Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/10/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):
emy, it wouldn't be as entrenched as the BCS schools are now. W/o baseline, those little schools would fall from A+ to something like A- or worse with a terrible season. With baseline, UNC can be A+ with consecutive 1-26 seasons, assuming the ACC is very strong. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/10/2012 4:38:00 PM (view original):
I'm not advocating removing baseline; that's simply stupid because it means d1=d2=d3, which removes the fun of playing D1. I'm just saying I don't quite see the harm that emy proposed. To be honest, I don't see the harm of current baseline prestige system. My beef is mostly with the effect of conf prestige, which is a little ridiculous. High baseline teams are generally in conf with other high baseline teams. So a team gets a boost via baseline, then gets a second boost because his conf prestige is high (a result of having high baseline conf mates). 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/10/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):
emy, it wouldn't be as entrenched as the BCS schools are now. W/o baseline, those little schools would fall from A+ to something like A- or worse with a terrible season. With baseline, UNC can be A+ with consecutive 1-26 seasons, assuming the ACC is very strong. 

Posted by tbird9423 on 5/10/2012 6:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 5/10/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):
emy, it wouldn't be as entrenched as the BCS schools are now. W/o baseline, those little schools would fall from A+ to something like A- or worse with a terrible season. With baseline, UNC can be A+ with consecutive 1-26 seasons, assuming the ACC is very strong. 

This is more my point-- What it looks like to me is that what is keeping certain programs/coaches elevated is the artificail "assistance" they are receiving at their schools.  Many don't seem to maintain consistently dominant even with those advantages and so a few bad years without baselines allows gaps to be closed.  
  It's obviously a matter of perspective because just at emy and professor don't see a more fairer world as more enjoyable, I can't imagine ever agreeing with that point of view.  And we are arguing many of the same points for our opposite viewpoints.  That's why I think the poll would be interesting and America's such a great place.
  The only real problem I can see is formerly high baseline DIV I schools that aren't close to a metropolitan area could have issues as those schools may be forced into recruiting closer to home and if that occured, could be at a disadvantage to those DI schools in the city. 
   To me, that is why it would be so interesting is that everyone wants to coach the High Prestige teams but doing so may actually be more difficult.  It would just be nice to have the choice.

Tbird, you missed my point entirely.  Totally whiffed on it.  Swing and a miss.

I'm not saying a fairer world wouldn't be enjoyable, if I didn't like "fairer" worlds, I wouldn't have said that I like D2 the best.  D2 and D3 are "fairer" worlds because your prestige is based almost entirely on your performance on the court.  What I said was that if you removed the baseline prestiges entirely in D1 (as someone advocated doing), then it wouldn't end up with a realistic looking world where the big schools are at the top, as they are in the real world.  Got nothing to do with being "fair".  Everyone on here constantly cries about realism.  Well, the reality of the matter is, if you remove baseline prestiges entirely from D1, that world isn't going to even come close to approaching "reality".  Do I think the way prestiges are calculated needs to be changed or adjusted?  Yes I do and I stated as much in a previous post.  Do I think "fairer" worlds wouldn't be enjoyable?  Absolutely not (again, that's why I have more D2 than D1 teams.  Six D2 teams as opposed to one D1 team.  Why?  Because I enjoy the "fairer" worlds more, where you actually have to earn your prestige).  If you read my post that way, you should re-read it again and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

I'm completely onboard with that idea, milk, and have advocated it before. In one of the worlds I'm in, I know of an A+ team that just landed a Top 10 recruiting class and had over $80K left over. I've suggeseted something like this for minimum effort required to sign a player: 

5-star: $15,000
4-star: $12,000
3-star: $9,000
2-star: $6,000
1-star: $3,000
0-star: No minimum.

That would flush out a lot of the elite school's cash, force them to be more picky about who they recruit, promote better recruit distribution, and reduce excessive carryover.

So here are the ideas I like to promote better competitive balance:

1. Fix recruit generation to create more quality 2-and 3-star type players, and to have more diamond-in-the-rough players with low starting ratings, but high potentials.

2. *Minor* tweak to prestige system to *slightly* lessen impact of baseline prestige. This will make it just a bit tougher for elite schools to maintain high prestiges without performing, and just a bit easier for non-elite schools to bump up their prestige with good performance. (I'm talking about making it on the order of 1/3 of a letter grade less tied to baseline than it is now).

3. Still use conference prestige as an impact, but use it to establish a floor beneath which a conference team cannot fall, instead of providing an increase to existing prestige.

4. Introduce minimum effort requirements to sign starred recruits.

Do those things, and I think you go a long way towards closing the gap, without resorting to any radical gutting of the prestige system.