BCS Power - Page 4 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 366 (0)

Hall of Famer

222 13

Rookie

Posted by dw172300 on 5/8/2012 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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).

Looking at your history the past 9 seasons at Ohio, I think a B prestige is right about where you should be, for your current prestige. We can quibble over a third of a letter grade here or there, but this particular case is not an example of an egregious failing of the prestige system in my view.

If you're talking about a floating baseline, then that's another subject entirely. I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea, but I'd want movement to be very slow, and over a long period of time (10 seasons is not near long enough, IMO). And there should still be a floor for BCS schools.

But my preference would be to allow for more variability in current prestige, than to mess too drastically with baselines. I just don't think baselines really change substantially over time in this day and age. You mentioned UNLV. UMass is another good example. But as soon as their high profile coaches left, both those programs sank back into mediocrity, so it wasn't a true altering of the program's standing. I could argue that their baselines didn't really change much at all... Tarkanian and Calipari simply got their current prestiges up to A or A+ (as can be done with a B baseline school), but they quickly reverted back to their baselines afterwards.

5/8/2012 2:57 PM

dw172300

Posts: 1173 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 182 5 92

Rookie

I fundamentally disagree with you. By year 3 of my 9 year postseason run I'm at a B-. By year 9 I'm at a B- (with one bump up to a B during that run when I had made the second round of the tournament). I don't think we're putting enough credit towards making it to the post-season, especially when 7 of those births are to the NT when there's no bump given for that, even if it is the third of a letter grade that you mention.

At this point, I feel like I'm arguing the chicken and the egg anyways. I need better prestige to recruit with the Big-6. I need to beat the Big-6 and advance in the tournament to get that prestige. I'm at a talent disadvantage versus the Big-6 so I can't beat them. I can't get better talent because I can't recruit with the Big-6. On and on the cycle goes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am sure there are many potential tweaks to be made to baseline prestige and/or recruiting to help drive towards a solution. There's a massive divide and something needs to change. What that "something" is, I'm completely open to.

5/8/2012 3:10 PM

tianyi7886

Posts: 4243 (0)

Hall of Famer

51 33 282 40

Prospect

Posted by dw172300 on 5/8/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I fundamentally disagree with you. By year 3 of my 9 year postseason run I'm at a B-. By year 9 I'm at a B- (with one bump up to a B during that run when I had made the second round of the tournament). I don't think we're putting enough credit towards making it to the post-season, especially when 7 of those births are to the NT when there's no bump given for that, even if it is the third of a letter grade that you mention.

At this point, I feel like I'm arguing the chicken and the egg anyways. I need better prestige to recruit with the Big-6. I need to beat the Big-6 and advance in the tournament to get that prestige. I'm at a talent disadvantage versus the Big-6 so I can't beat them. I can't get better talent because I can't recruit with the Big-6. On and on the cycle goes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am sure there are many potential tweaks to be made to baseline prestige and/or recruiting to help drive towards a solution. There's a massive divide and something needs to change. What that "something" is, I'm completely open to.

I think you are scheduling poorly. For a midmajor like yours in that conf, you should be aiming for at least 25 wins, possibly 28-30 wins in a SR heavy class, and end the season potentially ranked. Being ranked and having alot of wins both boost your prestige.

Example. I know Marquette has a B baseline but look at the quick turnaround into B+ prestige. Being ranked, getting wins helps a ton, and so does getting guys drafted:
http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=13904

5/8/2012 3:15 PM (edited)

dw172300

Posts: 1173 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 182 5 92

Rookie

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/8/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dw172300 on 5/8/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I fundamentally disagree with you. By year 3 of my 9 year postseason run I'm at a B-. By year 9 I'm at a B- (with one bump up to a B during that run when I had made the second round of the tournament). I don't think we're putting enough credit towards making it to the post-season, especially when 7 of those births are to the NT when there's no bump given for that, even if it is the third of a letter grade that you mention.

