8/20/2011 2:40 PM
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/19/2011 10:31:00 PM (view original):
You guys are looking at the wrong things when judging how succesful the non BCS conferences are. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the reason why non BCS conferences are less succesful right now is because they are much less populated than they've been in the past. BCS conference membership stays pretty steady, what has dropped is the rest of D1. If humans proliferated the lower levels of D1 you would see more mid major schools make deep runs. I just joined the MWC in Tark on my other ID, and we have a group of 7 or 8 coaches 2 of whom have been very succesful at their current schools, and I have no doubt as long as we can keep our membership at 7+ schools we will routinely have at least 1 team making a deep NT run every season.
Perhaps I'm not following your logic as clearly as others are on this thread, but could you explain further your theory that having 7+ coaches at multiple mid-major conferences would allow for deep runs into the NT by a mid-majors team?

Is it the fact there's a greater chance for upsets? I just haven't been able to logic it out. It just seems like the mid-majors would still recruiting from the same talent pool, but with more competition and wouldn't be able to really bridge that talent gap that currently exists?

8/20/2011 3:33 PM
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2011 2:11:00 AM (view original):
OR pointed something out in another thread that is overlooked when it comes to mid majors. There are 2 reasons for them being less populated and it's hard to gauge which is the bigger reason, recruit generatoin and the fact that D2 and D3 get full rewards now. Mid major populations began decreasing when coaches could stay in D2 and D3 and get 100% reward points, they didn't need to jump to D1 to get those rewards.

Also 1 conference being full doesn't mean anything, because it doesn't mean the coaches are good. I didn't say all it would take is 1 conference being full, I said if overall the conferences were fuller, it would lead to better postseason performances. Let's say there are 50 coaches at non BCS, if that number was 100 do you not think there would be more mid majors making big runs? What about 150?

In real life there are over 330 D1 teams only 73 play in BCS conferences but those 73 teams make up 85% of the teams that make the Elite 8. And in real life 100% of the teams are human coached, in Tark there are 67 human coaches of a possibly 72 in BCS conferences and average of 11.2 humans per conference, there are 74 human at the non BCS schools in the other 21 conferences that is less than 4 humans on average per conference. In real life non BCS schools outnumber BCS schools by over 250 and still the BCS schools dominate postseason play. Why do people expect that in this game when there are only marginally more humans at non BCS schools and they're spread out very thin that they should be more succesful? If there is a world where there are 3 or 4 non BCS conferences with 9+ coaches and have had these coaches for a few seasons and nobody is having any sustained success I'll readily admit it's because of the recruit generation but until then I'll continue my stance that people didn't give the recruit generation a chance abandoned low D1 which made it very hard for the coaches still there to make things happen.

I don't know if I'm in the majority or minority on this one, but I personally think that, as things currently stand, having more human coaches in lower and mid-level D1 would produce even LESS deep runs than is currently happening.  Here's why:

(1)  Pretty safe to say that the "elite"-type recruits are all being snatched up by BCS schools.  Sure there may be one or two here or there that a mid-major can actually sign, but let's be realistic, the big boys are signing the big boys.

(2)  Pretty safe to assume that most coaches believe it's easier to out-recruit a Sim school as opposed to a human-coached school.

So......as it satnds now, the BCS schools are signing all the top talent.  That leaves the few human-coached mid-majors trying to sign what scraps of good players are left.  Knowing that Sim schools are fairly easy to beat in recruiting battles, these few human coaches can still pick up some decent players, simply due to lack of competition from other human coaches.  However.........if there were MORE human coaches, these few decent players left would become the focal points in human versus human battles, leaving more and more human coaches with less and less quality recruits to go around.  See where we're going with this?

In the last recruiting session in Tark, I watched a B+ prestige BCS school recruit a SG ranked in the 150's.  He would have been a really good D2 player, but for a school with that kind of prestige and recruiting money, he was a player that should have been passed on.  I've got a couple of D2 teams between this and my other ID with prestiges in the "A" range.  I watch every season as D1 schools swoop in on recruits that I have pulled down.  In one case last season in Phelan, it was a B- prestige D1 school, recruiting the same player as my D2 team.  Why?  Because the new recruit generation has killed mid-level recruiting in D1.  The abomination that is the new recruit generation, plus fully restoring rewards points at the D2 and D3 levels (which I'm all for, don't get me wrong) is what, in my opinion, has killed everything in D1 below the BCS conferences.
8/20/2011 3:46 PM
the best way to win a NT in d1 at a non bcs school is to play in a 11 sim conference, to recruit deep, full teams of near interchangeable 575 players with potential to make 750, go 16-0 in your conference and make the nt every season, fcp, run up tempo, and take your chances against the lower IQ, shallower rostered 800 players that d1 BCS teams have.

