Crum Div -1 Champion Coaches:
Shows the owner, Champ Seasons, then all Div-1 schools.
D2 and D3 schools not shown unless they fell between two D1 schools.
Not sure what this means, but just putting this out there.
List starts with the most recent chamoion cosch in Crum, then back to Season 40.

lakevin: 84, 53, 48.
UCLA 43-85.
Indiana 18-42.
Xavier 16-17.
Dartmouth 11-15
HD 5-85.

oldman: 83, 66, 65, 64, 62, 61, 47, 32, 16.
Michigan State 40-85.
Texas Tech 16-39.
Santa Clara 14-15.
Eastern Washington 12-13.
HD 7-85.

piman314: 82, 74
UConn 60-85.
Clemson 47-59.
Lafayette 41-46.
HD 33-85.

oldresorter: 81, 58, 57.
North Carolina 43-85.
UCLA 35-42.
Kentucky 27-34.
Maryland 17-26.
Ohio U. 12-16.
Saint Francis of NY 10-11.
HD 6-85.

possumfiend: 80.
Minnesota 50-85.
Valpo 45-49.
HD 40-85.

treyomo: 79.
LSU 59-85.
Indiana 46-58.
Providence 40-45.
D2 St Leo 27.
Kentucky 16-26.
Notre Dame 11-15.
St Bona 9-10.
Stetson 6-8.
HD 1-27, 40-85.

nickjyd: 78, 75.
Miami 31-85.
San Diego State 23-30.
Xavier 18-22.
South Carolina State 11-17.
HD 5-85.

kelby_03: 77, 63, 54, 50, 10.
Illinois 11-79.
Clemson 8-10.
Rice 6-7.
Lipscomb 4-5.
HD 1-79.

reinsel: 76, 72, 71,
Maryland 80-85.
Clemson 60-79.
UMass 52-59.
HD 38-85.

shucky: 73.
Texas A&M 53-85.
LSU 42-52.
Texas Southern 32-41.
HD 22-31.

juandetang: 70.
Duke 62-85.
Kentucky 61.
Providence 49-60.
D2 Pitts Johnstown 36-48.
UCLA 17-28.
Villanova 14-16.
Tulane 9-13.
American 5-8.
HD 1-28, 36-85.

apeofwrath: 69.
Georgia Tech 37-85.
HD 19-85.

knappj: 68.
Texas 44-85.
Georgetown 39-43.
Boise State 26-38.
HD 17-85.

goodtymes31: 67.
Pitt 15-85.
Southern Mississippi 11-14.
Jackson State 10.
HD 1-85.

elmossle: 60.
Missouri 24-85.
Bucknell 21-23.
HD 14-20.

roguedog: 59, 45.
Stanford 53-85.
Texas A&M 36-52.
Texas San Antonio 28-35.
HD 20-85.

acn24: 56.
Indiana 59-77.
St John's 55-58.
Georgetown 45-54.
George Washington 39-44.
D2 Belmont Abbey 35-38.
D2 So Conn State 27-30.
St Joe's 21-26.
San Francisco 17-20.
HD 10-30, 35-85.

budlight: 55.
Wisconsin 69-85.
Washington 51-68.
UNLV 33-50.
Mississippi Valley State 22-32.
Rutgers 12-21.
Iona 6-11.
HD 1-85.

lwbraun: 52, 49, 43, 41, 29.
Boston College 80-85.
Texas San Antonio 57-60.
Boston College 40-55.
Stanford 24-39.
Ohio U. 17-23.
Rhode Island 15-16.
McNeese State 12-14.
HD 7-55, 57-60, 80-85.

twjared: 51.
Wisconsin 33-68.
Villanova 26-32.
Rhode Island 17-25.
Drexel 14-16.
HD 6-85.

tlsfan: 46, 44.
Arizona 15-85.
Virginia Tech 10-14.
Evansville 8-9.
Fairleigh Dickinson 6-7.
HD 1-85.

colorblind79: 42.
Maryland 28-54.
Iowa 18-27.
La Salle 17.
Princeton 13-16.
HD 8-54.

winmag: 40.
D2 Fayetteville State 55-81.
Seton Hall 49-54.
D2 Lowell 42-48.
Northeastern 33-41.
HD 15-81.

Here are a few key thoughts that could have easily fixed the old game.

