Posted by kevb on 12/5/2020 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/4/2020 5:38:00 PM (view original):
The big changes I want for jobs are really some of the biggest problems for the new user experience, I think. I definitely don’t want firing to be increased, not with the game as it is now, that would be ridiculous.

Why do you feel that way tho? Most coaches who have an elite job, have multiple teams. They are also generally good coaches. If you stunk for a long time at one of your schools, would you quit if you got fired? I doubt it. I wouldn't quit if I got fired from one of my schools after 5 straight seasons at under .500 or under 10 wins or whatever. I'd understand it. I'd expect it.

I often wonder if anyone would REALLY care if they got fired based on performance. What leg would they have to stand on? I don't know the requirements to get fired. But you have to perform really bad apparently. I think by the time a coaches reaches the level of D1 where they could be fired, they would continue playing HD and would also understand why they were fired

People should def get fired more but there needs to be some kind of understanding. Expectations at the time of hiring would need to be visible to the coach.

I think the better question is why do people want it? Very few conferences are actually full, even Big 6 conferences. Do we just want to see bad things happen to people? There is no scarcity of jobs. Losing a job someone might have spent years and hundreds of dollars waiting for is exponentially more harmful than losing a player they recruited a season or two before they planned on.

If this was a game that was free or cheap, and ran full worlds with wait lists and such, it would be a different situation. But as it is right now, with less than 1/3 of D1 populated with humans, telling anyone you’re not good enough to keep paying us full price to play here would be insane.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/5/2020 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 12/5/2020 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/4/2020 5:38:00 PM (view original):
The big changes I want for jobs are really some of the biggest problems for the new user experience, I think. I definitely don’t want firing to be increased, not with the game as it is now, that would be ridiculous.

Why do you feel that way tho? Most coaches who have an elite job, have multiple teams. They are also generally good coaches. If you stunk for a long time at one of your schools, would you quit if you got fired? I doubt it. I wouldn't quit if I got fired from one of my schools after 5 straight seasons at under .500 or under 10 wins or whatever. I'd understand it. I'd expect it.

I often wonder if anyone would REALLY care if they got fired based on performance. What leg would they have to stand on? I don't know the requirements to get fired. But you have to perform really bad apparently. I think by the time a coaches reaches the level of D1 where they could be fired, they would continue playing HD and would also understand why they were fired

People should def get fired more but there needs to be some kind of understanding. Expectations at the time of hiring would need to be visible to the coach.

I think the better question is why do people want it? Very few conferences are actually full, even Big 6 conferences. Do we just want to see bad things happen to people? There is no scarcity of jobs. Losing a job someone might have spent years and hundreds of dollars waiting for is exponentially more harmful than losing a player they recruited a season or two before they planned on.

If this was a game that was free or cheap, and ran full worlds with wait lists and such, it would be a different situation. But as it is right now, with less than 1/3 of D1 populated with humans, telling anyone you’re not good enough to keep paying us full price to play here would be insane.

I would "want" it because there ARE coaches out there that aren't performing up to expectations. And sure, these coaches have spent lots of money and invested lots of time. But so have the coaches that are doing well with a low D1 school that are just waiting for a school to open up, while also being frustrated while A+ school's have coaches running them into the ground.

I just feel like if you have UCLA or Kansas and you're not making NTs often, as a coach you KNOW you're not doing as well as you should be. And getting fired shouldn't surprise you. You are watching as your conference mates at the low end of the conference are passing you up.

I do feel like if a coach gets fired, they need to have a good system lined up to where they get a quality school of their choosing so to speak. I don't know how to implement this change. But I'm not saying they have to start at the bottom again. But me personally, I get tired of seeing the same 5 coaches at the same A+ schools for 80 seasons. But at least they're winning. And I'm not one that it's looking for that job! If I were looking for that job, while watching someone else tank it for 50 seasons...... yes I'd want firings.

I don't think it's that insane. They SEE they aren't good enough. No one has to tell them anything. Again we're talking about the elite schools. No one needs to get fired from the low D1 schools

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/5/2020 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/5/2020 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 12/5/2020 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/4/2020 5:38:00 PM (view original):
The big changes I want for jobs are really some of the biggest problems for the new user experience, I think. I definitely don’t want firing to be increased, not with the game as it is now, that would be ridiculous.

