Posted by wildcat98 on 5/16/2014 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 5/16/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 5/16/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I agree with wildcat. 
In Iba ACC, every coach is ridiculously good. we regularly have 10 make the NT. 
the problem is that the other 2-3 coaches (depending on the year) often go 9-1 or 10-0 out of conference and then get 1-2 conference wins. They finish under .500, but would be NT teams if they were in any other conference. 

They do NOT make the NT, and they shouldn't. But PIT is a good consolation prize and well deserved. They regularly make it far in the PT, though  they are low seeds (7-8 even) that have 10ish wins, thus proving they deserve to make it. 

Well you have me.  I am in no way the self proclaimed "ridiculously good" coach you profess yourself and the other members of Iba's ACC to be - I'm quite the opposite actually.  But where you see a team with an overall rating of 757 that goes 8-19 (2-14 in conference) heading into post season play as "deserving" of the "consolation prize" that is the PIT, I see a team that underperformed and was nowhere near deserving of post season play - but again, I am not a "ridiculously good" coach so I probably don't see things with your clarity.  That being said, it really is a false argument to talk about how a 2-14 ACC team would be an NT team if they were in any other conference because that is deceptively true.  Yes, it's probably true that this team, as is and as it was recruited as part of the ACC with ACC recruiting dollars, is probably good enough to win any of the non Big Six conferences and make the NT, and they should be.  But take away the ACC recruiting dollars and conference prestige and stick this team in the Big South and this team (as it is with the current roster) would never exist.  And if it did and remained there consistently, well then I'd show you a "ridiculously good" coach.   Conversely take any team from the Big South, as is, put them in the ACC and you probably have a team that will lose all of its conference games.   If you want to talk about how good a team would be if they played in the Big South, or any other conference, then go pick up a team in that conference and show me how good they would be because any other comparison is just conjecture.

Just so we are clear, the .500 rule, if implemented, would have meant that Iba's ACC would not have had one team play two games in the PIT this past season.  That would have cost your conference a whopping $833 per team in recruiting dollars and next recruiting season you would have to somehow still recruit those top tier players with just $46,917 in extra cash instead of the $47,750 you are actually getting.  And yes that would probably mean that a non Big Six conference like the Big South might have gotten those funds instead and would be recruiting with $2,500 per team rather than the $1,666 they are actually getting.

Of course, having put those numbers out there, I now see why you oppose this idea.  I mean how will any of the Big Six schools survive with this kind of competitive balance upheaval?  Seriously though, I don't ask for this game to be completely equitable, I think there should be advantages in place for the Big Six schools and the traditional powerhouses, just not with the current level of disparity.

So yes, by all means, continue to stand by the disjointed notion that the Iba ACC (or any other Big Six power conference) represents any semblance of reality and that these kind of dominant Big Six conferences are not artificially induced by giving the coaches within an over abundance of advantages (recruiting dollars, baseline prestige, recruiting dollars, conference prestige, oh, and did I mention the recruiting dollars?) that allow them recruit the best players year in and year out.  I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little to make the game more enjoyable.  But what do I know?  I'm just a crappy coach who plays this game for fun.

I'm just now dipping my toe in high-major water, and also have a team in the low-major category. Here's the thing: all you have to do to get that extra cash for the Big South is schedule better in the non-con, so your RPI is such that if you miss the NT, you'll be in the PIT. Simple as that.

Posted by possumfiend on 5/16/2014 10:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/16/2014 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 5/16/2014 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 5/16/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):
I agree with wildcat. 
In Iba ACC, every coach is ridiculously good. we regularly have 10 make the NT. 
the problem is that the other 2-3 coaches (depending on the year) often go 9-1 or 10-0 out of conference and then get 1-2 conference wins. They finish under .500, but would be NT teams if they were in any other conference. 

They do NOT make the NT, and they shouldn't. But PIT is a good consolation prize and well deserved. They regularly make it far in the PT, though  they are low seeds (7-8 even) that have 10ish wins, thus proving they deserve to make it. 

Well you have me.  I am in no way the self proclaimed "ridiculously good" coach you profess yourself and the other members of Iba's ACC to be - I'm quite the opposite actually.  But where you see a team with an overall rating of 757 that goes 8-19 (2-14 in conference) heading into post season play as "deserving" of the "consolation prize" that is the PIT, I see a team that underperformed and was nowhere near deserving of post season play - but again, I am not a "ridiculously good" coach so I probably don't see things with your clarity.  That being said, it really is a false argument to talk about how a 2-14 ACC team would be an NT team if they were in any other conference because that is deceptively true.  Yes, it's probably true that this team, as is and as it was recruited as part of the ACC with ACC recruiting dollars, is probably good enough to win any of the non Big Six conferences and make the NT, and they should be.  But take away the ACC recruiting dollars and conference prestige and stick this team in the Big South and this team (as it is with the current roster) would never exist.  And if it did and remained there consistently, well then I'd show you a "ridiculously good" coach.   Conversely take any team from the Big South, as is, put them in the ACC and you probably have a team that will lose all of its conference games.   If you want to talk about how good a team would be if they played in the Big South, or any other conference, then go pick up a team in that conference and show me how good they would be because any other comparison is just conjecture.