As far as DI goes, improve firing logic, remove carryover, remove conference cash, and remove baseline prestige. I know everyone wants to be Duke or UNC, but there is only one of each and it makes it hard to truly build a dynasty at a lower tier school when the prestige will never match those higher tier schools. This by itself is a significant reason why DII and DIII have always been better. I could take over the worst team in the game at DII and with success eventually match the prestige of the best teams and battle with them for recruits. If the prestige was more of a dynamically built in thing where only a certain number of seasons factored in with the most recent meaning more, it would be easy to build a competitor and keep coaches happy at all levels.

Mike this one is for you, but it's been mentioned to you in another thread that there were simple fixes for a lot of issues. Your response was that they can't listen to all, or even should not listen to the consumer. The problem here, is that there were a lot of coaches asking them to fix firing logic where a coach could have poor performance at a top tier school and still stay. This was just as much of an issue of coaches locking up the top tier schools. One of the issues here is many of you are so focused on DI that you don't care how the rest of the game gets affected. Like another poster said, are you here for the elite school with the name, or just here to build the dynasty? If it's the name, then the 4 suggestions above would have done a lot to help. If you just want to enjoy building a dynasty, you don't have to play in a broken division. I love DII and DIII and hate the fact that every recruit at every division is available now and I was/am one of the teams near the top of the divisions (or at the very least respectable). I would much rather see them cap it and remove drop downs and pull downs.

Some of you guys sound like you just want recruits handed to you, before you've built a program up. Others sound bitter, because they couldn't just show up in the game and just jump to Duke or UNC. This is going to tie back into prestige as well, but at the lower levels, there were built in advantages for schools that were on top. If I take over a new school, I usually could not compete right away, because the higher schools could get drop downs and pull downs that I could not. In time though, with solid recruiting, I could also build a top program and compete.

Posted by bofreedom on 11/18/2016 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Maybe somebody has the time to look this up and figure it out. I just don't have the time.

Between the start of 2014 and now in D1 in all 10 worlds, there have been around 235 to 240 D1 championship teams.

If MikeT23 is correct then there would have been only a handful of coaches who started in 2010 or after who won
a D1 national championship. I have been looking myself for the last year or so and I have seen exactly zero. Now I certainly haven't
seen all or a majority of them in that time frame but I would bet I have seen at least 50 and all of the NT D1 winning coaches have started in between 2002 and 2009.

I would be interested to know if anybody knows a coach who has won a D1 NT who started in 2010 or later.

Guess I'll throw my resume in the ring:

1. Joined the site in April 2010. Signed up for St. Thomas in D3 Phelan at the urging of my son.
2. Played the first 14 season in D3 trying to learn the game.
3. Decided to make a huge jump to low D1 from D3 directly (so I didn't start in D1 until season 40).
4. Selected Lousiana Tech in Sun Belt to mainly join another coach in that conference. They were SIM run for almost 2 dozen seasons prior to my arrival.
5. In the five seasons I was there, took them to the NT 4 times (3 of which I did as a non-CT winner as the other coach had a better prestige team).
6. First recruiting class has LTU's only two ever NBA draftees including a EE in my first recruiting class in D1.
7. Jumped to WSU in Pac10 which I had to rebuild with 11 (yes 11) recruits in my first season (the other guy I wouldn't even want on my D3 team but he was a senior and was going to leave anyway). Needless to say lost almost all my games that first season.
8. Slowly built up WSU to contender status battling UW, Stanford and Oregon (all with higher prestiges) and got WSU up to low A minus range.
9. switched to tOSU (B+ baseline) in the B1G (mainly due to better access to recruits as the Pacific NW is kind of sparse) and stayed there for 40 seasons or so producing 1 NT championship run and a number of runner ups and almost always either an A+ or A.
10. Finally got a shot at an A+ baseline in UCLA, and in the dozen or so seasons I've been here, another 2 NT titles.

So 3 NT titles (all at D1) in some 74 seasons so far (all in Phelan) and not even a dozen seasons at an A+ baseline. 104 players drafted (in just 60 seasons) with too many EEs to count (including 2 one & done JUCOs in the same season) so yes they were still painful in 2.0.

I think I'm a fairly accomplished D1 coach, know the game well enough to compete but not elite enough yet to be in the same breath as Gillipse/Stewdog/Oldman yet.

Oh and I presently own 9 NCOY (all at D1) which leads all time in Phelan (any divison).

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 8:21:00 PM (view original):
I'll cap this off as I won't be around tomorrow.

Two long-terms owners decided to engage. One said "Stay at DII if competition is what you wanted" and "Play EA Sports games if that is what you seek." The other said "I choose not to continue this debate" when I pointed out that recruiting is not random.

