Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/16/2010 8:07:00 AM (view original):
...or in the metsmax example, having never made the NT.  Here's a disclaimer, I like metsmax.  The times I have been in a conference with him I have enjoyed it thoroughly...so this is not a knock on him.

For Kentucky to still be at a B prestige after that 13 season run is a conplete joke and makes HD look silly.  Obviously, there is an agenda at work to artifically boost schools like Kentucky to keep them close to the top.  If acn24's post is accurate, the Manhattan WON the National Championship and it's prestige remained at a C...didn't even get a boost for winning it all.  This kind of nonsense just makes a mockery of the name of the company.  HD is not what if sports.com, it's more like big schools stay big no matter what sports.com.

The post is accurate, but that was in the 2nd season with prestige, so everything from that period is a little nuts.

The bigger issue is that after 9 straight seasons of Sweet 16 or better, including an undefeated NT season, and a last four of Elite 8, Final 4, Final 4, Sweet 16, Manhattan was basically maxed out.  During a ticket exchange w/ Tarek about this - he made the point that the A- Manhattan had at the end of that run was the 17th highest in Tark DI - and that should make a coach happy - even though the school was arguably the 2nd most successful program (and no worst than Top-5) in Tark DI over that period.

Posted by daalter on 7/16/2010 7:39:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is that they are trying to balance having firings with their (understandable) reluctance to anger their paying customers.

I get it. This makes sense. It is really, really difficult to get fired because of it.

That said, I would like to see firings ramped up -- particularly at the elite and semi-elite schools. I really don't think anyone reasonable would have a problem getting canned at Kentucky or Arizona or UConn, etc. if they hadn't made the NT in X number of seasons.

I have no doubt that you're correct.  Of course, the flip side of that coin is that good coaches coming up through the system who want those jobs that never open up can get just as angry.  Not to mention potential anger from conference mates that have to continue to live with an underachieving coach that never brings in any post-season $$ for the conference.

In my opinion, by the time you reach D1, you've played a good number of seasons at D2 and D3 where you had no risk of being fired.  D1 should be the ultimate proving ground for your skills and there should be consequences to failure (just as in real life - so we really could be "striving for reality").

Posted by muredskin00 on 7/14/2010 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greener on 7/14/2010 3:02:00 PM (view original):
I think it's important to keep in mind that each world in HD is a separate imaginary universe.  They may have started out being intended replicas of schools in the real world, but once the world gets started it loses all connection with the real world.  That's part of the beauty of HD, we can make a no name school a prestigious desired institution if we have the skill and so choose to do so.  We can turn any school in to this world's Gonzaga and prestigious schools in real life don't have to reflect that prestige in HD worlds.

greener, this is true in D2 and D3.  Unfortunately, it's completely untrue in D1.  HD's static baseline prestige system effectively limits how far a D1 power conference school can fall, and how far a non-power conference school can rise.  I would argue that it's nearly impossible to build a Gonzaga with static baseline prestige implemented.  If I won the NT at Miami (OH) the next 2 seasons, my prestige (which is currently a B) would not rise above an A-.  That is truly sad in my opinion.  To be fair, this is not a new engine issue - it's existed for some time. 

Not sure I'd agree with your assertion that it's nearly impossible to build a Gonzaga. Real life Gonzaga has been as far as the Elite 8 exactly one time. Let's not romanticize them into an A-prestige program. They're not quite at that level. And there are plenty of HD coaches who have taken low or mid-level teams and equaled or exceeded what real-life Gonzaga has done.

Posted by professor17 on 7/16/2010 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by muredskin00 on 7/14/2010 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greener on 7/14/2010 3:02:00 PM (view original):
I think it's important to keep in mind that each world in HD is a separate imaginary universe.  They may have started out being intended replicas of schools in the real world, but once the world gets started it loses all connection with the real world.  That's part of the beauty of HD, we can make a no name school a prestigious desired institution if we have the skill and so choose to do so.  We can turn any school in to this world's Gonzaga and prestigious schools in real life don't have to reflect that prestige in HD worlds.

greener, this is true in D2 and D3.  Unfortunately, it's completely untrue in D1.  HD's static baseline prestige system effectively limits how far a D1 power conference school can fall, and how far a non-power conference school can rise.  I would argue that it's nearly impossible to build a Gonzaga with static baseline prestige implemented.  If I won the NT at Miami (OH) the next 2 seasons, my prestige (which is currently a B) would not rise above an A-.  That is truly sad in my opinion.  To be fair, this is not a new engine issue - it's existed for some time. 

