From my perspective, many of you are frustrated with baseline prestige.  I am not, but I also don't see much real harm in changing the baseline either, I am indifferent.  From my own perspective, here are a few of the options, feel free to add any:

1 - Leave things alone, baselines as reflected when the game was created, I suppose sometimes around the year 2000. 

Biggest pro of that is no coach would take a hit because real life no longer reflects HD status, in both directions, I suspect the baseline of Stanford would drop making some coaches angry, but Butler should rise, making others very happy for example.  Biggest drawback of the current system is some are unhappy that the baselines are some combo of unrealistic or unfair.

2 - Adjust to current, either a one time deal or maybe every April 1st as the real season ends. 

Pro of that idea would be we'd reflect real life, possible as the game intended to do in the first place, biggest con is that would be a fair amount of work, and would unfarily help some and hurt others every season.

3 - Take baselines away all together

Biggest pro of that idea is all coaches would get what they earn, and any team or any conference could become the ACC or Duke.  The biggest con of that idea is there would be nothing to shoot for in terms of job attainment, and over time real life thrill of coaching a big time program would be gone.

4 - Maybe a 4th idea would be to lessen the effect of baseline prestige, but leave it graduated in terms of power conferences, that the ACC or UNC still would have an edge, just less a one.

Seems to be a compromise position, not sure really???

Any other thoughts???

I like #3. There would still be jobs to shoot for. After all Duke is still Duke. I think it would actually make it better in terms of attainment as anybody could make their alma matar into UCLA where as now I have no hope of doing that.

Something like a rolling 10-season (HD time) baseline adjustment that's been mentioned on the boards before is a good compromise imo.  If someone is at Delaware for like 20 years and consistently has them in the NT and with decent runs from time to time but finds themselves currently capped at a B prestige should get rewarded over time and the ceiling should be gradually adjusted higher.  Whether that new ceiling should be A-/A/A+ can be discussed, but this seems more fair than the current system.  And sliding prestig should work both ways, up and down..

I like #4.

The big 6 conferences could get some floor support (like in D3 where no one is below a C- ever.  Maybe big 6 would be never below a C?) while the mid-majors get a floor of a D/D+ and the bottom schools can drop all the way to a D-. 

My main beef is conference prestige that props up the weaker teams in a conference and creates mega-conferences.  How much has Wright State really been helped by Butler's rise?  Methinks not much.

I don't really mind baseline prestige either.  I don't think the game needs to be 100% realistic in every single facet, however I do think having some elements of realism is what makes the game fun.

What I would like to see change is that when you have a mid major or anyone outside of the big 6 and you work that program up to a level that is say B- or B that the leveling effect to get back to baseline happens more slowly.  If you take a mid major to the sweet 16 you shouldn't drop from B to B- just because you didn't win 25 games or whatever.  

how about do both 2 and 3...five worlds you do #2, five worlds you do #3

I've thought that it should be a hybrid. Maybe that's what you meant by number 4. I think maybe no cap to high and low for all schools would be good, but keep the baseline. That way there are still "destination" jobs to strive to. But it also means a mid major or even small school could become a national power, which is the whole point of WhatIf.

If I'm envisioning it right, that means if I flop at MSU for 5 years, I'm now a C- instead of the B- I would be under the current system. But I'd still have the easier road to get my A+ back. If I'm at Mid Major U, then 2-3 years success might net me a higher prestige than in the current system so it's easier to become a national contender. But my window is very small, just like in real life.

I do have a dog in this fight. There are destination jobs to strive for This is hoop DYNASTY. Not hoop  EQUALITY.
There needs to be a baseline prestige. DUKE needs to have advantages, so do UCLA and UCONN. It needs to be damn near impossible to build a national contender at McNeese State. It has been proven by elite coaches (read that lostmyth) that dynasties can be built at lower prestige destinations. I am not in favor of major changes. (Wow, I feel like a Republican!)

I like #4.  Keep it, but dumb it down just a bit.  I would also add that no school's prestige should be capped.  If you take over a low D1 program and build it into a powerhouse you should see your prestige rise to A+.

I agree that baseline prestige's are very important. However, we shouldn't see entire conference's being ranked at the beginning of the season.

