Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 6:15:00 PM (view original):
You talk about balance as in luke skywalker getting a lesson.  How can ,  or more Precisely can you see a change in the recruit generation effecting anyone other than those with money

What change?

i have to run, but im happy to get into more detail later. the simple part is this - the gap between the top 15 teams and say, the 50th best team - its way bigger today than it was in the olden days. that is a product of the recruit generation curve, there are a bunch of really good recruits, then not many solid recruits, before you hit a big range of crap recruits. that solid to fairly good, but not great or elite, pool - that is the pool that is lacking. adding more potential to lower end recruits, and adding more starting ratings to low-potential recruits, would help smooth the recruit curve, if you will, which would lead to more equity between teams - and more opportunity for a guy who isn't an A prestige BCS school, to put together a team of players that can grow into the kind of guys who can hope to compete with those schools. its one thing to have 5 teams head and shoulders above the rest - but now its 15 or 20 - and that is very unhealthy. 

I see...ok makes sesne

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 5/19/2014 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 5:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
i think we can all agree that mid majors and low BCS teams get the shaft right now. this is a product of seble's recruit generation change, before that, the complaints from both those departments were not nearly as bad. im not going to suggest people didn't complain, but it was definitely at a more reasonable, par for the course kind of level. and of course, those who quit and stopped complaining, those need to be counted as the loudest of all.

really, the only reason people are so intent on this PIT issue, is because teams in both situations are left fighting for scraps. it shouldn't be that way. people in these situations would be better served to join together and complain about the real problem - d1 recruit generation. 

How will D1 recruiting generation benefit others than those with the most money and prestige? (that prestige was artificially created, and the money flowed from it).

it all depends - in great detail - on what is done to recruit generation

what cohort of recruits get better, which get worse.  If the change - for example - not that this is suggested by anyone - were to make the top 50 recruits better it would help the elites.  On the other hand if the change made - say - recruits 150-200 better that would likely have different effects,.

all depends - one cannot generalize

mets is right, but its not like its always been this way. before the recruit generation change, a great coach could win championships from an empty conference, or from a low bcs - in 1 shot - like you could take a b- bcs and just win a title straight away, without a hard rebuild. good coaches could compete just fine from those ranks, too, although probably not at the title level. i know personally, because i won my first d1 title as a total d1 noobie, from a c prestige bcs school - but tons of other veterans would agree on this. its way harder to rebuild a low BCS school now than it used to be, and its way harder to take a mid major past the 1st round of the NT with any regularity. its hard to say how much harder, because frankly, its not even comparable (its that much harder).

so, the thing is tania, recruiting is complex and the answer is very complex, but the inequality in this game is new to seble's recruit generation change. that we know. we also know a full 30% of ALL d1 teams got dropped within 6 months of seble's change, because people hated it that much. so while i can't tell you exactly why certain changes would help (although, i do think i could do a pretty damn good job at it), the point really is that there was a balance, and the last change totally upset that balance. the balance needs to be restored, and its already proven its possible - because thats how it was before seble broke it. its by far, by a massive margin, his biggest mistake in his time as HD admin. its really a shame its been so long without a correction. outside this one blight, seble has actually done a pretty damn good job - he fixed potential - the projection report - and a bunch of other little stuff. but the recruit generation change is also probably the most damaging release in HD history - even the initial potential release didn't cause so many teams to be shed.

How realistic is it to have a system wherein a mid-major coach can step right in and win a national championship without a hard rebuild, though?

what is hard? Gonzaga came close a few times....I remember Jax  vs UCLA....Indiana St vs Mich St... apparently with help.....a strong mid conference...girt won it with Marshall......all would be handicapped here.....other than Girts help...

This is a good conversation.  Thanks all!

Let me pick up on the reference to firings - ramp them up and give anyone who is fired

1. a free season (or even two) usable ONLY in that world - to keep them hooked
2. a real shot at a team that is just a small step down from where he was - if you get fired at Kentucky, you dont go coach DII, you slide to say a low BCS school or a mid major.

with those two steps, I bet many folks would not get too bent out of shape with a reasonable ramp up of firings at DI level.

