Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Not if there is a corresponding change with recruit generation and recruit distribution.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/13/2016 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/13/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Personally I'm against getting rid of baseline prestige completely. I'm not sure who brought this up, but I'd love to see a "hybrid" where baseline prestige is less of a factor, however it is still important, but baseline is now floating maybe say a 20 season period, and it can be increased/decreased based on success, similar to real life. Duke wasn't really anything before Coach K, Indiana, UCLA, Georgetown while were at times at the top right now they probably aren't top 10 teams if baseline was translated to real life. Midmajors can be built, I think their shouldn't be a ceiling, and it should be challenging, however just less so than it is now, I'd be fine seeing non big 6 teams win the NC, I'm just not sure I want to see it completely like D2/D3 where there is no baseline at all.

Why should an HD coach's program be penalized when their team's real life counterpart hits a slump? That makes no more sense than having baseline prestige in the first place.

this has nothing to do with the real life counterparts lol, I used them as an example of how baseline prestiges change in real life.

Indiana/UCLA/Gtown are the same baseline as they were 30 years ago, Duke has changed as well.

HD should represent that a bit lower the effects a baseline a bit and allow baseline to float maybe just within 1 letter grade over a 20 year period.

It would be something that would have to be thought out more detailed, but it's an interesting idea, and will never happen.

However realistically baseline effects should be lowered I believe right now it's 50-50 baseline and current. And I did some calculations awhile ago where 40-60 or 30-70 baseline-current worked a bit better I thought and allowed non major teams to get high baselines without completely redoing the landscape.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Not if there is a corresponding change with recruit generation and recruit distribution.

Yes, and/or you could eliminate distance as a factor in recruiting costs as well.

Postseason cash is still problematic though.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Not if there is a corresponding change with recruit generation and recruit distribution.

Yes, and/or you could eliminate distance as a factor in recruiting costs as well.

Postseason cash is still problematic though.

Point is, WIS has a lot of options. They are limiting themselves by making one radical update in a make or break attempt.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Not if there is a corresponding change with recruit generation and recruit distribution.

Yes, and/or you could eliminate distance as a factor in recruiting costs as well.

Postseason cash is still problematic though.

Distance should still be a factor, it's pretty big in real life.

Some ideas would be make cost not based every 10 miles but on groups like next door(under 20) Very near(under 100) near (100-200) close(200-400) medium(400-800) far(800-1200) very far(1200-2000) and extreme (2000+)

this makes distance still a factor but schools have a little less impact however that is probably pretty minor with that change, it might tempt schools in the same brackets to fight for a recruit than to stay way since they have to spend a bit more money normally.

I'm not sure of a way to lessen the geological impact that doesn't completely get rid of it which I think is still important to have since it does play a factor.

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/13/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Not if there is a corresponding change with recruit generation and recruit distribution.

Yes, and/or you could eliminate distance as a factor in recruiting costs as well.

Postseason cash is still problematic though.

Distance should still be a factor, it's pretty big in real life.

Some ideas would be make cost not based every 10 miles but on groups like next door(under 20) Very near(under 100) near (100-200) close(200-400) medium(400-800) far(800-1200) very far(1200-2000) and extreme (2000+)

this makes distance still a factor but schools have a little less impact however that is probably pretty minor with that change, it might tempt schools in the same brackets to fight for a recruit than to stay way since they have to spend a bit more money normally.

I'm not sure of a way to lessen the geological impact that doesn't completely get rid of it which I think is still important to have since it does play a factor.

I have never considered the geological impact on HD!

Colorado School of Mines would have too much of an advantage, IMHO.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Colorado School of Mines would have too much of an advantage, IMHO.

why? they have 3 schools right there and the colorado doesn't produce enough recruits for the entire conference to be good?

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/13/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Colorado School of Mines would have too much of an advantage, IMHO.

why? they have 3 schools right there and the colorado doesn't produce enough recruits for the entire conference to be good?

lol, seriously?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 3/13/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/13/2016 1:52:00 PM (view original):
I also agree with getting rid of the baseline prestige. But, I think that would be replaced by a geographic advantage, such as Palm Beach Atlantic in D3 being the only D3 school there.

Not sure I agree with eliminating baseline but I'm agreed on the increased effect geography would have. Geography is already quite influential in a team's success. The success of schools like Texas, Colorado, Miami, Texas A&M, LSU and their B/B- baselines are primarily driven by their favorable geographic positions. Eliminate baseline prestige and the power of these teams grows even further.

Not if there is a corresponding change with recruit generation and recruit distribution.

Yes, and/or you could eliminate distance as a factor in recruiting costs as well.

Postseason cash is still problematic though.

Point is, WIS has a lot of options. They are limiting themselves by making one radical update in a make or break attempt.

Yep, WIS has a lot of options and no one option will please everyone. But for every option available someone out there can dream of a new problem it will create or a reason they don't like it. Really it all speaks to the point that these discussions are interesting but like many others are completely moot. So maybe they are limiting themselves but I don't think any of us can say that with any certainty and it's the developer's (and WIS) decision to make the changes they feel are best for the game.

"Distance should still be a factor, it's pretty big in real life."

So is the shoe sponsor of the AAU team that kids play for and we don't factor that in. Regardless, I'm not arguing HD should get eliminate the distance cost, just that theoretically they could.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/13/2016 10:11:00 PM (view original):
"Distance should still be a factor, it's pretty big in real life."

So is the shoe sponsor of the AAU team that kids play for and we don't factor that in. Regardless, I'm not arguing HD should get eliminate the distance cost, just that theoretically they could.

Distance has always been a factor since college basketball started, they are two different things. We could just get rid of player ratings and let everyone have 99 rated players. Theoretically they could.

"Don't fix what isn't broken"

This was probably said by the people who opposed expanding the ncaa tourney field to 68 teams.

Posted by Benis on 3/13/2016 10:51:00 PM (view original):
"Don't fix what isn't broken"

This was probably said by the people who opposed expanding the ncaa tourney field to 68 teams.

hey now we get to watch 4 extra quality basketball games like Michigan/Tulsa!!