Posted by girt25 on 5/7/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if I agree with making the highest baseline a B+ ... I just think that current prestige should be tied more to actual on court performance and less to baseline.

(I may be splitting hairs there, ars ... ultimately we're advocating for the same thing.)

I think either way the solutions to the issue are pretty much 2-fold.

1)  Reduce the impact of baseline & conference prestige on current prestige and increase the value of on the court performance.  Many ways to do this.
2)  Improve recruit generation:  Reduce the gulf between the top 10 recruits and the rest of the recruits.  The 10th-25th players at their position are way too weak relative to the top 5 guys.  Increase the number of 'potential guys' in the 25th-100th at their position range.  Possibly weaken the top 5 guys.  Something along these lines.

That's all that is needed in my opinion to give mid-majors a fighting chance.

You could mess with NT money or the way scouting works, but I think those ideas have a lot more downside.  The top 100 players need reworking and the baseline/NT money cycle of Big 6 dominance needs to be slowed down.   Its hard to fail when you have an A prestige and $100k for 3 openings. 

I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

Posted by tdiddy3 on 5/5/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
here's a radical idea........ one that would make it more of a challenge in this game....... (it would also require a LOT of work on WIS's part so I know this will never happen)

How about WIS hide all ratings for every player at every level.  FSS being purchased for a state would then show the ratings for players in that state.  Scouting trips would then be required to learn the upside and downside of the recruit, although coach phone calls could reveal some of the upside and downside.  One scouting report could give the entire upside and downside of a recruit, and coach phone calls could reveal 1 or 2 rating potentials.  

This way, teams in the power conferences could then have the ability to recruit nationally, but it would require more money in scouting to do so.  Teams in Mid-Majors would be able to recruit a couple regions and lower tier conference teams would have to stick more close to home, but if there is a single recruit they want to pursue based off of position and/or overall rankings, they could do a scouting trip for a single player and get the results, while not having to pay to recruit the entire state.

I actually think this is a really solid idea... Want to see a player, scout the region. Don't scout and you don't know much about him. 

To your point though, it'd take a massive overhaul, so it probably isn't very likely.

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

This

Posted by girt25 on 5/7/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

This

Agreed, I just think if I take Ohio to the postseason in 9 consecutive seasons and end up with one season of a B and all of the rest B-'s and UNC has a relatively crappy run at same time and never dips below an A-, something is broken. As Matt Doherty has shown us, UNC's prestige can dip. As Butler, Xavier, and others have shown mid-majors can build their prestige. That said Roy Williams also showed how quickly a school like UNC can regain prestige. I'm not calling for a complete overhaul burn-it-down start-over of the system. I'd just like to see some changes in the ways recruits are generated and the ways that prestige is forever tied to the baseline. 

Posted by dw172300 on 5/7/2012 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 5/7/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

This

Agreed, I just think if I take Ohio to the postseason in 9 consecutive seasons and end up with one season of a B and all of the rest B-'s and UNC has a relatively crappy run at same time and never dips below an A-, something is broken. As Matt Doherty has shown us, UNC's prestige can dip. As Butler, Xavier, and others have shown mid-majors can build their prestige. That said Roy Williams also showed how quickly a school like UNC can regain prestige. I'm not calling for a complete overhaul burn-it-down start-over of the system. I'd just like to see some changes in the ways recruits are generated and the ways that prestige is forever tied to the baseline. 

Oh the pain of your reminder of the Doherty years..... thanks DW

Posted by dw172300 on 5/7/2012 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 5/7/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

This

Agreed, I just think if I take Ohio to the postseason in 9 consecutive seasons and end up with one season of a B and all of the rest B-'s and UNC has a relatively crappy run at same time and never dips below an A-, something is broken. As Matt Doherty has shown us, UNC's prestige can dip. As Butler, Xavier, and others have shown mid-majors can build their prestige. That said Roy Williams also showed how quickly a school like UNC can regain prestige. I'm not calling for a complete overhaul burn-it-down start-over of the system. I'd just like to see some changes in the ways recruits are generated and the ways that prestige is forever tied to the baseline. 

Keep in mind that prestige affects one thing and one thing only... recruiting power. You cite North Carolina as dipping in prestige under Matt Doherty. However, Doherty, coming off an 8-20 season, landed a stellar recruiting class that included Sean May, Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants. It was the No. 1 or No. 2 class in college basketball that year, showing that they still were maintaining their very high prestige.

