Posted by topdogggbm on 8/20/2020 9:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/20/2020 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/20/2020 3:20:00 AM (view original):
Wow man. I'm talking about the basic info from before.... both schools having the same baseline. Didn't think I had to explain that with big words

If you don’t mean to make it sound like you think npb’s plan is to make Rutgers and Kansas look equal, don’t say that. Use whatever size words work for you, but use different ones. The truth is with that very reasonable counter proposal, they would be “equal” in one very small way, a way in which they are already equal in the preference profile of some recruits, for conference strength. We’re saying the concept of baseline, as a tether or rubber band rather than just a starting point, works a lot better with gameplay for a game like this applied to a conference, rather than to individual programs.

I am also saying the schools can keep a concept of “prestige” in some sense, 10-year success profile some recruits will be looking at, and a coach prestige factor that travels with the coach.

To Benis’s point, this game is 100+ seasons in in every world. If CUSE is still in the Melo in 2135, I doubt it will be a draw. Program prestige has a shelf life, and it isn’t hundreds of years. Doggg’s Providence example actually makes this point pretty well.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I said a word about Providence

our different view point is that you prefer what YOU have done at a school to matter. I don't. If you make Rutgers a champion, I still believe baseline Rutgers should be an C. Because they are a sucky basketball school and if new people join and see a list of schools in the E8 that aren't "the norm", they'll think..... what kinda game is this? Where is Duke and UK and UNC?

I believe the game should have schools you work towards
On the other hand, it's clear that you (shoe) have always been a participation trophy type of guy. Where I'm the type of guy that feels you have to earn that top spot. Making Rutgers more powerful than Kansas should be something earned. Not given

You’re right about the first part. I was referencing npb’s post, not yours.

Everything else you said here is silly. I’m a “participation trophy type of guy” because I “prefer what YOU have done at a school to matter.” OK dogggg.

Are you reading what you’re typing? How is this even making sense to you?

Because you've always been in favor of "the little guy". And I've always been a fan of the rich staying rich. As its relative to HD conversations. This isn't anything new.

It goes back to the same debates from the arguments from 2.0 lovers, compared to 3.0 lovers (and please let's not discuss that as well. I'm just saying that you have a vision for the game that's different than mine. Nothing more)

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/20/2020 11:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/20/2020 2:38:00 PM (view original):
"If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother."

You're also 100% wrong about this.

Larry Brown went to SMU in 2013, taking over a butthole squad that hadn't made the tourney since 1993. He signed the #1 player in the class Emmanuel Mudiay in 2014.

Cool story. How many minutes did Mudiay play for SMU?

I'm a reasonable guy who is willing to be educated. Got a better example?

Doesn't matter he went pro. The example still proves that a coach makes a huge difference. He never would have talked to SMU, let alone sign with them, if Larry Brown wasn't the coach.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/21/2020 3:35:00 AM (view original):
Because you've always been in favor of "the little guy". And I've always been a fan of the rich staying rich. As its relative to HD conversations. This isn't anything new.

It goes back to the same debates from the arguments from 2.0 lovers, compared to 3.0 lovers (and please let's not discuss that as well. I'm just saying that you have a vision for the game that's different than mine. Nothing more)

LOL, “participation trophy” is the strangest way to articulate advancement by merit I’ve seen in quite a while, but you do you, doggg.

When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2020 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/21/2020 3:35:00 AM (view original):
Because you've always been in favor of "the little guy". And I've always been a fan of the rich staying rich. As its relative to HD conversations. This isn't anything new.

It goes back to the same debates from the arguments from 2.0 lovers, compared to 3.0 lovers (and please let's not discuss that as well. I'm just saying that you have a vision for the game that's different than mine. Nothing more)

LOL, “participation trophy” is the strangest way to articulate advancement by merit I’ve seen in quite a while, but you do you, doggg.

I much prefer participation trophy for what I'm trying to describe.

Much much more than "articulate advancement by merit"! I've never used that phrase in my life

the coach already impacts the prestige of the program. its not unusual to see a partial grade up or down upon arrival of a new coach. if they simply beefed this up a bit, would this roughly satisfy the concern about the prestige more following the coach than the program? although in truth, i don't buy this coaching prestige BS in the first place - the coaches who have the prestige got it because of who they are, great coaches, really well connected to the NBA, whatever - and they continue getting players because they continue to be those things - by and large. your abilities follow you in this game just like in real life, and that is what matters most.

i honestly still don't get what all the hubbub is about. the coaches who would carry substantial 'coaching prestige' can already go to any decent geographically located d1 school and build a competitive program. it is harder at a D prestige than an A+, but i don't really see most people arguing for that to stop being the case. mostly folks are talking about moving a B to an A, an A down to a B... who gives a ****? its already such a small difference. what does that shake out to in actual prestige, 1 partial grade? now that the advantage of being a top program is so much smaller than it used to be, i don't see the problem - outside the minor annoyance of how poorly a couple programs line up with their real life prestige (bc, illinois, etc)

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 8:28:00 AM (view original):
When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

I think that was based on a longstanding relationship, not Hopkins' prestige. No?