Posted by fd343ny on 5/19/2014 6:59:00 PM (view original):
This is a good conversation.  Thanks all!

Let me pick up on the reference to firings - ramp them up and give anyone who is fired

1. a free season (or even two) usable ONLY in that world - to keep them hooked
2. a real shot at a team that is just a small step down from where he was - if you get fired at Kentucky, you dont go coach DII, you slide to say a low BCS school or a mid major.

with those two steps, I bet many folks would not get too bent out of shape with a reasonable ramp up of firings at DI level.

agreed.

Posted by fd343ny on 5/19/2014 6:59:00 PM (view original):
This is a good conversation.  Thanks all!

Let me pick up on the reference to firings - ramp them up and give anyone who is fired

1. a free season (or even two) usable ONLY in that world - to keep them hooked
2. a real shot at a team that is just a small step down from where he was - if you get fired at Kentucky, you dont go coach DII, you slide to say a low BCS school or a mid major.

with those two steps, I bet many folks would not get too bent out of shape with a reasonable ramp up of firings at DI level.

Yep...and I am more radical....closer to real distribution of wealth...not socialist...but the extremes are awful. I am happy, at time where I am at. But the disparity is ridiculous

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/19/2014 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 5/19/2014 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 5:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
i think we can all agree that mid majors and low BCS teams get the shaft right now. this is a product of seble's recruit generation change, before that, the complaints from both those departments were not nearly as bad. im not going to suggest people didn't complain, but it was definitely at a more reasonable, par for the course kind of level. and of course, those who quit and stopped complaining, those need to be counted as the loudest of all.

really, the only reason people are so intent on this PIT issue, is because teams in both situations are left fighting for scraps. it shouldn't be that way. people in these situations would be better served to join together and complain about the real problem - d1 recruit generation. 

How will D1 recruiting generation benefit others than those with the most money and prestige? (that prestige was artificially created, and the money flowed from it).

it all depends - in great detail - on what is done to recruit generation

what cohort of recruits get better, which get worse.  If the change - for example - not that this is suggested by anyone - were to make the top 50 recruits better it would help the elites.  On the other hand if the change made - say - recruits 150-200 better that would likely have different effects,.

all depends - one cannot generalize

mets is right, but its not like its always been this way. before the recruit generation change, a great coach could win championships from an empty conference, or from a low bcs - in 1 shot - like you could take a b- bcs and just win a title straight away, without a hard rebuild. good coaches could compete just fine from those ranks, too, although probably not at the title level. i know personally, because i won my first d1 title as a total d1 noobie, from a c prestige bcs school - but tons of other veterans would agree on this. its way harder to rebuild a low BCS school now than it used to be, and its way harder to take a mid major past the 1st round of the NT with any regularity. its hard to say how much harder, because frankly, its not even comparable (its that much harder).

so, the thing is tania, recruiting is complex and the answer is very complex, but the inequality in this game is new to seble's recruit generation change. that we know. we also know a full 30% of ALL d1 teams got dropped within 6 months of seble's change, because people hated it that much. so while i can't tell you exactly why certain changes would help (although, i do think i could do a pretty damn good job at it), the point really is that there was a balance, and the last change totally upset that balance. the balance needs to be restored, and its already proven its possible - because thats how it was before seble broke it. its by far, by a massive margin, his biggest mistake in his time as HD admin. its really a shame its been so long without a correction. outside this one blight, seble has actually done a pretty damn good job - he fixed potential - the projection report - and a bunch of other little stuff. but the recruit generation change is also probably the most damaging release in HD history - even the initial potential release didn't cause so many teams to be shed.

