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

LM, you're ignoring some pretty obvious things here that I'm sure you're already aware of. For instance, Wisconsin has been a "system" school, both under Bennett and Ryan, so they're simply not even trying for elite level players (other than Butch, who fell into their lap).

I don't know how "consensus top 25 recruit" is measured, but Gonzaga has signed McDonald's kids. And beyond that, even if you're trying to make the recruiting argument, just looking at one self-selected sample (consensus top 25 players) doesn't really tell the story. Plenty of schools have gotten lots of good talent and good classes w. out have many truly elite-level recruits.

But most importantly, you say "Nor have I mentioned cause-and-effect relationships". You're right, you haven't. And that's my point. There is a direct, obvious cause-and-effect relationship here -- a team being successful is what allows it to sign high-quality players -- that you are pointedly ignoring.

Prestige measures team success, and that team success/prestige allows you to have a better chance of signing good recruits.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 1/31/2010

LM, you're ignoring some pretty obvious things here that I'm sure you're already aware of. For instance, Wisconsin has been a "system" school, both under Bennett and Ryan, so they're simply not even trying for elite level players (other than Butch, who fell into their lap).

I don't know how "consensus top 25 recruit" is measured, but Gonzaga has signed McDonald's kids. And beyond that, even if you're trying to make the recruiting argument, just looking at one self-selected sample (consensus top 25 players) doesn't really tell the story. Plenty of schools have gotten lots of good talent and good classes w. out have many truly elite-level recruits.

But most importantly, you say "Nor have I mentioned cause-and-effect relationships". You're right, you haven't. And that's my point. There is a direct, obvious cause-and-effect relationship here -- a team being successful is what allows it to sign high-quality players -- that you are pointedly ignoring.

Prestige measures team success, and that team success/prestige allows you to have a better chance of signing good recruits.

Prestige in HD doesn't directly measure team success. It may indirectly measure team success, but I'll repeat this again and again and again: the only thing that it affects in HD other than job requirements is recruiting. It doesn't directly affect how many bandwagon fans a team has, how many games on televlsion are broadcast nationally, merchandise sales, rankings, or anything else, only recruiting. Simply put, a team with higher prestige has a better shot to sign a recruit all other things equal, and it has no other meaning. It doesn't matter if a team from the MEAC wins four NCs in a row and their prestige is at an A. They still won't have more value visit for visit than an elite team that made one Sweet 16 in the past 4 years and is at an A+ in HD.

The best way to measure how a school stacks up in recruiting in real life is to look at which schools are able to beat out other schools for recruits. The top 25 recruits each year are generally the blue chippers and get tens, if not hundreds of scholarship offers. When they choose one school they are rejecting all those other schools, which is why it's a valuable indicator of their preferences for each school (even if we were to expand it top looking at top 100 players, Wisconsin is still tied for 45th, as opposed to tied for 46th if looking at top 25). Yes, Wisconsin is a system school which probably tends to scare a lot of recruits away, despite their success, and nowhere would team success capture that, whereas looking at their historical recruiting would capture that.

If looking at top 100 players signed over the past 11 years, Gonzaga has 5, which makes them tied for 64th. Every single school ahead of them is currently in a Big Six conference. So you can talk about team success all you want to measure prestige, the data simply does not bear it out. Using revealed preferences is a much more accurate way of measuring HD-equivalent prestige.

I'm using the RSCI aggregated rankings, which are fairly good in that they remove any outliers. The McDonald's selections are often quite political, as they'll often select a local player when they're outside the top 50, and borderline players that are signed to elite schools will often get chosen over more deserving players.

Memphis in RL signed the #1 recruiting class for 2010 and I would not call them an A+ prestige team in RL. Recruiting does not equal prestige necessarily.

Pork, no one is suggesting that the top prestige team will sign the top class, and so on down the line. Memphis had been performing at an elite level for the last number of seasons, and Calipari is a mega-elite recruiter. No one was surprised when Memphis pulled in the top class.

Which brings up another point: Recruiting in real life is very tired in to the coach and his reputation, history, charisma, etc. That (and many other integral aspects) simply don't have an equal to HD, which is why it's silly to try and draw such a strict, direct parallel like LM is.

LM, I respect the hell out of you as a coach and you have valuable input, but I just think that your methodology is off on this one.

A not small factor in real-life recruiting that will never be reflected here is the difference in what it takes to "qualify" for a given school academically. Bottom line is that, in real-life, schools like Memphis can sign kids that a lot of Big6 schools can't touch academically (or criminally, for that matter). And/or they can arrange to have them cheat on standardized tests so that ineligible kid suddenly becomes eligible.

Rumor has it that's why you Yale, cheez ...

