Poll: Starter Leagues (MEMBERS MUST VOTE.)

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by ociu, Jun 17, 2010.

?

What is your opinion on the leagues?

Poll closed Jun 18, 2010.
  1. MAC and CUSA

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. MAC and WAC

    55.6%
  3. MAC and Sun Belt

    11.1%
  4. No MAC/ Other

    33.3%
  1. ociu

    ociu Hoosier for Life.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    363
    Poll: Starter Leagues (MEMBERS MUST VOTE.)

    Hey Folks.

    A couple of you have brought up concern about the balance of power with the current league setup. Check out the well-thought-out "Ratings and Stars" post for more info.

    If I'm reading it correctly, the pro-change of leagues believe that:

    1. The MAC and the CUSA aren't on par as leagues as the preliminary team ratings show
    2. As such, this gives an upper hand to coaches who are placed in the CUSA, which makes sense, as our CUSA teams went considerably quicker than the MAC teams.

    Very valid points. However, I have a couple of counter-arguments:

    1. The MAC's worst teams are considerably worse than the CUSA's worst, which brings the "star" ranking down a bit, making the MAC look worse than it is
    2. If you take out Houston, the difference isn't as drastic as it seems
    3. The fact that the MAC's worst teams are so radically bad isn't that huge of an issue, because other than myself and Eastern Michigan's coach, Prewitt, most of the MAC teams picked were in the top half of the league.
    4. Since inter-league play has no impact on conference standings and each coach will likely only have one or two "MAC vs CUSA showdown" matchups per season, it's not going to have a huge impact on each individual coach's BP totals at the end of the season.

    I would argue that the fact that the CUSA's top teams are so good is more of an issue for in-conference play than being an issue where CUSA owners have a natural advantage over MAC owners. As until coaches start upgrading (which is about three or four seasons in), none of us are going to be in the race for the National Title, the primary goal up front is to win the conference. Inter-league games will have an effect on NCAA rankings, but being in the CUSA and MAC, it's not like any of us will be in the top 10 anyway, so interleague matchups really only matter in terms of getting to bowls.

    As I said previously though, it is obvious that the CUSA teams are clearly better than the MAC teams, so I can absolutely see the "pro-change" points.


    It seems that we're left with a few options, accepting that the MAC is going to be one of our starter leagues.

    1) MAC and CUSA
    +It won't have an impact on Conference play, and there's no natural disadvantage of a CUSA school over a MAC school as Conference play is key when taking into account the BP system.
    +Some of our league's coaches have natural tie-ins to MAC schools, and they'd rather keep the MAC in play.
    -CUSA teams and MAC teams aren't equal in quality, meaning that in inter-conference play, the top CUSA teams have the upper hand. This can have an impact on bowl games, but doesn't affect Conference races other than the fact that Houston is far and away the best team in the Conference.


    2) MAC and WAC (with Boise State blacklisted)

    -The WAC doesn't have a championship game (while the MAC does). This means that not all coaches are guaranteed to play the same amount of in-conference User matchups, which could lend a disadvantage to certain coaches. Also, the Conference Championship is a really exciting time.
    -We'd have to blacklist Boise State, so I don't know how attractive that conference is without them.

    +However, as others have stated, the middle of the pack in the WAC is somewhat similar to the middle of the pack of the MAC (again, as long as you take out Boise State, maybe swapping them with a middle of the pack MWC team).
    +This allows us to switch from the Big 10 and the ACC as destination jobs to Big 10 and Pac 10. Neither of these leagues have CCG or divisions, but the champions of both leagues would go on to the Rose Bowl, which would be pretty cool with some in-league clashes in Pasadena.

    3) MAC and Sun Belt

    - The Sun Belt sucks as a league, and the difference between Sun Belt teams and MAC teams may be more significant than CUSA teams and MAC teams (withdrawing Houston from the discussion, who is tremendously overrated). However, other users see these two conferences as relatively equal, so I may be completely biased in this.
    - The Sun Belt has very few Bowl tie-ins, meaning that, potentially, very few coaches could get to bowl games. I may be misunderstanding this though.

    + Our Destination jobs would be in the SEC and the Big 10, which might be exciting to some users.

    4) Completely ditch the MAC and go with a different set of conferences entirely.


