Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 3/19/2010
screw the big sky. i say your prestige is too high

Lol, kel, I figured you'd be too hyped about the Illini's march to NIT glory to pay any attention to HD. And I am quite sure your sentiment has nothing to do with being knocked out of the NT by a Big Sky team each of the last three seasons.

If it wasn't for the Big Sky, kelby would be the 3x defending national champ in Allen!

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010
There's a difference between something being broken and you just not liking how it's set up. Montana plays in 7500 seat arena built in 1953. I'm guessing there's not much of a TV deal and the facilities don't match up with VA Tech's. 4 great years wouldn't change that. It's no secret that in HD (as in real life) getting the low Div I teams to highest level of prestige is very difficult. There are 14 schools in Allen with a prestige better than Montana, that sounds about right to me. You've done a great job at Montana, but I'm not sure why you'd think Montana could be an A/A+ prestige without even making a championship game.

I'd be willing to bet that a real life Montana team that goes to 2 straight Final Fours and 4 straight Elite Eights would have sufficient demand for tickets to consider expanding their arena and would have little problem getting the funds to do so. Gonzaga doesn't seem to have a prestige problem despite its conference's lack of a TV contract - in fact, I'd argue that Gonzaga's real life prestige is at least equal to dalter's Montana squad and they haven't had nearly the success dalter has.

Prestige caps (or boosts in the case of bad power conference schools), BY DEFINITION, are against the "what if" spirit of this game. As a world grows, it should develop its own "power conferences" that have no bearing to real life

Quote: Originally Posted By pottle on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010

There's a difference between something being broken and you just not liking how it's set up. Montana plays in 7500 seat arena built in 1953. I'm guessing there's not much of a TV deal and the facilities don't match up with VA Tech's. 4 great years wouldn't change that. It's no secret that in HD (as in real life) getting the low Div I teams to highest level of prestige is very difficult. There are 14 schools in Allen with a prestige better than Montana, that sounds about right to me. You've done a great job at Montana, but I'm not sure why you'd think Montana could be an A/A+ prestige without even making a championship game.

I'd be willing to bet that a real life Montana team that goes to 2 straight Final Fours and 4 straight Elite Eights would have sufficient demand for tickets to consider expanding their arena and would have little problem getting the funds to do so. Gonzaga doesn't seem to have a prestige problem despite its conference's lack of a TV contract - in fact, I'd argue that Gonzaga's real life prestige is at least equal to dalter's Montana squad and they haven't had nearly the success dalter has.

Prestige caps (or boosts in the case of bad power conference schools), BY DEFINITION, are against the "what if" spirit of this game. As a world grows, it should develop its own "power conferences" that have no bearing to real life.

Does the fact I can't sign a unicorn to play power forward goes against the "whatif" spirit of the game as well? If you want a level playing field, then play Div II, it's a great game. But I like Div I because it's an uneven playing level. I like the initial challange of building a low Div I team and eventually getting to a top conference and competing against the top coaches in the world. And maybe this is east coast-bias, but I don't see a lot of people wearing Gonzaga gear or watching them on national tv games. I also don't George Mason would have been the new Duke with another deep run or two. The money and TV behind these big name schools are just too powerful.

Quote: Originally Posted By pottle on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010

There's a difference between something being broken and you just not liking how it's set up. Montana plays in 7500 seat arena built in 1953. I'm guessing there's not much of a TV deal and the facilities don't match up with VA Tech's. 4 great years wouldn't change that. It's no secret that in HD (as in real life) getting the low Div I teams to highest level of prestige is very difficult. There are 14 schools in Allen with a prestige better than Montana, that sounds about right to me. You've done a great job at Montana, but I'm not sure why you'd think Montana could be an A/A+ prestige without even making a championship game.

I'd be willing to bet that a real life Montana team that goes to 2 straight Final Fours and 4 straight Elite Eights would have sufficient demand for tickets to consider expanding their arena and would have little problem getting the funds to do so. Gonzaga doesn't seem to have a prestige problem despite its conference's lack of a TV contract - in fact, I'd argue that Gonzaga's real life prestige is at least equal to dalter's Montana squad and they haven't had nearly the success dalter has.

Prestige caps (or boosts in the case of bad power conference schools), BY DEFINITION, are against the "what if" spirit of this game. As a world grows, it should develop its own "power conferences" that have no bearing to real life.

Does the fact I can't sign a unicorn to play power forward goes against the "whatif" spirit of the game as well?

C'mon pottle, I understand the point you're trying to make, but that's absurd. No one is saying you should be able to do anything in the world that you want.

If you want a level playing field, then play Div II

I didn't contend that the playing field needed to be perfectly level, only that the current set-up just doesn't make sense for several different reasons, and it doesn't.

(That said, a level playing field isn't a bad idea, either. Why should we be tethered to perceived college basketball prestige from 2002? Is there a reason that model makes sense ... and further, a reason that it makes more sense than letting the actual coaches and teams in a given world determine how good they are or aren't?)

