I've repeated this idea a bunch of times on similar threads:

Teams in the same conference should have the same base prestige. That base prestige would never change.

And D-1 should have 4 tiers of conferences.

Tier One: 6 conferences.
All 72 teams would have a baseline prestige of A:
- ACC.
- Big 12.
- Big East.
- Big Ten.
- Pac-12.
- SEC.

Tier Two: 6 conferences.
All 72 teams would have a baseline prestige of B:
- A-10.
- Horizon.
- Missouri Valley.
- Conf-USA.
- Mountain West.
- WCC.

Tier Three: 4 conferences:
All 48 teams would have a baseline prestige of C:
- Colonial.
- MAC.
- Sun Belt.
- Big West.

Tier Four: the other 11 conferences.
All 132 remaining teams would have a D for baseline prestige.

Prestige would naturally ebb and flow like in real life.

Things I'd support
-Update prestiges based upon more accurate/recent real life results
-Or no change to current

Things I don't like
-removing baseline prestige completely
-A rolling average of real life results updated yearly
-All teams in a conference with the same baseline prestige

I think they need to fix that the last 4 years are the only years that effect prestige before they fix the baselines. I think the last 20-30 seasons should effect a team's prestige with years further back counting for less and less the further back you go.

I hate the way this game uses prestige, especially “baseline“ at D1. I mostly agree with npb above, and have been saying something similar in the same kinds of threads for a while. As a concept, prestige should be applied to conferences, and to coaches. Anything beyond a 10-year success profile (and I would not call that “prestige”) for a program separate from the coach is overkill from a gameplay perspective, and unrealistic. The idea that real life college teams have an objective, tangible prestige grade with quantifiable recruiting value is patently ridiculous, and it’s an absolutely unnecessary convention now that this game has a number of recruit preferences featured.

Remove program prestige altogether. Replace it with a coach prestige that travels with the coach, a bit less strong than current program prestige, but replacing much of that lost power on the recruiting trail. Institute conference prestige tiers, along the lines of what npb outlines.

I'm glad discussions are happening. And less flinging poo

I feel like making baseline more equal as a whole, is not a good idea. If we want Rutgers to be equal to Kansas, it defeats the purpose of working towards a powerhouse school. Right now we can "make" Rutgers a power school by having success. But I don't want those two schools equal from the get go

I call that..... D2 and D3. D1 has to be different

Posted by shoe3 on 8/19/2020 12:12:00 AM (view original):
Kansas has advantages over Rutgers in real life because of the success of the programs. It’s not because of a built-in “prestige” factor. It’s certainly not because the NCAA, at any juncture, said anything along the lines of what’s being argued here. That would be ludicrous, and would probably merit the immediate dissolution of the NCAA (not that this would be a bad thing).

Obviously.

But to keep this game entertaining, I feel SOME, schools should have a shiny appeal. A reason to work towards them, while playing a game. Mocking real life in a lot of ways is a great idea for a game. Not a free for all. As you always mention, let's "assume" that most new coaches want to play D1 (which I disagree with). That reason is because they have a pre determined mindset of what it is expected to look like.

If new people come to this game, and see a E8 every season with Ark Pine Bluff, Akron, Grambling, Florida A&M, etc, that would not be appealing at all.

D2/D3 style again

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/19/2020 3:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/19/2020 12:12:00 AM (view original):
Kansas has advantages over Rutgers in real life because of the success of the programs. It’s not because of a built-in “prestige” factor. It’s certainly not because the NCAA, at any juncture, said anything along the lines of what’s being argued here. That would be ludicrous, and would probably merit the immediate dissolution of the NCAA (not that this would be a bad thing).

Obviously.

But to keep this game entertaining, I feel SOME, schools should have a shiny appeal. A reason to work towards them, while playing a game. Mocking real life in a lot of ways is a great idea for a game. Not a free for all. As you always mention, let's "assume" that most new coaches want to play D1 (which I disagree with). That reason is because they have a pre determined mindset of what it is expected to look like.

If new people come to this game, and see a E8 every season with Ark Pine Bluff, Akron, Grambling, Florida A&M, etc, that would not be appealing at all.

D2/D3 style again

What you’re describing is a top-of-the-mountain, perch kind of game, and I think that’s probably what the original developer had in mind. It was a terrible idea for a simulation of real life college athletics intended for a large group of competitive players, but they obviously sold the core community on it, because it still persists in the way a lot of those old timers think and talk about the game. And it’s @$$ backwards. I can’t think of any other similar game where the game is easiest - and cheapest - when you achieve the “highest“ positions. I suppose it could be workable if there was some way to beat those players off their perch (other than, you know, waiting for them to be struck by personal, financial, family, or community tragedy so they don’t or can’t renew).