Not sure I'd agree with your assertion that it's nearly impossible to build a Gonzaga. Real life Gonzaga has been as far as the Elite 8 exactly one time. Let's not romanticize them into an A-prestige program. They're not quite at that level. And there are plenty of HD coaches who have taken low or mid-level teams and equaled or exceeded what real-life Gonzaga has done.

If you took Gonzaga's accomplishments and plugged them into the formula HD uses to compute prestige, I agree you wouldn't get A- prestige unless you're in a power conference.

However, if I were asked to assign real life prestige to Gonzaga's accomplishments, I believe they're the model of an A- prestige school - even without a Final Four appearance - because of their consistent success over more than a decade.  12 consecutive trips to the tournament, being consistently ranked in the Top 25 during that period, having multiple players drafted into the NBA, and raising the profile of the entire WCC - over more than a decade - gets me to an A-.  If those coaches you're referring to put up an even more impressive record (in real life), their schools would be on national TV more often and more players would want to play there - their prestige could arguably be even higher.  But HD's system will never allow for that possibility.

I disagree completely about Gonzaga's HD prestige. According to scout.com, gonzaga has signed 0 5stars and 6 4 stars in the last 8 years. With an A- prestige you could recruit MUCH better then that. I would give Gonzaga a B.

just noticed this thread - I expected to be fired at Kentucky and should have been - never figured out how to recruit there somehow -

now, in the current season I posted on the bulletin board the angry email from the AD threatening my job - and the kids have responded so well - makes me proud

what has actually happened is that I have hung around at boosters complaining, dropped to jeopardy a couple times and then - I think - getting to the PIT has let me hold on - that is where I think the process is broken for elites - schools with elite baseline prestige need to maintain elite expectations and I should have been gone

Posted by daalter on 7/16/2010 7:39:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is that they are trying to balance having firings with their (understandable) reluctance to anger their paying customers.

I get it. This makes sense. It is really, really difficult to get fired because of it.

That said, I would like to see firings ramped up -- particularly at the elite and semi-elite schools. I really don't think anyone reasonable would have a problem getting canned at Kentucky or Arizona or UConn, etc. if they hadn't made the NT in X number of seasons.

Seems like they could mitigate the grumbling some what by simply including the expectations in the hiring process and in the email you get welcoming you to XYZ University.  Then you'd be on notice, if I don't meet the expectations within a set period of time, I'm out the door.

just one point, you can build a pretty darn successful program recruiting with an A-.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 7/16/2010 10:10:00 AM (view original):
I disagree completely about Gonzaga's HD prestige. According to scout.com, gonzaga has signed 0 5stars and 6 4 stars in the last 8 years. With an A- prestige you could recruit MUCH better then that. I would give Gonzaga a B.

There are many reasons why a school like Gonzaga (or Xavier or Butler) wouldn't be the best fit for certain 4 or 5 star guys.  I don't think that mitigates the success they have on the court and the national profile they've built for themselves from scratch.  To me, that's the pure definition of prestige, but I respect your position.

Posted by namshub on 7/16/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
just one point, you can build a pretty darn successful program recruiting with an A-.

You can with a B or B+, too.

But the question is whether they deserve better.

Posted by daalter on 7/16/2010 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by namshub on 7/16/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
just one point, you can build a pretty darn successful program recruiting with an A-.

You can with a B or B+, too.

But the question is whether they deserve better.

Pretty darm successful...but if the schools deserve an A+ then why the hell not give it to them.  Every school should have the ability to get to an A+ with enough success. 

Posted by daalter on 7/16/2010 7:39:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is that they are trying to balance having firings with their (understandable) reluctance to anger their paying customers.

I get it. This makes sense. It is really, really difficult to get fired because of it.

That said, I would like to see firings ramped up -- particularly at the elite and semi-elite schools. I really don't think anyone reasonable would have a problem getting canned at Kentucky or Arizona or UConn, etc. if they hadn't made the NT in X number of seasons.

