number 4

I think they should implement different rules in different worlds.  Keep baseline prestige in some conferences and eliminate them completely in others.  We don't need to have all of the worlds the same.

Posted by toysboys on 12/4/2011 12:52:00 AM (view original):
I think they should implement different rules in different worlds.  Keep baseline prestige in some conferences and eliminate them completely in others.  We don't need to have all of the worlds the same.

thats what i said

As a professional programmer, I can tell you that trying to have different rules for different worlds would be a maintenance nightmare. In addition, how are you going to explain these different rules to new potential players who don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about? No, the rules need to be the same in all worlds.

It would not be that hard to make firings based on both baseline prestige and previous returns.  For example, say in year 1 your standard/expectations is set entirely by the 3-year average of the 3 seasons prior to your hiring.  By year 5 or 6 it's based entirely on an expectation generated by your baseline prestige.  In between the ratio shifts progressively from one to the other so expectations can be somewhat reasonable.  Not only would this allow coaches to take over BCS programs that have been struggling without risking being fired due to circumstances beyond their control while still allowing firing logic to be ramped up, I feel it would be fairly realistic.  Ben Howland's first year at UCLA was ugly in the aftermath of the mess Lavin made at the end of his tenure, but nobody was howling for his head.  Jim O'Brien needed several years to rebuild Ohio State in the mid-'90s and got them.  It happens, but if you've been around 4 or 5 years and things aren't turning around then you may need to start looking for the door.

Posted by kannc6 on 12/3/2011 3:27:00 PM (view original):
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!)

And coaches should be held to a higher standard at those schools. 11 wins at UNC doesn't cut it, baseline should fall quicker and put more pressure on those coaches to perform.

Posted by kannc6 on 12/3/2011 3:27:00 PM (view original):
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!)

kann, I don't understand your rationale here.

Calling it Hoops Dynasty, doesn't indicate that some teams need to be inherently on a much higher plane than others. That doesn't follow logically. In fact, it's relatively common for people to point out that yes, it's indeed called Hoops Dynasty, and not BCS Dynasty or DI Dynasty, and be completely on the other side of what you're attempting to say. The point is that you can build a dynasty anywhere (although it may be harder at some places rather than others).

I'm the coach at UNC, and I don't agree that the Tar Heels need to have their advantages be as large as they are now. I think it's overdone, perhaps significantly so. If a non-BCS team is great over an extended time, they should be able to move into the prestige echelon with BCS teams, and right now that doesn't really happen.

But right now, you have teams like Wake or Stanford that are artificially propped up by inflated baselines prestiges and conference prestige. Neither team has been good in real life for quite some time. It won't be long before their respective basketball successes are pretty much relics (if that hasn't happened already) ... so why should the fact that one of these teams was good for a bit a decade ago mean they should be leapfrogging teams that are good now. Heck, why shouldn't teams like Marquette or DePaul be inflated, too ... they made Final Fours in real life, Marquette won a title, etc?

I'm not saying to do away with baseline entirely, but your argument just doesn't hold water. It reeks of someone only concerned about their individual team.

Seems like you could leave the big name giants alone for baseline in those conferences and just step back the baselines of their also - rans.

Of course, the fact that the jobs are already occupied makes that harder.

i'm in favor of a moving baseline. however, i see the logic in having elite teams built into the system. wis has a target / pinnacle for coaches who want to advance to reach for. assuming that a coach isn't content with staying in d3, their first move will be to get to d2. if they aren't content with being in d2, they'll go for a low level d1 program. then, they'll do their best to qualify for an elite program once one opens up. like i said, i don't think this is the best system, but it makes sense from a 'gaming' standpoint. perhaps, making the firings happen quicker so that the schools open up more often will help? i don't know. i'm just happy being parked in d2!

In 1980 RL, Duke was maybe something like an A- baseline prestige. Vic Bubas brought the program to relative prominence in the '60s, but Duke wasn't a "basketball" school, especially after the down '70s. In 1980, relatively few elite prospects grew up, even in North Carolina, dreaming of a spot on the Duke team. No one saw people walking around town in Duke clothing. Kids weren't raised rooting for Duke.

