No one is saying it easy....but heh....5 years at a big 6 and not .500.....all coaches would be fired.. The mid majors that in RL did not build, they were not hampered in recruiting. They needed 2- 3 special players......that are not possible here

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 8:04:00 PM (view original):
No one is saying it easy....but heh....5 years at a big 6 and not .500.....all coaches would be fired.. The mid majors that in RL did not build, they were not hampered in recruiting. They needed 2- 3 special players......that are not possible here

It might be the language gap, but I'm not sure at all what you're saying here. I'm pretty sure the first part means you think I should be fired at Nova. But after that, I can't figure out what you're talking about.

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 8:34:00 PM (view original):
I guess your stupid is my best effort

There was really no call for this.

blame your gene pool not me

Posted by taniajane on 5/19/2014 8:37:00 PM (view original):
blame your gene pool not me

If you don't cut the crap, you're going to be reported. The boards have been better lately, and we don't need this kind of thing.

Ouch!!!  You meanie!!! Now explain that in English?

what is crap?

Posted by stewdog on 5/19/2014 3:13:00 PM (view original):
That was a fun little firestorm.

Truth is, it is ridiculously hard to get a .500 record in conference in a lot of high level conferences. If you can go 10-0 out of conference and only win 3 games in conference (in a very few worlds and conferences), it is a good season! PT is not a bad consolation prize.

My acc Iba comments were taken well, thanks :)
It was just an example that I am familiar with. There certainly are advantages of being in that type of conference. No doubt.
But 1- it's not about the extra chump change the acc needs from pit dollars. That's not my point at all. Actually, I agree with you there, we don't want or need the money. You all make some good points.
2- but it is real hard being in the bottom 2 of a conference like that and winning 4 conference games. If you win 3 and go 10-0 out of conference, you're probably pretty good considering 9 teams in the conference have 780+ ratings, top 20 nationally. And you're probably c+ having to recruit against a+ Teams.
Do you have advantages? Yep. (You worked hard and showed you're a good coach to be able to even get the advantages)
Is it easy now? Not at all. Actually it's rough being a bottom dweller of a great conference. Thus the chance to play for something to prove you're good matters,

I do get some of the comments, and I agree the top teams in these rare top conferences have it pretty easy, but let's be honest. The top few teams in the world are good because of their coaches. And they have it pretty easy no matter where they are with their prestige and the abilities that got them that prestige.
Anyone can join the elite if they are good enough. It might take awhile, but it can happen. I was by no means elite forever. Then something started to click about 20 seasons ago. I began to figure things out. I wasn't handed anything and I have people I know have colluded against me because they didn't like my success. That sucks. I worked hard to get here. So is it wrong to enjoy my success? It will likely be gone soon. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

And my apologies for getting a little worked up with your original comments ... obviously they kind of rubbed me the wrong way.  But I think billyg is right that most everyone who comes on these boards is well intentioned and would just like to see the game be as good as it can be.  I think one of the things that bothers me when I read comments from some of the games long established players is that I sometimes interpret (probably incorrectly 9 times out of 10) their resistance to change as being more centered in preserving their advantages than in truly aiming to make the game better. 

I do agree that going .500 in conference can be really difficult.  I typically have about five guaranteed losses each season in my conference (two each to oldman's legendary Michigan St team and twjared's Wisconsin team and one to kelby's Illinois team - in 17 seasons I think I'm something like a combined 7-50 against them).  that leaves me 11 games to find 8 wins in conference if I want to get to .500 ... I get that it's not easy. 

And because it's not easy I guess I always try to remember the things that have bothered me along the way because I think if I'm feeling or have felt them they are the same issues that people who are new to the game are experiencing.  And I guess I feel like if we can do things to make the game more appealing to the newer users than the game will grow and become even more fun (of course a little more active marketing of the game might help too but I digress). 

I do think the ".500 PIT rule" is one way (albeit minor) to bring a little more fun in this game to more players but I also think it's a cheap fix because given the game has been neglected for so long (until recently) I'm not optimistic changes will ever occur.  If I'm being honest though I think the two things most necessary to balance the game a little more are changes to the recruit generation (or possibly modifying the recruiting process); and/or and fewer SIM controlled teams.

I'm not sure if I count as one of those established players or not, but if I have any advantages I'm not aware of them... I finally got an A+ baseline prestige team, just in time for floating prestige to partially negate the advantage of an A+ baseline team. Despite being mentored by gill the last 3 seasons I still can't get **** done.

In Tark a while back I spent 17 seasons at Alabama. The SEC was a middle of the road BCS conference. We had a couple big time coaches (gillispie, johnsensing, probably others I'm forgetting - no offense y'all) but never were the dominant conference. I think I am maybe one of those A- coaches gill mentions - Bama had been simai for 4 seasons and was a B- when I took over. We fell to C+ my first 2 seasons, going 5-22 (3-13) and then 15-14 (7-9, PIT 1st).  From that 2nd season through the 17th I never missed the postseason, with 6 PIT bids (3 championship game appearances, no titles) and 9 NTs. In the 9 NT appearances we won a total of 3 games, 1 2nd rd, 1 sweet 16 and had 8 players drafted, with 2 1st rounders my 9th season... highest prestige attained was A- (the S16 season - also only time finishing ranked (#23)) with most others being B+.

Other, better coaches than me could probably have turned the corner. I have no idea if my experience indicates a problem with the game limiting my advancement and success or is simply a reflection that I am not as good at this as some others. If the latter I guess I don't want the game changed to make it easier just for me, but if there is something inherently broken with the whole deal lets fix it - thing is I'm not sure what that is.

gill talks about recruit generation changes, and yeah, maybe that needs some love, but what exists now is way better IMHO than when every decent BCS team had 10-12 players with 100 in every core ability. If all the players on all the teams are all the same it really becomes Random Number Generator what if...
(I know gill isn't advocating a return to that - at least I think I know that - just want to warn against the possibility of over-correction).

Looks like it got changed .425