Posted by girt25 on 9/14/2011 6:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/14/2011 4:37:00 AM (view original):
I spent a lot of time looking at about 20 years worth of real life NCAA Tourney results.

In my data, 14% of the elite 8 teams where not from the big 6 conferences. The number was slightly higher for sweet 16.

What it boiled down to is this ... about 1 team in the elite 8, 2-3 in the sweet 16, and 1 every other season in the final 4 came out of non Big-6 conferences (on average).

I think the numbers in most HD worlds are similar to that.

When was the last time a Non Big 6 won the championship in real life? 1990 UNLV, 1977 Marquette, 1966 Texas Western

So, why would there by a huge number of mid-majors in the final 4 in HD ... wouldn't it be a problem if we had a huge number of Non Big 6 teams in the final 4?

Two words: Who cares?

To have it mirror real life in this regard is clearly terrible for the game. It's been effectively demonstrated that people in the non-BCS conferences need to at least feel as though they have a legitimate chance to achieve relevance. Right now they don't, and the result has been awful for DI.

+1 

Just because it is real life doesn't mean it is in HDs best interest.

Posted by jskenner on 9/14/2011 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I've read most of this thread, and it's great (and challenging) to read so many well developed ideas, from all sides of the "non-BCS DI is empty because of X" debate. For those who are taking relatively adversarial positions in defending opposing camps of a job-promotion vs a recruit-generation cause, I have an honest question: What would be wrong with "fixing" both? For that matter, what would be wrong with "EEs" as well? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something obvious in how such a dual or triple solution would cause some unintended consequence few coaches want. I don't think so, but maybe I've missed it. Even if you tend to think your cause is the only cause, and the other conditions are red herrings, do you think it might be better to "support" both (or more) causes, so that seble gets a relative consensus of veteran opinion on the fixes he should attempt?

It seems to me there are large groups of coaches who are annoyed by: 1) job process (include me on that one, even though it hasn't much affected me) and 2) lack of talent depth in DI (I'm not as annoyed, but I totally appreciate those who are) and 3) EE logic (include me on that one) and probably some others of significance I'm leaving out. Now, I realize that fixing multiple issues will likely take longer than fixing one, and like I said, some may think that fixing some of those will cause worse problems. I also realize that one man's fix is another's travesty. But ultimately, people leave for different reasons, and I think if all those 3 (or more) big issues are "fixed," it stands a good chance of improving the user experience of a majority of coaches.

I don't necessarily disagree... but I think that recruits needs to be priority 1. After that I totally agree Job logic (both firings and hirings), baseline prestige and EE logic are other factors that could be improved to create a much more enjoyable game.

But that's my point, z. You say prioritize recruit generation. Dalt says same. OR sees different importance for several factors. MMT says hiring logic. Many other vets say EEs. Then different vets lobby seble with different priorities. Might it be better for all of us to throw aside our disagreements, agree to support each other's perceived issues, and give seble a relatively unified voice? After all, would it be so bad if the job hiring process was improved at the same time as recruit generation was improved. I don't think those touting job hiring as an issue would be upset if recruit generation got a boost as well. And those who want EE improvements wouldn't mind those other 2 getting improved. Why does there have to be a priority at all, if seble is convinced by a relative consensu of veterans to get on the move with all of them?

Posted by jskenner on 9/14/2011 2:00:00 PM (view original):
But that's my point, z. You say prioritize recruit generation. Dalt says same. OR sees different importance for several factors. MMT says hiring logic. Many other vets say EEs. Then different vets lobby seble with different priorities. Might it be better for all of us to throw aside our disagreements, agree to support each other's perceived issues, and give seble a relatively unified voice? After all, would it be so bad if the job hiring process was improved at the same time as recruit generation was improved. I don't think those touting job hiring as an issue would be upset if recruit generation got a boost as well. And those who want EE improvements wouldn't mind those other 2 getting improved. Why does there have to be a priority at all, if seble is convinced by a relative consensu of veterans to get on the move with all of them?

Fixing EE logic - while needed, helps the top schools more than anyone, which I think continues HD on the path it is now (vacant mid-majors). 

While I understand and appreciate your thought here, having a program background (and making the assumption that seble is a sole programmer for HD - that might not be true) It makes more sense to focus on a single change than try to fix multiple things at once, this can be a HUGE headache (depending on the compelexity of the code) in addition this allows for easier testing (i assume they do?) so you can see with one change, how does that affect the rest of the game.

That being said I feel that recruiting generation is the biggest issue and the thing that (if changed) will help drive new coaches to take on the challenge of D1, as opposed to just letting coaches jump into D1 when they might really not be prepared and fail (due to poor available recruits) and then leave the game all together.

We'll just agree to disagree then. I'm for fixing them all at the same time. Any fix causes heartache. Might as well get it all out of the way with one, multi-fix release.

Posted by jskenner on 9/14/2011 2:13:00 PM (view original):
We'll just agree to disagree then. I'm for fixing them all at the same time. Any fix causes heartache. Might as well get it all out of the way with one, multi-fix release.

Guess so. I agree there are multiple issues but I'd prefer to see the game steadily improve... as opposed to wait another 6 months for any update, etc.

Oh no, you mistunderstood, z. I want all these changes in the next 2 months. ;)

I think there are three modes of thought for competitive balance in the game:

-Replicate real life as much as possible, believing that this will entice more people to play

-Allow mid majors to compete more as time goes on, and allow worlds to mutate (for example, allow for moving baseline prestige)

-Simply level the playing field more between mid-majors and major schools

It appears that whatif has chosen a path that is similar to both option 1 and 2. however the real life is more like real life 2003.

Posted by jskenner on 9/14/2011 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Oh no, you mistunderstood, z. I want all these changes in the next 2 months. ;)

Good luck with that! hahahaha

Posted by zhawks on 9/14/2011 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/14/2011 6:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/14/2011 4:37:00 AM (view original):
I spent a lot of time looking at about 20 years worth of real life NCAA Tourney results.

In my data, 14% of the elite 8 teams where not from the big 6 conferences. The number was slightly higher for sweet 16.

What it boiled down to is this ... about 1 team in the elite 8, 2-3 in the sweet 16, and 1 every other season in the final 4 came out of non Big-6 conferences (on average).

I think the numbers in most HD worlds are similar to that.

When was the last time a Non Big 6 won the championship in real life? 1990 UNLV, 1977 Marquette, 1966 Texas Western

So, why would there by a huge number of mid-majors in the final 4 in HD ... wouldn't it be a problem if we had a huge number of Non Big 6 teams in the final 4?

Two words: Who cares?

To have it mirror real life in this regard is clearly terrible for the game. It's been effectively demonstrated that people in the non-BCS conferences need to at least feel as though they have a legitimate chance to achieve relevance. Right now they don't, and the result has been awful for DI.

+1 

Just because it is real life doesn't mean it is in HDs best interest.

I thought it was a simulation of college basketball ... if it is not going to mirror what happens in college basketball, then what is the point.

hughes, there are literally dozens of things here that don't resemble college basketball in any way, shape or form. The overall game is of course very similar, but there are lots of noticeable differences.

And the reason for those differences is that, quite simply, there are some things from real life that don't translate well to HD, and make the game better instead of worse. We wouldn't want to blindly copy from real life in a way that makes HD worse.