part of the challenge of coaching a small-time school in HD and RL is keeping/maintaining that A prestige amonnst the goliath programs. again, jmo.

Moy, I think Marquette has a baseline prestige of B, so you can't compare it to the true small/mid schools.

I definitely agree that it should be more of a challenge at a low/mid school to both elevate a team's prestige and to keep it there. In fact, relishing that challenge is exactly what has kept me at Montana long term. I was in the Big Ten for a very long time w. my girt25 ID and did really well, but this is more challenging.

The questions really are, "How challenging should it be?" and "What makes sense?"

And I do think that right now, the pull of baseline prestige is too strong. If baseline prestige played less of a role, I think it would make for a better, more competitive, more logically sound system.

And pork, I don't think it's just a couple random coaches. The majority of coaches that I speak to and read in the forums feel that some kind of tweak is in order there.

I could make a case that prestige follows the coach....

Knight leaves IU and the program goes to hell, but Texas Tech is getting better recruits

Pinino leaves UK and they go to ****... but comes back to Louisville and all of a sudden the Cardinals are a team again due to the influx of player talent.

Tark leaves UNLV and little known fresno st is now making the NT.

Think about it - It would be interesting if I were to leave UofI as an A+ and the next coach that gets the program inherits a B+.



Still - I like the current prestige set-up.

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 1/29/2010
I could make a case that prestige follows the coach....

Knight leaves IU and the program goes to hell, but Texas Tech is getting better recruits

Pinino leaves UK and they go to ****... but comes back to Louisville and all of a sudden the Cardinals are a team again due to the influx of player talent.

Tark leaves UNLV and little known fresno st is now making the NT.

Think about it - It would be interesting if I were to leave UofI as an A+ and the next coach that gets the program inherits a B+.



Still - I like the current prestige set-up.

Oh, absolutely. You're dead on there. The coach makes an enormous difference. Calipari could take a gig in Alaska and still attract McDonald's kids. That would be nice to see more of an effect like that in HD.

I'd venture to say that a small school could make the Elite 8 every single year and not maintain an A- prestige.

I'll guarantee they wouldn't with sweet 16 appearance 40 seasons in a row.

That's not a challenge, that's an impossibility.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 1/29/2010
Moy, I think Marquette has a baseline prestige of B, so you can't compare it to the true small/mid schools.

I definitely agree that it should be more of a challenge at a low/mid school to both elevate a team's prestige and to keep it there. In fact, relishing that challenge is exactly what has kept me at Montana long term. I was in the Big Ten for a very long time w. my girt25 ID and did really well, but this is more challenging.

The questions really are, "How challenging should it be?" and "What makes sense?"

And I do think that right now, the pull of baseline prestige is too strong. If baseline prestige played less of a role, I think it would make for a better, more competitive, more logically sound system.

Daalt - If prestige was more closely tied to the overall school performance in order to create a less movable baseline from season to season then I think it should be over a 20 year timeline (like z eluded to). Duke was not built overnight... or in 5-10 years.... 30 years ago they were nobodies.... now however...

most HD coaches don't stay at a school like montana or Delaware 20 seasons and the school doesn't keep up its A level success (or extended tourney runs) over the long haul... I think they would have an arguement if they did stay 20 seaosns and we saw 17 years of NT appearances. until then I feel like this arguement is like coaches wanting to get to the elite 8 programs in less seasons when a world begins because they just want to get there easily or quickly. It takes time to acheive these milestones imo.

Moy, I made the same suggestion about the coach having a separate prestige. I think that would greatly reflect real life more than the current setup.

I'm fine if you think the traditional teams should always get an advantage. I agree they should be easer to coach and maintaint that prestige.

I just can't stand people saying small schools have the same chance to have a good prestige if the coach just works hard enough. They don't. It's not even a real argument although people still seem to want to make it.

Yeah, I do not see a problem with what you are saying, zhawks. Over 20 seasons would make sense as long as it is nothing too radical. Glad to see you chiming in now moy. We always seem to think alike.