LOL. Nope. I for exactly the reasons I said earlier in this thread and what you brought up about majresorter at Cleve St. I'm coming up on my 3rd season post NC -- exactly where maj was -- with a very similar level of success afterwards (1 2nd round, 1 sweet 16). If I use maj as a guide I'd need to go AT LEAST sweet 16 again just to keep my A- prestige.

50 miles from A+ Uconn while I struggle to stay at A-? No thanks.

The deck is stacked against the mid-majors and I just didn't have the interest level in continuing to fight a losing battle. It had gotten about as good as it would get at Yale. At Iowa I can (hopefully) do more.

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

Mark Few coaches at Gonzaga, Mark Fox possibly?

While I get and somewhat agree with you pork, this is WhatIf sports not Real Life sports.

Quote: Originally Posted By porkpower on 2/01/2010
And I do not see a problem with that, cheez. To me that reflects real life pretty accurately and explains the coaching careers of lots of college coaches. Always moving up to the higher "prestige" job.

Mark Few - Nevada, Georgia

Anthony Grant - VCU, Alabama

Tubby Smith - High Point, Georgia, Kentucky

Billy Gillispie - UTEP, Texas A&M, Kentucky, Local bars

Could go on and on. You catch my drift. They did not want to stay at their lower level job when the opportunity arose to coach at a big time school. I think HD depicts that part of real life NCAA Hoops very well. Do some coaches stay and try to build their program? Sure. Mark Few has so far and there are a "few" more coaches like that I am sure. Pun intended.

Absolutely. And your examples are perfect, because despite success, some of those guys have been fired for not sustaining an elite program.

I understand the need to lower the expectations somewhat for HD's purposes, but not to the level they have been.

Yeah Mark Fox. Got ahead of myself lol

Well, of course going up the food chain is the norm in real life. That's hardly a newsflash. But there are also the Mark Fews, etc. who've rejected the overtures of bigger schools.

More importantly, as Z said, this is not real life. This is HD and WhatIf Sports. The slavish devotion in trying to emulate real life just for the sake of it befuddles me.

You shouldn't be asking, "How do they do it in real life?" You should be asking, "What is the best way to do it for HD?"

That's not to say we should just completely disregard everything that happens in real life. Real life still provides useful building blocks. But there are dozens of things from real life that have absolutely no correlation to HD. So in light of that, let's focus on what is best for HD.

Ok...first of all this idea that somehow Gonzaga is an A- or B+ prestige is insane...They are a B at best for many reasons. First, there success over however many years makes zero difference as they didn't receive national recognition for it until several years ago because they couldnt get out of the first round. Second, the idea that they somehow sign McDonald's All-Americans is also silly. They will never sign a player over one of the true B+ and higher programs. They are very good at two things. Getting the overs and finding overlooked players to fill in role positions. Given the choice however, no kid ever goes to Gonzaga because its where he's dreamed of playing. The do a very good job recruiting and are able to sustain moderate success in a crap conference but they are by no means comparable to most Big 6 schools.

As for HD...I've been saying this for two years and will repeat it anytime the subject of prestige comes up. There needs to be two type of prestige. 1 is baseline which should never, ever change under any conditions. Two reasons which are really tied together. There is supply and demand in HD like any other form of currency or product in this case the former being a team. The supply of teams like UNC/Duke/Kansas/UK...whomeever is very limited and more people will always lineup for those jobs than a CSU Fullerton who might be coming off a National Championship and have a current prestige of an A (Ill get to current prestige in a second). Yes, while a UNC or Uk might have a "down period" and the current prestige might drop to a B+ or whatnot, getting this job should not be easier.

At the same time, the biggest problem facing midmajors in HD is head coach retention. Its not impossible to play the game as advertised and turn any program into a powerhouse (simply look what the guys in the MWC have done in Tark, looking at their teams and their prestige you'd think they were a Big 6 conference)...The problem is when a coach leaves the program is typically better and finding a replacement is nearly impossible until the program is destroyed. Lets say for example a CSU Fullerton, is coming off a great season where their current prestige is at an A-, no one qualified for that school will go, as they wont leave a Big 6 position for the job and others who might be qualified are heading to a Big 6 program (yes, in theory I can be wrong but in practice what I'm saying almost always holds true)...

Now who takes over these programs typically (Im talking midmajors), DII coaches. None of them would be qualified because the current prestige is to high. So what ends up happening is they become Sim controlled and the program is ruined which hurts the conference as whole and each individuals team's pretige as well as they are all tied together. For job highering purposes the engine should look at the baseline prestige so DII candidates would be qualified and midmajors continue to build.

Current prestige would be used in the same manner it is now and tied to all the same factors. This ways schools could improve or decline based on what they've done recently.