Posted by skinndogg on 3/11/2016 3:16:00 PM (view original):

There's a business book called "Who moved my cheese?" DON'T BE A HEM.

Haw suggested “Maybe we should simply stop analyzing the situation so much and go find some new cheese?” However Hem held on to the current cheese (that made him succesful) and didn’t want to change.

Change happens
Anticipate Change
Monitor Change
Adapt to Change quickly
Change
Enjoy change
Be Ready to Change Quickly and Enjoy it Again.

Great, now I want some cheese.

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

Totally agree with this....I don't want to see small conference teams in the championship. As the previous poster said if you want a level playing field D1 isn't for you. I'm sorry if your dream is for Idaho St to be a dynasty...


Id be ok with once in a blue moon a Sr led Butler-like team made the final four....but this speaks to recruit generation, not a recruiting overhaul

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

The name of the website is What if Sports and this is a fantasy sport, not a simulator.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/11/2016 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

The name of the website is What if Sports and this is a fantasy sport, not a simulator.

On the front page of the Hoops Dynasty page it says:

"Hoops Dynasty is the best sports simulation experience on the web"

If they weren't trying to be the best sports simulation experience, why would they advertise they are?

Posted by joeykw18 on 3/11/2016 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/11/2016 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

The name of the website is What if Sports and this is a fantasy sport, not a simulator.

On the front page of the Hoops Dynasty page it says:

"Hoops Dynasty is the best sports simulation experience on the web"

If they weren't trying to be the best sports simulation experience, why would they advertise they are?

Right. Right. When Bill Self needs a PG, he just buys a Future Stars Scouting Report or, perhaps, holds a Private Camp to discover Level IV information that the kid has SPD of 73 and is in the blue. Then, Self spends $30,000 by inviting the recruit to campus 20-30 times and, afterwards, devotes an entire 8 minutes of study hall to keep his new player academically eligible.

I don't care what words WIS uses for marketing purposes. If HD was art, it would be more accurately defined as impressionism, not realism.

Looks like a lot of coaches don't realize there's a difference between prestige and baseline prestige.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/11/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
Looks like a lot of coaches don't realize there's a difference between prestige and baseline prestige.

Can you tell me the difference so I can understand what other coaches don't? Perfer pm.

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

If the goal with baseline is to mirror real-life advantages, then why doesn't WIS apply real-life to D2 and D3? Kentucky Wesleyan made 6 straight championship games in real-life D2 from 1998-2003. As that dynasty went on, they were able to start recruiting better talent than anyone else in D2, including a half-dozen players who'd eventually play professionally in Europe and one in the NBA. So why didn't HD boost up KWU's prestige in this game to reflect their unique real-world dominance and recruiting advantages? Realism is realism, right?

The reason is that HD isn't after realism with baseline prestige. They're simply trying to pander to popular teams in D1. And that's a bad reason, because real-world D1 powerhouses don't need the help - they would be awesome in D1 even without baselines. There would always be a line of people who'd want to coach at Duke or Kentucky because of their names, and that competition would ensure those schools would quickly be manned by really good coaches. When Idaho St gets 1 applicant and Duke gets 23, it's highly likely Duke is going to get the far better coach.

What would happen if HD killed baseline, changed hiring logic and became more aggressive with firings (i.e. turned the firings button on)? I think you'd still see some perennially elite schools that reflect real life... but you'd also see the rest of D1 succeed or fail based on the merit of their coaches instead of an artificial crutch.

Posted by joeykw18 on 3/11/2016 5:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

Totally agree with this....I don't want to see small conference teams in the championship. As the previous poster said if you want a level playing field D1 isn't for you. I'm sorry if your dream is for Idaho St to be a dynasty...


Id be ok with once in a blue moon a Sr led Butler-like team made the final four....but this speaks to recruit generation, not a recruiting overhaul

Just gotta chime in here, look at Texas Western (Glory Road), Wyoming(1940) real life small schools winning the National Tournament. So I do not agree with any of the statements about small schools. I think it would be nice to be able to compete as a small school, maybe not win it all the time, but being able to compete every once in awhile due to recruiting well and getting good recruits is definitely something that this game needs.

Just think about your I am on top and better than every one else attitude that you portray in these posts, be more open to the change, ad share the wealth a little bit.

