so basically, if i'm at a small d1 school...all i need to do is some decent recruiting, schedule winnable games where I'm getting 22-23 wins per season prior to my conference tournament, and my prestige will go up ultimately and I could maintain it.....the problem is that scheduling winnable games will ultimately lead to 1st and 2nd rd knockouts because our team has played a weak schedule....This of course is an evaluation over a minimum 10 year period

No, that is not correct.

If you're consistently getting 22-23 wins during the regular season, that means you've either got a monster or team or a very weak schedule, most likely the latter. If your schedule is that weak, you're not giving yourself any margin of error for making the NT, which is the goal. You have a pretty high likelihood of screwing yourself out of a NT bid, with a good record and poor rpi.

If you look at most coaches who have been successful with low/mid programs medium/long term, they schedule a tough non-con slate to make up for the sos hits they're likely to encounter in conference.

Beyond that, you can easily get a team's prestige from the D range to the B or B- range in about 4-5 seasons. Then to get a low/mid over that B/B- hump, you need some deeper NT runs. To get over that hump, it's much more about deep runs than consistency.

(Imo, consistency should carry more weight, but it doesn't ... so you can have a low/mid coach with six straight losing seasons followed by four NT-2nd rounds, and he's likely to have the same prestige as a low/mid coach w. 10 consecutive NT-2nd rounds. Just a random example, but that's idiotic.)

In HD the only thing prestige affects other than job requirements is recruiting.

So if you want to get a HD prestige for a real life program the only thing you should be looking at is real life recruiting success.

lm, I don't agree with that at all.

Because a team's ability to recruit well in real life is in direct relation to how successful they've been on the court.

So instead of looking at something perfectly related to what you're trying to measure (recruiting "power"), you think it's better to look at something that's only partially related?

Just to give some real life examples using some of the teams discussed in this thread.

Since 1998, these teams have signed the following number of top 25 consensus recruits:

Duke: 23
UNC: 20
Wisconsin: 1 (Brian Butch)
Gonzaga: 0

Quote: Originally posted by tannermcc on 1/31/2010This is what I don't understand

If you want to play at a level where there is COMPLETE floating prestige every team is the same why not play D2?

If you want to play with built in baselines and a more real life simulation where its more difficult at mid majors to win then play D1.

The thing they should do is remove the **** they did to reward points at D2.

Tanner, what has been discussed in this thread to improve Floating Prestige is not anything like what is currently in D2. Nobody wants D2 prestige implemented in d1, that wouldn't make sense. You are taking Basline Prestige completely out of the equation by what you are saying and people still do want baseline prestige, but they want to be able to improve it since currently it is bassed of 2004 Real Life. This is WhatIfSports, how does that make sense?

So basically a system like this

They want current baseline prestige.

Then the ability to move it (baseline prestige) one grade in either direction based on the last 15 seasons.

Then the current system on top of that.

That sounds reasonable.

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 1/29/2010Pork I think that you and I are in agreement almost completely here. My question to you is this, would you like to see a Floating Baseline Prestige, where over years of continued success a schools Baseline Prestige could get better?

And don't get me wrong, I don't buy into the 5 year plan, my idea for FlBP is the last 20 years of a schools history + additional credit for Final Fours and National Titles, just like in real life those banners do mean something even if they were 25 years go. And use that along with a small portion of what is now the Fixed Baseline Prestige to come up with a more True Floating Prestige, because I think we all can agree that Floating Prestige as it is instituted now isn't really True Floating Prestige since it is dependent on many things that the coach of said school can not control.

Even if you don't see a problem with the current system (and I agree I don't think it is broken by any means) but I see room for improvement.

Not sure if you read this or not tanner, so I am quoting it for you to read my thoughts.

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 1/31/2010

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 1/29/2010Pork I think that you and I are in agreement almost completely here. My question to you is this, would you like to see a Floating Baseline Prestige, where over years of continued success a schools Baseline Prestige could get better?
And don't get me wrong, I don't buy into the 5 year plan, my idea for FlBP is the last 20 years of a schools history + additional credit for Final Fours and National Titles, just like in real life those banners do mean something even if they were 25 years go. And use that along with a small portion of what is now the Fixed Baseline Prestige to come up with a more True Floating Prestige, because I think we all can agree that Floating Prestige as it is instituted now isn't really True Floating Prestige since it is dependent on many things that the coach of said school can not control.

Even if you don't see a problem with the current system (and I agree I don't think it is broken by any means) but I see room for improvement.

Not sure if you read this or not tanner, so I am quoting it for you to read my thoughts.

Sorry I got strep throat and i'm drugs so i'm my brain is functioning at about 25% so let me know if I'm understanding your idea.

You want the current baseline then have it adjusted based on the last 20 years and thats it?

Quote: Originally Posted By tannermcc on 1/31/2010So basically a system like this

They want current baseline prestige.

Then the ability to move it (baseline prestige) one grade in either direction based on the last 15 seasons.

Then the current system on top of that.

That sounds reasonable

I would advocate a happy medium between the system that exists in DII/DIII and the current DI system of having things so tightly tied into baseline/conference. And yes, that's perfectly reasonable.

Quote: Originally Posted By lostmyth2 on 1/31/2010So instead of looking at something perfectly related to what you're trying to measure (recruiting "power"), you think it's better to look at something that's only partially related

LM, you're putting the cart before the horse. The very reason these programs can attract the top talent is because of how successful they've been.

A team's success in real life goes a long way towards determining what type of recruits they can generally sign, same as in HD. You're attempting to oversimplify things and take an (the) integral part out of the equation.

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

if you schedule tough OOC, which I tend to do but end up losing many times to the BCS schools in the NT 1st round, how am I am really ever going to get over the B+ threshold for top recruits if my baseline is a D? recruiting the high potential guys and trying to battle with the money that bcs deep run teams get leaves midmajors with mid level talent most times in my opinion. over the long haul, you can't get to an maintain an A prestige if your baseline is D..a real life example, no matter how many successful seasons the coach of manhattan college has, he will never get a higher recruit then st. johns

dell, at this point, I really don't know what you're arguing for.

I agree that it's probably not realistic for a team from a lower prestige conference to successfully maintain an A prestige. That said, you can still sign great players with a prestige in the B range and be an every year NT team. (Not necessarily the uber 5-stars, but you don't need them to be successful).

So I'm not totally sure what your final point is, but I guess I agree with you that there should be more possibility for non-BCS teams to pump up their prestige and keep it there, but I disagree that the non-BCS teams can't compete in the current system. The undeniable fact is that HD is much, much friendlier to non-BCS teams than real life is.