And you cite Butler as an example of a mid-major building a high prestige. Yet, even after making back-to-back title games, they signed only one Top 100 player in the two subsequent seasons, and were substantially out-recruited by in-state rival Indiana after the latter team had had several down seasons.

I would assert that both of these examples run counter to your assumptions. Clearly, North Carolina's prestige (recruiting power) was not significantly harmed by Doherty's tenure. A couple bad seasons? Sure. But they still landed an elite class. And Butler's failure to land highly ranked recruits shows that their real-life prestige is nowhere near as high as one might think a two-time runner-up deserves.

IMO, the real problem with HD is not the prestige system. It's reasonably good. The real disconnect with real life is that the mid-major teams aren't able to sign the types of players that they do in real life that allows them to compete with the majors. That type of player does not exist in sufficient quantities in this game. The type of player that a BCS school wouldn't want to recruit (for whatever reason), but can develop into a 4-year player who can hold his own with the big boys.

Again, I agree entirely with most of what prof says here. His first three paragraphs were the response I was going to write as I read dw's post.

We do depart a bit on the last paragraph. I think that recruit generation is the biggest problem, but I don't think that the prestige system is reasonably good. I think it's pretty bad, in fact, and way too tethered to baseline prestiges set roughly a decade ago. And also too tethered to conference prestige as well.

I recall that wis players wanted superstar freshman, a la Lebron or Melo. Wis gave it, and now the players want it taken away. Just food for thought. Because basically with the recruiting suggestions being given here, means any big school can go anywhere in the country for guys. That means the little guy cant even use distance to his advantage. I know people think they've got this figured out, but players always find a way.

I think by significantly lowering the effect of conference prestige, we solve alot of the prestige problems. Not only do high baseline teams get a prestige bump, they get a further prestige bump by being in a conf with high baseline teams. That's a too much.

Posted by sublightd on 5/7/2012 10:20:00 PM (view original):
I recall that wis players wanted superstar freshman, a la Lebron or Melo. Wis gave it, and now the players want it taken away. Just food for thought. Because basically with the recruiting suggestions being given here, means any big school can go anywhere in the country for guys. That means the little guy cant even use distance to his advantage. I know people think they've got this figured out, but players always find a way.

Who is saying they want to take away the superstars?  From what I can tell, all I see is people suggesting their should be more just plain stars in ADDITION to the superstars.  More of the a's to go with the a+'s.

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 10:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dw172300 on 5/7/2012 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 5/7/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

This

Agreed, I just think if I take Ohio to the postseason in 9 consecutive seasons and end up with one season of a B and all of the rest B-'s and UNC has a relatively crappy run at same time and never dips below an A-, something is broken. As Matt Doherty has shown us, UNC's prestige can dip. As Butler, Xavier, and others have shown mid-majors can build their prestige. That said Roy Williams also showed how quickly a school like UNC can regain prestige. I'm not calling for a complete overhaul burn-it-down start-over of the system. I'd just like to see some changes in the ways recruits are generated and the ways that prestige is forever tied to the baseline. 

Keep in mind that prestige affects one thing and one thing only... recruiting power. You cite North Carolina as dipping in prestige under Matt Doherty. However, Doherty, coming off an 8-20 season, landed a stellar recruiting class that included Sean May, Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants. It was the No. 1 or No. 2 class in college basketball that year, showing that they still were maintaining their very high prestige.

And you cite Butler as an example of a mid-major building a high prestige. Yet, even after making back-to-back title games, they signed only one Top 100 player in the two subsequent seasons, and were substantially out-recruited by in-state rival Indiana after the latter team had had several down seasons.

I would assert that both of these examples run counter to your assumptions. Clearly, North Carolina's prestige (recruiting power) was not significantly harmed by Doherty's tenure. A couple bad seasons? Sure. But they still landed an elite class. And Butler's failure to land highly ranked recruits shows that their real-life prestige is nowhere near as high as one might think a two-time runner-up deserves.

IMO, the real problem with HD is not the prestige system. It's reasonably good. The real disconnect with real life is that the mid-major teams aren't able to sign the types of players that they do in real life that allows them to compete with the majors. That type of player does not exist in sufficient quantities in this game. The type of player that a BCS school wouldn't want to recruit (for whatever reason), but can develop into a 4-year player who can hold his own with the big boys.

