Posted by jslotman on 9/30/2011 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Oh, and Georgia Tech is ludicrous at A-. 

Since 2004 seems to be the year everyone is throwing around, Georgia Tech did play for the NCAA Championship that year.  Got crushed by UConn, but still...........

I would argue that even including 2004, the Paul Hewitt years aren't remembered fondly by any Georgia Tech fans. 

Point taken.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 9/30/2011 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Well...Realistically speaking I can see starting a baseline prestige when a world is created. After the 1st season that prestige should be adjusted with each teams and conferences success each season. That would be realistic. In reality every basketball team and every conference has earned its prestige. If HD does not allow prestige to dramatically change after several seasons, then it is very lame. Within HD, if Mercer University can theoretically have a higher prestige than Kentucky, then the game is actually realistic. If not, then its just a modified copy.

I think this is a great quote. Now it SHOULD be really really hard for Kentucky to fall that far, but it should be possible to create a Duke. I mean Duke was terrible in the 70s. Good in the 80s, great in the 90s and now probably back to very good.

Great comment. You should be able to create a Duke. After about 6 seasons of constant elite 8 appearances, Girt had a legit  issue about not being to be better than an A-(?) prestige at Montana. (Can't remember the world). However, my point about FSU in Allen still being a B+ after 14 seasons with one NT win is also a legit one.

Yeah....hopefully admin is going to look into the prestige system at D1 and find some areas to improve.

I've been saying for years that they should have a prestige floor that the teams can't go below, not a goal prestige that the school naturally moves toward disregarding actual head to head success.

That being said, I think worlds like Allen are irretreivably broken. Taking nothing away from the coachs there, the combination of the change in recruit generation, unbalanced prestige in the ACC that already existed compounded by the concept of conference prestige and general reduction in the D1 population has made a situation that I cannot possibly see a way out of. While it may be fun for the ACC (and to a lesser exent the Big 12) in Allen at the moment, eventually I can see more people dropping out from the lack of suspense as to any recruiting battles or NT success. Barring a reset, I just don't see a good outcome and I don't see another conference stemming the tide when one conference consistantly gets 5 scholarships worth of tourney money. Personally, I fubared my renewal at Michigan State and saw no reason to return to Allen primarily because of it. It's not good for the health of the game and I'm sure even the coachs in the ACC understand that.

I don't think the Allen situation is impossible to overcome but it would probably take an overhaul of coaches in the Big East. I think the Big East being good is the key to keeping the ACC in check, and to a less extent the SEC. When the Big East is very good it makes it nearly impossible for the ACC to be too dominant because a school like UCONN will keep BC at bay, Georgetown will cancel out Maryland and along with West Virginia and Pitt they can prevent schools like Virginia, Duke and UNC from going to far North. Good Cincinatti and Louisville programs also will limit the ACC's territory. When the Big East is bad the ACC's recruiting territory is just too huge for anybody to overcome.

Agreed. The weakness in the big east and sec make it a ACC recruiting playground from MS to FL to TN to WV to PA, NY, etc. In that area now the only teams that can make an ACC school think are Florida and Syracuse. There is some hope though I think. The ACC can't get any better :)

SEC in Smith is pretty ridiculous too

Posted by reinsel on 9/30/2011 9:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mykids_31206 on 9/30/2011 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Well...Realistically speaking I can see starting a baseline prestige when a world is created. After the 1st season that prestige should be adjusted with each teams and conferences success each season. That would be realistic. In reality every basketball team and every conference has earned its prestige. If HD does not allow prestige to dramatically change after several seasons, then it is very lame. Within HD, if Mercer University can theoretically have a higher prestige than Kentucky, then the game is actually realistic. If not, then its just a modified copy.

I think this is a great quote. Now it SHOULD be really really hard for Kentucky to fall that far, but it should be possible to create a Duke. I mean Duke was terrible in the 70s. Good in the 80s, great in the 90s and now probably back to very good.

But Kentucky should be able to fall. Everyone should. Just like Oklahoma A&M or San Francisco.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 10/12/2011 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 9/30/2011 9:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mykids_31206 on 9/30/2011 5:02:00 PM (view original):
Well...Realistically speaking I can see starting a baseline prestige when a world is created. After the 1st season that prestige should be adjusted with each teams and conferences success each season. That would be realistic. In reality every basketball team and every conference has earned its prestige. If HD does not allow prestige to dramatically change after several seasons, then it is very lame. Within HD, if Mercer University can theoretically have a higher prestige than Kentucky, then the game is actually realistic. If not, then its just a modified copy.

I think this is a great quote. Now it SHOULD be really really hard for Kentucky to fall that far, but it should be possible to create a Duke. I mean Duke was terrible in the 70s. Good in the 80s, great in the 90s and now probably back to very good.

But Kentucky should be able to fall. Everyone should. Just like Oklahoma A&M or San Francisco.

Like Reinsel said it should be really hard, he didn't say impossible. Once a team reaches a certain point it's very hard for them to become a bad team. The reason is even when teams that reach that level are bad they still get press, big name coaches still want to coach there so blue chip recruits can still be had. Look at Notre Dame in football, despite some down years they are still on NBC they still lure some very successful coaches and they get the best players their admission standards allow them to.

Well, but a lot of that is alumni-driven (i.e. financial).  That doesn't exist in this game.  I guess I don't know why it should be "really hard" for a team to fall.  I suppose to some extent that's just a fundamental disagreement about how much this game should be based on real life.   

Posted by isack24 on 10/12/2011 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Well, but a lot of that is alumni-driven (i.e. financial).  That doesn't exist in this game.  I guess I don't know why it should be "really hard" for a team to fall.  I suppose to some extent that's just a fundamental disagreement about how much this game should be based on real life.   

It should be based on the body of work within said world.

Posted by zhawks on 10/12/2011 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 10/12/2011 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Well, but a lot of that is alumni-driven (i.e. financial).  That doesn't exist in this game.  I guess I don't know why it should be "really hard" for a team to fall.  I suppose to some extent that's just a fundamental disagreement about how much this game should be based on real life.   

It should be based on the body of work within said world.

Totally agree, and I think the lookback period should be greatly extended.