The game has changed just a bit from 1966 Texas Western, now UTEP and just a little bit more than that from 1940 Wyoming, don't you think? Hell, in the 40's and most of the 50's the NIT was just as prestigious as the NCAA tournament. In fact, without looking to verify but I think I'm correct, Holy Cross "TURNED DOWN" an NCAA invitation to play in their tournament and chose the NIT to play in instead. I'm almost positive it was Holy Cross, might have been CCNY. Lots has changed since the examples you cited.

Posted by obituaryconc on 3/11/2016 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joeykw18 on 3/11/2016 5:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 3/11/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/11/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/10/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/10/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
recruiting has been a problem in Div 1 for A LONG time.

The disease impacting DI (IMHO) is prestige. Overhauling the recruiting process is treating a symptom without addressing the underlying condition.

BINGO.

Get rid of baseline prestige and make D1 like D2 and D3 - let the coaches build the programs and whichever ones have prestige are the ones that deserve it.

After all - that's how real life works, i.e. Duke does well because Coach K makes it happen, not just because Duke would be Duke even if I took it over in real life.

100% disagree with this. Kansas will always be better than Grambling State because of bigger stadium, bigger university, better conference, better tradition, and better TV coverage. D2 and D3 already have no baseline prestige, and I think that baseline prestige is what sets D1 apart. I think it's fun to try to battle up to a A+ baseline prestige and without it there would be no point in playing at D1. If coaches want an even playing field there is D2 and D3 to coach at. I play this as a basketball simulation and I don't want low D1 teams to be able to compete for a National Championship every year

Totally agree with this....I don't want to see small conference teams in the championship. As the previous poster said if you want a level playing field D1 isn't for you. I'm sorry if your dream is for Idaho St to be a dynasty...


Id be ok with once in a blue moon a Sr led Butler-like team made the final four....but this speaks to recruit generation, not a recruiting overhaul

Just gotta chime in here, look at Texas Western (Glory Road), Wyoming(1940) real life small schools winning the National Tournament. So I do not agree with any of the statements about small schools. I think it would be nice to be able to compete as a small school, maybe not win it all the time, but being able to compete every once in awhile due to recruiting well and getting good recruits is definitely something that this game needs.

Just think about your I am on top and better than every one else attitude that you portray in these posts, be more open to the change, ad share the wealth a little bit.

First off....I'm am not better than most coaches. I have done an alright job in the one world I'm in.

Second.....you had to go to 1940 and I believe 1965 to find a small school winning, when the field was I believe 8 and 16. I'll counter that with I believe we've seen Marshall win NTs in one of the worlds, so it happens about as often and is possible.

I would like to see it be possible for a small school be able to put together a decent tournament run. But that needs to be a SR led team that was full of guys who were projects. As I've said many times, this can be fixed with the recruit generation. Get rid of these absolute horrible players, put some more project guys in there, and give IQ a slight bump to try and even the playing field with the teams with stud SOs and JRs.

I am open to change, but open to changing the right things. The proposed changes are going to result in a net loss of coaches, mostly due to the fact that WIS does not advertise for the game.

I play the game because it is similar to real life. I would like to see a Cinderella Butler team every now and then, but I don't want to see any small school dynasty's.

Where do you draw the line with the reality of what teams someone should be able to win and compete with in HD? If you want this to be a simulator game that doesn't deviate from real life then yes, Idaho St. should never win a championship in this game. Nor should Pepperdine, Weber St, Detroit Mercy, Iona, Southern, UNC Wilmington, Marist or Rhode Island. But why stop there? USC, Texas A&M, Iowa, Seton Hall, Georgia, LSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Washington, Baylor, Missouri, Iowa St, and Texas have never won an NCAA basketball championship.

Stanford hasn't won a title since 1942 and Oregon not since 1939. Since those championships didn't occur anytime near the modern era and occurred when the game was much different are they too long ago to count for the purposes of the HD simulator? And if we do count them do we then need to concede that Holy Cross (1947), CCNY (1950), LaSalle (1954), San Francisco (1955 & 1956), and Loyola, Il (1963), UTEP (1966), Marquette (1977) should also be "eligible" to win titles in this simulator game?

If we're only okay with Butler making the Final Four "once in a blue moon" (providing they're "senior led" for whatever that means) how do we reconcile that with real life where Butler actually made back to back championship game appearances? Are we now saying we don't want the HD simulator to be too much like real life if it means a non-Big Six could make consecutive championship games? Or are we saying that only Bulter should qualify for non-Big 6 success? And that even then their success should be capped at the Final Four level? How do we reconcile UNLV's real life Championship with a simulator that we want to shun mid-majors?

