Posted by girt25 on 3/12/2014 9:05:00 PM (view original):
How would I fix it? It's pretty easy, actually.

1. Make prestige more tied into a team's on-court performance, and less tied into their baseline prestige and that of their conference. This would enable one good coach to build up prestige on his own merits. That's huge.
2. Tweak recruit generation so that it features more players that after 3-4 seasons will develop into someone who can go to war with the big boys.

I'm not suggesting this would put non-BCS teams on a completely level playing field; I don't think that should be the case. But it would (a) make it more reasonable for someone to build up a non-BCS program into a powerhouse and (b) incentivize people to stay at these programs.

Posted by girt25 on 3/12/2014 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the major issue is money-related (although it goes without saying that is a contributing factor). As I'm fond of pointing out, the postseason cash situation has been the same forever, and it used to be quite common for non-BCS teams to be great.

Exhibit A: In Allen (where I spent a lot of time), the following teams either won the title or finished as the runner-up between Seasons 29-40: Southern, Yale, Cleveland State, Boston U, UNLV, Maine, Weber St, Utah, Morris Brown. That's 10 teams in a 12-season span, with a bunch of others making the Final Four. And the postseason cash was just as it is now. Since then (Seasons 41-68), not a single non-BCS school has made the title game.

So what happened? What changed?

The recruits. They "fixed" recruit generation so that there wouldn't be so many elite players. And to be sure, there were way too many elite players. It was a little silly. But the fix went too far, and made it so now only the top teams can get enough top-notch players to be real factors nationally. So, with very rare exceptions, you have to be a top team, and for the most part that only exists in the BCS conferences.

But do you think mid majors should have been making deep runs at that rate? That seems awfully high. Seems like it was too easy then.

I do think baseline prestige needs to be tweaked and should be a floating thing rather than static. For example your Marshall team's baseline prestige should rise with your long run of success. But I do not think a few year stretch should offset 30 seasons of mediocrity. Likewise an A+ baseline shouldn't see their baseline drop just because they had a poor few seasons. But those situations where an A+ has struggled for a long stretch their baseline should surely be dropped. Kind of like ND in real life college football, they are no longer viewed as an A+ prestige by recruits.

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 3/13/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/12/2014 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the major issue is money-related (although it goes without saying that is a contributing factor). As I'm fond of pointing out, the postseason cash situation has been the same forever, and it used to be quite common for non-BCS teams to be great.

Exhibit A: In Allen (where I spent a lot of time), the following teams either won the title or finished as the runner-up between Seasons 29-40: Southern, Yale, Cleveland State, Boston U, UNLV, Maine, Weber St, Utah, Morris Brown. That's 10 teams in a 12-season span, with a bunch of others making the Final Four. And the postseason cash was just as it is now. Since then (Seasons 41-68), not a single non-BCS school has made the title game.

So what happened? What changed?

The recruits. They "fixed" recruit generation so that there wouldn't be so many elite players. And to be sure, there were way too many elite players. It was a little silly. But the fix went too far, and made it so now only the top teams can get enough top-notch players to be real factors nationally. So, with very rare exceptions, you have to be a top team, and for the most part that only exists in the BCS conferences.

But do you think mid majors should have been making deep runs at that rate? That seems awfully high. Seems like it was too easy then.

I do think baseline prestige needs to be tweaked and should be a floating thing rather than static. For example your Marshall team's baseline prestige should rise with your long run of success. But I do not think a few year stretch should offset 30 seasons of mediocrity. Likewise an A+ baseline shouldn't see their baseline drop just because they had a poor few seasons. But those situations where an A+ has struggled for a long stretch their baseline should surely be dropped. Kind of like ND in real life college football, they are no longer viewed as an A+ prestige by recruits.

Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.

Posted by acn24 on 3/13/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.

I don't think I agree with the idea that filling a world would make it a great time for mid-majors. If mid-majors are already having trouble recruiting players that will let them be more than a one and done team, I can't imagine that adding another 175 coaches to fight for those recruits will do anything to help.

Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 3/13/2014 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zags27 on 3/13/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
In Crum there are 143 human coaches in D1 out of 324 programs.
67 humans, or almost one half of the humans are in six conferences.
the other 76 human coaches are spread over 21 conferences.....
Crum is not unusual in it's numbers... they are the norm. (and it has been this way for a couple years now).
The game is simply not broken as some of you guys want to believe.
It's empty.
Fill a world... give it a few seasons to settle and HD is a much more mid-major friendly place to play than the real NCAA.
If you want parity... D3 and D2 have all you could hope for.
D1 is different in the real NCAA as it should be here.

I don't think I agree with the idea that filling a world would make it a great time for mid-majors. If mid-majors are already having trouble recruiting players that will let them be more than a one and done team, I can't imagine that adding another 175 coaches to fight for those recruits will do anything to help.

Opt, I don't guess we will ever get a chance to find out what would happen if D1 was full.
However, currently alot of top teams don't even fight one battle while landing 3-4 five * recruits.
Add 181 more human coaches to Crum and if you don't think there is more competition for every single recruit with a star by his name... then there's not much to discuss... we just see it differently.
I am not saying it makes everything perfect. I am saying the engine was programmed with many more humans involved than there are today, and therefore we have a select few who have gotten a strangle-hold on the NT past the second round and with that comes... prestige, recruiting funds... etc,... the cycle continues

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 3/13/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):
No, they may not be people's favorte teams but they are still apart of people's favorite conference. I took over WVU in Tark because I wanted to be in the Big East or ACC, and WVU was the best or only opening, I can't really remember.

ACN, yea that's silly. I've seen situations like that, and I don't like it. But in a way it makes sense, in real life simply because 1 school in a conference is great it doesn't mean it's going to attract a lot of top talent. The reason being these guys want to play against top competition. I'm not sure if the game should work like that, but it actually makes sense when comparing to real life.

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/13/2014 4:44:00 PM (view original):
i don't think we even have to speculate on this one, about what a full world is like. worlds were WAY fuller before seble released new recruit generation. if i remember correctly, 30% of the human population in d1 was shed over approximately 6-10 months. this was primarily because recruit generation left those mid majors fighting so intensely for half way decent recruits, it was unmanageable. losing half the mid major coaches (roughly) is the only reason mid major coaches can bear the situation today, it seems to me.