At this point, I feel like I'm arguing the chicken and the egg anyways. I need better prestige to recruit with the Big-6. I need to beat the Big-6 and advance in the tournament to get that prestige. I'm at a talent disadvantage versus the Big-6 so I can't beat them. I can't get better talent because I can't recruit with the Big-6. On and on the cycle goes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am sure there are many potential tweaks to be made to baseline prestige and/or recruiting to help drive towards a solution. There's a massive divide and something needs to change. What that "something" is, I'm completely open to.
I think you are scheduling poorly. For a midmajor like yours in that conf, you should be aiming for at least 25 wins, possibly 28-30 wins in a SR heavy class, and end the season potentially ranked. Being ranked and having alot of wins both boost your prestige.

Example. I know Marquette has a B baseline but look at the quick turnaround into B+ prestige. Being ranked, getting wins helps a ton, and so does getting guys drafted:
http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=13904

That's an interesting perspective. I've always scheduled with an attempt to build up my RPI and SOS, knowing that there are a few very weak schools in the MAC who would drop my SOS (and therefore RPI) like a rock when I played them. Keep the SOS high, that will keep the RPI up, and you'll get a better potential seed.

As I've talked to more people in this thread, and certainly in what tianyi lays out about, it seems like collective wisdom is "schedule 10 wins, don't worry about SOS".

5/8/2012 3:35 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Well, tianyi, as you said, Marquette is a B baseline, so that helps a lot.

But it's not more wins/ranked that's differentiating (those are secondary factors when it comes to prestige), it's that if a non-BCS is consistently a 1st/2nd round NT team, they're pretty much stuck in the B/B- range (regardless of whether they win 25 games or 17) ... while if a BCS team does the same, they're going to be in the A/A- range.

5/8/2012 3:36 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

"As I've talked to more people in this thread, and certainly in what tianyi lays out about, it seems like collective wisdom is "schedule 10 wins, don't worry about SOS".

I would not agree with that statement.

5/8/2012 3:37 PM

professor17

Posts: 366 (0)

Hall of Famer

222 13

Rookie

Posted by dw172300 on 5/8/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I fundamentally disagree with you. By year 3 of my 9 year postseason run I'm at a B-. By year 9 I'm at a B- (with one bump up to a B during that run when I had made the second round of the tournament). I don't think we're putting enough credit towards making it to the post-season, especially when 7 of those births are to the NT when there's no bump given for that, even if it is the third of a letter grade that you mention.

At this point, I feel like I'm arguing the chicken and the egg anyways. I need better prestige to recruit with the Big-6. I need to beat the Big-6 and advance in the tournament to get that prestige. I'm at a talent disadvantage versus the Big-6 so I can't beat them. I can't get better talent because I can't recruit with the Big-6. On and on the cycle goes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am sure there are many potential tweaks to be made to baseline prestige and/or recruiting to help drive towards a solution. There's a massive divide and something needs to change. What that "something" is, I'm completely open to.

To receive a B+ prestige, you should roughly be one of the Top 30 programs in the country (for whatever window is being used to calculate prestige). I arrive at that figure because that's how many schools have a baseline prestige of B+ or higher, so that's roughly the number of teams that should be in that prestige bracket or higher at a given time. If your performance at Ohio makes you one of the Top 30 programs in the nation, then I could see you going up as high as a B+. I'm not in Naismith and don't have the time to determine whether you are or are not, but that's the standard I would set. If you're outside the Top 30, then a B prestige is where I think you should be.

And then being in the MAC, as opposed to being in a power league knocks some off that (conference prestige impact)... but that's an entirely different discussion!

5/8/2012 4:01 PM (edited)

mykids_31206

Posts: 219 (0)

Hall of Famer

95 60

Prospect

Posted by professor17 on 5/8/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
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.

Yes but it is paralleled too closely. the Kentucky's and North Carolina's will almost always keep their prestige because people want to coach there and people want to see them do well just like in real life. Some of these other Big 6 teams should have dropped off the map a long time ago. Some of these Mid and Mid-Major teams should have increased their baseline prestige a long time ago. Some Mid-Majors should have replace some of the Big 6 conferences in a couple of worlds a long time ago. Making an HD school hang onto the success or failures of its real life counterpart makes great coaching less effective in the long run.

5/8/2012 5:52 PM

mykids_31206

Posts: 219 (0)

Hall of Famer

95 60

Prospect

Posted by girt25 on 5/8/2012 3:37:00 PM (view original):
"As I've talked to more people in this thread, and certainly in what tianyi lays out about, it seems like collective wisdom is "schedule 10 wins, don't worry about SOS".