I just do not agree that it is some kind of huge problem that needs to be fixed to retain coaches.

Lizak, no one is making the argument you keep talking about. All of us big boys here are mostly in agreement. Small schools do not have the same chance and there is no way in hell that they ever should. Is it possible? Yes. Should it be easier to accomplosh? NO!

This is what i was getting at earlier. I'm not nearly smart enough to know if S16 every year is good enough to be A-. But what I do know is that it depends in a large part on the other teams in the conference. And that's tough because the odds are of one or two teams will slip up or go Sim and their prestige will fall, dragging down everyone else.

I think the impact of conference prestige on school prestige should be smaller. There's plenty of inherent advantage in the higher baseline prestiges of BCS schools - this means they'll have higher upside, more rec money, etc, etc which help them as long as they do a decent job. They don't need the help of conference prestige too. All it does is penalize the succesful mid-majors.

And pork, just because you started the thread like a year ago doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else how much they suck when they're not even disagreeing with you.

I did not say anything close to the affect that everyone here sucks. I just called you an idiot because you told me to go start my own thread when in fact I had started this thread..

Quote: Originally posted by Lizak on 1/29/2010I'd venture to say that a small school could make the Elite 8 every single year and not maintain an A- prestige.I'll guarantee they wouldn't with sweet 16 appearance 40 seasons in a row.That's not a challenge, that's an impossibility.

Lizak in no way am i trying to take anything away from your accomplishments at Army, you did a fantastic job there.

I feel that much of your argument is based on your opinion that your prestige was not reflective of your output, is that correct to assume?

If that is correct I want to make the point that, while you only ever made it out of the 1st round of the NT four times. And I don't think that justifies you having an A level baseline.

I think your accomplishments at Army would get you somewhere around a B-ish Baseline if it were to be a FlBP like I have mentioned in this thread. You made 10 NTs in 17 seasons with 12 NT wins and a National Title, very impressive but I don't think that that is near enough for you to say that you should have had an easy road to maintaining a High level prestige.

Quote: Originally Posted By Lizak on 1/29/2010
Moy, I made the same suggestion about the coach having a separate prestige. I think that would greatly reflect real life more than the current setup.

I'm fine if you think the traditional teams should always get an advantage. I agree they should be easer to coach and maintaint that prestige.

I just can't stand people saying small schools have the same chance to have a good prestige if the coach just works hard enough. They don't. It's not even a real argument although people still seem to want to make it.

Its definitely more of a challange at a smaller school but I believe they CAN maintain an A prestige.... Its the same challenge in RL. The coach at Davidson is probably feeling that things are not fair in the NCAA... why does UK still get strong recruits with ease and he has to fight to get them despite a strong NT showing. UK hasn't even been good of late. I like the different challenge levels in DI HD. If we put every team on an even playing field it would be like playing in DII or DIII in HD. Think about that.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Preach it moy! Glory hallelujah!

Quote: Originally Posted By cheeznsweet on 1/29/2010

This is what i was getting at earlier. I'm not nearly smart enough to know if S16 every year is good enough to be A-. But what I do know is that it depends in a large part on the other teams in the conference. And that's tough because the odds are of one or two teams will slip up or go Sim and their prestige will fall, dragging down everyone else.

I think the impact of conference prestige on school prestige should be smaller. There's plenty of inherent advantage in the higher baseline prestiges of BCS schools - this means they'll have higher upside, more rec money, etc, etc which help them as long as they do a decent job. They don't need the help of conference prestige too. All it does is penalize the succesful mid-majors.

And pork, just because you started the thread like a year ago doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else how much they suck when they're not even disagreeing with you.

I disagree. As much as I love the MVC (my undergrad was from ISU, thats Illinois) the fact that ISU and the rest of the teams suck year in and year out hold the better teams back (from the national scene) like Creighton and SIU. Conf really does play a big role in overall team prestige imo. The fact that there is a RL term called the big-6 proves this.