Conference Prestige is Stupid Topic

cheeznsweet
Posts: 112 (0)
Hall of Famer
103 55 1
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 10/12/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
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.
I think it would be great if at least one of the world's worked this way - complete open sandbox for owners. 

Meanwhile Phelan D1 is fast turning into Allen D1 as the ACCs dominance grows each year.  8 teams in the NT, all made the S16 and none play each other. We could have a mini-ACC tourney to determine the NC. Now that I've said this I'll probably lose tonight...
10/12/2011 3:17 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
The ACC in Phelan is the primary reason I dropped back down to D2 in that world.
10/12/2011 4:52 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by isack24 on 10/12/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
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.
Agreed. 100%.

There has to be a meaningful way to differentiate between a school that's been in the posteason the last four seasons and was terrible before that, and a school that's been to the postseason 15 years in a row. They are not the same (not even similar, really).

10/12/2011 6:26 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I think everybody should agree the 4yr window is way too short. I think 10 seasons is the bare minimum it should be.
10/12/2011 6:35 PM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie
extending the prestige window too far could possibly result in permanent sim run teams. 
If a team has been D/D- range bad for 10+ seasons why would a human coach even think of taking that jump realizing it the team becomes somewhat successful for 5 seasons you're still locked into all those 300+ rpi holding your prestige down.

Maybe factor in coaches prestige a bit more than currently is used.    
I think in RL a Coach K moving to a East Carolina level program would give a bigger prestige bump than a George Mason or VCU would receive by making the Final Four once.
10/12/2011 7:08 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Well yeah, but I think the idea would be that more recent season are weighted more heavily, minimizing that problem a bit.  A team that was bad for ten seasons and good for five would should still have a similar/better prestige than a team that is mediocre for fifteen.  I think the point is the exact one that girt mentioned.  Short-lived, recent success shouldn't push a mediocre program past a program with long-term success that has had a couple down years but still remains competitive.

I understand your point, but I think a lot of coaches would favor taking over one of those programs with the knowledge they can turn it around with hard work over the current system, which at least arguably, is almost impossible with a low basline prestige,
10/12/2011 11:49 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
And I agree that coach prestige should mean more.  
10/12/2011 11:50 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect

Absolutely agree about coach prestige. A+ coaches should be able to bump weak schools up at least a full letter grade. Just imagine Calipari up and leaving UK and going to Depaul, they instantly become a Big East threat.

10/13/2011 12:40 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
No question. A meaningful increase in coaching prestige would be a sensible and tangible way to help impact this problem.
10/13/2011 7:41 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Posted by isack24 on 10/12/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
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.
I am 100% fine with a 4 year window for your "Prestige grade" you see. The baseline prestige portion of the formula is where I see the error.
10/13/2011 9:15 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Conference Prestige is still stupid.  That is my thesis statement and I stand by it.  Even with the dumb baselines, getting held down or propped up by your conference mates makes no sense.  It leads to superconferences and ghost towns.  Take it away and you end up with conferences with 8-10 humans and maybe a sim or two and that is ok. 

Much better than 5 full conferences, ~5 half full and 15 empty ones like in Allen. 
10/13/2011 10:24 AM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 36
Prospect
I think conference prestige is fine.  I think baseline is insane. 
10/13/2011 1:56 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 10/13/2011 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Conference Prestige is still stupid.  That is my thesis statement and I stand by it.  Even with the dumb baselines, getting held down or propped up by your conference mates makes no sense.  It leads to superconferences and ghost towns.  Take it away and you end up with conferences with 8-10 humans and maybe a sim or two and that is ok. 

Much better than 5 full conferences, ~5 half full and 15 empty ones like in Allen. 
I don't think conference prestige is the real root cause of any of the problems in the game. And to me, conference prestige does make sense. Recruits by and large want the most exposure possible: More games on TV, more games with and against better competition, more games in front of bigger crowds, more media attention, etc. All of that comes to a much greater degree when you play in a top conference that's in the spotlight all season long. So yes, playing in a better conference does help lure recruits. There's a reason why Butler couldn't land any 4 or 5 star recruits, despite coming off back-to-back title game appearances, while in-state rival Indiana could, despite being a non-factor in recent years.
10/14/2011 8:17 AM
mykids_31206
Posts: 219 (0)
Hall of Famer
95 60
Prospect
Conference prestige is fine as long as it is not fixed. In real life the current Elite Conferences were created over time. They earned the recruiting influence they have just as some of them will eventually lose that influence, just as others have lost their influence over time.
1/24/2012 3:46 PM
trobone
Posts: 615 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 12 10
Rookie
it just makes me mad when i know no matter what I do, i have to do it three times as well as a big 12 or ACC or big10 school to get the same prestigue. the MWC in Phelan has been better for several seasns than the SEC... but our conference prestigue refuses to go up at all. Last year we had 2 top 25 teams in the final poll, and i think 7 teams with an RPI better than 60. but we're all still suck just praying the worst ACC school doesn't come knocking for our recruits.
1/25/2012 5:01 AM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Conference Prestige is Stupid Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.