I would not agree with that statement.

A agree girt. There are some weak D and C schools that need to do that to build their home court advantage and to get another conference mate into the post season. The will probably need a weak schedule and they will have a good shot at the PT with it.

However, B and A schools need to be savvy in their scheduling. I look at the schools that you think you can probably beat and try to schedule the best of those schools. It has worked well for me.

5/8/2012 5:56 PM

tbird9423

Posts: 190 (0)

Hall of Famer

61 1

Prospect

Just a thought-- I want to invite you guys to play monopoly with me-- I of course will start with 10,000 dollars while you start with 1,000 and I'll get 1,000 every time I go around go and you will get 100. What, no new people want to play my game? Until the baseline prestiges are dropped, you won't have an explosion of new people and you just have guys at the top who would rather win than beat someone.
My reason for playing (and I think many others) is to be able to build a basketball dynasty. It should be just as possible at an unknown school as UNC or Kentucky in my opinion because as someone mentioned, it will be hard enough to overcome a school that will always be coached by a good coach. The demand will always exist for the top tier teams and the application process should put good coaches into those jobs so if someone wants to put in the time and energy to turn an unknown into a powerhouse in a particuliar world, more power to them. I did what I considered some extensive research and right now, the best coaches are not those coaching the "best" teams. That, to me, is the largest problem.
From everything I've read at this point (and have somewhat experienced), I am really just paying money to watch a simulation of 2002, or close to that, college season. As I have said before, the longer I play and the more I read, the more I feel like an idiot.

5/8/2012 8:58 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

tbird, there are some people who feel that all teams should have exactly the same chance at success. I do think that's a minority opinion. I don't agree with it.

That said, I do think that prestige should be less tied to baseline/conference prestige than it is now. I do think there should be some impact from baseline/conference, just less than there is currently.

5/8/2012 11:14 PM

ekswimmer

Posts: 58 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 1

Prospect

I've always concentrated on the prestige piece of this argument. But after reading some of Professor's comments, I tend to agree with him mostly. Maybe you do need to be in the top 30 to get a B+. If that is true, then the prestige system may not be far off form what I think it should be.

Then the problem becomes that fact that no mid-majors have the ability to get into the top 30. There just aren't enough recruits to allow them to fall to the better mid majors. Even the non-BCS teams with higher baselines (A10, Gonzaga) can't get there. Even in real life, those teams can get there. So if we are trying to mirror real life, then SOME of these teams, at the least, should be able to get into the B+/A- range.

I also think we shouldn't just be mirroring real life. No one is playing this game to coach at Eastern Michigan knowing you can't get above a B/B+. Yes, it should be hard, but the ability to create a power should exist. As the format stands today, that is impossible.

5/9/2012 1:17 AM

tianyi7886

Posts: 4243 (0)

Hall of Famer

51 33 282 40

Prospect

Not schedule 10 games against terrible teams, but schedule 10 games against decent teams (18-25win range) that you can beat. Avoid the bottom tier bcs teams like the plague. They are generally decent, will be better than the average mid major, and will kill your SOS because they will go something like 3-13 or 4-12 in conf play.

5/9/2012 1:36 AM

emy1013

Posts: 2731 (0)

Hall of Famer

899

Prospect

Since an actual number came up for prestiges (top 30, roughly, earns you a B+), what would the opinions be on how many teams (in general) should be able to have an A+, A, A- prestige at any given time, in any given season? My personal opinion is that there are too many teams in that range as it is, but I'm not sure I can decide just how many teams should be at those elevated levels.

I'd be interested to hear what some of you other coaches think, what your criteria would be to achieve an A+ prestige, what you would need to maintain that prestige, and how many teams should have that high of a prestige at one time?

5/9/2012 2:24 AM

pumphead

Posts: 204 (0)

Hall of Famer

235 1

Prospect

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/9/2012 1:36:00 AM (view original):
Not schedule 10 games against terrible teams, but schedule 10 games against decent teams (18-25win range) that you can beat. Avoid the bottom tier bcs teams like the plague. They are generally decent, will be better than the average mid major, and will kill your SOS because they will go something like 3-13 or 4-12 in conf play.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

5/9/2012 2:52 AM

Forums

BCS Power Topic

Search Criteria