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/21/2020 9:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2020 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/21/2020 3:35:00 AM (view original):
Because you've always been in favor of "the little guy". And I've always been a fan of the rich staying rich. As its relative to HD conversations. This isn't anything new.

It goes back to the same debates from the arguments from 2.0 lovers, compared to 3.0 lovers (and please let's not discuss that as well. I'm just saying that you have a vision for the game that's different than mine. Nothing more)

LOL, “participation trophy” is the strangest way to articulate advancement by merit I’ve seen in quite a while, but you do you, doggg.

I much prefer participation trophy for what I'm trying to describe.

Much much more than "articulate advancement by merit"! I've never used that phrase in my life

“Participation trophy” is a concept that gets thrown about in discussions about coddling people in competitive environments. It’s generally used by the kind of guys who were born on third base and think they hit a triple, if you know what I mean. In other words, it’s saying you can’t compete on your own, you want a handout, or something to make you feel good about your effort, despite lack of success. A trophy for participating. Following so far?

But above, you also (correctly) state that I prefer what I have done at a school to matter; this is, in fact, the foundation of what I would consider the program’s ”prestige” factor, as it relates to its attractiveness to recruits - how it has performed recently (heavy weight on last 5-10 seasons, but I could go along with trailing back a bit farther). Do you see how this conflicts with the idea of “thanks for participating, here’s your trophy?” In fact, my argument is the opposite. If anyone is asking for handouts, unearned advantages, it would be the folks looking to maintain unearned advantages over their competition in perpetuity.

I get it, in the HD world, you like oligarchy, I like meritocracy. We can agree to disagree on that. But let’s be clear on who exactly is asking for the participation trophies.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 8:28:00 AM (view original):
When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

I think that was based on a longstanding relationship, not Hopkins' prestige. No?

Yeah exactly my point. The coach mattered to the player more than the school.

So if Slick Rick is at Iona, the player may choose to play for Slick Rick (and for the hookers of course) and not for Iona. A hall of fame coach with multiple titles, multiple early entry draft picks walks into your living room, you're going to listen regardless of the school.

Of course, not all players choose the coach over the school but it's definitely one of the biggest reasons a player chooses a particular school.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/21/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):
the coach already impacts the prestige of the program. its not unusual to see a partial grade up or down upon arrival of a new coach. if they simply beefed this up a bit, would this roughly satisfy the concern about the prestige more following the coach than the program? although in truth, i don't buy this coaching prestige BS in the first place - the coaches who have the prestige got it because of who they are, great coaches, really well connected to the NBA, whatever - and they continue getting players because they continue to be those things - by and large. your abilities follow you in this game just like in real life, and that is what matters most.

i honestly still don't get what all the hubbub is about. the coaches who would carry substantial 'coaching prestige' can already go to any decent geographically located d1 school and build a competitive program. it is harder at a D prestige than an A+, but i don't really see most people arguing for that to stop being the case. mostly folks are talking about moving a B to an A, an A down to a B... who gives a ****? its already such a small difference. what does that shake out to in actual prestige, 1 partial grade? now that the advantage of being a top program is so much smaller than it used to be, i don't see the problem - outside the minor annoyance of how poorly a couple programs line up with their real life prestige (bc, illinois, etc)

I don’t consider my stance on coach prestige to be strong, so I guess I don’t consider this to be “hubbub”. It’s part of what I would support, as opposed to any kind of updates to baseline prestige that would inject real life updates into the game. I’m opposed to those for basically the same reasons jimmychino laid out right upfront.

Imagine Jimmy C’s Crum world Northwestern run was inserted into real life Northwestern, 1967-1999. 2 national titles, 5 Final Fours, 16 Sweet Sixteens. There’s no way that program is locked out of the upper echelon of elite programs in any sane discussion when this game is under development. And yet because of baseline as tether rather than baseline as starting point in this game, he’s probably never getting the full power of the A+ baseline teams, and if he’s not averaging better than a Sweet 16 appearance, he’s slipping under A+ on the dashboard.

If anything is done to baseline prestige, eliminate it, and move its power to more rational places. Otherwise leave it alone.

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 8:28:00 AM (view original):
When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

I think that was based on a longstanding relationship, not Hopkins' prestige. No?

Yeah exactly my point. The coach mattered to the player more than the school.

