Posted by girt25 on 8/20/2010 10:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 8:55:00 PM (view original):
UNLV was only really good from 1987-1991.  I would not even put them close to a Duke/UNC prestige at any point in their history.  Point proven by the fact that unlv never rebounded and got top talent after 91.  Duke could have a few bad seasons and they still would get top talent.  

Memphis has only been really good since 2006 and still have not won a NC.

Despite the success I still don't think either of these schools are the elite powerhouses that UCLA, UNC, or Duke are. 

moy, I agree -- I don't think that Memphis is at the UNC/Duke level.

However, UNLV in their heyday and Memphis now were/are elite basketball schools. They can compete for the bluest of the blue chip recruits.

And you're right about the relatively short time frame of each of their dominance. However, that only enhances my point ... those schools were able to elevate themselves to the top level of programs in a very short time. Montana has had significantly more sustained excellence, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to reach at least the UNLV/Memphis level, and really higher (11 straight NT appearances). And of course, when it comes to coaching, I'm the perfect combination of Tark's good looks and Calipari's old school values and humility.

lol.  

what is your prestige at montana?  

I think memphis had their championship revoked too.  unlv might have had that 91 season taken away as well, can't recall. 

I would love a coach "prestige" factor tied to a "school" prestige factor. coaches most definitely have a lot to do with drawing in top recruits (which is the only thing prestige is good for in HD).  

I can certainly see why top-level recruits would be clamoring to spend a couple of years in Missoula, regardless of who the coach was.

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 10:49:00 PM (view original):
I think memphis had their championship revoked too.  unlv might have had that 91 season taken away as well, can't recall. 

I would love a coach "prestige" factor tied to a "school" prestige factor. coaches most definitely have a lot to do with drawing in top recruits (which is the only thing prestige is good for in HD).  

Moy, Memphis never won a title, but did have a couple of Final Four appearances revoked (85 and 08).

Posted by antonsirius on 8/21/2010 12:54:00 AM (view original):
I can certainly see why top-level recruits would be clamoring to spend a couple of years in Missoula, regardless of who the coach was.

Yeah, kind of like a how a kid might choose to spend some time in thriving metropolises like Norman, OK; Manhattan or Lawrence, KS; Fayeteville, AR; Champaign, IL; or any number of otherwise uninspiring places.

Missoula, Montana: Where men are men and sheep are afraid. Check us out!

seble bottom line does not think this is a problem, according to him, almost noone mentioned it in the survey, and originally  I was the only person who has complained in tickets, and still there are only a few - I can't blame him for thinking he has nailed this change dead on - if we don't give him direct feedback, he can't know, maybe I should start a thread up, who has written a ticket to seble complaining about his new recruit generation scheme

I know that I mentioned it in the survey. 

Posted by girt25 on 8/20/2010 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 8/20/2010 6:09:00 PM (view original):
daalter, your team compares to Gonzaga but a little bit better. Ask yourself do you think Gonzaga has gotten to the point where they are considered in the same breath as the traditional elites? Look at a school like Utah in football or Boise State, they fit the same description. All of these schools are in mid major conferences but have BCS school results but I don't think anybody considers them on par with the traditional powers. It takes a very long time to reach that level.

Umm ... I think you need to brush up on your college basketball, friend. A little bit better than Gonzaga?

Gonzaga has been past the Sweet 16 once in the program's history.
Montana made two Final Fours, three Elite 8's and a Sweet 16 in six seasons amidst a still-active strong of 11 straight NT appearances. Montana was a 1 or 2 seed for 4-5 straight seasons.

Gonzaga does not compare.

If 13 straight 20-win seasons with that kind of postseason success doesn't do it, then nothing will. Schools like UNLV and Memphis became national powers with elite prestige and recruited the top studs, and their success was sustained over a way shorter period of time.

You're off base here.

How fast did UNLV drop off? Let's wait a bit before we start saying Memphis is on par with Kansas and Duke's of the world, Calipari is gone, remeber what happened to UMASS when he left. The difference between schools like UNLV and Memphis and schools like UNC, Kansas, Kentucky and UCLA is it doesn't matter who is coaching them they will always be elite schools. UNC is on their 3rd coach since Dean Smith retired and 2 of those coaches won national titles. Kansas loses Roy Wiliams and wins a national title with Bill Self. UCLA has been to countless Final 4s under multiple coaches. Kentucky lost Pitino and won a title with Smith.

That's the difference between the truely elite schools and the schools that get lucky to have a great coach stop by. Recruits go to UNC because it's UNC they went to Memphis because Calipari was the coach. I've always thought there should be a school prestige and a coach prestige. School prestige should have a max cap in D1 while coach prestige should have no such cap.

But how would you determine a coach's prestige? Tournament berths?

The same way you determine a school's prestige. It shouldn't be too hard. Except instead of having a cap on where the prestige can go, there is no cap.

I like the idea, I'm just wondering how it would work. You should put it in the suggestions forum (if it's not there already)

I have long thought that there should be a "coach prestige" and that there should be a way to tie it into the school prestige.  Since everyone here is seems to be shooting for realism, this would definitely apply. 

And I personally think it would be fair that coaches like OR, Lostmyth, Daalt, Grecian, Gillispie, etc. (and sorry if you didn't get mentioned, nothing personal) should have a higher "prestige" based on their short and long term success.  I suppose someone will say that it's the rich getter richer, but guys like that have earned it and there's no reason that the person who complains can't earn it also.

Posted by usc4life on 8/21/2010 2:37:00 PM (view original):
I like the idea, I'm just wondering how it would work. You should put it in the suggestions forum (if it's not there already)

You could use several different criteria, some weighted more heavily than others.  Number of seasons coached, 20 win seasons, regular season Conference titles, Conference Tourney titles, PIT bids, NT bids, Sweet 16's, Final Fours, Elite Eights, National Titles, players drafted, Top 25 finishes, etc.  All that's right off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others, but there would be several ways to do it.  Now how hard would it be to integrate into the new engine?  I guess only Seble would know that, but I wouldn't think it would be THAT difficult.

total games coached should determine coach prestige.

Posted by vandydave on 8/21/2010 10:43:00 PM (view original):
total games coached should determine coach prestige.

Winning percentage should be a major factor in the formula, as well as postseason berths