A random person responds to a year old thread with one of the usual "WAH! Im going home and taking my ball with me" comments and people are trying to defend him. Just let him go, people.

pork is right. St. Bonnie has been the best program in Iba for the past 15 years. they are in no way considered an elite by the system... Just damn good recruiting/ coaching etc...

Quote: Originally Posted By porkpower on 1/29/2010A random person responds to a year old thread with one of the usual "WAH! Im going home and taking my ball with me" comments and people are trying to defend him. Just let him go, people

says pork who currently coaches at Kentucky, Kansas, Oregon, etc., etc. please. is your position actually that its not much easier to build a dynasty at a Big 6 (or Big 7 if you include the A-10 which WIS pretty much does when considering baseline prestige) and that there isn't programmed disadvantage for smaller programs?

if so, that's a comical postion to take. the original thread was about Army. pork, how about you go build them into a powerhouse over a 10-15 year span and then i'll give credence to your position.

the A-10 is all B's and B-'s for baseline prestige. that's a far cry from a D. a huge gap and a huge disadvantage. that's a recruiting fact.

Nam, nobody has said it isn't easier at Power 6 conferences, I don't know why you keep harping on that.

The bottom line is that the issue isn't building a single non-bcs team to be a national player for long stretches. That can be done. The issue is that there's no incentive for a coach to stick around and do it/maintain it because of the collective weight of the rest of the conference. One team can overcome the baseline prestige inertia. But the odds of an entire conference doing it are slim. And the fact is that one slip up at any of the 12 schools in the conference means their prestige drops pretty significantly and that impacts conference prestige. So the bottom line is that its virtually impossible to keep conference prestige high enough in a non Big 6 to not place very real and very frustrating limits on the most successful teams.

As an example - its totally ridiculous that the SEC-Allen has maintained a higher prestige than the Ivy-Allen when you look at the relative successes of the team in these conferences over the past 5+ seasons. What that means is that there's no real reason for someone to stay at a high prestige school in a non-Big 6 unless they're happy to hang out in a decent conference coaching with people they like.

Over time this will drive the more successful coaches to the BCS conferences which I have no problem with.

Except for the fact that firings are totally screwed up right now. You can basically suck for EXTENDED periods and not get fired which means no good jobs open up. The same mediocre coaches hold the same jobs at good schools year after year. There are at least a half dozen coaches at Big 6 schools in Allen alone that probably don't deserve to have their current jobs.

Rant over.

100% correct, cheez. And Allen SEC vs. Ivy is a perfect example. Hopefully this is something they will fix. If the Ivy trounces the SEC (and I don't mean over just a season or two, obviously), then they should have a higher prestige.

Dalt how long would you say that that needs to happen for it to change? I think the game needs to have a small baseline to go off of (to start) and totally agree that over the course of gameplay that conferences should be able to move up/down. But how many years would you say that the Ivy should have to be better to move above them? 5? 10? 20?

I think that it needs to be at least a 10 year period of dominance by an entire conference to move them up to a power conference, maybe even a bit more.

I like the idea of True Floating Prestige over the Baseline Floating Prestige that we currently have but I do think that it should start off using the BFP for seasons until a world is established, which all of the worlds are, and then slowly get rid of that as the world turns into more of a TFP with a very very small portion of Baseline at the end.

Quote: Originally Posted By cheeznsweet on 1/29/2010
Except for the fact that firings are totally screwed up right now.

You've successfully identified the real problem, IMO. If WIS wants this game to mirror real life to some extent, and they obviously do, higher baseline prestiges for BCS schools is largely necessary.

What they've failed to implement is the corresponding move that is absolutely necessary to go along with it. The higher the baseline prestige, the quicker the firing trigger. Right now there is no dis-incentive for moving up the ladder. If the firing trigger was realistic, it would provide that dis-incentive for moving up, which indirectly provides the incentive for staying at schools with lower baseline prestige (and consequently, lower expectations and lower firing thresholds).

Quite simply, firings need to be ramped up significantly at higher prestige schools. Both the direct and indirect results would be mostly positive, IMO.

Good point cmt, although i think we all realize the reasons why firings are so low.

Another thing to remember is if they were to increase firings the job qualification logic would need to be addressed at the same time so those fired coaches could have the ability to get to another decent d1 school.

The problem with firings is likely business related. They are afraid they will lose players. I don't blame them. They probably would.

