Baseline Prestige - No dog in this fight Topic

In my 'ideal' version of prestige, I'd

- Dump baseline prestige.  Allow teams to move up and down in grades just as they do in DII or DIII.  
- 10year weighted average (or however they want to calculate it now to incorporate more history)  for coaches is not a bad idea at all.


Here's another thought that could add kind of an interesting wrinkle to the game -
- When a what-if season rolls over, all the schools on the 'job list' have a graded prestige based on REAL LIFE history.  So if a human coach runs Kentucky into the ground and gets fired, Kentucky's prestige would be based on what real life Kentucky accomplished from 2002-2011.  If that's an 'A', then the human coach applying for the job would need to have a background suitable for an 'A' school and he'd have an opportunity to rebuild that Kentucky roster starting with an A prestige.
12/5/2011 3:02 PM
Posted by survivor45 on 12/5/2011 3:02:00 PM (view original):
In my 'ideal' version of prestige, I'd

- Dump baseline prestige.  Allow teams to move up and down in grades just as they do in DII or DIII.  
- 10year weighted average (or however they want to calculate it now to incorporate more history)  for coaches is not a bad idea at all.


Here's another thought that could add kind of an interesting wrinkle to the game -
- When a what-if season rolls over, all the schools on the 'job list' have a graded prestige based on REAL LIFE history.  So if a human coach runs Kentucky into the ground and gets fired, Kentucky's prestige would be based on what real life Kentucky accomplished from 2002-2011.  If that's an 'A', then the human coach applying for the job would need to have a background suitable for an 'A' school and he'd have an opportunity to rebuild that Kentucky roster starting with an A prestige.
Really interesting idea there.  Baseline, but only for new 1st year humans.
12/5/2011 5:11 PM
Posted by reisel on 12/4/2011 3:43:00 PM (view original):
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.

So if JUST the prestige calculator is different, it'd still be a nightmare?

Also, you'd have 5 "replicant universe" worlds where you explain that the "conference powers are similar to that in real life." and 5 "parallel universe" worlds where "conference powers are completely up to the coaches' success over time"
12/5/2011 6:16 PM

My personal preference is to keep baseline prestige as a strong component in the game. Like it or not, in this day and age, the Big 6 conferences have major structural advantages over everyone else, and that's simply part of the challenge that mid-major programs have to deal with... bigger alumni/booster networks, larger athletic department revenues and budgets (due in large part to football), substantially more TV and media exposure, better facilities, providing players the opportunity to play with and against the best competition, etc. Given all that, it will be extraordinarily difficult for a non-Big 6 program, let alone entire conference, to crack this monopoly. Sure, there will always be 1 or 2 schools that can do it for an extended period of time, but they are rare exceptions, and still can't be considered elites. Butler may have made the title game in back-to-back seasons, but they still aren't out-recruiting Indiana, who has been largely irrelevant for several years.

IMO, any college basketball dynasty game that is at least semi-related to real life should try to replicate the above landscape to at least some degree. Any game that allows Coastal Carolina to become as good as UNC with a few good seasons just departs too far from reality for my taste. In my view, the major conference teams should always have some built-in advantages over the mid-and-low majors.

All that said, I believe it should be easier for the mid-majors to compete than is currently the case. I think this is primarily a recruit generation problem, as opposed to a baseline prestige problem. However, I might be open to lessening the importance of baseline prestige slightly, but not drastically. Furthermore, if we are going to have floating baselines, then they should move glacially slow... in my view a 10-season rolling average is way too short a period of time. Lots of programs have burst onto the national stage for several years, only to fade away when the coach who rose them to prominence departed (UNLV and UMass to name a couple... granted, they had probation issues, but so did Kansas, Kentucky and Syracuse in roughly the same time periods, and none of those programs were crippled). Despite several years of success, they did not really alter the school's true baseline.

Staying consistent with that, one additional possibility to consider would be to make it a bit easier (or eliminate the caps) for mid-major schools to increase their current prestige, without touching their underlying baseline.

12/5/2011 10:08 PM
I've also pondered keeping baseline prestige the same, but giving FSS for free to everyone, with no distance advantages. The top players would still be recruited by top schools, but it wouldn't be the lottery it seems now. As it is, I sit and pray every rollover that the overall number 1 is 10 miles from me when really as an A+ school I should have a shot no matter where he is.
12/6/2011 12:28 AM
Posted by sublightd on 12/6/2011 12:28:00 AM (view original):
I've also pondered keeping baseline prestige the same, but giving FSS for free to everyone, with no distance advantages. The top players would still be recruited by top schools, but it wouldn't be the lottery it seems now. As it is, I sit and pray every rollover that the overall number 1 is 10 miles from me when really as an A+ school I should have a shot no matter where he is.
I have proposed nationlized recruiting in the past too, but could you imagine the way some of these conferences gang up to make post season money, the ACC in allen might get all 50 of the top 50 if you nationalized recruiting?
12/6/2011 9:26 AM
Keep school prestige as it is, but create a 'Coach Prestige' that is combined with the school prestige for a true 'Recruiting Prestige'.  This does a couple of things:

1)  Acknowledges the fact that recruiting is really based a coach's ability to relate to high school players and their success.  For example - take my resume in Tark, I'm 1214-367, won 3 DI NTs and have had 48 of my players drafted.  The way the game is set up, that success is of no value, which is completely ridiculous - that is like saying that the only reason kids want to play for Calipari or Krzyzewski is because of the school they're at, not them.  Obviously the school will play a part - facilities, exposure, chance of winning a title all play a part, but currently they are the only things that play a part.