Well it could be said that they ARE angering paying customers by keeping coaches at elite schools artificially, affecting not only other, more successful coachs, but also anyone who wants those jobs.

I tend to think, also, that the differentiation is more glaring when you look at the dregs of the BCS, the Virginia Techs and such. The baseline is a double whammy in their eyes since they are held to the same standard, but are not given the gift of artificially enhanced prestige. They mess up and they get fired in the minimum time, not so with the elites. I do have to qualify that a bit after looking at VD's vandy team that went 12 seasons without an NT berth, no offense VD, just looked like at outlier when looking for what whould seem to be one of those tough build BCS programs.

Posted by doomey on 7/17/2010 4:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 7/16/2010 7:39:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is that they are trying to balance having firings with their (understandable) reluctance to anger their paying customers.

I get it. This makes sense. It is really, really difficult to get fired because of it.

That said, I would like to see firings ramped up -- particularly at the elite and semi-elite schools. I really don't think anyone reasonable would have a problem getting canned at Kentucky or Arizona or UConn, etc. if they hadn't made the NT in X number of seasons.

Well it could be said that they ARE angering paying customers by keeping coaches at elite schools artificially, affecting not only other, more successful coachs, but also anyone who wants those jobs.

Valid point, doomey.

I really think that if they just ratcheted it up for the top 25-30 programs, that would accomplish a lot. Something like:

Duke, GT, UNC, UVA, MD, Wake, BC, NC State, Kansas, Mizzou, TX, Oklahoma, UConn, Nova, GTown, Cuse, Pitt, Louisville, Cincy, Iowa, Wisco, Mich State, Indiana, Illinois, UCLA, Stanford, Arizona, Kentucky and Florida.

I'd differentiate between sub groups and ratchet it up a little higher for Duke, UNC, MD, Kansas, UConn, Cuse, Mich State, Illinois, UCLA, AZ and Kentucky than the others. I don't think anyone rational would have a problem being fired if they consistently couldn't get to the NT at one of these types of schools.

Giving it a tiny bit of thought, here's the system I would implement if I were HD God-Emperor For a Day.

Every coach gets a grace period that expires at the beginning of a season when more than 50% of your roster was recruited by you. Thus even if you have a big rebuild, you'll probably still get at least a two season grace period. Once "your guys" are in place though, you're on the hot seat.

I'd add an extra job status level at the top. The new status levels would be: Revered (two above normal), Safe (one above), Meeting Expectations (baseline), Boosters Complaining (one below), In Jeopardy (two below).

Elite (daalter's short list above) - expectation is that you will make the NT every season, and make consistent deep runs. Any season without an NT appearance (PIT is irrelevant) drops your job status one level. In addition, if you don't make at least a Sweet 16 appearance every third season, your job status also drops one level. Worst case scenario, you'd be fired after three straight crappy seasons at an elite. If you make at least the Final Four, your job status gets bumped back up one level. A title bumps it two levels.

Sub-elite BCS (daalter's longer list above)- expectation is that you will make the NT every season. Any season without an NT appearance (a PIT championship counts as an NT appearance, but nothing less) drops your job status one level. Worst case scenario, you'd be fired after three straight crappy seasons at a sub-elite. If you make at least the Elite Eight, your job status gets bumped back up one level. A title bumps it two levels.

Midline BCS (my specialty: Tennessee, OK State, Washington, that sort of school) - expectation is that you will make the NT every second season. Any two consecutive seasons without an NT appearance (a PIT championship counts as an NT appearance) drops your job status one level. Worst case scenario, you'd be fired after six straight crappy seasons at a midline BCS. If you make at least the Sweet 16, your job status gets bumped back up one level. A title bumps it two levels.

Low-level BCS (Baylor etc)/Top Mid-Major (Gonzaga etc) - expectation is that you will have some kind of postseason success every second season. Any two consecutive seasons without an NT appearance or a winning record in the PIT (third round or better) drops your job status one level. Worst case scenario, you'd be fired after six straight really crappy seasons. If you make at least the Sweet 16 or win your CT, your job status gets bumped back up one level. A Final Four appearance or better bumps it two levels.

Anything below that and I have no problem with the current weak-*** system staying in place.