, it's a great game. But I like Div I because it's an uneven playing level. I like the initial challange of building a low Div I team and eventually getting to a top conference and competing against the top coaches in the world. And maybe this is east coast-bias, but I don't see a lot of people wearing Gonzaga gear or watching them on national tv games. I also don't George Mason would have been the new Duke with another deep run or two. The money and TV behind these big name schools are just too powerful.


You keep falling back on this money/tv argument from real life. (At least you've scrapped the stadium part of the argument.) So you think the fact that in real life, certain teams would get more money than others should trump teams' actual performance in this game? You think it's that important? Because that notion is just balls-out crazy to me.

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 3/19/2010And pottle, if you speak disparagingly again about Dahlberg Arena, you and I are going to have to engage in fisticuffs.

Quote: Originally Posted By pottle on 3/19/2010

With pure floating prestige based on just the last 4 seasons, you wouldn't have much of a reason to leave your first Div I school. The Div I career aspect is interesting and decisions involved in what type of school to move to within Div I doesn't really exist in Div II and adds to game.

Now I'm not a fan of the tethering being stuck to 2002 or whenever, but wish it was based the long-term history (say 20-30 seasons) of the world. So you could get Montana to A+, but it would take a pretty long time.

Now we've hit some real middle ground!

To accomplish that would take a revamping of how WIS determines prestige. They would have to scrap the model that leans almost entirely on the last four seasons and expand it. I'd be all for that. It's a terrible model.

(Semi-unrelated, but another foible of the current model is seen when consistently successful coaches have one down season and are magically not eligible for much lower level jobs ... come on, just a little logic, please.)

When I think of A+ prestige, I think of schools that could get top coaches/recruits even after a couple bad seasons (Kentucky, UNC). There's just too many examples of schools that have a short period of success (UNLV), but quickly regress.

UNLV was an A+ for that time period in the late 80's, early 90's. They were a serious destination for blue chippers. Memphis emerged from mediocrity to become a blue chip destination, to name another. So it certainly happens. I'm not even saying Montana should all of the sudden be equivalent to UNC for recruits ... although the schools I just named certainly were.

I think the main difference might be that a UNC could effectively whether down seasons without losing too much of their luster, while a lesser school would lose it more quickly (although not as ridiculously quickly as they do now, where it's practically like the great success never happened).

The baseline prestige shouldn't trump actual results in the long-term, but should move slowly over time. The trade-off should be that higher baseline prestige should be firing people much more quickly that they are currently.

Totally agreed. I guess the only question is how much time. Would you say Montana's run of 8 straight NT's and 11 straight postseasons, particularly the last four of E8 or better, should be enough? I would. It'd be pretty damn tough to find a non-BCS school in real life with a run like that.

(Also, please add attractiveness of the cheerleaders to arena/tv/money as prestige components. I was looking at Cornell's cheerleaders today and could just tell they weren't a big-time school.)

Lol. I have to take exception to that one ... I'm no Eustachy, but the talent around Missoula isn't the best, assuming you're into full sets of teeth. Can cheerleader attractiveness rise with prestige?

Pottle, I demand floating cheerleader attractiveness!

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010With pure floating prestige based on just the last 4 seasons, you wouldn't have much of a reason to leave your first Div I school. The Div I career aspect is interesting and decisions involved in what type of school to move to within Div I doesn't really exist in Div II and adds to game. Now I'm not a fan of the tethering being stuck to 2002 or whenever, but wish it was based the long-term history (say 20-30 seasons) of the world. So you could get Montana to A+, but it would take a pretty long time. When I think of A+ prestige, I think of schools that could get top coaches/recruits even after a couple bad seasons (Kentucky, UNC).  There's just too many examples of schools that have a short period of success (UNLV), but quickly regress. The baseline prestige shouldn't trump actual results in the long-term, but should move slowly over time. The trade-off should be that higher baseline prestige should be firing people much more quickly that they are currently. (Also, please add attractiveness of the cheerleaders to arena/tv/money as prestige components. I was looking at Cornell's cheerleaders today and could just tell they weren't a big-time school.) 

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010With pure floating prestige based on just the last 4 seasons, you wouldn't have much of a reason to leave your first Div I school. The Div I career aspect is interesting and decisions involved in what type of school to move to within Div I doesn't really exist in Div II and adds to game. Now I'm not a fan of the tethering being stuck to 2002 or whenever, but wish it was based the long-term history (say 20-30 seasons) of the world. So you could get Montana to A+, but it would take a pretty long time. When I think of A+ prestige, I think of schools that could get top coaches/recruits even after a couple bad seasons (Kentucky, UNC).  There's just too many examples of schools that have a short period of success (UNLV), but quickly regress. The baseline prestige shouldn't trump actual results in the long-term, but should move slowly over time. The trade-off should be that higher baseline prestige should be firing people much more quickly that they are currently. (Also, please add attractiveness of the cheerleaders to arena/tv/money as prestige components. I was looking at Cornell's cheerleaders today and could just tell they weren't a big-time school.)