    Notes: I do not want to shift to more than two leagues, as part of the point of this league is to have exciting in-conference races. Having been in a few leagues that do it, having two or three users per conference really makes it not fun at all, as conference games become way too easy when there's only one or two in-conference user games a year. Having only two conferences also allows in-conference rivalries to build up as coaches try to out-compete eachother. This setup allows for coaches to learn eachother's tendencies, and also makes it to where not everyone is picking the best team in their respective league, meaning that more program-building has to happen. Turning around lower programs, building rivalries, and building your legacy as a coach is why this league exists, and from conversations with a commish who's been there before, I think, personally, that two conferences (with divisions) is the best setup for our starter leagues.

    I absolutely won't shift to more than four leagues, as it only exemplifies the issues that people have with the current choice. I'd also be very hesitant to have three leagues, but if someone could present a solid argument as to why that'd fix the problems people are having with it, I'd be more than happy to listen to it.

    We're not going to BCS conferences, as this would defeat the purpose of this league, and will destroy the utility of the Buzz system, which I'm really excited to put in to place. If you're wanting to start with BCS schools, I don't want to come off as a jerk, but you might want to find a different league.

    I also must admit to a particular bias to the Big 10 as a destination job league (and by extension, the MAC as a starter league). You guys can tell by now that I'm a huge IU Football fan, and I'd love the opportunity to go from Miami to having a chance to rebuild my Hoosiers to compete for Big 10 titles. This doesn't mean though that I'm not open to listening to arguments to changing from the MAC to something else; even though I'm commish, I'm not power tripping, and as long as you all stay involved on the forums, you guys more than have your say in the direction of the league.

    If we do decide to switch to different leagues, we're going to do a random drawing to determine draft order and then will hold a draft to choose teams.

    Please (only league members listed on the roster) vote what you think would be best, and post other comments in the thread. I appreciate you guys bringing up these questions as it shows that you're committed to the league in general, which is going to be important in making this thing last.
     
  2. MSU124

    MSU124 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    Sorry to start this debate but lots of time to kill from now and release data.

    You seem to be stuck with the MAC, and that is fine by me. It's your league.

    My concern is balance of power towards C-USA coaches and MAC coaches.
    Most of the C-USA teams are better and also 3*.
    A star difference is very easy to tell in recruiting. I'm not even going to bother battling any of them for recruits. (This may not matter considering that we will recruit our regions and the schools in our region are mostly the same stars)

    Here is the data:
    Conference_________Avg. Stars_________Avg. Overall
    C-USA______________2.25________________75.6
    MAC________________1.85________________68.1
    Sun Belt_____________1.11_______________ 67.8
    WAC________________2.11________________72.6

    What I think is fair:
    Lets say after the 3rd year, two people are ready to move on to different schools. They have their 200 points. Coaches from C-USA will find it a lot easier to move to their BCS conference because there is 3* schools in those, but probably not a 2*. (200 points means you can change schools to someone with the same number of stars)
    It's unfair because they get to build their teams faster and start recruiting at a higher level faster. What if we gave 2* schools a 50 point "bonus"? *Bonus would be taken away if by the 3rd year, they are bumped to a 3* team.

    Might be dumb or might not making any sense. Bad at explaining stuff.
    I know this isn't what this topic is about but it's a option.
     
  3. MSU124

    MSU124 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    I'm voting for Sun Belt, simply because I want to play in the SEC. and C-USA is a different level completely. Sun-Belt is about the same overall wise. We could give those 1* teams a 50 "buzz" points.
    Starting in the Sun Belt & MAC would be actually starting from the worst teams, unlike C-USA, which is a step above. You would see a lot more coaches not jumping as fast which would add a little more fun to it.
     
  4. ociu

    ociu Hoosier for Life.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    363
    Hey, I'm all for debates, as long as they're backed by reasoning, which, clearly, yours are. I appreciate your input.

    The Recruiting argument isn't one I had really thought of, but it's a very good point. I think that puts another perspective on it that I hadn't really had before. The CUSA very clearly has a considerably better recruiting base, which means that they're going to develop faster as teams than the MAC teams. Even though I feel that the Midwest has some tremendous athletes that get overlooked, in game, the athletes tend to be in the Southwest or California.

    Thinking about that, I might have changed my vote. Not sure to what, but I do see your reasoning.

    Thanks for the post.
     
  5. MorsDraconis

    MorsDraconis Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,639
    I concur. I voted CUSA and MAC but I think I'm going to change it to MAC and Sun Belt.

    I have no problem taking a Sun Belt team. I'm going to be one of those people that sticks with whatever school they have for the long haul. I definitely do not plan on switching schools at any time, no matter how many points I develop.
     