For real though, that “shiny appeal” you talk about is still there in npb’s setup. (FWIW, I would move Horizon down, and make it 6-5-5-11, but that’s about the only quibble I have). The appeal is just spread a bit wider, and the effect is not as pronounced.

I should clarify here, I don’t think anything has to change. I’m ok keeping things as they are. I am adamantly opposed to “updating” baselines to reflect real life changes, though. If any changes are made to baseline prestige, it should be to remove them completely, or to even them out among conferences. Otherwise don’t touch them. These worlds are all hundreds of seasons detached from any real life influence. Inserting real life updates like “prestige” (as if prestige grades are a real thing) or forced conference realignment (voluntary relegation and realignment is another topic entirely, and could be one of the best things that could happen to the game, if it could be made possible) would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster.

for what its worth, baseline prestige used to have a massively larger influence. today's setup is the proverbial middle ground. i actually don't think they even showed prestige grades back then but my memory on the subject has failed, apparently. i don't know if this is really a fair comparison, but i think it would be at least sort of reasonable to say the old system would basically be like if in today's game, you could only move 1, maybe 2 partial grades off your baseline, no matter what. a+ kentucky misses 18 straight post seasons, they only dropped to a- or a. d+ **** school wins 5 straight titles, they are maybe a c. something like that.

i kind of like the middle ground, although obviously i'm not a fan of the baselines as doled out. still, i think allowing prestige to float as it does now by almost 2 grades down and at least 2 grades up, is a nice compromise, as i do think coaches should largely be able to shape their own history, if you will, but at the same time, i think it is good for the game to limit how unattractive the most attractive programs can become. i definitely would change the system if i could wave a wand, but i also think the current system is decent.

“i actually don't think they even showed prestige grades back then but my memory on the subject has failed, apparently.”

If you look back in the histories of most worlds, in all but the most recent (Tark and Phelan), they start out without prestige for the first dozen or 2 dozen seasons, so that’s what you’re talking about I think? I don’t know exactly how the convention of D1 “baseline” was determined as it is used in forums. I suspect users took the starting prestige teams began with in Phelan and Tark, and ran with that as “baseline”. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption, but I suppose that’s the best we have.

I was going to adjust my proposal to have a full-letter downgrade for up to 4 teams per HD Big Six conference (and keep 8 minimum at A)... to take into consideration the deadwood dregs at the bottom of the standings.

However, when i started designating dreg teams to downgrade, i came up with only 3 HD Big-Sixers that really longterm-sucked in real life... Rutgers, Hawaii, and Fresno. Even Northwestern in real life has had a decent run lately. Maybe Nebraska or Penn State, but they've also improved in real life. Washington State, Oregon State-- these guys have the ability to compete in real life. Virginia Tech has also played well with good recruits. The SEC and Big 12 have no true dregs either. Real-life DePaul could easily compete, but their AD is an imbecile.

Of the 3 dregs i called out, one (Rutgers) made a Final Four in 1976 and is at least capable under better coaching of competing... and Hawaii and Fresno-- say we replaced them in this exercise with real-life PAC-12 Utah and Big-12 TCU (HD Mountain West)... Utah and TCU are capable of finishing anywhere in the top 72 too.

So of the 72 Big Six HD teams, only 1 i guess could be downgraded. Meanwhile, 4 real life teams-- say Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky have been dominant. 65 teams (i may be overlooking someone-- Arizona, UCLA, Michigan State--) are generally interchangeable in potential for success with ups and downs.

So 65 or 62 teams are pretty equal.
1 or 3 teams suck.
4 or 7 teams have dominated.

So why put freaking Boston College on a better level than Villanova or Michigan? An experiment-- pick 7 random teams anywhere in the real-life Big Six... look forward 12 years... any of those 7 has a chance at being the most successful over these upcoming 12 years... UNC, UK, KU and Duke are maybe the ONLY exceptions. But teams 5 thru 71, or teams 8 thru 69, are interchangeable.