won't work that well, but that is your best shot.  Any low end conference that has two good coaches in it instead of one, your chances are near cut in half.  Now if the CUSA group of stud coaches fill their conference, they can do it like a bcs conference, sure, but that is not the equation that the average 'JOe' playing the game gets to use, those CUSA coaches are simply making themselves a BCS conference, which I have no doubt they can do.

mason - you know I was pulling your chain with the rewards pt thing, my point was if you recall, that you aren't even making up good reasons why recruit generation is not the culprit for d1's middle and low end demise, I think my line was 'here, try this one' or something along those 'lines'.  I am pretty certain indeed recruit generation is the culprit, and honestly, I am pretty sure seble knows this is true too.  If you let me flip sides onto your side yet again, I might even tell you why the current recruit generation is a good thing - the argument you should be making, why I think seble has no intention of changing - how is that for a teaser??????
8/20/2011 6:25 PM

I can't say I agree emy. The more humans the better, regardless if it's BCS or not. It sucks that the way things are now it's tough to really prove that to be the case simply because there aren't enough humans in non BCS conferences. That Conference USA experiment will be interesting, I think they will do well, despite being in an area that is populated by BCS schools simply because they have good coaches. Same goes for the Mountain West in Tark as long as the group of coaches we have now stick together. The biggest reason I don't agree with that theory is the schools in the same conference aren't so close together that they are competing for the same recruits. For example at North Texas I will never compete with schools like BYU, Utah, UNLV and San Diego State for recruits, and BYU and Utah will rarely compete with UNLV and San Diego State. The schools are spread out enough that if the conferences are better, meaning getting more recruiting money they can sneak in and snatch an elite or near elite player from their region that if the conference was worse nobody in the conference would've gotten. Let's say there is a 3 star recruit that is 10 miles from North Texas and I sign him instead of a Big 12 team getting him but if North Texas was sim controlled a Big 12 team would get him.

OR, essentially I say recruit generation is the culprit for the downfall of non BCS conference but not for the reasons everybody else says. I strongly feel that recruit generation is fine, but the perception is that it's broken so people don't give it a chance. We all know how that old saying goes, perception is reality. There is 0 doubt in my mind that if say the group of coaches we had in the Big East all left this season and went to a mid major conference in 7-10 seasons we would consistently be a top 5 conference. We wouldn't be the best because of the inherent advantages BCS conferences have, namely baseline prestige but we'd give them a run for their money and we would from time to time send a team to the Final 4. Do you really think we wouldn't be able to OR? 

8/20/2011 8:33 PM (edited)
kmason, if you truly think recruit generation is fine and the problem is everyone else's erroneous perception of it ... honestly, we're so far apart here, I don't think we can have a meaningful dialogue.

As far as the other issue, I'm a bit torn. I was actually going to respond to you with a post hauntingly similar to emy's. Because DI is so underpopulated now, I think you have to be borderline retarded not to regularly make the postseason. So having so few teams would seem to be the correct recipe for the average coach.

My devil's advocate argument to that (as OR mentions) would be something like what we've got going in C-USA Rupp. But really, that's a totally different beast than what we're talking about w. a normal coach/normal situation. Our eventual goal is to rack up prestige and postseason cash equivalent to a BCS conference, and therefore be able to actually go after BCS-caliber recruits. Different story entirely -- the average non-BCS school is trying to succeed simply on leftover recruits.

And one thing you're wrong about for most conferences is that there is absolutely a sharing of the recruiting pool. Not necessarily every time within the conference sharing with every other team, but there is a very clear overlap where they are competing for the same recruits. It's unavoidable. This is in some cases even more true for non-BCS conferences, because they are dealing with the precious few scraps. But cannibalizing each others' recruits is very clearly an issue -- in fact, it was part of the reason that I selected C-USA in Rupp; because it's more geographically spread out, I was hoping that it would allow the chance for a greater # of coaches to be successful.

(And OR is right -- seble is aware of the damage done by the recruit generation fiasco. So at this point, you're trying to argue a premise that even the guy responsible for the mistake doesn't agree with.)
8/20/2011 8:15 PM (edited)
KM - I really think recruit generation changed how d1 played - as the cause - coaches quit the game after experiencing the change - as the effect - this seems nearly overtly obvious in the way they related to each other - if you recall - something now almost never mentioned, but there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the new game, near the opposite of mass hysteria, as recruit generation was going to fix near everything wrong, and the engine was going to feature enhanced gameplanning.