In 1980, UNC, as the state's and the ACC's flagship program, had the A+ prestige. And NC State was in 2nd place at about an A. Duke was an afterthought among fans, and prospects, at the time. Then along came Kryzewski, and he started achieving gains in the mid '80s, raising Dukes ACTUAL prestige to A or even A+ by 1992, after several Final Fours, and 2 straight national championships. But I argue that by 1992, Duke's BASELINE prestige was still not A+. In other words, the Duke success was not yet completely gelled in a full generational period.

Now by 2001, after K's 3rd title, Duke was A+ baseline, but it took a full GENERATION of success to move it fully from a low point in 1980 to a peak. There are several examples of elite baseline programs not always being elite: pre-Calhoun UConn, pre-Olson Arizona, pre-Wooden UCLA, pre-Thompson Georgetown (since fallen from A+ prestige, after many, many years of relatively non-elite results).

My point in relation to HD is to propose an option #5. That would be to have baseline prestige float VERY slowly, and requiring sustained sucess or failure over many seasons (at least 10 or so) to move baseline levels by as much as 1/3 or 2/3 degree. But even this rate of change should depend on the ultimate power of the school in general. For example, Long Beach St should have a MUCH harder time moving its baseline up than UCLA or Kentucky.

Wow Girt, lets make this personal why don't we!!!

You seem to agree with most of what I am saying...Duke should have an advantage, McNeese should be a near impossible place to win the NT.
We can argue all day that some schools have too high a baseline and some too low. I will agree that some are misplaced, but I don't think everyone would ever be happy with any ranking on that.
If you are saying maybe there should be a reset occasionally, I cant disagree with that, maybe every five years IRL or so...
We can disagree on if the baseline should be fluid within the game and not resort to accusations of self preservation. IMO there need to be target schools, albeit firings should be ramped up at those... 3-4 years with no sweet 16 gets you canned at Duke (or Syracuse)

In regard to your attack on me. Syracuse is a top tier team by most estimations IRL and has been for the past two decades. I imagine most any system would baseline them A or A+, so any change to me would probably be minor.

Posted by jskenner on 12/5/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
In 1980 RL, Duke was maybe something like an A- baseline prestige. Vic Bubas brought the program to relative prominence in the '60s, but Duke wasn't a "basketball" school, especially after the down '70s. In 1980, relatively few elite prospects grew up, even in North Carolina, dreaming of a spot on the Duke team. No one saw people walking around town in Duke clothing. Kids weren't raised rooting for Duke.

In 1980, UNC, as the state's and the ACC's flagship program, had the A+ prestige. And NC State was in 2nd place at about an A. Duke was an afterthought among fans, and prospects, at the time. Then along came Kryzewski, and he started achieving gains in the mid '80s, raising Dukes ACTUAL prestige to A or even A+ by 1992, after several Final Fours, and 2 straight national championships. But I argue that by 1992, Duke's BASELINE prestige was still not A+. In other words, the Duke success was not yet completely gelled in a full generational period.

Now by 2001, after K's 3rd title, Duke was A+ baseline, but it took a full GENERATION of success to move it fully from a low point in 1980 to a peak. There are several examples of elite baseline programs not always being elite: pre-Calhoun UConn, pre-Olson Arizona, pre-Wooden UCLA, pre-Thompson Georgetown (since fallen from A+ prestige, after many, many years of relatively non-elite results).

My point in relation to HD is to propose an option #5. That would be to have baseline prestige float VERY slowly, and requiring sustained sucess or failure over many seasons (at least 10 or so) to move baseline levels by as much as 1/3 or 2/3 degree. But even this rate of change should depend on the ultimate power of the school in general. For example, Long Beach St should have a MUCH harder time moving its baseline up than UCLA or Kentucky.

I'll add Indiana to this discussion.  Pre-Knight, pretty good, probably an A- type school, maybe A.  In comes Knight, and in the late 70's and most of the 80's, it's an A+ school.  Toward the 90's, back into A-/A range.  Mike Davis comes in, and by the time he left, it may have been B+/B level 'current' prestige, but the potential for revival was still there (as evidenced by the next recruiting class).

