Posted by antonsirius on 9/2/2010 2:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/1/2010 9:40:00 PM (view original):
Yup, and that's one of the main problems.  Villanova should be a D- prestige with that kind of history...but NO, it's a Big East school.  Let's artificially prop them up so that we don't **** off the Villanova fans that may want to try Hoops Dynasty.  What a joke.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making.

Which world has been under the new recruiting the longest and what has been the resultts?   Has any world gone through one full recruiting class and seen the predicted decimination in competitiveness among mid-majors?   

Posted by theword2 on 9/2/2010 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Which world has been under the new recruiting the longest and what has been the resultts?   Has any world gone through one full recruiting class and seen the predicted decimination in competitiveness among mid-majors?   

I've got a couple of other questions regarding the new recruit generation:

(1)   Are there more players with high-high potential?    In recent recruiting at a mid-major and a low-major, it feels Iike I've seen more low-ranked players that seem to have very high ceilings on potential (e.g. "no reason NOT to expect HUGE improvement", "sky's the limit", etc.).   These players are low ranked and have low baselines and wouldn't appear exceptional unless you got their scouting report.   

(2)  Has it become easier to redshirt guys?    Previously, getting guys to accept RS wasn't easy.   This time around, I gave three guys RS without any CV or HV and they took them.

This is based on a very small sample, but IF there are more low ranked players that have high-high potential in key categories and IF it has become easier to redshirt guys (to help them achieve that potential), then it would help to keep mid-majors more competitive by allowing them to find the diamonds in the rough and develop them to be competitive with those players with higher starting values (or building teams with complementary players that while not able to compete star for star, compete much better as a team).   This would especially be true if some of those players with super high starting values are leaving after their FR and SO years.

Also, what has been the impact on recruiting battles?    Very often, you would see A+ prestige programs able to put together awesome unchallenged classes because there were enough elite recruits to go around.    Now, with the dawn of the super-recruit are there more battles between the super programs that allow mid-majors to either pick up good players that aren't in the 800s, but in the 650s (which is now a pretty decent player) or even poach from higher prestige programs that have overextended themselves trying to win the next Kevin Durant?       

If nothing else, it would be helpful to understand all of the potential dimensions of what's going on rather than just relying on the gap in baseline starting values as the only data point for the discussion.

Posted by professor17 on 9/1/2010 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/1/2010 9:40:00 PM (view original):
Yup, and that's one of the main problems.  Villanova should be a D- prestige with that kind of history...but NO, it's a Big East school.  Let's artificially prop them up so that we don't **** off the Villanova fans that may want to try Hoops Dynasty.  What a joke.

The concept of "What If" doesn't mean you dispense with reality completely. You still have to maintain some semblance to real life college basketball. That means it should be significantly more difficult to win at low-level and mid-level schools than at the major schools. That creates different levels of challenge in the game, and allows for climbing up the job ladder. Baseline prestige attempts to account for the fact that the major conference schools have far better TV exposure, substantially greater athletic department budgets, more extensive booster/alumni networks and better practice and game facilities, all of which make them more attractive than lower level schools, even if their recent history has not been stellar. It will always be easier to resurrect a dormant BCS program than some low-level program. They have inherent structural advantages due to their conference affiliation and that's what baseline prestige is trying to account for.

I think the solution to keeping the non-BCS schools reasonably competitive to fill the gaps between the elite recruits and the next tier of recruits a little better, so that there are more "very good" players available. Not to eliminate baseline prestige.

Posted by emy1013 on 9/2/2010 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by udm_mike on 9/1/2010 12:11:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem could be drastically reduced if they lessened the effect of baseline prestige.  Not sure if this would be doable, since it'd be different affects for different worlds, but I'd like to see baseline prestige go closer and closer to zero in each subsequent season after the 1st.  So the affect in Wooden would be negligible, but the affects in Tark/Phelan would still carry a little bit of weight.  Just my 2 cents.

Not to split hairs, but you do realize that Tark is now the farthest world along, right?

Posted by Rails on 9/2/2010 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 9/1/2010 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/1/2010 9:40:00 PM (view original):
Yup, and that's one of the main problems.  Villanova should be a D- prestige with that kind of history...but NO, it's a Big East school.  Let's artificially prop them up so that we don't **** off the Villanova fans that may want to try Hoops Dynasty.  What a joke.

The concept of "What If" doesn't mean you dispense with reality completely. You still have to maintain some semblance to real life college basketball. That means it should be significantly more difficult to win at low-level and mid-level schools than at the major schools. That creates different levels of challenge in the game, and allows for climbing up the job ladder. Baseline prestige attempts to account for the fact that the major conference schools have far better TV exposure, substantially greater athletic department budgets, more extensive booster/alumni networks and better practice and game facilities, all of which make them more attractive than lower level schools, even if their recent history has not been stellar. It will always be easier to resurrect a dormant BCS program than some low-level program. They have inherent structural advantages due to their conference affiliation and that's what baseline prestige is trying to account for.