But enought said on that, I'll try a new approach to show you the fallacy of your POV, rather than try to show you how illogical mass hysteria is,  I'll go along with your idea - lets assume they left because to use your words ' the perception is that it's broken so people don't give it a chance. We all know how that old saying goes, perception is reality'.   My question is, what chance should they have waited for?  I don't understand the payoff for those schools, explain it, why did the change to recruit generation make the mids and lows better to coach than the the BCS conferences? 

The business words for how HD works is 'zero sum', HD is a zero sum game, when one group wins more, another group has to lose more by definition, I think one of the all time great HD coaches may have said it best "some gotta  win, some gotta lose - mid and low coaches got the blues" - that'd be Willie Nelson of course, I think he played for one of my mid major teams back 30 or 40 seasons ago - seriously.
8/20/2011 10:50 PM (edited)
From a business standpoint the recruit generation change was a bad one, so from that side Seble should absolutely want to change it as head of HD his job is on the line. However from an application standpoint I feel strongly that it's fine the way it is. A while back I made a statement quoting a Madden programmer who talked about QB visiion in Madden was polarizing and people either loved it or hated it and in a game when something is polarizing it's not a success. I will agree that the recruit generation is not a success simply because so many people dislike it but I will not and cannot agree that the recruit generation made the game worse.

Girt I think you are wrong about the recruit pool overlapping. In real life you are right but in HD where it's hard to go over 200 miles in most areas to sign a recruit in D1 there are rarely more than a few schools from the same conference that are in that same 200 mile area. Even a conference that has a small region like the A10 only will have a few schools that actually compete with each other regularlly for recruits. And OR you didn't address my stance that if all the current BE coaches in Tark left for a mid major conference next season do you think we wouldn't be a consistent top 5 conference?
8/21/2011 6:17 AM
of course we would - I did address it by saying girt and his bunch will do fine in CUSA - i have said at least a dozen times top coaches can win - so can a group of top coaches who band together in a conference - it simply got harder since recruit generation - your ? has nothing to do with the issue - to repeat - recruit generation made the game easier for some BCS coaches and harder for low to mid major coaches - a zero sum situation - someone gained an advantage and someone a disadvantage - the cause of this change to the game was a a change to recruit generation
8/21/2011 10:35 AM
kmason, I would say any time oldresorter and daalt strongly agree on the same side of an issue, the odds of them being off base are pretty darn tiny. (Except of course if it's about the Badgers. )

Back in the day, I did pretty well at Southern U in Allen, and the Big Sky as a whole did quite nicely. Could I/we repeat that success right now? Probably not. And if we could, it would be much, much, much harder.

If you really don't think it's much harder now and that the recruits are the reason, I don't know what to say. I noticed you have a good record but not a ton of DI experience, so maybe you don't have a strong enough DI perspective to fully see what happened. (I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, just saying.) But I think what happened with the recruits and how it impacted DI is really clear.
8/21/2011 10:41 AM
Really no point in continuing this discussion.  Mr. Mason is so obviously set in his line of thinking that no amount of reasonable discussion will ever change it.  I do think it's a bit humorous though, that nearly everyone who bothers to respond is in agreement on one side of the issue, but a handful of coaches who take the other side of the issue constantly tell everyone us that they're wrong.

As far as the remaining human coaches not fighting over what scraps of good players are left, Mason, if you honestly believe that then I really don't know what else to say.  What you might be missing is that it doesn't matter if the teams are in the same conference or not.  As long as two teams are human-coached teams fighting for the remaining scraps, then the same conference point is moot.
8/21/2011 11:04 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 8/21/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Really no point in continuing this discussion.  Mr. Mason is so obviously set in his line of thinking that no amount of reasonable discussion will ever change it.  I do think it's a bit humorous though, that nearly everyone who bothers to respond is in agreement on one side of the issue, but a handful of coaches who take the other side of the issue constantly tell everyone us that they're wrong.

As far as the remaining human coaches not fighting over what scraps of good players are left, Mason, if you honestly believe that then I really don't know what else to say.  What you might be missing is that it doesn't matter if the teams are in the same conference or not.  As long as two teams are human-coached teams fighting for the remaining scraps, then the same conference point is moot.
fwiw most people who share mason's opinions stopped bothering over a year ago when it became very obvious recruits aren't changing

there's really no motivation for them to have this argument every 3 days
8/21/2011 12:09 PM
Posted by pinkeye on 8/21/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/21/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Really no point in continuing this discussion.  Mr. Mason is so obviously set in his line of thinking that no amount of reasonable discussion will ever change it.  I do think it's a bit humorous though, that nearly everyone who bothers to respond is in agreement on one side of the issue, but a handful of coaches who take the other side of the issue constantly tell everyone us that they're wrong.