So it's an honest question for those who don't think that San Jose St should ever be a championship quality team in this game and that only the Big Six (presumably) should ever be able to compete for the championship, why create a game that systematically eliminates 7 in 9 teams from winning? And really, if you're truly concerned with ensuring realism of results in the simulation why stop there? Why not take it step further? How about if we have a rule that only teams that have won an NCAA championship since the field expanded to 64 teams (back in 1985) be eligible to win in HD? That's realism right? If that's the case we could create a game where only Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Duke, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St., North Carolina, Syracuse, UCLA, UNLV, and Villanova have the ability to win.

It just seems to me that picking winners and losers in this game by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand on what teams can have success is an awful slippery slope that is rife with complications on how and why certain teams get classified as winners while others don't.

Having said all that I do not advocate a completely level playing field I like the idea of prestige but think each team's baseline prestige should be updated annually after the NCAA tournament and that the advantages from grade to grade should be scaled back.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/12/2016 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Where do you draw the line with the reality of what teams someone should be able to win and compete with in HD? If you want this to be a simulator game that doesn't deviate from real life then yes, Idaho St. should never win a championship in this game. Nor should Pepperdine, Weber St, Detroit Mercy, Iona, Southern, UNC Wilmington, Marist or Rhode Island. But why stop there? USC, Texas A&M, Iowa, Seton Hall, Georgia, LSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Washington, Baylor, Missouri, Iowa St, and Texas have never won an NCAA basketball championship.

Stanford hasn't won a title since 1942 and Oregon not since 1939. Since those championships didn't occur anytime near the modern era and occurred when the game was much different are they too long ago to count for the purposes of the HD simulator? And if we do count them do we then need to concede that Holy Cross (1947), CCNY (1950), LaSalle (1954), San Francisco (1955 & 1956), and Loyola, Il (1963), UTEP (1966), Marquette (1977) should also be "eligible" to win titles in this simulator game?

If we're only okay with Butler making the Final Four "once in a blue moon" (providing they're "senior led" for whatever that means) how do we reconcile that with real life where Butler actually made back to back championship game appearances? Are we now saying we don't want the HD simulator to be too much like real life if it means a non-Big Six could make consecutive championship games? Or are we saying that only Bulter should qualify for non-Big 6 success? And that even then their success should be capped at the Final Four level? How do we reconcile UNLV's real life Championship with a simulator that we want to shun mid-majors?

So it's an honest question for those who don't think that San Jose St should ever be a championship quality team in this game and that only the Big Six (presumably) should ever be able to compete for the championship, why create a game that systematically eliminates 7 in 9 teams from winning? And really, if you're truly concerned with ensuring realism of results in the simulation why stop there? Why not take it step further? How about if we have a rule that only teams that have won an NCAA championship since the field expanded to 64 teams (back in 1985) be eligible to win in HD? That's realism right? If that's the case we could create a game where only Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Duke, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St., North Carolina, Syracuse, UCLA, UNLV, and Villanova have the ability to win.

It just seems to me that picking winners and losers in this game by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand on what teams can have success is an awful slippery slope that is rife with complications on how and why certain teams get classified as winners while others don't.

Having said all that I do not advocate a completely level playing field I like the idea of prestige but think each team's baseline prestige should be updated annually after the NCAA tournament and that the advantages from grade to grade should be scaled back.

Every Big6 team can and has (with I believe the exception of Fresno St) won the national championship in HD, so I don't know why you're limiting it to the team you listed. Also Marshall has won the NC in HD, so that leads me to believe that it is possible for a CUSA, MTN West, or A10 school to win a NT in HD (probably about the same chance as they do in real life).

...By Sr led team I mean a team with a large group of SRs, who had crap ratings out of HS, but high WE. They guys were developed not quite to the level of the Big-6 talent, but the equalizer would be IQ (SR led teams would have high IQ), which is why I suggested a slight IQ bump.

I'll make one more attempt.

WIS is simulating the game of basketball (fouls, shots, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc.)

WIS is NOT simulating the NCAA. It has created a fantasy world around its basketball simulator.

All of this talk comparing real college basketball to HD is erroneous.