Should ANY team be able to become a dynasty?

[KeyserSoze]

I think the main subject is doing things progressive. You can´t make any program a powerhouse in 2 years, but it can improve slightly each year, so you can be a good program in some years. You can be limited for the "alumni factor " since schools like Wyoming probably will not have the same impact than Notre Dame, but for me, it´s fair that Wyoming with a good program, time and luck can be a competitive college.

[ortonius]

I agree. There are programs that have climbed to close to the top of the heap, but it is tough for them to stay there. Teams like Urban Meyer's Utah team, Fresno State with David Carr, Boston College with Doug Flutie, Houston with Andre Ware...there are a whole list of teams that have gotten into the top 10, and the game should reflect the ability to do that as long as it is an outstanding coaching job that takes a few years to see to fruition and it should be VERY tough to stay there....with the reward being an opportunity as coach to jump to LSU, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, etc...

[Vig1980]

I agree and disagree. I don't think a 5000 student school should ever be able to become a dynasty simply because of the pure numbers. However, a big school (in terms of number of students) should be able to become a highly-rated school over time...

[DocBBall35]

Hmm, just my thoughts, but first of all, my understanding is that Bowl Bound was going to initially just include Division I-A. It seems pointless to me to include I-AA yet, since they use completely different playoff systems and crown their own national champions. Second, someone said it earlier, but the reason you don't see small schools being built up to national powerhouses much in college basketball or football in real life is because the coaches often leave for bigger programs. Here's why: In real life, coaches die. There's a limit to how long someone can coach in real life, but there's no limit in computer games. I could coach for 200 years if I wanted to. However, there are a few coaches in college basketball who have stayed at the program they are developing, and have seen a drastic improvement (Gonzaga, perhaps overrated, but nevertheless, a powerhouse). Also, the changes made to the bowl system will make a difference in national prestige.

[Jestor]

I think setting limitations would be a bad idea... you *should* be able to turn any school into a dynasty... it should just take you a hell of a long time to do so. If you couldn't turn any team into a dynasty, then a lot of the fun *and* a lot of the challenge goes out the window.

[Vig1980]

[QUOTE=Jestor]I think setting limitations would be a bad idea... you *should* be able to turn any school into a dynasty... it should just take you a hell of a long time to do so. If you couldn't turn any team into a dynasty, then a lot of the fun *and* a lot of the challenge goes out the window.[/QUOTE] I can't agree with you there. I think that you should be able to win a conference with a smaller college but a dynasty? I don't think so. I just think that I small sized school will never have the support, and therefore budget, to be able to recruit and entice good enough prospects over a sustaned period. I definitely don't think there should be a cap-type system in the game where the top high school prospects refuse to go to certain sized schools. I think it just needs some programming so that it is hard for smaller schools to get top prospects even after a good year. Even my school, Temple, in Philly which ploughs money into the football program can't attract good high-schoolers. They pump so much money in there that there are about 30 recruits every year and they play at Lincoln Financial Field in front of about 15,000 fans! The reason is simply that they don't have the success or prestige of other school which is built up over several years and not one!

[Jestor]

[QUOTE=Vig1980]I can't agree with you there. I think that you should be able to win a conference with a smaller college but a dynasty? I don't think so. I just think that I small sized school will never have the support, and therefore budget, to be able to recruit and entice good enough prospects over a sustaned period. I definitely don't think there should be a cap-type system in the game where the top high school prospects refuse to go to certain sized schools. I think it just needs some programming so that it is hard for smaller schools to get top prospects even after a good year. Even my school, Temple, in Philly which ploughs money into the football program can't attract good high-schoolers. They pump so much money in there that there are about 30 recruits every year and they play at Lincoln Financial Field in front of about 15,000 fans! The reason is simply that they don't have the success or prestige of other school which is built up over several years and not one![/QUOTE] But with the right recruiting class, success can gradually be built up and sustained over a number of years to where the schools start taking it to the next level, regardless of their size. Admittedly this is easier in basketball, where you only have 12 players to deal with and the impact of an individual player is much greater in general than with the 45ish players of a football team, but the principle still stands.

[smartman]

Well, I think the problem is that some of you have a different idea of what a dynasty is. You all are thinking NC's as the only thing that is a dynasty which isn't the case. If you win your conference 7 straight years, that is a dynasty no matter the size of the schools involved. A dynasty imo should mean that at the start of the year, everyone else should consider you the team to beat in the conference. Now, if you word the question correctly as "Should anyone be able to win a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?" then the answer is no for the reasons listed plus the fact that until they go to a playoff system, no non-BCS school will ever get to play in the NC game, much less win it. Even then, they'll have to beat a murderers row of teams in stadiums at least twice as large as they regularly play in with 90% of the crowd against them. As a small school, your recruiting budget should never be substantial enough to let you recruit anything but the in-state and possibly next-state HS AA's with little (but some look at Tim Couch and Dennis Johnson at UK) chance of getting them.

[Jestor]

See I have big problems with words like never. To me, that's putting everything in a limited, finite box that ignores the potential and possibility for change through the years.

[smartman]

Okay, Jestor, I can see your point. Never is a word that means a long time of something not happening. However, every school that has come out of the basement (in terms of football) to become a power has been a major state school (FSU, Miami, Wisconsin, hell even Penn St. There has never been a small school that has come to the top and lasted any amount of time (and for the record, BYU's student pop. is huge). Why is this? MONEY! Now granted, some of the money is needed to pay and retain very talented coaches which you can argue won't matter since you're the HC in the game, but most of it is needed to fund workout and practice facilities and recruiting trips (FSU has recruited out of the Pacific NW recently, and that's one long, expensive flight). Basically, it is the whole realism vs entertainment debate. Most of us would loooooooooooove to take someone like New Mexico St. to the NC, but if it happened while we were playing as say Notre Dame, we would be wanting to hang Arlie in effigy saying that's not realistic at all, it would never happen, etc. Hell, as big of a UK fan as I am, if they started becoming a national power (without me at the helm or without Tenn. and Alabama putting them on probation) then I would start to question the programming a little bit. They simply are in too tough a conference and division to be a basketball school. The bottom line is that without a rabid fan base and huge coffers of money, no school will ever win a NC, and there are certain schools out there that don't and won't have that unless you coach there 100-200 years at which point realism exits out the window anyway.