I think the solution to keeping the non-BCS schools reasonably competitive to fill the gaps between the elite recruits and the next tier of recruits a little better, so that there are more "very good" players available. Not to eliminate baseline prestige.

Prof, hasn't that TV, conference exposure, budgets, etc. evolved over time?  It wasn't that way in 1940 or 1930.  Someone said Tark is in Season 50.  That means season Tark's season 1 would have been the RL equivalent to 1960.  Some of today's major conferences and weren't even in existance then so it's obvious they didn't have structural advantages in 1960.  Some of today's highest prestige programs weren't even on the map in 1960. 

The landscape of CBB has changed over 50 seasons since 1960.  Starting with season 1, each world should have been given the ability to evolve on its own.  Reality isn't dispensed with if that would be the case.  It's still a game of BB.

Posted by jbasnight on 9/2/2010 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Rails on 9/2/2010 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 9/1/2010 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/1/2010 9:40:00 PM (view original):
Yup, and that's one of the main problems.  Villanova should be a D- prestige with that kind of history...but NO, it's a Big East school.  Let's artificially prop them up so that we don't **** off the Villanova fans that may want to try Hoops Dynasty.  What a joke.

The concept of "What If" doesn't mean you dispense with reality completely. You still have to maintain some semblance to real life college basketball. That means it should be significantly more difficult to win at low-level and mid-level schools than at the major schools. That creates different levels of challenge in the game, and allows for climbing up the job ladder. Baseline prestige attempts to account for the fact that the major conference schools have far better TV exposure, substantially greater athletic department budgets, more extensive booster/alumni networks and better practice and game facilities, all of which make them more attractive than lower level schools, even if their recent history has not been stellar. It will always be easier to resurrect a dormant BCS program than some low-level program. They have inherent structural advantages due to their conference affiliation and that's what baseline prestige is trying to account for.

I think the solution to keeping the non-BCS schools reasonably competitive to fill the gaps between the elite recruits and the next tier of recruits a little better, so that there are more "very good" players available. Not to eliminate baseline prestige.

Prof, hasn't that TV, conference exposure, budgets, etc. evolved over time?  It wasn't that way in 1940 or 1930.  Someone said Tark is in Season 50.  That means season Tark's season 1 would have been the RL equivalent to 1960.  Some of today's major conferences and weren't even in existance then so it's obvious they didn't have structural advantages in 1960.  Some of today's highest prestige programs weren't even on the map in 1960. 

The landscape of CBB has changed over 50 seasons since 1960.  Starting with season 1, each world should have been given the ability to evolve on its own.  Reality isn't dispensed with if that would be the case.  It's still a game of BB.

Great, great point that isn't made enough here.

Posted by pdanao on 9/2/2010 11:48:00 AM (view original):

I've got a couple of other questions regarding the new recruit generation:

(1)   Are there more players with high-high potential?    In recent recruiting at a mid-major and a low-major, it feels Iike I've seen more low-ranked players that seem to have very high ceilings on potential (e.g. "no reason NOT to expect HUGE improvement", "sky's the limit", etc.).   These players are low ranked and have low baselines and wouldn't appear exceptional unless you got their scouting report.   

(2)  Has it become easier to redshirt guys?    Previously, getting guys to accept RS wasn't easy.   This time around, I gave three guys RS without any CV or HV and they took them.

This is based on a very small sample, but IF there are more low ranked players that have high-high potential in key categories and IF it has become easier to redshirt guys (to help them achieve that potential), then it would help to keep mid-majors more competitive by allowing them to find the diamonds in the rough and develop them to be competitive with those players with higher starting values (or building teams with complementary players that while not able to compete star for star, compete much better as a team).   This would especially be true if some of those players with super high starting values are leaving after their FR and SO years.

Also, what has been the impact on recruiting battles?    Very often, you would see A+ prestige programs able to put together awesome unchallenged classes because there were enough elite recruits to go around.    Now, with the dawn of the super-recruit are there more battles between the super programs that allow mid-majors to either pick up good players that aren't in the 800s, but in the 650s (which is now a pretty decent player) or even poach from higher prestige programs that have overextended themselves trying to win the next Kevin Durant?       

If nothing else, it would be helpful to understand all of the potential dimensions of what's going on rather than just relying on the gap in baseline starting values as the only data point for the discussion.

After the first recruiting session with the new recruits I said the top D2 teams will be able to get higher ranked players (by position) but they almost certainly will face a much greater risk of running into D1 teams willing to drop down for those same recruits.
There isn't much difference between the #70 PG and the #170 PG.

As it stands, recruiting at the D2 level will most likely take a bit more patience in the upcoming seasons.