As far as the remaining human coaches not fighting over what scraps of good players are left, Mason, if you honestly believe that then I really don't know what else to say.  What you might be missing is that it doesn't matter if the teams are in the same conference or not.  As long as two teams are human-coached teams fighting for the remaining scraps, then the same conference point is moot.
fwiw most people who share mason's opinions stopped bothering over a year ago when it became very obvious recruits aren't changing

there's really no motivation for them to have this argument every 3 days
Uh ... if you say so.
8/21/2011 12:55 PM
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2011 6:25:00 PM (view original):

I can't say I agree emy. The more humans the better, regardless if it's BCS or not. It sucks that the way things are now it's tough to really prove that to be the case simply because there aren't enough humans in non BCS conferences. That Conference USA experiment will be interesting, I think they will do well, despite being in an area that is populated by BCS schools simply because they have good coaches. Same goes for the Mountain West in Tark as long as the group of coaches we have now stick together. The biggest reason I don't agree with that theory is the schools in the same conference aren't so close together that they are competing for the same recruits. For example at North Texas I will never compete with schools like BYU, Utah, UNLV and San Diego State for recruits, and BYU and Utah will rarely compete with UNLV and San Diego State. The schools are spread out enough that if the conferences are better, meaning getting more recruiting money they can sneak in and snatch an elite or near elite player from their region that if the conference was worse nobody in the conference would've gotten. Let's say there is a 3 star recruit that is 10 miles from North Texas and I sign him instead of a Big 12 team getting him but if North Texas was sim controlled a Big 12 team would get him.

OR, essentially I say recruit generation is the culprit for the downfall of non BCS conference but not for the reasons everybody else says. I strongly feel that recruit generation is fine, but the perception is that it's broken so people don't give it a chance. We all know how that old saying goes, perception is reality. There is 0 doubt in my mind that if say the group of coaches we had in the Big East all left this season and went to a mid major conference in 7-10 seasons we would consistently be a top 5 conference. We wouldn't be the best because of the inherent advantages BCS conferences have, namely baseline prestige but we'd give them a run for their money and we would from time to time send a team to the Final 4. Do you really think we wouldn't be able to OR? 

Maybe it would be better if I tried to explain it like this.  There are only "X" amount of quality recruits generated every season.  With the current amount of human-coached teams, a mid-major still has a chance to recruit enough good players to make the occasional deep tourney run.  However, if the number of human-coached teams were increased like you said, there would be even less quality recruits for low and mid-major teams to try to sign, thus diluting the talent on those teams even further.  Everyone agrees, the BCS schools are going to sign the best players, I don't think anyone is arguing that point.  However, more human coaches equals less quality players for the little guys.  Simple matter of ratios.

As far as your example about your conference overlapping and battling amongst themselves, you have a legitimate point there.  But if the Southland Conference and Big West Conference and West Coast Conference, etc. were full of human coaches like you wished, you guys more than likely WOULD be battling other human coaches for the leftovers.  More battles for the leftovers means two things: (1) fewer leftovers as it is, and (2) more money spent on battles leaving even LESS money to try to fill the remainder of a team's schollies.   Just something to think about.
8/21/2011 1:00 PM
Posted by pinkeye on 8/21/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/21/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Really no point in continuing this discussion.  Mr. Mason is so obviously set in his line of thinking that no amount of reasonable discussion will ever change it.  I do think it's a bit humorous though, that nearly everyone who bothers to respond is in agreement on one side of the issue, but a handful of coaches who take the other side of the issue constantly tell everyone us that they're wrong.

As far as the remaining human coaches not fighting over what scraps of good players are left, Mason, if you honestly believe that then I really don't know what else to say.  What you might be missing is that it doesn't matter if the teams are in the same conference or not.  As long as two teams are human-coached teams fighting for the remaining scraps, then the same conference point is moot.
fwiw most people who share mason's opinions stopped bothering over a year ago when it became very obvious recruits aren't changing

there's really no motivation for them to have this argument every 3 days
You seem to be one whose attitude is that once a change is made, it's made and there isn't any reason to try to get it corrected if it was a bad change.........

I would also like for you to name the "most people who share Mason's opinions" that you're talking about (and quoting them would be nice), because I can't remember more than a handful (at the most) who shared that particular opinion on the matter, fwiw.
8/21/2011 1:49 PM
I stopped giving a damn when this stopped being whatifsports and turned into thisissports.
of 19

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.