[Arlie Rahn]

I agree with most here, but I do think the rules are making it a little easier for a mid-major to be in the BCS title game. First, strength of schedule is not as big of a factor as it once was. Second, the BCS rule that any mid-major in the top 6 of the BCS be in the rotation means a team (a la Utah, Boise State or someone else) could get one or two BCS bids over a 3-4 year timeframe to get their national prestige up a bit before they could take the center stage in a champ game. In order for a mid-major to win, here's what would have to happen in real life: 1. They schedule decent major conference teams over a 2-3 year period, win a few and grow their reputation with the media and coaches (with the Harris and Coaches poll making 2/3 of the BCS). 2. Play in a decent conference with one or two other teams (a la Fresno State or BYU) that can come up with the ocassional upset and give the conference an RPI with a pulse. 3. After having 1 and 2 happen for a few seasons, play atleast 2 major conference teams in the top 25 or bowl potentials, and run the table. If all three happened, I could see a team like Miami of Ohio, Boise State or Colorado State making the top 2 in the BCS. But, there is very little margin for error and the odds they could do it more than once are slim to none. But, I would state a National championship, 2-3 bowl appearances and another BCS appearance (non-title) over a 5 year period would be a "dynasty" by today's standards. So, from that standpoint, it would be possible with good leadership over 5-10 years.

[smartman]

My arguement would be Arlie, that with two human polls making up 2/3rds of the BCS selection criteria that it will be even harder for a mid-major to make it into the top 2. Polls are completely subject to hype which is due to playing on national TV (and no, Fox Sports doesn't count). Also, with college coaches getting severely pressured to vote for their buddies (due to the final ballot being released to the public) there will be very little a mid-major could do to a big-time coach whereas another powerhouse team could do alot to mess up their program, so they'll side with the powerhouse. I've followed football all my life, and I just don't see a mid-major being allowed into the NC game until there is a playoff with complete instant replay instituted (to keep the refs from screwing said mid-major). Maybe I'm just pessimistic. And before anyone says "Well, if Meyer had stayed at Utah, they'd be a national power in a few years", keep in mind two things-1) he had the #1 overall pick at QB in a very QB-reliant system which is impossible to have too often (unless you're Miami in the 80's) and 2) the guy has never recruited players he's had to coach. In the game, who knows how consistently good you can recruit anywhere, much less at a mid-major? Could someone do it in the game? Possibly, but it should take them a very long time (at least 20-30 years at most schools) to even make it to a BCS game.

[Arlie Rahn]

I agree that it would be very difficult and take 4-5 years of consistent top 25-level play to get there. However, I do think it is possible (which was the question in this thread).

[AZJAZ]

[QUOTE]In the game, who knows how consistently good you can recruit anywhere, much less at a mid-major? Could someone do it in the game? Possibly, but it should take them a very long time (at least 20-30 years at most schools) to even make it to a BCS game.[/QUOTE] Umm can anyone sat Utah? I know Utah wasn't on the brink of being a power team because it takes time to recruit at a consistently high level, but they did go undefeated and win a BCS game. It should be entirely possible to make anyone a dynasty. It should directly correlate to consistent successful play on the field. A nice recruiting base would help too.

[smartman]

[QUOTE=smartman] And before anyone says "Well, if Meyer had stayed at Utah, they'd be a national power in a few years", keep in mind two things-1) he had the #1 overall pick at QB in a very QB-reliant system which is impossible to have too often (unless you're Miami in the 80's) and 2) the guy has never recruited players he's had to coach.[/QUOTE] Thanks for quoting just part of my post. This is the part that applied to Utah. Hell, Northwestern, a BCS team, went to the Rose Bowl one year, but you see where they went right after. Of course, the main thing that Arlie won't put into the game (because it would kill the fun factor) is what happened to S. Carolina. They play in consecutive New Year's Day Bowl games, and what happens? They're found to have 5 MAJOR violations and 10 in all. As someone who follows the SEC closely, if you aren't named Tenn., Fla., Ga., Alabama, or Auburn and do well in the SEC, you will be on probation quickly. That's what happened to NW too, btw. Everyone cheats to some degree. That's why the NCAA rulebook is more confusing to read than a Chinese instruction manual when you don't understand Chinese. It's done to protect the elite schools. Someone gets good and makes the elites look bad, boom probation.

[AZJAZ]

Sorry smartman, I didnt read all the posts on this thread, just the last few.

[Guest TideTiger]

I have to disagree with the original sentiment of this thread. While Nebraska, Notre Dame, and USC have been powerhouses since the beginning of time, today's powerhouse programs that we so readily accept like Miami and Florida State were absolute homecoming fodder as recently as the mid-70s. Florida State wasn't too far removed from being an all-girls school at that time, either. Also, teams that are currently homecoming fodder...like SMU, Vanderbilt, and Army...were powerhouses themselves once upon a time. Even Oklahoma went from powerhouse to mid-range Big XII team before the return of Bob Stoops reenergized that program. Basically, the dynamic nature of College Football should dictate that any school that is managed to it's fullest should be able to break out of the doghouse and crack the elite with time.