Just because I am a "random" person doesn't make what I am saying wrong. It's easy to see if you just consider the way the system works - only considers the last 4 seasons and weighs heavily on the last 2. There's no margin for error if you want to even maintain a B+. Getting above an A- is impossible according to what I've read. You can't recruit with the big boys on a regular basis and get your players every single season. Even if you are a great coach, you are still going to be recruting at a B+ when your competition for those players is going to be A or A+. Against competant competition, the coach at B+ is going to lose at least once in a while, which gets back to the no margin for error. Mess up 2 seasons and you are nearly back to where you started. And in a low conference, that's pretty bleak.

I think people who used the small schools as a stepping stone really don't comprehend how difficult it is. They point to someone with a string of 5 or 6 seasons and says Hey it can be done. But that's not a dynasty. That's a good run.

Now if you don't think a non-traditional school should be allowed to become a dynasty, then I understand where you are coming from and can't argue with that. But don't tell me it can happen because it can't. I've yet to see anywhere that it's been done. But I've heard from a lot of coaches who've tried it, realized it wasn't going to happen, and moved on to the top conferences where you can do very little and maintain a B+.

Stop acting like it's just a little bit harder to do. It's not, it's near impossible which is my point.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/29/2010
Dalt how long would you say that that needs to happen for it to change? I think the game needs to have a small baseline to go off of (to start) and totally agree that over the course of gameplay that conferences should be able to move up/down. But how many years would you say that the Ivy should have to be better to move above them? 5? 10? 20?

I think that it needs to be at least a 10 year period of dominance by an entire conference to move them up to a power conference, maybe even a bit more.

I like the idea of True Floating Prestige over the Baseline Floating Prestige that we currently have but I do think that it should start off using the BFP for seasons until a world is established, which all of the worlds are, and then slowly get rid of that as the world turns into more of a TFP with a very very small portion of Baseline at the end.

I think five seasons is enough, for a couple reasons:

1. Team prestige is dictated mostly by the last four seasons. So if that's good enough to tell us where a team is, I think five seasons is a reasonable period of time to tell us where a conference is.

2. Having to wait 10 seasons is prohibitively long, and would basically make it impossible to keep a low/mid conference together long enough to do anything significant.

All of that said, I think it's OK that a low/mid conference would drop more quickly if they started to underperform. But they should more readily be able to raise prestige than they are now.

Fine. I will prove you wrong. I will stay at Coastal Carolina and build it up. I will get back to you in a year or two after I have finished.

I will say taht I already mentioned it is hard to do as a 1 man operation. Yet you continue to not actually address what I have said. You also seem to throw out data as quick as colonels does.

Another point on the firings point.

If you want True Floating Baseline Prestige, as opposed to Fixed Floating Baseline Prestige you would have to account for that in the Firing Engine. The higher that said schools prestige got the harder their standards would be.

Quote: Originally Posted By Lizak on 1/29/2010
The problem with firings is likely business related. They are afraid they will lose players. I don't blame them. They probably would.

Just because I am a "random" person doesn't make what I am saying wrong. It's easy to see if you just consider the way the system works - only considers the last 4 seasons and weighs heavily on the last 2. There's no margin for error if you want to even maintain a B+. Getting above an A- is impossible according to what I've read. You can't recruit with the big boys on a regular basis and get your players every single season. Even if you are a great coach, you are still going to be recruting at a B+ when your competition for those players is going to be A or A+. Against competant competition, the coach at B+ is going to lose at least once in a while, which gets back to the no margin for error. Mess up 2 seasons and you are nearly back to where you started. And in a low conference, that's pretty bleak.

I think people who used the small schools as a stepping stone really don't comprehend how difficult it is. They point to someone with a string of 5 or 6 seasons and says Hey it can be done. But that's not a dynasty. That's a good run.

Now if you don't think a non-traditional school should be allowed to become a dynasty, then I understand where you are coming from and can't argue with that. But don't tell me it can happen because it can't. I've yet to see anywhere that it's been done. But I've heard from a lot of coaches who've tried it, realized it wasn't going to happen, and moved on to the top conferences where you can do very little and maintain a B+.

Stop acting like it's just a little bit harder to do. It's not, it's near impossible which is my point.

But instead they have the opposite problem where very good coaches have the option of staying at either perpetually disadvantaged non-BCS schools or in D2 while coaches that have made the PIT once and the NT zero times in 5 years get to hold on to jobs at elites. This creates a really strong level of "I don't give a sh*t anymore because I'm stuck at a mid-major with a dozen other good coaches wishing and hoping that someone will either forget to renew b/c I'm damned sure they're not going to get fired."