Just so we are clear, the .500 rule, if implemented, would have meant that Iba's ACC would not have had one team play two games in the PIT this past season.  That would have cost your conference a whopping $833 per team in recruiting dollars and next recruiting season you would have to somehow still recruit those top tier players with just $46,917 in extra cash instead of the $47,750 you are actually getting.  And yes that would probably mean that a non Big Six conference like the Big South might have gotten those funds instead and would be recruiting with $2,500 per team rather than the $1,666 they are actually getting.

Of course, having put those numbers out there, I now see why you oppose this idea.  I mean how will any of the Big Six schools survive with this kind of competitive balance upheaval?  Seriously though, I don't ask for this game to be completely equitable, I think there should be advantages in place for the Big Six schools and the traditional powerhouses, just not with the current level of disparity.

So yes, by all means, continue to stand by the disjointed notion that the Iba ACC (or any other Big Six power conference) represents any semblance of reality and that these kind of dominant Big Six conferences are not artificially induced by giving the coaches within an over abundance of advantages (recruiting dollars, baseline prestige, recruiting dollars, conference prestige, oh, and did I mention the recruiting dollars?) that allow them recruit the best players year in and year out.  I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little to make the game more enjoyable.  But what do I know?  I'm just a crappy coach who plays this game for fun.

I'm just now dipping my toe in high-major water, and also have a team in the low-major category. Here's the thing: all you have to do to get that extra cash for the Big South is schedule better in the non-con, so your RPI is such that if you miss the NT, you'll be in the PIT. Simple as that.

True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season. 

Posted by taniajane on 5/16/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching

I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little

Posted by dacj501 on 5/17/2014 2:07:00 AM (view original):

I think some people here just want to see SOME of those advantages diminished a little

And some people don't, at least not this particular one. The current seeding formula is pretty fair IMO. I could live with some kind of artificial restriction I suppose if need be so that the people apparently not good enough to build a program up to get themselves into one of those super sweet BCS gigs where money rains from the sky and life is easy (except its not really like that) but having that bar set at .500 is not something I favor. There is no cool shorthand for it, and I don't have a hard value in mind, but a few games under .500 (maybe 13-14 or 12-15 for instance, maybe even 11-16 if they've got some good wins, etc) ought to get into the PIT if they place highly enough on the projection report. 

I still don't think that the 8-19 teams or whatever happen with enough frequency or volume to rewrite the game for though.

I'm not sure why folks are talking about the money aspect like it matters. Same poster I spot quoted above showed how little difference the money makes either way. 

Posted by taniajane on 5/16/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching

Posted by mullycj on 5/18/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 5/16/2014 11:19:00 PM (view original):
"True, but as a Big Six coach my point is that the game provides enough inherent advantages to the Big Six already and that they don't need the extra benefit of having a team gain the post season after going 2-14 in conference.  8 wins, 9 wins, 10 wins overall this is not impressive and/or deserving of post season."

yep, and gaming the schedule is not cheating, but don't make it out like it is great coaching

From an HD perspective, intelligent scheduling IS a hugs part of great coaching.    if you are not taking advantage of being able to control your schedule then you are not a complete coach.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/18/2014 1:29:00 AM (view original):
i thin what you are saying bhansalid is pretty reasonable. i think there is also a huge difference in top, middle, and low bcs. top and middle teams have huge advantages over mid majors, true. low bcs teams often have low prestige - lower than solid mid majors - although they do get money to compensate. however, they also have a bunch of top and middle tier bcs teams in conference, who have huge prestige advantages over them, which makes it very hard to win conference games. so when guys walk into that spot, its usually a lot harder to make the NT than it was at their old school, which makes it hard to get prestige up, to the point where they do have major advantages over mid majors. i think that C -> B- move at a BCS school is actually harder than at a mid major.

that said, i think your points are all pretty reasonable. baseline and conference prestige have already been lessened recently, by seble, making it even harder for those low BCS teams to build up, and reducing the advantages for BCS teams in general - albeit only slightly, when you get into that upper tier. so thats a start. i think there is more to do, and i can see eliminating some terrible W/L bcs teams, but i'd rather see the playing field leveled in organic fashion.