This is a game not real life. Yes it uses real team names but that's it. The baseline that was used when HD was created was necessary to create a starting point. I don't believe it was ever intended to be anything more than that. The original list is available for viewing by everyone who plays this game so everyone knows where every team stands. The conference alignments didn't match real life when HD began and they don't match real life now. I don't see any reason to change either the baseline or the conference alignments. I understand the argument that schools such as Stanford aren't as good as they were when the baseline was created and Butler and others are better. My counter to that is we coaches have already gone on record as saying we don't want everything in this game to reflect real life. Should Dilemmas brought back? Should we eliminate scholarships at DIII? Should we have star players drop dead from heart attacks? Should schools that are no longer DI be dropped to DII and DII schools that are now DI be switched? We as coaches have already said NO to these issues. I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too. If anyone cannot accept the presence of a St. Bonnie as the #1 team and a North Carolina as an also ran then I'd suggest they consider spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

What I do think should be done is to have the impact of baseline prestige reduced. I think, as others have said, that success or lack of success in HD should have more impact in determining both current baseline and job hiring baseline. My idea would be to keep the baseline but reduce or eliminate the floors and ceilings associated with it. If say North Carolina has 10 losing seasons in a row then let them drop to a C-/D+ or whatever and not cap out at a B- like they currently do. When a job opens up then split the difference between the current baseline and the historical baseline and use that adjusted line for hiring and recruit preference. It's all digital behind the scenes anyway so splitting the difference should be as simple as adding them together and dividing by 2.  I am not a programmer but this seems like it would only take a few tweeks in a formula rather than the major reprogramming project changing the present historical baseline would entail and to me it seems like it would accomplish what everyone is really asking for.

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/10/2011 12:08:00 PM (view original):
baseline prestige should slowly change based on a school's success in its HD world. for example, st bonaventure in iba should be the #1 job in the country for the next 10-20 seasons now that LM left.

i think, when a player signs up for an HD world, and sees that st bonaventure is the top d1 dynasty and UNC has been busted up, he'll have 1 of 2 reactions

1. "what? now i don't want to go to unc as much, even tho its my favorite team. that should be the top job. the A10 shouldnt be that good."
2. "oh cool, maybe i can make my own school like st. bonaventure. or take UNC back to prominence. wait, the A10 is a top conference? interesting."

the players that enjoy HD and keep signing up for more seasons are almost always the type that see it the way of #2. those that see it the way of #1 are probably not going to enjoy simulation games with computer generated players.

jet - I think there is some merit to your POV - a ? for you - if butler in HD was a sim and had a C- prestige and lets say a baseline of C+ under your system, and if in real world after the final appearance last season and success over the past few years the real world baseline was lets make up the letter A, of 3 choices, the current, one based on annual  real life updates, or one based on HD, which would you really want - the C (HD) - the A (current real life) or the B (current HD)

My opinion still is the A based on real life, but I do understand why the C is appealing to you, of the 3 choices, the only one I don't like is the stagnant one.

Posted by courtmagic on 3/10/2011 12:54:00 PM (view original):
I'd just use the last 20/25 seasons on a rolling basis here at HD for Baseline Prestige. This way "WE" as coaches earn and get merits for our accomplishments.

Posted by acn24 on 3/10/2011 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wronoj on 3/10/2011 9:09:00 AM (view original):
I think it would be reasonable to reset them going forward with new worlds, but to change the current worlds seems unfair, unnecessary, and unlikely. We;ve had plenty of time to adjust our expectations to the perceived reality of 2001 (or whenever they were done).

I would also encourage some conference realignment with new worlds-- someone had a pretty comprehensive suggestion list out here a couple of months ago that made things better geographically and made it closer to today's reality. 

+1

Posted by Weena on 3/10/2011 2:15:00 PM (view original):

This is a game not real life. Yes it uses real team names but that's it. The baseline that was used when HD was created was necessary to create a starting point. I don't believe it was ever intended to be anything more than that. The original list is available for viewing by everyone who plays this game so everyone knows where every team stands. The conference alignments didn't match real life when HD began and they don't match real life now. I don't see any reason to change either the baseline or the conference alignments. I understand the argument that schools such as Stanford aren't as good as they were when the baseline was created and Butler and others are better. My counter to that is we coaches have already gone on record as saying we don't want everything in this game to reflect real life. Should Dilemmas brought back? Should we eliminate scholarships at DIII? Should we have star players drop dead from heart attacks? Should schools that are no longer DI be dropped to DII and DII schools that are now DI be switched? We as coaches have already said NO to these issues. I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too. If anyone cannot accept the presence of a St. Bonnie as the #1 team and a North Carolina as an also ran then I'd suggest they consider spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere.

What I do think should be done is to have the impact of baseline prestige reduced. I think, as others have said, that success or lack of success in HD should have more impact in determining both current baseline and job hiring baseline. My idea would be to keep the baseline but reduce or eliminate the floors and ceilings associated with it. If say North Carolina has 10 losing seasons in a row then let them drop to a C-/D+ or whatever and not cap out at a B- like they currently do. When a job opens up then split the difference between the current baseline and the historical baseline and use that adjusted line for hiring and recruit preference. It's all digital behind the scenes anyway so splitting the difference should be as simple as adding them together and dividing by 2.  I am not a programmer but this seems like it would only take a few tweeks in a formula rather than the major reprogramming project changing the present historical baseline would entail and to me it seems like it would accomplish what everyone is really asking for.

Posted by cal_bears on 3/11/2011 2:31:00 PM (view original):
On a note solely related to my situation, they have already "realigned" the baseline prestige of Stanfurd.  We have been through this before.  It was supposedly one of the top 7 jobs to get.  That's why I took it, back then, or I would have stayed at Cal.  Prestige did not fluctuate back then.  Then when baselines became visible, Stanfurd's baseline was A-, so it went from #7 job or so to tied for #25 with 20 others.  Aside from the bs with disclosure, I can live with this, but I just want to take Furd off the example of bad prestige list!!!  It has been addressed.