Probably my fault for using a sloppy example. But let's look at UNLV and Maryland. There was a time when Maryland was a huge basketball power and they've since fallen off. At the same time Jerry Tarkanian was able to build UNLV into a destination powerhouse for several years where their prestige and their ability to recruit grew beyond their "baseline". I just think it's crazy to give coaches an unfair advantage based on the conference their in and how good is in real life (or rather, was in real life 10 years ago when they set the baseline prestige levels)

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 10:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dw172300 on 5/7/2012 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 5/7/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 5/7/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
I agree that some measure of competitive balance needs to be restored between the BCS schools and mid-majors, but I for one hope they don't overcompensate when/if they lessen the impact of baseline prestige (as WIS has a history of doing when it comes to making changes, especially when there is a vocal outcry). I sense I am in the minority in this, but to me, a game where it's nearly as easy to win at Bethune-Cookman as it is at Kentucky would be far less interesting and less realistic.

This

Agreed, I just think if I take Ohio to the postseason in 9 consecutive seasons and end up with one season of a B and all of the rest B-'s and UNC has a relatively crappy run at same time and never dips below an A-, something is broken. As Matt Doherty has shown us, UNC's prestige can dip. As Butler, Xavier, and others have shown mid-majors can build their prestige. That said Roy Williams also showed how quickly a school like UNC can regain prestige. I'm not calling for a complete overhaul burn-it-down start-over of the system. I'd just like to see some changes in the ways recruits are generated and the ways that prestige is forever tied to the baseline. 

Keep in mind that prestige affects one thing and one thing only... recruiting power. You cite North Carolina as dipping in prestige under Matt Doherty. However, Doherty, coming off an 8-20 season, landed a stellar recruiting class that included Sean May, Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants. It was the No. 1 or No. 2 class in college basketball that year, showing that they still were maintaining their very high prestige.

And you cite Butler as an example of a mid-major building a high prestige. Yet, even after making back-to-back title games, they signed only one Top 100 player in the two subsequent seasons, and were substantially out-recruited by in-state rival Indiana after the latter team had had several down seasons.

I would assert that both of these examples run counter to your assumptions. Clearly, North Carolina's prestige (recruiting power) was not significantly harmed by Doherty's tenure. A couple bad seasons? Sure. But they still landed an elite class. And Butler's failure to land highly ranked recruits shows that their real-life prestige is nowhere near as high as one might think a two-time runner-up deserves.

IMO, the real problem with HD is not the prestige system. It's reasonably good. The real disconnect with real life is that the mid-major teams aren't able to sign the types of players that they do in real life that allows them to compete with the majors. That type of player does not exist in sufficient quantities in this game. The type of player that a BCS school wouldn't want to recruit (for whatever reason), but can develop into a 4-year player who can hold his own with the big boys.

Kentucky and North Carolina earned their prestige it was not given to them. Just like San Francisco gained and then lost their prestige. HD is not realistic if Bethune-Cookman cannot earn prestige like these schools did in real life.

From my perspective, the game is intended to be an extension/close parallel of real life beginning at the moment in time when the game was created, circa 2001 or whenever it was (in which Kentucky and UNC have already long since earned their high prestige), and not a complete reset to the dawn of college basketball. Otherwise there'd be no real point to using real college teams or conferences. I don't take "Season 1" in WIS as being 1939 or whatever, but rather 2002 or thereabouts.

Getting off on a tangent here, but San Francisco is really a unique case. They basically fell off the college basketball map because the program was so out of control and rife with scandal, controversy and prior NCAA sanctions, that they voluntarily imposed their own death penalty, shutting the program completely down for 3 years. As we've seen with SMU football, that sort of thing will essentially kill a program, and is really beyond the scope of this game.

I also think we have to be careful about using examples from too far in the past. The landscape of college basketball has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, with the exponentially growing  importance of television, conference affiliation and overall revenue generation (e.g. football). With the powers that be now largely consolidated into power conferences, it will be far more difficult for a non-member to attain elite status than in the past, when everyone was on much more equal footing. Would it be impossible for Bethune-Cookman to become an elite basketball school? Probably not, but it is exceedingly unlikely and would be enormously difficult, and that should be at least somewhat (though not to the same degree) reflected in the design of the game. In my opinion, anyway.

I think mykids point is a good one though. Regardless of whether 2001 is a jumping off point for this game or not, new coaches need to be able to build (or destroy, to an extent) the prestige of their skills. Otherwise, what's the point. I'm not talking about having big swings from year-to-year but if I can't slowly build prestige at a mid-major after 10 years of moderate success at one, then what's the point? 50 seasons later we can't still be going off of what happened in real life in 2001, we need to be going off what happened in HD in seasons 40-49 (more or less).