Why baseline's are important? Real life example: Indiana. They have the #2 recruiting class for 2012. In the past 4 seasons or so, they sucked. Their prestige would have dropped to C's at least. Now, kids are choosing to play at Indiana still. Why? It's Indiana. Butler has had four great years, but I don't see kids choosing Butler over Indiana, or VCU over Indiana. Same can be said for UCLA, who has had a few sub-par years in RL. Houston is only team outside of the big conferences (plus Memphis, but I don't think you can call Memphis a 'mid-major') to be in top 25 of the recruiting rankings.

Posted by sublightd on 12/3/2011 12:35:00 PM (view original):
I've thought that it should be a hybrid. Maybe that's what you meant by number 4. I think maybe no cap to high and low for all schools would be good, but keep the baseline. That way there are still "destination" jobs to strive to. But it also means a mid major or even small school could become a national power, which is the whole point of WhatIf.

If I'm envisioning it right, that means if I flop at MSU for 5 years, I'm now a C- instead of the B- I would be under the current system. But I'd still have the easier road to get my A+ back. If I'm at Mid Major U, then 2-3 years success might net me a higher prestige than in the current system so it's easier to become a national contender. But my window is very small, just like in real life.

+1

Lessen the effect of baseline - maybe a ten-year rolling system?  OK.

Or, maybe... keep baselines roughly where they are but really ramp up firing based on baseline?  Duke and Indiana should be more prestigious than Montana, but it should also be a LOT easier to get fired at Duke or Indiana.  Miss the NT for three years (or the postseason for two) in a row at an A or A+ program and you should be OUT.

Posted by cornfused on 12/3/2011 7:38:00 PM (view original):
Lessen the effect of baseline - maybe a ten-year rolling system?  OK.

Or, maybe... keep baselines roughly where they are but really ramp up firing based on baseline?  Duke and Indiana should be more prestigious than Montana, but it should also be a LOT easier to get fired at Duke or Indiana.  Miss the NT for three years (or the postseason for two) in a row at an A or A+ program and you should be OUT.

Perhaps some of the current baselines are overinflated. Not sure how one would correct that without ******* someone off. I say keep it as is, but like corn I think firings should be a lot more frequent at the high baseline schools. You can't lose 20 games a season at  a BCS and keep your job for 4 years - if baseline is based on RL so should firings and expectations. There are probably implications of this I am not thinking through, so someone fix me.

I probably have a dog in this fight but I think I'd advocate for status quo.  First, unintended consequences might make things worse.  Second, I do subscribe to the fact that certain programs do mean more and I like the idea of following real life with destination jobs in addition to dream jobs. 

Lessening over a 10 season period might not be too bad.

I also think that increasing firings is probably a good thing, although it is also the reason why I am posting.  I'm not sure how it would or should work for rebuilds.  In most of your proposals I would be fired after this season or probably in the next.  I will probably lose 20+ games for at least the next season or two.  I'm not entirely sure I disagree that I should be fired but I thought maybe a bit of context would be helpful.

I jumped from Division Two to A- baseline Louisville.  Louisville was at its floor for prestige when I took the job at C and the roster had been in the hands of Sim AI.

I am not at all sure it should matter, but my team is in Allen and I probably don't need to explain the dominance of the ACC.  It might be worth noting that right now the Big East is the worst of the BCS and we obviously don't match the ACC in tournament earnings but we don't match any of the other BCS schools.  Furthermore, the ACC dominance has had a cascading effect of other good prestige BCS schools signing players a bit worse than you would expect.

I have failed at Louisville, without a doubt.  But considering the uphill battle, I think that even if I had been successful I wouldn't have escaped the criteria you guys are using for being fired.

I'm a bit torn since I think firings need to be increased and coaches that fail like me need to be given the boot.  But a better coach that was able to get Louisville to making the PIT on a regular basis would have been a significant improvement but that too would probably result in getting the coach fired.

I think I think that getting rid of a Louisville coach that showed marked improvement would probably be a price worth paying for increasing the frequency of firings because that one semi-bad firing would be worth it at opening up some programs that really do deserve change.

Number 4 for sure. Three would likely result in too much craziness.