I don't have a horse in the fight... yet.  I do think that the baseline needs to be fluid (as I think most people agree in theory), but the challenge is how do you set the right 'fluidity'?  You don't want a schmuck to get the Duke job, and in five seasons it's no longer and will never be elite again (or see the inverse at McNesse St).  But if Stanford hasn't made the Elite 8 in 10 seasons, that baseline is due to come down just a nudge.  Obviously, you would need caps on how fast, and how far baselines can move (It should take scandal after scandal for a Big 6 team to see a D pretige, not two bad seasons).

Then, there's the argument that I usually make when I'm angry- we are all playing by the same rules.  We all know those rules.  So I know that if I get the Indiana Job, I will have a high prestige.  I know I will never get Denver to be a A+.  If I don't like those rules, go play another game with different rules.  Not that I subscribe fully to that, but it isn't like the baseline prestige is a hidden trait and we're just now finding out its effects.

Posted by jskenner on 12/5/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
In 1980 RL, Duke was maybe something like an A- baseline prestige. Vic Bubas brought the program to relative prominence in the '60s, but Duke wasn't a "basketball" school, especially after the down '70s. In 1980, relatively few elite prospects grew up, even in North Carolina, dreaming of a spot on the Duke team. No one saw people walking around town in Duke clothing. Kids weren't raised rooting for Duke.

In 1980, UNC, as the state's and the ACC's flagship program, had the A+ prestige. And NC State was in 2nd place at about an A. Duke was an afterthought among fans, and prospects, at the time. Then along came Kryzewski, and he started achieving gains in the mid '80s, raising Dukes ACTUAL prestige to A or even A+ by 1992, after several Final Fours, and 2 straight national championships. But I argue that by 1992, Duke's BASELINE prestige was still not A+. In other words, the Duke success was not yet completely gelled in a full generational period.

Now by 2001, after K's 3rd title, Duke was A+ baseline, but it took a full GENERATION of success to move it fully from a low point in 1980 to a peak. There are several examples of elite baseline programs not always being elite: pre-Calhoun UConn, pre-Olson Arizona, pre-Wooden UCLA, pre-Thompson Georgetown (since fallen from A+ prestige, after many, many years of relatively non-elite results).

My point in relation to HD is to propose an option #5. That would be to have baseline prestige float VERY slowly, and requiring sustained sucess or failure over many seasons (at least 10 or so) to move baseline levels by as much as 1/3 or 2/3 degree. But even this rate of change should depend on the ultimate power of the school in general. For example, Long Beach St should have a MUCH harder time moving its baseline up than UCLA or Kentucky.

js, I don't agree that it took until 2001 for Duke to become elite or A+. I think they achieved that status more like early 90's.

Posted by kannc6 on 12/5/2011 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Wow Girt, lets make this personal why don't we!!!

You seem to agree with most of what I am saying...Duke should have an advantage, McNeese should be a near impossible place to win the NT.
We can argue all day that some schools have too high a baseline and some too low. I will agree that some are misplaced, but I don't think everyone would ever be happy with any ranking on that.
If you are saying maybe there should be a reset occasionally, I cant disagree with that, maybe every five years IRL or so...
We can disagree on if the baseline should be fluid within the game and not resort to accusations of self preservation. IMO there need to be target schools, albeit firings should be ramped up at those... 3-4 years with no sweet 16 gets you canned at Duke (or Syracuse)

In regard to your attack on me. Syracuse is a top tier team by most estimations IRL and has been for the past two decades. I imagine most any system would baseline them A or A+, so any change to me would probably be minor.

Sorry, wasn't trying to make it personal or attack you. I apologize. I just take exception when someone is pushing for something that effects the entire game just because it's better for their individual school.

I do agree that the elite teams should have some advantage, although not as big an advantage as they currently enjoy. And I do think it should be easier for lower end teams to become powerhouses, and that their prestiges should be more reflective of their on-court accomplishments, rather than hopelessly tied to their real life status in 2001.

dalt, I fully agree that Duke's actual prestige was A+ by early '90s, fully competing with UNC and other top elites for top players.  But its BASELINE was still less than A+. Baseline prestige reached A+ by 2001.

Great example, asher. Indiana, although clearly less than A+ prestige currently, has arguably maintained it A+ BASELINE prestige earned over the Knight generation, making it much easier to get back to A+ current prestige with some decent NT runs. You get me. :)