can i just say, i don't see all the fuss about baseline prestige. both in the OPs #1 / #3 / #4 points, and some of the other posts.
i consider roughly b- the cutoff for baseline prestige where having more is nearly useless. it feels to me like it is more or less trivial to maintain an a+ on a b-, or at least an a. i know this isn't everyone's situation - but IMO, if you can't maintain an a/a+ on a b- baseline, then you have 5-10 bigger issues holding you back from winning titles, and these are going to come with you to your new job (except for regional recruiting situation, which can improve or get worse).
also, the notion that the better jobs come with guaranteed success (OP #3)... its frankly ridiculous. i'm sort of surprised there hasn't been more push back on that! no offense to the OP, i'm really not trying to bust your balls here - but its just so off. the reason the A+ baseline schools tend to do well is because good coaches tend to go there, not because they are so good. there are numerous b-/b baseline jobs i prefer over a+ jobs. once you have an a+ somewhere else, you have almost entirely neutralized the a+ baseline advantage - in fact, you may even have an advantage over them yourself.
the other thing is, in today's game, a+ vs a or even a- is not even that much of an advantage. it used to be pretty significant (never huge), but back then, a 1% advantage in effort lead to a 100% advantage in signing odds - this made recruiting a game of inches. in today's game, prestige just isn't that important, and conferences don't get bonus money anymore - so i frankly don't see why an a10 job is worse than any other. if the a10 is full, i can see it - because the BCS confs are usually all fairly full - so this means there is probably a more packed than usual north east. however, this equally drags down the BCS schools in the region, IMO.
last thing - in today's game, the main reason IMO to go to a BCS conference is for the higher competition - nothing like getting beat down to force you to get your **** together! its just *so* valuable having high end competition regularly, it makes the team stats, player performance, all that stuff, so much easier to assess. after all, what matters is how your players and team perform against good teams - not garbage sims.
anyway, the BCS conferences have a significant downside, too - its actually significantly harder, IMO, to rebuild a lower BCS team than a team in a weaker conference. those high probability losses really make it a lot harder to rebuild a destroyed BCS program, even if it has good baseline. getting a C prestige a10 team up to an a-, assuming the a10 is weaker than a top power conference, is going to be a lot easier than getting most C prestige BCS schools up to an a-.
3/4/2020 2:00 AM (edited)