2)  Makes recruiting a little less formulaic.  Currently it is relatively easy to figure out if you'll be able to win a battle based on your budget, distance and relative prestige.
12/6/2011 9:53 AM
I have only read bits and pieces of this thread and am not sure if my argument has been has been discussed yet.

I think the following should be in place:

1. Keep baseline prestige. Every team has a history, so keep it that way.
2. Keep a minimum floor for each time. Those with higher baseline prestige have higher floors than those with lower baseline prestige (elite compared to mid-major, etc)
3. Remove the minimum ceiling. If a mid-major team makes enough NT appearances and does well, they should be able to have prestige as high as the none-elite BCS teams, if not become elite themselves if their record warrants it.
12/6/2011 11:28 AM
Posted by jetwildcat on 12/5/2011 6:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reisel on 12/4/2011 3:43:00 PM (view original):
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.

So if JUST the prestige calculator is different, it'd still be a nightmare?

Also, you'd have 5 "replicant universe" worlds where you explain that the "conference powers are similar to that in real life." and 5 "parallel universe" worlds where "conference powers are completely up to the coaches' success over time"
Definitely wouldn't be a nightmare if it were coded correctly... should actually be quite simple, the more I think about it and how I'd do it.

I like the idea of a 10-year rolling system.  The idea of HD having to have this particular connection with the real world doesn't make sense to me.  I understand why they did it initially, but to have that decision still impacting the game today isn't very logical.  Things change over time, reputations of schools move up and down with time.. WIS should be able to reflect that and have a moving baseline.
12/6/2011 1:56 PM
I like the idea of giving coaches at mid-majors a way to improve their prestige over time without being held down by these baseline prestiges from real-life. Something like #4 proposed in the initial post, with one of these 10 year rolling systems like people are discussing sounds like it'd be fair for everyone.
12/6/2011 2:25 PM
One of the problems with baseline is that it was set in 2002 or whatever.  Some of them don't make any sense.  When was Virgina good at basketball?  The whole ACC is down and the Big 10 is up now, and 5 years from now it will be the Pac12 or whatever.  I think it makes sense to have a Big 6 vs. mid major baseline, but the rest of it is too fluid to really track.
12/6/2011 2:58 PM
Posted by ryrun on 12/6/2011 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 12/5/2011 6:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reisel on 12/4/2011 3:43:00 PM (view original):
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.

So if JUST the prestige calculator is different, it'd still be a nightmare?

Also, you'd have 5 "replicant universe" worlds where you explain that the "conference powers are similar to that in real life." and 5 "parallel universe" worlds where "conference powers are completely up to the coaches' success over time"
Definitely wouldn't be a nightmare if it were coded correctly... should actually be quite simple, the more I think about it and how I'd do it.

I like the idea of a 10-year rolling system.  The idea of HD having to have this particular connection with the real world doesn't make sense to me.  I understand why they did it initially, but to have that decision still impacting the game today isn't very logical.  Things change over time, reputations of schools move up and down with time.. WIS should be able to reflect that and have a moving baseline.

Implementing the change originally is not hard; it's what happens afterwards. You have to remember to fix bugs in two different versions. You have to make sure that you don't copy the wrong file to the wrong place. All it takes is one slipup and you've got a real mess.

12/7/2011 3:14 PM
Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2011 9:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by sublightd on 12/6/2011 12:28:00 AM (view original):
I've also pondered keeping baseline prestige the same, but giving FSS for free to everyone, with no distance advantages. The top players would still be recruited by top schools, but it wouldn't be the lottery it seems now. As it is, I sit and pray every rollover that the overall number 1 is 10 miles from me when really as an A+ school I should have a shot no matter where he is.
I have proposed nationlized recruiting in the past too, but could you imagine the way some of these conferences gang up to make post season money, the ACC in allen might get all 50 of the top 50 if you nationalized recruiting?
Agreed - I cringe when I see the proposals of many users in these type threads.  
12/7/2011 4:08 PM

I vote for 4, with a tweak -- we do need to improve firing logic.  When you move to a school with higher prestige, you should have a more difficult standard to meet.  Of course if you fail, the rehiring logic needs to be better too -- you shouldn't fall all the way down (see Steve Lavin at St John's). 

Before people jump up and down on me personally, I stuck around WAAAY too long at Indiana before I figured it out.  I think I should have been fired.

12/7/2011 4:53 PM
I think the single most important change that can be made to prestige is not to tie the non-BCS teams so heavily to their baseline prestiges. Their prestiges need to be more tied into their long-term on-court success.
12/7/2011 8:32 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Baseline Prestige - No dog in this fight Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.