How realistic is it to have a system wherein a mid-major coach can step right in and win a national championship without a hard rebuild, though?

im not just talking "a mid major coach", but the best coaches in the game should have advantages from being the best, that aren't blown out of the water by the difference a letter grade or slightly more of prestige, or some extra spending money. i suppose thats all a preference thing, i just think the playing field should be set up where big differences in caliber of coaching over come built in advantages.

outside of the extreme angle of "what is possible", its really a lot harder today to take a program like your villanova up a notch, a high end (but not like, all time great or anything) d1 coach, the guys who usually have a/a+ d1 programs elsewhere, could have had a program like that looking pretty darn good after 2 seasons - that was the rule of thumb *everyone* used, for turnaround time, even all through d1. granted, the prestige wouldn't be there yet - but the players recruited would obviously be enough for a dramatic step up the prestige scale. today, its just a lot harder - its a lot harder to use strong coaching to build s16 and e8 and f4 teams from low prestige situations. instead you have to take two steps, one to get prestige up enough to start to really compete, then another to actually get there - it could be 8 seasons to get where you used to get in 4.

i agree its not necessarily realistic to let a coach turn any BCS school into a kentucky or north carolina, although there really is no comparable equivalent in HD - but still, i think we all agree its nice there is floating prestige now, instead of before when programs didn't move in prestige basically at all. coaches get attached, like to stay - thats good for the game - even if its not totally realistic. i think the same can be said for allowing differences in quality of coaching to overcome built in advantages. its really frustrating for everyone when that is not the case. guys on equal footing, caliber of coaching wise, get upset about being so far behind the others who just got there first. guys on better footing get really upset because they do a way better job and don't see as much benefit from it. of course, its all a gradient, there is no exact point anyone can say is definitely the right place to draw the line. but i think most people agree its just too hard today, when not even the best coaches in the game can realistically win at a mid major. girt doesn't count, they had like, 10 of the best coaches in the game, make a mid major the #1 conference, and then he won. its still amazing and impressive and all, but its not a commentary on the level of fairness. the fact it took all that is basically ridiculous, from where im standing. prestige still meant plenty before the recruit generation change - a lot of people thought it was too much - and i think few thought it was too little - so to me it doesn't make sense that now we are ALL the way over here with a way bigger advantage. i personally thought the old balance of power was fine, with respect to prestige, and many did - but certainly more felt it was too much, than too little.

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 6:57:00 PM (view original):
what is hard? Gonzaga came close a few times....I remember Jax  vs UCLA....Indiana St vs Mich St... apparently with help.....a strong mid conference...girt won it with Marshall......all would be handicapped here.....other than Girts help...

Every real-life mid-major that's hit the big time has been the culmination of a hard rebuild. Gonzaga has been a long process--and they STILL haven't ever made it to the Final Four. Wichita State in 2013 was the same thing--the result of a hard building process. It wouldn't be realistic to have it be EASY to build a powerhouse at a mid-major in WIS.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/19/2014 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 5/19/2014 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 5:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
i think we can all agree that mid majors and low BCS teams get the shaft right now. this is a product of seble's recruit generation change, before that, the complaints from both those departments were not nearly as bad. im not going to suggest people didn't complain, but it was definitely at a more reasonable, par for the course kind of level. and of course, those who quit and stopped complaining, those need to be counted as the loudest of all.

really, the only reason people are so intent on this PIT issue, is because teams in both situations are left fighting for scraps. it shouldn't be that way. people in these situations would be better served to join together and complain about the real problem - d1 recruit generation. 

How will D1 recruiting generation benefit others than those with the most money and prestige? (that prestige was artificially created, and the money flowed from it).

it all depends - in great detail - on what is done to recruit generation

what cohort of recruits get better, which get worse.  If the change - for example - not that this is suggested by anyone - were to make the top 50 recruits better it would help the elites.  On the other hand if the change made - say - recruits 150-200 better that would likely have different effects,.

all depends - one cannot generalize

mets is right, but its not like its always been this way. before the recruit generation change, a great coach could win championships from an empty conference, or from a low bcs - in 1 shot - like you could take a b- bcs and just win a title straight away, without a hard rebuild. good coaches could compete just fine from those ranks, too, although probably not at the title level. i know personally, because i won my first d1 title as a total d1 noobie, from a c prestige bcs school - but tons of other veterans would agree on this. its way harder to rebuild a low BCS school now than it used to be, and its way harder to take a mid major past the 1st round of the NT with any regularity. its hard to say how much harder, because frankly, its not even comparable (its that much harder).