  6. prewett53

    prewett53 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    The more I think about it I am thinking more and more about changing my vote from MAC and CUSA to MAC and Sun Belt. I think the MAC-Sun Belt conference games would be more evenly matched from the start
     
  7. MSU124

    MSU124 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    Boom Boom Boom. Revolution just like that.
     
  8. Austin811

    Austin811 Go Dbacks!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    785
    MSU brings up a great point in recruiting and hey the Sun Belt is not THAT bad, I know of at least 3 maybe even 4 teams I would have no problem playing with.
     
  9. ociu

    ociu Hoosier for Life.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    363
    Revolution?

    I just became the commish 2 days ago. No need to revolt. ;)

    You do make a good point though. We'll see how the rest of this poll goes and then decide.
     
  10. MSU124

    MSU124 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    Right now, it is:
    1 MAC/C-USA
    1 MAC/WAC
    5 MAC/Sun Belt (I think)
     
  11. MSU124

    MSU124 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    Only playing. You've done great so far. If your going to be as thorough about everything as you are this, this is going to be a great league.
     
  12. prewett53

    prewett53 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    i totally agree
     
  13. NateDawg

    NateDawg GT- MIZ Nighthawk

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    497
    IMO switching from C-USA to Sun Belt the only thing we are doing is setting up the MAC to be the dominant division rather than the C-USA:

    If we are concerned about recruiting this does not fix any problems. The Sun Belt teams are all 1* other than Troy (2*). They would be going up against the MAC with only 3/13 teams being 1* (none of which would be picked, most likely)- most MAC teams are 2* with a 3* thrown in as well.

    This is going to give the Sun Belt teams a huge disadvantage in recruiting. If I am missing something let me know, but that is the way I see it.
     
  14. MorsDraconis

    MorsDraconis Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,639
    There's a disadvantage no matter what. But the advantage of the CUSA teams is the 3* start (which is immediate play at 4* players in your pipelines and home base) and the fact that the teams in CUSA are all pretty much located in fertile recruiting grounds. Christ, the entire West division has retarded good access to Texas and most are close enough to California to access it as well not to mention the East having access to pretty much the entire Eastern seaboard.

    Florida would be the only place that Sun Belt teams would be fighting over recruits (except for North Texas that is and we could just refuse usage of them) and they'd be fighting amongst themselves, just like the MAC teams will be (Midwest and upper Eastern seaboard) making it that much more interesting.

    Recruiting wise, it makes the most sense for the Sun Belt and MAC to be together because they are basically all centered around one area whereas CUSA is Florida and Texas.
     
  15. Papa Perry

    Papa Perry Leeroy Jenkins!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,562
    I voted Sun Belt and MAC. Did the dibs I called on my Trojans stand? Lol
     
  16. ociu

    ociu Hoosier for Life.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    363
    Yeah, this is why I was hesitant to jump on that bandwagon.

    I feel like there's going to be a disadvantage regardless of who we choose. The goal is to try to minimize that disadvantage to make things as equal as possible.

    If you guys are incredibly worried about competitive disadvantage, we could swap sun belt teams out with 2* teams from the Southeast that fit the Sun Belt profile. That way, we could start everyone out with 2* teams.

    In my opinion though, recruiting with a 1* team or a 2* team is going to be freakin' hard. I'm not sure that, with EA's recruiting sliders, we're going to have an easy time regardless.

    There's going to be some degree of disadvantage regardless, and I had exactly this argument in my OP, so it's pretty obvious I agree with you.

    I guess that's why you hope that you get an early draft pick. In reality, not everyone's going to start on equal footing, whether we start with the MAC and CUSA, MAC and WAC, CUSA and whatever. Just the nature of the beast. However, 2* vs 1* is much more fair than 2* vs 3*, imo.
     
  17. cuaacards

    cuaacards Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    So will we be switching then?
     
  18. ociu

    ociu Hoosier for Life.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    363
    Nah, we haven't decided officially yet. I probably put the poll up too early, as several guys have changed their minds after conversations started up.

    I'll put up another poll today for the final vote, and we'll go from there. After that, if we decide to change, we'll have a draft for teams with randomized order.
     
  19. cuaacards

    cuaacards Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    69
    alright cool, good job handling all this ociu, can't wait to get my spartans vs. your hoosiers in year 4
     
  20. sreese

    sreese Walk On

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,119
    sorry i missed this oc. looks like it got cleared up.
     
  21. ociu

    ociu Hoosier for Life.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    363
    Looking forward to laying an Indiana beatdown on you. :)
     

Share This Page