Why do you feel that way tho? Most coaches who have an elite job, have multiple teams. They are also generally good coaches. If you stunk for a long time at one of your schools, would you quit if you got fired? I doubt it. I wouldn't quit if I got fired from one of my schools after 5 straight seasons at under .500 or under 10 wins or whatever. I'd understand it. I'd expect it.

I often wonder if anyone would REALLY care if they got fired based on performance. What leg would they have to stand on? I don't know the requirements to get fired. But you have to perform really bad apparently. I think by the time a coaches reaches the level of D1 where they could be fired, they would continue playing HD and would also understand why they were fired

People should def get fired more but there needs to be some kind of understanding. Expectations at the time of hiring would need to be visible to the coach.

I think the better question is why do people want it? Very few conferences are actually full, even Big 6 conferences. Do we just want to see bad things happen to people? There is no scarcity of jobs. Losing a job someone might have spent years and hundreds of dollars waiting for is exponentially more harmful than losing a player they recruited a season or two before they planned on.

If this was a game that was free or cheap, and ran full worlds with wait lists and such, it would be a different situation. But as it is right now, with less than 1/3 of D1 populated with humans, telling anyone you’re not good enough to keep paying us full price to play here would be insane.

I would "want" it because there ARE coaches out there that aren't performing up to expectations. And sure, these coaches have spent lots of money and invested lots of time. But so have the coaches that are doing well with a low D1 school that are just waiting for a school to open up, while also being frustrated while A+ school's have coaches running them into the ground.

I just feel like if you have UCLA or Kansas and you're not making NTs often, as a coach you KNOW you're not doing as well as you should be. And getting fired shouldn't surprise you. You are watching as your conference mates at the low end of the conference are passing you up.

I do feel like if a coach gets fired, they need to have a good system lined up to where they get a quality school of their choosing so to speak. I don't know how to implement this change. But I'm not saying they have to start at the bottom again. But me personally, I get tired of seeing the same 5 coaches at the same A+ schools for 80 seasons. But at least they're winning. And I'm not one that it's looking for that job! If I were looking for that job, while watching someone else tank it for 50 seasons...... yes I'd want firings.

I don't think it's that insane. They SEE they aren't good enough. No one has to tell them anything. Again we're talking about the elite schools. No one needs to get fired from the low D1 schools

Except this game does not need to mirror real life. And Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State etc .. Do not need to be the dominate teams. Certain conferences can have some expectations .. but team expectations (and advantages) should be based on the last 10 seasons (in game) and not real life history (IMHO). I am fine w/ firing people. I don't like a group of a several teams have more advantages baaed on real world performance. Especially since that real world performance it is based on is several decades old.

Posted by hughesjr on 12/6/2020 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/5/2020 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/5/2020 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 12/5/2020 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/4/2020 5:38:00 PM (view original):
The big changes I want for jobs are really some of the biggest problems for the new user experience, I think. I definitely don’t want firing to be increased, not with the game as it is now, that would be ridiculous.

Why do you feel that way tho? Most coaches who have an elite job, have multiple teams. They are also generally good coaches. If you stunk for a long time at one of your schools, would you quit if you got fired? I doubt it. I wouldn't quit if I got fired from one of my schools after 5 straight seasons at under .500 or under 10 wins or whatever. I'd understand it. I'd expect it.

I often wonder if anyone would REALLY care if they got fired based on performance. What leg would they have to stand on? I don't know the requirements to get fired. But you have to perform really bad apparently. I think by the time a coaches reaches the level of D1 where they could be fired, they would continue playing HD and would also understand why they were fired

People should def get fired more but there needs to be some kind of understanding. Expectations at the time of hiring would need to be visible to the coach.

I think the better question is why do people want it? Very few conferences are actually full, even Big 6 conferences. Do we just want to see bad things happen to people? There is no scarcity of jobs. Losing a job someone might have spent years and hundreds of dollars waiting for is exponentially more harmful than losing a player they recruited a season or two before they planned on.

If this was a game that was free or cheap, and ran full worlds with wait lists and such, it would be a different situation. But as it is right now, with less than 1/3 of D1 populated with humans, telling anyone you’re not good enough to keep paying us full price to play here would be insane.

I would "want" it because there ARE coaches out there that aren't performing up to expectations. And sure, these coaches have spent lots of money and invested lots of time. But so have the coaches that are doing well with a low D1 school that are just waiting for a school to open up, while also being frustrated while A+ school's have coaches running them into the ground.

I just feel like if you have UCLA or Kansas and you're not making NTs often, as a coach you KNOW you're not doing as well as you should be. And getting fired shouldn't surprise you. You are watching as your conference mates at the low end of the conference are passing you up.