so, the thing is tania, recruiting is complex and the answer is very complex, but the inequality in this game is new to seble's recruit generation change. that we know. we also know a full 30% of ALL d1 teams got dropped within 6 months of seble's change, because people hated it that much. so while i can't tell you exactly why certain changes would help (although, i do think i could do a pretty damn good job at it), the point really is that there was a balance, and the last change totally upset that balance. the balance needs to be restored, and its already proven its possible - because thats how it was before seble broke it. its by far, by a massive margin, his biggest mistake in his time as HD admin. its really a shame its been so long without a correction. outside this one blight, seble has actually done a pretty damn good job - he fixed potential - the projection report - and a bunch of other little stuff. but the recruit generation change is also probably the most damaging release in HD history - even the initial potential release didn't cause so many teams to be shed.

How realistic is it to have a system wherein a mid-major coach can step right in and win a national championship without a hard rebuild, though?

im not just talking "a mid major coach", but the best coaches in the game should have advantages from being the best, that aren't blown out of the water by the difference a letter grade or slightly more of prestige, or some extra spending money. i suppose thats all a preference thing, i just think the playing field should be set up where big differences in caliber of coaching over come built in advantages.

outside of the extreme angle of "what is possible", its really a lot harder today to take a program like your villanova up a notch, a high end (but not like, all time great or anything) d1 coach, the guys who usually have a/a+ d1 programs elsewhere, could have had a program like that looking pretty darn good after 2 seasons - that was the rule of thumb *everyone* used, for turnaround time, even all through d1. granted, the prestige wouldn't be there yet - but the players recruited would obviously be enough for a dramatic step up the prestige scale. today, its just a lot harder - its a lot harder to use strong coaching to build s16 and e8 and f4 teams from low prestige situations. instead you have to take two steps, one to get prestige up enough to start to really compete, then another to actually get there - it could be 8 seasons to get where you used to get in 4.

i agree its not necessarily realistic to let a coach turn any BCS school into a kentucky or north carolina, although there really is no comparable equivalent in HD - but still, i think we all agree its nice there is floating prestige now, instead of before when programs didn't move in prestige basically at all. coaches get attached, like to stay - thats good for the game - even if its not totally realistic. i think the same can be said for allowing differences in quality of coaching to overcome built in advantages. its really frustrating for everyone when that is not the case. guys on equal footing, caliber of coaching wise, get upset about being so far behind the others who just got there first. guys on better footing get really upset because they do a way better job and don't see as much benefit from it. of course, its all a gradient, there is no exact point anyone can say is definitely the right place to draw the line. but i think most people agree its just too hard today, when not even the best coaches in the game can realistically win at a mid major. girt doesn't count, they had like, 10 of the best coaches in the game, make a mid major the #1 conference, and then he won. its still amazing and impressive and all, but its not a commentary on the level of fairness. the fact it took all that is basically ridiculous, from where im standing. prestige still meant plenty before the recruit generation change - a lot of people thought it was too much - and i think few thought it was too little - so to me it doesn't make sense that now we are ALL the way over here with a way bigger advantage. i personally thought the old balance of power was fine, with respect to prestige, and many did - but certainly more felt it was too much, than too little.

A good real-life example would be the coach of your favorite team: Calipari. When he came to Memphis, it was a true mid-major (as was UMass, incidentally), and it took him several years to build Memphis into a true title contender.

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/19/2014 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 6:57:00 PM (view original):
what is hard? Gonzaga came close a few times....I remember Jax  vs UCLA....Indiana St vs Mich St... apparently with help.....a strong mid conference...girt won it with Marshall......all would be handicapped here.....other than Girts help...

Every real-life mid-major that's hit the big time has been the culmination of a hard rebuild. Gonzaga has been a long process--and they STILL haven't ever made it to the Final Four. Wichita State in 2013 was the same thing--the result of a hard building process. It wouldn't be realistic to have it be EASY to build a powerhouse at a mid-major in WIS.

again, nobody is saying make it easy... theres a big different between saying girt should be able to do it, and that its easy.

