet 16 teams was a non-BCS school and none in the Elite 8.

Based on how the game works currently, the issue is much greater than these numbers however.  Remember that BCS schools are more human controlled than nonBCS schools.  What that means is that if there are enough Tier I and II recruits for the 72 BCS schools and only 25 NonBCS schools, it means that the humans in the nonBCS schools have large advantage over the sim nonBCS schools.  If worlds were more populated with nonBCS human coaches, we'd see that number drop drastically.  Now it's doubtful that we will see worlds more populated than now, but in theory this game was designed for a full world, not one with the majority of nonBCS teams run by sims.  Also, I suspect that the nonBCS teams that are thriving are ones in more populated areas (as far as schools go) where several other nonBCS teams are run by sims.

so what is the theory about the disappointing NT performance of non BCS schools - 11 of the top 32 seeds at the start, but only one of those gets thru to the sweet 16?  if it human v sim control?  did those 11 not deserve their NT seeds?  which is the direction of the errors?

Not sure if saying they didn't or did "deserve" a bid necessarily--just saying it's not surprising to see the results in the NT.  And that if the world would have had more nonBCS teams coached by humans, the gap would even be larger between BCS and NonBCS schools because the Tier II recruits would be split between even more nonBCS teams since sims aren't a factor.

Posted by metsmax on 10/26/2010 11:48:00 AM (view original):
so what is the theory about the disappointing NT performance of non BCS schools - 11 of the top 32 seeds at the start, but only one of those gets thru to the sweet 16?  if it human v sim control?  did those 11 not deserve their NT seeds?  which is the direction of the errors?

I believe nonBSC schools will continue to get high rankings and high tourney seeds.  This is due to the lack of humans at NonBCS schools as described by Rails.  The disparity, I believe, will become apparent in the NT when the high ranked/high seed NonBCS school with a shiny 25-5 record and top 10 ranking gets hammered by a double digit seed BCS school in the 1st or 2nd round.