Prof and by ways of "+1" Nams...no offense taken!! I get my school is just a case study! This forum is great publicity for recruits!! :)

Posted by barretchap on 6/28/2012 6:23:00 PM (view original):
I agree with stinenavy.  This is whatifsports.  It should not be completely tied to real life.  If UNC is bad for 50 seasons should they still be a B or better?  I thought the purpose of this site was to compete to see if you could take any team and make them the best.  The prestige system is nice to keep some order, but the world should be dictated by actual success.  Isn't that what girt and others were trying to accomplish by taking mid-major conferences and trying to make them elite? 

The problem is if you take a poll and ask people if they had a choice between two jobs, one being a B UNC v. an A+ CSU Fullerton, Im guessting atleast 80% if not more are going with UNC...for that reason, Ive always argued, there needs to be two prestiges...baseline, which is used strictly for job hiring and current, used for recruiting...

Posted by mmt0315 on 6/28/2012 4:29:00 PM (view original):
This thread should be renamed: "MMT0315's Phelan LSU Team" Sheesh...for the record its there is no justification for LSU to not have an A prestige, while an A+ would be an overreach not being an A is silly, recruits do not select schools based on RPI. They select schools based on School, School success, Tournament success and conference success. LSU plays in the SEC, has made the National Tournament 5 straight seasons including the aforementioned 3 straight S16s; just won the SEC tournament and so on...The point of these changes (June 26 changes) was to make DI more competitive by hurting the top tier schools through EEs and limiting prestige.

These changes were well intended but not thought through. Examples go beyond LSU's prestige. Boston College just lost multiple players to EEs despite a non postseason season and Seble's logic was "they have an A-" prestige. Well, before long they will be at a B because how the hell can they compete in the ACC if they cant keep their players. UNC in Naismith just dropped to a B prestige. Putting aside whether the coach there shoulda been canned 15 seasons ago...UNC should NEVER, EVER be a B prestige. A byproduct of my non prestige bump at LSU is my inability to land the UConn job which just opened. Under the old system I woulda been bumper to an A and the qualified. Im also not qualified for A+ NC State. Less coaches qualified for top tier jobs guarantees, both programs will be destroyed. This is no good for the game. I can go on and on...but just dont have the time.

Its a shame that WIS always seems to think there is a large demand for things based on the 15-20 people that have nothing better to do than troll the forums all day.

Agree across the board with mmt.  The jobs thing is especially maddening, because the complaints were the OPPOSITE, and it was one of the main complaints I've seen. (It takes FAR too much to qualify for A and A+ jobs).

I also agree about "well intended" but not implemented well in practice.  The simple solution rather than messing with prestige was to make more recruits that develop over their careers into top tier players, so that mid-major schools could better compete.  Instead they messed with multiple things, which messed up multiple things worse(jobs, prestige for classic level teams, etc).

I think there are way to many A+ and A teams in Division I.

Way to many.

I don't think we need to be comparing an A- from now to an A- from before.

It is how the teams all compare to each other that matters.

There should be maybe 8 A+ teams in Division 1 .. maybe another 8-10 A teams.  Every team in half the Big 6 Conferences should not  be A or better.

Posted by hughesjr on 6/29/2012 5:36:00 AM (view original):
I think there are way to many A+ and A teams in Division I.

Way to many.

I don't think we need to be comparing an A- from now to an A- from before.

It is how the teams all compare to each other that matters.

There should be maybe 8 A+ teams in Division 1 .. maybe another 8-10 A teams.  Every team in half the Big 6 Conferences should not  be A or better.

TRUTH! I understand that having a team that's a C prestige in a Big 6 conference will be detrimental to the team, but there ARE teams that are simply that awful in reality as well. Until recently, Northwestern was a doormat in the Big 10. South Carolina in the SEC has been atrocious recently, as well as Wake Forest in the ACC.

My hope is that there are hierarchies (A+ prestige vs. A- prestige, etc.) within these conferences because it will make the recruiting process more engaging. In the current format, teams in the conference won't compete against each other for recruits for fear of losing out recruiting money (it's collusion regardless of how one wants to term it). IMO, if there is more of a stratified system within the Big 6 conferences, teams will battle more frequently in order to usurp another conference mate in the hierarchy.

For the record, the ACC in Naismith is CONSTANTLY battling each other for recruits... We are too close together to avoid it. We're also good enough coaches that very few of the battles go through all the way to the end, because someone is smart enough to walk away when they realize it's a lost cause. I'd say there are 2-3 all-out battles per season (in-conference).