That's the most frustrating thing about this game-- frustration that my HD Friars have to get muscled out of recruits by Boston freakin College, with ZERO FINAL FOURS, only because Al Skinner had a few solid years from 2001 to 2005... though Providence had a great run in the 90's with a dozen NBA guys, a Final Four in the 80s, was arguably the top Eastern indie team, a national powerhouse, for 20 years from 1959 thru 1978... holy crap, just make Teams 8 thru 69 freakin equal.

i guess that's my pet peeve that I'd try to correct. Maybe that explains it better? But with way too many words?
Sorry for the ramble...!

Posted by shoe3 on 8/19/2020 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/19/2020 3:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/19/2020 12:12:00 AM (view original):
Kansas has advantages over Rutgers in real life because of the success of the programs. It’s not because of a built-in “prestige” factor. It’s certainly not because the NCAA, at any juncture, said anything along the lines of what’s being argued here. That would be ludicrous, and would probably merit the immediate dissolution of the NCAA (not that this would be a bad thing).

Obviously.

But to keep this game entertaining, I feel SOME, schools should have a shiny appeal. A reason to work towards them, while playing a game. Mocking real life in a lot of ways is a great idea for a game. Not a free for all. As you always mention, let's "assume" that most new coaches want to play D1 (which I disagree with). That reason is because they have a pre determined mindset of what it is expected to look like.

If new people come to this game, and see a E8 every season with Ark Pine Bluff, Akron, Grambling, Florida A&M, etc, that would not be appealing at all.

D2/D3 style again

What you’re describing is a top-of-the-mountain, perch kind of game, and I think that’s probably what the original developer had in mind. It was a terrible idea for a simulation of real life college athletics intended for a large group of competitive players, but they obviously sold the core community on it, because it still persists in the way a lot of those old timers think and talk about the game. And it’s @$$ backwards. I can’t think of any other similar game where the game is easiest - and cheapest - when you achieve the “highest“ positions. I suppose it could be workable if there was some way to beat those players off their perch (other than, you know, waiting for them to be struck by personal, financial, family, or community tragedy so they don’t or can’t renew).

For real though, that “shiny appeal” you talk about is still there in npb’s setup. (FWIW, I would move Horizon down, and make it 6-5-5-11, but that’s about the only quibble I have). The appeal is just spread a bit wider, and the effect is not as pronounced.

Npbs setup has no shiny appeal. It makes all big 6 schools equal. That's not shiny. If Rutgers is equal to Kansas, we have a game that looks ridiculous to a group of folks. (Don't wanna say "most" or "some" because I don't know how many coaches prefer what style of game.)

Posted by npb7768 on 8/19/2020 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I was going to adjust my proposal to have a full-letter downgrade for up to 4 teams per HD Big Six conference (and keep 8 minimum at A)... to take into consideration the deadwood dregs at the bottom of the standings.

However, when i started designating dreg teams to downgrade, i came up with only 3 HD Big-Sixers that really longterm-sucked in real life... Rutgers, Hawaii, and Fresno. Even Northwestern in real life has had a decent run lately. Maybe Nebraska or Penn State, but they've also improved in real life. Washington State, Oregon State-- these guys have the ability to compete in real life. Virginia Tech has also played well with good recruits. The SEC and Big 12 have no true dregs either. Real-life DePaul could easily compete, but their AD is an imbecile.

Of the 3 dregs i called out, one (Rutgers) made a Final Four in 1976 and is at least capable under better coaching of competing... and Hawaii and Fresno-- say we replaced them in this exercise with real-life PAC-12 Utah and Big-12 TCU (HD Mountain West)... Utah and TCU are capable of finishing anywhere in the top 72 too.

So of the 72 Big Six HD teams, only 1 i guess could be downgraded. Meanwhile, 4 real life teams-- say Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky have been dominant. 65 teams (i may be overlooking someone-- Arizona, UCLA, Michigan State--) are generally interchangeable in potential for success with ups and downs.

So 65 or 62 teams are pretty equal.
1 or 3 teams suck.
4 or 7 teams have dominated.

So why put freaking Boston College on a better level than Villanova or Michigan? An experiment-- pick 7 random teams anywhere in the real-life Big Six... look forward 12 years... any of those 7 has a chance at being the most successful over these upcoming 12 years... UNC, UK, KU and Duke are maybe the ONLY exceptions. But teams 5 thru 71, or teams 8 thru 69, are interchangeable.

That's the most frustrating thing about this game-- frustration that my HD Friars have to get muscled out of recruits by Boston freakin College, with ZERO FINAL FOURS, only because Al Skinner had a few solid years from 2001 to 2005... though Providence had a great run in the 90's with a dozen NBA guys, a Final Four in the 80s, was arguably the top Eastern indie team, a national powerhouse, for 20 years from 1959 thru 1978... holy crap, just make Teams 8 thru 69 freakin equal.

i guess that's my pet peeve that I'd try to correct. Maybe that explains it better? But with way too many words?
Sorry for the ramble...!