So, if 2.0 wasn't broken, I don't understand the word "broken".

To clarify, I chose that because you are a Spud-esque waste of time.

To clarify, I'm glad you chose that. I discovered that, when you were backed into a corner, you turtled up.

Essentially, WifS took your candy that you'd had for quite a long time via a flawed system. Rather than attempt to get it back, when others might have access to it, you quit.

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/19/2016 3:44:00 AM (view original):
Here are a few key thoughts that could have easily fixed the old game.

As far as DI goes, improve firing logic, remove carryover, remove conference cash, and remove baseline prestige. I know everyone wants to be Duke or UNC, but there is only one of each and it makes it hard to truly build a dynasty at a lower tier school when the prestige will never match those higher tier schools. This by itself is a significant reason why DII and DIII have always been better. I could take over the worst team in the game at DII and with success eventually match the prestige of the best teams and battle with them for recruits. If the prestige was more of a dynamically built in thing where only a certain number of seasons factored in with the most recent meaning more, it would be easy to build a competitor and keep coaches happy at all levels.

Mike this one is for you, but it's been mentioned to you in another thread that there were simple fixes for a lot of issues. Your response was that they can't listen to all, or even should not listen to the consumer. The problem here, is that there were a lot of coaches asking them to fix firing logic where a coach could have poor performance at a top tier school and still stay. This was just as much of an issue of coaches locking up the top tier schools. One of the issues here is many of you are so focused on DI that you don't care how the rest of the game gets affected. Like another poster said, are you here for the elite school with the name, or just here to build the dynasty? If it's the name, then the 4 suggestions above would have done a lot to help. If you just want to enjoy building a dynasty, you don't have to play in a broken division. I love DII and DIII and hate the fact that every recruit at every division is available now and I was/am one of the teams near the top of the divisions (or at the very least respectable). I would much rather see them cap it and remove drop downs and pull downs.

Some of you guys sound like you just want recruits handed to you, before you've built a program up. Others sound bitter, because they couldn't just show up in the game and just jump to Duke or UNC. This is going to tie back into prestige as well, but at the lower levels, there were built in advantages for schools that were on top. If I take over a new school, I usually could not compete right away, because the higher schools could get drop downs and pull downs that I could not. In time though, with solid recruiting, I could also build a top program and compete.

I may have mentioned this before but, if not, here you go:

EA Sports had a NCAA football game. Due to a lawsuit from Ed O'Bannon, they stopped producing it. The NCAA would not give rights to school names, logos, etc, etc to avoid future lawsuits. Now, EA Sports still had the engine. The game could have been produced and teams could have been Miss1, Miss2 and Miss3 for the MS schools. Generic uniforms, stadiums, etc, etc. EA Sports chose not to take this route. Why? Because much of the allure was taking Texas State and eventually beating Alabama for the championship. Or simply taking your favorite school and doing the same.

You can't ignore the fact that some of the allure of HD is taking a school you've heard of rather than some backwater DIII. That may not be everyone's goal but I imagine it is for many.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2016 6:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 8:21:00 PM (view original):
I'll cap this off as I won't be around tomorrow.

Two long-terms owners decided to engage. One said "Stay at DII if competition is what you wanted" and "Play EA Sports games if that is what you seek." The other said "I choose not to continue this debate" when I pointed out that recruiting is not random.

So, if 2.0 wasn't broken, I don't understand the word "broken".

To clarify, I chose that because you are a Spud-esque waste of time.

To clarify, I'm glad you chose that. I discovered that, when you were backed into a corner, you turtled up.

Essentially, WifS took your candy that you'd had for quite a long time via a flawed system. Rather than attempt to get it back, when others might have access to it, you quit.

Not that it matters but I do like to be clear.

My general annoyance with you isn't confined to the fact that you don't understand what "random" means. The fact that you didn't like the new game is fine. The fact that you chose to quit is fine. But what is your purpose for posting now? The obvious answer is to be disruptive. So, while you may dog CoachSpud, he has HD teams thus he has a vested interest. You have, well, sour grapes.

the personal back and forth is not all that interesting - in both directions - but have fun if it works for y'all

Uh, don't read it?

In 2 days so far we have heard about one coach who has come forward who won a NT in D1 in the last 3 years who started this game in 2010 or after and he
started in April of 2010. Congrats buddhagamer--you are a very good coach in HD--as well as GD I might add.