As for my struggles at Nova, I think that has as much to do with the fact that I just can't get a good grasp on BCS conference coaching (particularly recruiting) as with any failure of the system.

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/19/2014 7:27:00 PM (view original):
As for my struggles at Nova, I think that has as much to do with the fact that I just can't get a good grasp on BCS conference coaching (particularly recruiting) as with any failure of the system.

that could be true, but it would still be a hard rebuild for a high end BCS coach (read: average a/a+ coach, not all time great). i just think its too hard. it shouldn't be that hard for someone to get a couple partial grades over the course of a cycle (4 seasons), when their abilities are on par with the coaches of the better programs in the world. nobody is saying make it easy for anybody, just that prestige shouldn't weigh so heavily when compared to raw coaching/recruiting abilities.

the problem is, a comparable coaching job at a B prestige, compared to A prestige - the gap in talent is massive. the A prestige team would easily crush the B prestige team, it wouldn't even be close. i don't think it should be really close, but it shouldn't be huge, either. in the olden days, the A prestige team probably would win easily, but at least on up years, with a little better coaching, the B prestige team could compete, and if the coach was a lot better, they could compete on even footing.

I would agree with this. At a C+ prestige, I basically have never won a recruiting battle with even a B/B+ prestige team. I'm either doing something VERY wrong, or I maybe just need to stop having any such battles.

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/19/2014 7:36:00 PM (view original):
I would agree with this. At a C+ prestige, I basically have never won a recruiting battle with even a B/B+ prestige team. I'm either doing something VERY wrong, or I maybe just need to stop having any such battles.

well... these battles can be won. you are new to d1, really, you aren't the subject of the debate here. you should struggle, thats what happens when you are new to the BCS scene. granted - its a bigger transition than it used to be - which i don't like. but thats not really the point. the point is, someone who really knows what is going on, should get a program to that level in a reasonable time frame. if you are an a- coach, getting a new (crap) BCS program to a b/b+ shouldn't be that hard for you. if you are an a+ coach, getting a new BCS program to an a-/a shouldn't be that hard. but, i think it really is, theres this hump, of trying to get past the 2nd round or so, that is very difficult to get over. the top teams are just so good, and the talent level drops off a cliff at lower levels. you see the top guys on top teams - how the hell can you compete with that - even if you do a tremendous job, and sign the absolute best players available out of "everyone else"? you really can't... and thats the problem.

when i took over south carolina, i won 2 battles in successive seasons - a b prestige battle for a local, vs duke, also local, with their a++ prestige, 1 more opening, and 15k more from the conf (maybe it was 20k, something like that). the next, as b+, we beat a++ UNC for an international, after they took a guy off me, out of revenge. they had the same # of openings, and 15-20k more from the conference. with all that, i still felt the rebuild was extremely hard, incomparably harder than previous BCS rebuilds, before recruit generation. we did go from b- to a- in 4 seasons, so i can't say i failed there, and eventually we were as good as any program. but man, it was hard! and i was really trying - knowing all these things you are still trying to figure out - it was really hard. i can't really express how amazed i was, at how hard i had to try, just to accomplish what was trivial just a couple years earlier, putting in way less effort. granted, i'd lost some of my coaching prowess, but i was a much better recruiter, and the raw effort level was much higher. i remember UK, first season, we had the worst team ever, got the worst rpi in the whole country, of any human. the previous coach had gotten fired. our 3rd season, we were in the final 4, as good as any title team, and were in position to compete with anyone (even though i was ready to retire and instead just sat there sucking for another year). its really incomparably harder today, to rebuild so you can compete at the level a coach is able to compete at, whether its the a- level, the a/a+ level, the championship level, whatever. i just think its bad for the game to be set up that way, and i think all the proof anyone could ever need, is in how 30% of all d1 teams got dropped shortly after the release, after a long period of stability.