I do feel like if a coach gets fired, they need to have a good system lined up to where they get a quality school of their choosing so to speak. I don't know how to implement this change. But I'm not saying they have to start at the bottom again. But me personally, I get tired of seeing the same 5 coaches at the same A+ schools for 80 seasons. But at least they're winning. And I'm not one that it's looking for that job! If I were looking for that job, while watching someone else tank it for 50 seasons...... yes I'd want firings.

I don't think it's that insane. They SEE they aren't good enough. No one has to tell them anything. Again we're talking about the elite schools. No one needs to get fired from the low D1 schools

Except this game does not need to mirror real life. And Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State etc .. Do not need to be the dominate teams. Certain conferences can have some expectations .. but team expectations (and advantages) should be based on the last 10 seasons (in game) and not real life history (IMHO). I am fine w/ firing people. I don't like a group of a several teams have more advantages baaed on real world performance. Especially since that real world performance it is based on is several decades old.

See I disagree. I think this game does have to mirror real life somewhat. There are things that are outdated. But I think baseline prestige is very important. I think for the jobs process it's important. And most of all I think it's important for new users. Why? Because if I'm on the internet searching for a basketball game to play, or even if a friend tells me "hey you should check this game out", AS A NEW USER you're going into it blind. And thinking about how cool this game might be. And as you surf around, you notice the last ten seasons of S16s consist of ALL schools like Liberty, Akron, Oakland, Portland St, Belmont, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, etc..... I'm sorry. But that game becomes less appealing in an instant.

Sure I like the fact that you CAN build those teams up. And they CAN make it that far. But if all 16 teams resemble that, every season, just because the best coaches happen to have those schools, it eliminates the Big 6 importance. And I think that's important to the longevity of the game.

I think baseline adjustments could be made to update things. But if this turns into a 384 team free for all with the Big 6 schools being meaningless, D1 becomes a different game. And that game is called...... D2 and D3

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/7/2020 4:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 12/6/2020 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/5/2020 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/5/2020 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevb on 12/5/2020 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/4/2020 5:38:00 PM (view original):
The big changes I want for jobs are really some of the biggest problems for the new user experience, I think. I definitely don’t want firing to be increased, not with the game as it is now, that would be ridiculous.

Why do you feel that way tho? Most coaches who have an elite job, have multiple teams. They are also generally good coaches. If you stunk for a long time at one of your schools, would you quit if you got fired? I doubt it. I wouldn't quit if I got fired from one of my schools after 5 straight seasons at under .500 or under 10 wins or whatever. I'd understand it. I'd expect it.

I often wonder if anyone would REALLY care if they got fired based on performance. What leg would they have to stand on? I don't know the requirements to get fired. But you have to perform really bad apparently. I think by the time a coaches reaches the level of D1 where they could be fired, they would continue playing HD and would also understand why they were fired

People should def get fired more but there needs to be some kind of understanding. Expectations at the time of hiring would need to be visible to the coach.

I think the better question is why do people want it? Very few conferences are actually full, even Big 6 conferences. Do we just want to see bad things happen to people? There is no scarcity of jobs. Losing a job someone might have spent years and hundreds of dollars waiting for is exponentially more harmful than losing a player they recruited a season or two before they planned on.

If this was a game that was free or cheap, and ran full worlds with wait lists and such, it would be a different situation. But as it is right now, with less than 1/3 of D1 populated with humans, telling anyone you’re not good enough to keep paying us full price to play here would be insane.

I would "want" it because there ARE coaches out there that aren't performing up to expectations. And sure, these coaches have spent lots of money and invested lots of time. But so have the coaches that are doing well with a low D1 school that are just waiting for a school to open up, while also being frustrated while A+ school's have coaches running them into the ground.

I just feel like if you have UCLA or Kansas and you're not making NTs often, as a coach you KNOW you're not doing as well as you should be. And getting fired shouldn't surprise you. You are watching as your conference mates at the low end of the conference are passing you up.

I do feel like if a coach gets fired, they need to have a good system lined up to where they get a quality school of their choosing so to speak. I don't know how to implement this change. But I'm not saying they have to start at the bottom again. But me personally, I get tired of seeing the same 5 coaches at the same A+ schools for 80 seasons. But at least they're winning. And I'm not one that it's looking for that job! If I were looking for that job, while watching someone else tank it for 50 seasons...... yes I'd want firings.