But I think this shows that a lot of what MikeT23 was saying is true and that D1 was basically a closed door game for people who started an average of 10 years ago or more. Face it--the D1 HD game was broken and needed fixed. A legitimate argument can made about the merits of how they fixed it but not that it was a broken game.

I think everyone, including the "stop at DII", "play EA Sports" and "it's just random" guys, knows D1 was a poor consumer product. The established, entrenched owner who got there first 10-12 years ago couldn't be beaten by anyone who didn't get there first 10-12 years ago with them. The only people who want to be dominant at Adams St probably went to Adams St. Most people want to take a school they know to the promised land. They should probably know Duke/Kentucky/etc won't be available in S90 but, if they can take a Butler or LaSalle to the finals, maybe they're just fine with that.

But, if they know that Butler team can never compete due to the design of the game, there's not much point to it if that's what they hoped to do. So now is the game interesting enough to build that Adams St powerhouse? I don't know but that's a tough sale, IMO.

Changes had to be made. And, understandably, those who have been loyal customers, learned the game and, at this point, benefited the most under the old program, are not going to like change.

That said, they were the best owners before. They will probably be the best owners going forward(if they stay). It's just a different game but they'll learn it faster than the rest of us. They did it before.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):
I think everyone, including the "stop at DII", "play EA Sports" and "it's just random" guys, knows D1 was a poor consumer product. The established, entrenched owner who got there first 10-12 years ago couldn't be beaten by anyone who didn't get there first 10-12 years ago with them. The only people who want to be dominant at Adams St probably went to Adams St. Most people want to take a school they know to the promised land. They should probably know Duke/Kentucky/etc won't be available in S90 but, if they can take a Butler or LaSalle to the finals, maybe they're just fine with that.

But, if they know that Butler team can never compete due to the design of the game, there's not much point to it if that's what they hoped to do. So now is the game interesting enough to build that Adams St powerhouse? I don't know but that's a tough sale, IMO.

Changes had to be made. And, understandably, those who have been loyal customers, learned the game and, at this point, benefited the most under the old program, are not going to like change.

That said, they were the best owners before. They will probably be the best owners going forward(if they stay). It's just a different game but they'll learn it faster than the rest of us. They did it before.

What about (if) the people who collected data for the past 2 seasons for me personally its been 2. The people who was in the beta actually has no learning curve!!! I know its hard to believe but after collecting data on recruting, I firmly believe that local camps are the best to research on recruting since that where the most money is going to be spent. I also firmly believe that I have figured the recruting system out and know what stretching the curve and having the best odds and what method to use to be perfered. I strongly believe that implementing anything other than a previous mechanisim of the game is highly invalid and would say that the new recruting engine gets its influences on coin flip just like double teaming on shots.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. But, if you've mastered recruiting, and the game, after two seasons, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to take a team at the bottom of an elite conference and compete with the top teams in a few seasons. IOW, if you take Vandy, Kentucky should NOT get every recruit both of you seek.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/20/2016 2:39:00 PM (view original):
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. But, if you've mastered recruiting, and the game, after two seasons, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to take a team at the bottom of an elite conference and compete with the top teams in a few seasons. IOW, if you take Vandy, Kentucky should NOT get every recruit both of you seek.

I played the beta for 2 seasons, and have played the new recruting engine for 2 more seasons. It was more of a statement and have to get over the tourney wall and am thinking i'll get into the PTI this year. I was stating that people who played the beta shouldn't have a learning curve of the game and that's the least expected.

"The only people who want to be dominant at Adams St probably went to Adams St."

It may start out that way but this isn't true in the grand scheme of things. A lot of coaches develop a connection with a particular school and stay there the entire time. I had never even heard of Chestnut Hill before playing this game but it's my #1 team now and I don't plan on leaving it anytime soon. Because coaches recruit players and get to watch 'their guys' grow and improve and get accolades and that's the fun part of this game in my opinion. The name is just a name. I'd like to coach Syracuse one day because I'm a huge fan but it's not a must for me to enjoy the game.

Look at mfmyers. That dude is happy as a clam coaching Dickinson in 10 worlds.

Well, I previously stated that I don't think an accelerated 7-10 seasons in beta testing will actually "prove" what the game is. If you add different people and different strategies into the equation, the beta results get even more muddied. That said, it's entirely possible that you're light years ahead of most. And, if that's the case, you shouldn't be hindered by taking Vandy because KY is unavailable. If you're better than the long-time KY owner, you should whip his *** on the fake court and not be stopped by the program.