I like prestige exactly how it is. Except for a handful of teams. BC being one of them. Generally speaking I feel that most schools (not 5 thru 71. But maybe more like 20 to 71) are pretty equal. And rightfully so.

That's why I feel a one time upgrade to keep up with today's current events somewhat, is best. But apparently, this is all subjective and nothing unanimous amongst us

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/19/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 8/19/2020 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I was going to adjust my proposal to have a full-letter downgrade for up to 4 teams per HD Big Six conference (and keep 8 minimum at A)... to take into consideration the deadwood dregs at the bottom of the standings.

However, when i started designating dreg teams to downgrade, i came up with only 3 HD Big-Sixers that really longterm-sucked in real life... Rutgers, Hawaii, and Fresno. Even Northwestern in real life has had a decent run lately. Maybe Nebraska or Penn State, but they've also improved in real life. Washington State, Oregon State-- these guys have the ability to compete in real life. Virginia Tech has also played well with good recruits. The SEC and Big 12 have no true dregs either. Real-life DePaul could easily compete, but their AD is an imbecile.

Of the 3 dregs i called out, one (Rutgers) made a Final Four in 1976 and is at least capable under better coaching of competing... and Hawaii and Fresno-- say we replaced them in this exercise with real-life PAC-12 Utah and Big-12 TCU (HD Mountain West)... Utah and TCU are capable of finishing anywhere in the top 72 too.

So of the 72 Big Six HD teams, only 1 i guess could be downgraded. Meanwhile, 4 real life teams-- say Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky have been dominant. 65 teams (i may be overlooking someone-- Arizona, UCLA, Michigan State--) are generally interchangeable in potential for success with ups and downs.

So 65 or 62 teams are pretty equal.
1 or 3 teams suck.
4 or 7 teams have dominated.

So why put freaking Boston College on a better level than Villanova or Michigan? An experiment-- pick 7 random teams anywhere in the real-life Big Six... look forward 12 years... any of those 7 has a chance at being the most successful over these upcoming 12 years... UNC, UK, KU and Duke are maybe the ONLY exceptions. But teams 5 thru 71, or teams 8 thru 69, are interchangeable.

That's the most frustrating thing about this game-- frustration that my HD Friars have to get muscled out of recruits by Boston freakin College, with ZERO FINAL FOURS, only because Al Skinner had a few solid years from 2001 to 2005... though Providence had a great run in the 90's with a dozen NBA guys, a Final Four in the 80s, was arguably the top Eastern indie team, a national powerhouse, for 20 years from 1959 thru 1978... holy crap, just make Teams 8 thru 69 freakin equal.

i guess that's my pet peeve that I'd try to correct. Maybe that explains it better? But with way too many words?
Sorry for the ramble...!

I like prestige exactly how it is. Except for a handful of teams. BC being one of them. Generally speaking I feel that most schools (not 5 thru 71. But maybe more like 20 to 71) are pretty equal. And rightfully so.

That's why I feel a one time upgrade to keep up with today's current events somewhat, is best. But apparently, this is all subjective and nothing unanimous amongst us

Again, just my opinion:

Doing one-time prestige adjustments is maybe a worse solution than we have now... or, it updates a situation but keeps the same structural problem intact.

I think our disagreement on this specific issue may be that you keep calling out Rutgers vs Kansas, the most extreme examples... to justify (i think) other bad prestige rankings.

But compare any 2 random Big Six teams in real life (say between Teams 8 and 69)... Auburn and Purdue... Washington and NC State... Georgetown and Baylor... USC and Purdue... Oklahoma State and Georgia... St John's and Florida State... each of these teams in the last 12 seasons has been ranked, has had the capability of making a Sweet Sixteen or Finalm Four, has had good coaches, has signed top recruits, and there is basically no difference in their ceilings or floors.

As a compromise, separate the top 4 teams and give them an A+ prestige... and pull down the bottom 4 teams... and keep the remaining 64 teams equally at A base prestige.

Top 4 bluebloods --> Duke, UNC, KU, UK --> A+ base prestige.
64 teams in the middle --> "A" base prestige.
Bottom 4 dregs --> Rutgers, Hawaii, Fresno State, and a 4th (Nebraska?) --> "B" base prestige.