So if Slick Rick is at Iona, the player may choose to play for Slick Rick (and for the hookers of course) and not for Iona. A hall of fame coach with multiple titles, multiple early entry draft picks walks into your living room, you're going to listen regardless of the school.

Of course, not all players choose the coach over the school but it's definitely one of the biggest reasons a player chooses a particular school.

That had zero to do with Hopkins' general reputation as a coach, everything to do with the attention he put into the particular player. And that's already built into this game.

Kcs 2, Benis 0.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 8:28:00 AM (view original):
When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

I think that was based on a longstanding relationship, not Hopkins' prestige. No?

Yeah exactly my point. The coach mattered to the player more than the school.

So if Slick Rick is at Iona, the player may choose to play for Slick Rick (and for the hookers of course) and not for Iona. A hall of fame coach with multiple titles, multiple early entry draft picks walks into your living room, you're going to listen regardless of the school.

Of course, not all players choose the coach over the school but it's definitely one of the biggest reasons a player chooses a particular school.

That had zero to do with Hopkins' general reputation as a coach, everything to do with the attention he put into the particular player. And that's already built into this game.

Kcs 2, Benis 0.

No it's not. Not at all. You leave a school, the attention towards a recruit stays with the school. Nothing travels with the coach.

Kc zero

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2020 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/21/2020 9:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2020 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/21/2020 3:35:00 AM (view original):
Because you've always been in favor of "the little guy". And I've always been a fan of the rich staying rich. As its relative to HD conversations. This isn't anything new.

It goes back to the same debates from the arguments from 2.0 lovers, compared to 3.0 lovers (and please let's not discuss that as well. I'm just saying that you have a vision for the game that's different than mine. Nothing more)

LOL, “participation trophy” is the strangest way to articulate advancement by merit I’ve seen in quite a while, but you do you, doggg.

I much prefer participation trophy for what I'm trying to describe.

Much much more than "articulate advancement by merit"! I've never used that phrase in my life

“Participation trophy” is a concept that gets thrown about in discussions about coddling people in competitive environments. It’s generally used by the kind of guys who were born on third base and think they hit a triple, if you know what I mean. In other words, it’s saying you can’t compete on your own, you want a handout, or something to make you feel good about your effort, despite lack of success. A trophy for participating. Following so far?

But above, you also (correctly) state that I prefer what I have done at a school to matter; this is, in fact, the foundation of what I would consider the program’s ”prestige” factor, as it relates to its attractiveness to recruits - how it has performed recently (heavy weight on last 5-10 seasons, but I could go along with trailing back a bit farther). Do you see how this conflicts with the idea of “thanks for participating, here’s your trophy?” In fact, my argument is the opposite. If anyone is asking for handouts, unearned advantages, it would be the folks looking to maintain unearned advantages over their competition in perpetuity.

I get it, in the HD world, you like oligarchy, I like meritocracy. We can agree to disagree on that. But let’s be clear on who exactly is asking for the participation trophies.

All I'm talking about is the same crap you and I discuss repeatedly over the years here.

You want a game that's fair and fun for everyone. I want a game where the elites rule. That way It would consistently be ME knocking YOU out of the NT each season! ;)

I think we all have described our positions pretty thoroughly.

Couple of final points (hopefully) on my end...

- Prestige is absolutely totally relevant in recruiting. It absolutely and completely provides advantages to high-prestige teams. Whether it was even more relevant in 2.0 (not really sure i agree, but whatever) is beside the point. Today in 3.0 prestige is freakin huge.

- Fine, in Big Six world, A+ base prestige can be given to Duke, UK, KU, and UNC. Whatever. But again, there's no real reason for base prestige to be different for any of the middle 68 or 64 teams. They should all have the same A baseline prestige. I understand that people don't agree with me on this.

But I've followed college hoops since 1977 at the age of 9, and in those 43 seasons I've seen basically every one these middle 68 teams rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall... elite teams rise and elite teams fall... i could name basically every team and give you examples... and yes, it includes Rutgers with their 1976 Final Four at the Spectrum, with Creed-Balboa-1 as the undercard.

Based on 43 earth years of watching this sport, in my opinion, there is no need to separate any of these 64 teams with an artificial prestige advantage, based on 2001 to 2005... yes i know why it was done... i don't care... if something has outlived its logic, then change and improve it. Creating "elite" teams from oddball 2005-era results, then not adjusting to at least make things even, is very weird and tough to defend... the only defenses are "it's always been this way", and "human owners of these teams will get mad if things change cuz they worked hard to get to Illinois and Stanford and now it's being changed on them".

And again, there's no question in my mind that high base-prestige provides an enormous, colossal, gargantuan advantage.

Also, i realize that this game isnt likely to change on this topic, and i will still keep playing, and will continue to enjoy it.