I don't think it's that insane. They SEE they aren't good enough. No one has to tell them anything. Again we're talking about the elite schools. No one needs to get fired from the low D1 schools

Except this game does not need to mirror real life. And Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State etc .. Do not need to be the dominate teams. Certain conferences can have some expectations .. but team expectations (and advantages) should be based on the last 10 seasons (in game) and not real life history (IMHO). I am fine w/ firing people. I don't like a group of a several teams have more advantages baaed on real world performance. Especially since that real world performance it is based on is several decades old.

See I disagree. I think this game does have to mirror real life somewhat. There are things that are outdated. But I think baseline prestige is very important. I think for the jobs process it's important. And most of all I think it's important for new users. Why? Because if I'm on the internet searching for a basketball game to play, or even if a friend tells me "hey you should check this game out", AS A NEW USER you're going into it blind. And thinking about how cool this game might be. And as you surf around, you notice the last ten seasons of S16s consist of ALL schools like Liberty, Akron, Oakland, Portland St, Belmont, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, etc..... I'm sorry. But that game becomes less appealing in an instant.

Sure I like the fact that you CAN build those teams up. And they CAN make it that far. But if all 16 teams resemble that, every season, just because the best coaches happen to have those schools, it eliminates the Big 6 importance. And I think that's important to the longevity of the game.

I think baseline adjustments could be made to update things. But if this turns into a 384 team free for all with the Big 6 schools being meaningless, D1 becomes a different game. And that game is called...... D2 and D3

Wow there is a lot being said here. How about they start off with firing only with teams that fail to check-in for a full season? This would save potentially returning coaches from wasting their credits, and improve the chances they will return at a later date.

And then they increase it to fire losing coaches that missed checking in for 5 straight days (with losing records of course).

Start small, especially when marketing is in effect, and increase it with populated worlds.

I like EEs the way they are because it rotates around the teams in the title run. As a decent recruiter I could stomp so many teams if I get my EE money early. Also would ONLY recruit EE talent with that and squeeze out everyone else. With EEs leaving when they do and not getting rss until second recruiting it makes me balance my roster by mixing in four year players and EE quality gets spread more. Sure you can go all EE talent but you will definitely have some trash years.

I like the rolling baseline with recent years added and oldest years taken out of equation and updated conferences. Also like the idea of increasing firing at D1. You can base it on baseline prestige. Maybe an A+ has a requirement of a Sweet 16 appearance every five seasons or top 15 finish. Keep lowering the standard down to D- prestige where the standard could be one record above .500 in 10 seasons or must be breathing. Maybe if you take over a school that is below its baseline you can keep them as long as your prestige is rising and does not drop for three consecutive seasons until you reach that baseline for the school and must reach that baseline within a certain number of seasons.

I can dig that ^^^^^

“...you notice the last ten seasons of S16s consist of ALL schools like Liberty, Akron, Oakland, Portland St, Belmont, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, etc..... I'm sorry. But that game becomes less appealing in an instant.

Sure I like the fact that you CAN build those teams up. And they CAN make it that far. But if all 16 teams resemble that, every season, just because the best coaches happen to have those schools, it eliminates the Big 6 importance. And I think that's important to the longevity of the game...”

We don’t need to increase firings to prevent that scenario, doggg, because that scenario isn’t happening. I haven’t heard of any world where all sweet 16 schools came from traditionally low D1 conferences. Or half. Here are the last non-power conference teams in the S16s from the worlds I play in.

Knight 148 - Utah, Colorado State, Memphis (mid majors)
Tark 168 - UAB, San Diego St (mid majors); Delaware St
Smith 121 - Air Force, Temple (mid majors)
Naismith 121 - Miami (OH), Rhode Island, Wichita St, Ohio (mid majors); Murray St, Penn, Vermont
Phelan 148 - St Louis (mid major); Army

So basically an average of 2-3 mid majors and 1 small conference school from this small sample are making the Sweet 16. I really doubt there are worlds producing outlier seasons more extreme than what Naismith just produced, which is *extreme* but not really out of line from what is possible in real life by any means (ie 2011 bracket). Your reasoning is just not based in reality here.

Get rid of all baseline prestige, both for schools and conferences. Give all coaches a level playing field, not one that's tilted towards those fortunate enough to make it to what has been deemed by the game as the elite schools/conferences.

Let game play and coach's ability to identify, acquire and utilize talent, along with game planning, be the differentiating factor between success and failure in this game, and take elitism of schools and conferences out of the equation.