And the reason I'll pick another conference to battle, all other things equal, is because we always have more tourney cash than everyone else. So if I have to battle A+ Clemson and their 2 openings plus $50K or 2-opening S. Carolina with their B- prestige and $20K extra, it's a no-brainer.

ETA: (sorry, wrong ID-- this is wronoj)

.. the sky is always falling for someone.

Posted by nc2457829305 on 6/29/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):
For the record, the ACC in Naismith is CONSTANTLY battling each other for recruits... We are too close together to avoid it. We're also good enough coaches that very few of the battles go through all the way to the end, because someone is smart enough to walk away when they realize it's a lost cause. I'd say there are 2-3 all-out battles per season (in-conference).

And the reason I'll pick another conference to battle, all other things equal, is because we always have more tourney cash than everyone else. So if I have to battle A+ Clemson and their 2 openings plus $50K or 2-opening S. Carolina with their B- prestige and $20K extra, it's a no-brainer.

ETA: (sorry, wrong ID-- this is wronoj)

For the record, that is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, the ACC in Phelan made note of it on the conference boards this year that it was rare that Duke & Maryland battled for recruits, however, there was a blue chipper in the DC area, etc. Therefore, it happens less often than I would have expected and frankly, conference battles occur much less often than they should. Consequently, your example of the ACC in Naismith is the EXCEPTION rather than the prevailing rule in HD.

Given the recruiting structure, people aren't going to battle in order to ensure that they'll have more money for next year which is the anti-thesis of what should happen in that teams should look out for themselves instead of the betterment of the league with respect to recruiting money. Coach K would never back off of a recruit because he wanted to ensure that Roy would bhave a decent team this year so they could each have a higher $$$$ for recruiting next year.

Posted by girt25 on 6/28/2012 7:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/27/2012 9:43:00 AM (view original):
And the adjustment is probably the effect of the false prop up of conference\baseline. One season tells you less than nothing. This seqson is going to be unique ...

Maybe ... kinda/sorta. If this didn't include the new changes, then obviously it doesn't matter.

But if it did (and I'm not sure),some of what he posted seems pretty troubling.

LSU with three straight Sweet 16's only at an A-? That doesn't make any sense, no way to rationalize it.

So I have had 3 straight sweet 16s at Colorado in Allen (old system) and am at an A.  Take away my obivous conference prestige boost and I would be at an A- I bet.

Posted by hughesjr on 6/29/2012 5:36:00 AM (view original):
I think there are way to many A+ and A teams in Division I.

Way to many.

I don't think we need to be comparing an A- from now to an A- from before.

It is how the teams all compare to each other that matters.

There should be maybe 8 A+ teams in Division 1 .. maybe another 8-10 A teams.  Every team in half the Big 6 Conferences should not  be A or better.

Agreed with this.

Posted by chemguy1979 on 6/29/2012 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nc2457829305 on 6/29/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):
For the record, the ACC in Naismith is CONSTANTLY battling each other for recruits... We are too close together to avoid it. We're also good enough coaches that very few of the battles go through all the way to the end, because someone is smart enough to walk away when they realize it's a lost cause. I'd say there are 2-3 all-out battles per season (in-conference).

And the reason I'll pick another conference to battle, all other things equal, is because we always have more tourney cash than everyone else. So if I have to battle A+ Clemson and their 2 openings plus $50K or 2-opening S. Carolina with their B- prestige and $20K extra, it's a no-brainer.

ETA: (sorry, wrong ID-- this is wronoj)

For the record, that is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, the ACC in Phelan made note of it on the conference boards this year that it was rare that Duke & Maryland battled for recruits, however, there was a blue chipper in the DC area, etc. Therefore, it happens less often than I would have expected and frankly, conference battles occur much less often than they should. Consequently, your example of the ACC in Naismith is the EXCEPTION rather than the prevailing rule in HD.

Given the recruiting structure, people aren't going to battle in order to ensure that they'll have more money for next year which is the anti-thesis of what should happen in that teams should look out for themselves instead of the betterment of the league with respect to recruiting money. Coach K would never back off of a recruit because he wanted to ensure that Roy would bhave a decent team this year so they could each have a higher $$$$ for recruiting next year.

Definitely the exception.  Currently Tark is in day 2 of recruiting.  Of the top 50 recruits (sorted by top 25 position rank), there are 4 battles going on.  4.   Even accounting for poaching and others jumping in late, that seems crazy.