I guess its personal preference, but I like the idea of having higher baseline prestige schools and having to work your way up to them while waiting patiently for one that you like to open.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2020 10:54:00 AM (view original):
“...you notice the last ten seasons of S16s consist of ALL schools like Liberty, Akron, Oakland, Portland St, Belmont, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, etc..... I'm sorry. But that game becomes less appealing in an instant.

Sure I like the fact that you CAN build those teams up. And they CAN make it that far. But if all 16 teams resemble that, every season, just because the best coaches happen to have those schools, it eliminates the Big 6 importance. And I think that's important to the longevity of the game...”

We don’t need to increase firings to prevent that scenario, doggg, because that scenario isn’t happening. I haven’t heard of any world where all sweet 16 schools came from traditionally low D1 conferences. Or half. Here are the last non-power conference teams in the S16s from the worlds I play in.

Knight 148 - Utah, Colorado State, Memphis (mid majors)
Tark 168 - UAB, San Diego St (mid majors); Delaware St
Smith 121 - Air Force, Temple (mid majors)
Naismith 121 - Miami (OH), Rhode Island, Wichita St, Ohio (mid majors); Murray St, Penn, Vermont
Phelan 148 - St Louis (mid major); Army

So basically an average of 2-3 mid majors and 1 small conference school from this small sample are making the Sweet 16. I really doubt there are worlds producing outlier seasons more extreme than what Naismith just produced, which is *extreme* but not really out of line from what is possible in real life by any means (ie 2011 bracket). Your reasoning is just not based in reality here.

perhaps the reason his reasoning seems to be not based in reality is that he was advocating for the need for baseline prestige to avoid the above scenario and you are talking about something totally different? firings i guess?

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 12/8/2020 2:24:00 AM (view original):
I like EEs the way they are because it rotates around the teams in the title run. As a decent recruiter I could stomp so many teams if I get my EE money early. Also would ONLY recruit EE talent with that and squeeze out everyone else. With EEs leaving when they do and not getting rss until second recruiting it makes me balance my roster by mixing in four year players and EE quality gets spread more. Sure you can go all EE talent but you will definitely have some trash years.

I like the rolling baseline with recent years added and oldest years taken out of equation and updated conferences. Also like the idea of increasing firing at D1. You can base it on baseline prestige. Maybe an A+ has a requirement of a Sweet 16 appearance every five seasons or top 15 finish. Keep lowering the standard down to D- prestige where the standard could be one record above .500 in 10 seasons or must be breathing. Maybe if you take over a school that is below its baseline you can keep them as long as your prestige is rising and does not drop for three consecutive seasons until you reach that baseline for the school and must reach that baseline within a certain number of seasons.

i think this is a pretty good argument (and the main one) against changing the way EEs work. i'm not a big fan of the way it is, but i think there's a clear downside to letting folks get their EE money early... specifically what he just said. i definitely consider it an advantage of 3.0 over 2.0 that the concentration of elite talent is meaningfully lessened.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/8/2020 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2020 10:54:00 AM (view original):
“...you notice the last ten seasons of S16s consist of ALL schools like Liberty, Akron, Oakland, Portland St, Belmont, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, etc..... I'm sorry. But that game becomes less appealing in an instant.

Sure I like the fact that you CAN build those teams up. And they CAN make it that far. But if all 16 teams resemble that, every season, just because the best coaches happen to have those schools, it eliminates the Big 6 importance. And I think that's important to the longevity of the game...”

We don’t need to increase firings to prevent that scenario, doggg, because that scenario isn’t happening. I haven’t heard of any world where all sweet 16 schools came from traditionally low D1 conferences. Or half. Here are the last non-power conference teams in the S16s from the worlds I play in.

Knight 148 - Utah, Colorado State, Memphis (mid majors)
Tark 168 - UAB, San Diego St (mid majors); Delaware St
Smith 121 - Air Force, Temple (mid majors)
Naismith 121 - Miami (OH), Rhode Island, Wichita St, Ohio (mid majors); Murray St, Penn, Vermont
Phelan 148 - St Louis (mid major); Army

So basically an average of 2-3 mid majors and 1 small conference school from this small sample are making the Sweet 16. I really doubt there are worlds producing outlier seasons more extreme than what Naismith just produced, which is *extreme* but not really out of line from what is possible in real life by any means (ie 2011 bracket). Your reasoning is just not based in reality here.

perhaps the reason his reasoning seems to be not based in reality is that he was advocating for the need for baseline prestige to avoid the above scenario and you are talking about something totally different? firings i guess?

Perhaps not. Read through the chain he was responding to. The conversation wasn’t about baseline prestige, it was about firings - he just resurrected an old baseline prestige argument to augment his position.

This is an old argument. Hughes said it doesn’t matter that Kansas, UCLA, Duke, etc are the elite teams in HD, (on top of a thread about firing) and doggg disagrees. The idea is that it just looks funny to someone thinking about playing the game when they see that Delaware St just won a championship. I mean, you know how ridiculous it is to suggest that ALL S16 teams would come from low D1 conferences EVERY year. Even for those of us who don’t like baseline prestige for teams, very few advocate removing the concept of power conferences altogether. And even if the concept of baseline was completely wiped from the game, and D1 was treated just like D2 and D3, completely fantasy and merit based, with no connection to real life history or tradition... we would see more traditional big name schools in the S16s year after year, because they are still more popular schools, and will still be the more popular destinations for prospective users. But again, very few folks are actually advocating for that.

Posted by mlitney on 12/8/2020 11:32:00 AM (view original):
I guess its personal preference, but I like the idea of having higher baseline prestige schools and having to work your way up to them while waiting patiently for one that you like to open.

I'll disagree, and here's why: when I first moved up to D1, I started at Hartford. Easy and fun decision: I was qualified, and in real life, UHart is literally only an 8 minute drive from my house. Before COVID, I was driving past it every morning on my way to work.

I was there for 10-11 seasons, enjoyed building my program, enjoyed the other coaches in the conference, etc. Made an improbable run to the final four one season when I suddenly realized that I was in the friggin' Patriot Conference, and that's at the bottom of the prestige scale. So I decided that I had to move if I wanted to "move up".

I moved to New Mexico in the Mountain West Conference. MWC, because it was a step up prestige-wise, New Mexico because I was qualified and it fit what I was looking for. I've been here for 10-12 seasons now, again have built a decent competitive program, and enjoy the other coaches in my conference. But again, I realize that the MWC is not an "elite" conference, the game is going to work against me in that respect while I stay here, and if I want keep moving "up", I'm going to have to leave again eventually and go to a mid-major, to a school or conference I may not have any real interest in just because I feel compelled to do so.

It sucks having to leave programs that you really don't have a desire to leave because the game is slanted against you while you stay there.

My ideal job would be UConn. It's the program I've followed for 30 years, it's my state school, it's won 4 NT's in real life over the past 25 years, and I'm currently writing tuition checks to them. But I'm likely never going to get there because (a) it's an elite school in an elite conference, and (b) the coach who's there now is probably not going to leave anytime soon because he had to work hard to get there and he's not just going to walk away from the perks, and (c) I'm likely not yet qualified to be accepted there even if there was an opening.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2020 10:54:00 AM (view original):
“...you notice the last ten seasons of S16s consist of ALL schools like Liberty, Akron, Oakland, Portland St, Belmont, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, etc..... I'm sorry. But that game becomes less appealing in an instant.

Sure I like the fact that you CAN build those teams up. And they CAN make it that far. But if all 16 teams resemble that, every season, just because the best coaches happen to have those schools, it eliminates the Big 6 importance. And I think that's important to the longevity of the game...”

We don’t need to increase firings to prevent that scenario, doggg, because that scenario isn’t happening. I haven’t heard of any world where all sweet 16 schools came from traditionally low D1 conferences. Or half. Here are the last non-power conference teams in the S16s from the worlds I play in.

Knight 148 - Utah, Colorado State, Memphis (mid majors)
Tark 168 - UAB, San Diego St (mid majors); Delaware St
Smith 121 - Air Force, Temple (mid majors)
Naismith 121 - Miami (OH), Rhode Island, Wichita St, Ohio (mid majors); Murray St, Penn, Vermont
Phelan 148 - St Louis (mid major); Army

So basically an average of 2-3 mid majors and 1 small conference school from this small sample are making the Sweet 16. I really doubt there are worlds producing outlier seasons more extreme than what Naismith just produced, which is *extreme* but not really out of line from what is possible in real life by any means (ie 2011 bracket). Your reasoning is just not based in reality here.

I was not talking about firings in this case. I was referring to the mention of getting rid of baseline all together.

I can't remember where I left off in this argument. I'll re read later! Just popped in for a minute