Talk about rediculous, Wake Forest in Allen got abandoned and after 7 poor seasons (6 losing seasons, and 1 NT win),  Now after a 0-27 season to add to that, this awesome A- baseline team has dropped to a whopping B prestige. Meanwhile my Fresno St. team that has gone to the post-season 3 out of the last four years can't get above it's baseline B-. Hooray for not making winning and losing worth anything!

that does seem a little absurd.

Posted by doomey on 1/21/2011 1:44:00 AM (view original):
Talk about rediculous, Wake Forest in Allen got abandoned and after 7 poor seasons (6 losing seasons, and 1 NT win),  Now after a 0-27 season to add to that, this awesome A- baseline team has dropped to a whopping B prestige. Meanwhile my Fresno St. team that has gone to the post-season 3 out of the last four years can't get above it's baseline B-. Hooray for not making winning and losing worth anything!

doomey, I'll say the same thing I do whenever I see someone making a good point re: a shortcoming in the game -- send a ticket.

Baseline + being in a conference with A prestige.

I guess it all depends on if we want this to reflect real life or not, and if we want the Big 6 to have any real advantage.   In real life, Michigan hasn't had a successful season in a long time, but it's always considered a "big time" job whenever it opens.  Why?  because it's Michigan, that's why.  But Memphis has been a powerhouse the last few years, and when Calipari left, I didn't see people flocking to that job like it was North Carolina.  Why, because conference USA stinks.    San Diego state is currently #6 in the nation, but no one considers them on the same level as UCLA, right?   Even St Johns was able to land a big time coach, and trust me, I live in NY, they stunk for years.  Being Big 6 is something the mid majors can strive to emulate, but they just can't match.  In real life, if you were the Fresno coach and had that record, Wake Forest would hire you and triple your pay, and you'd probably jump at the job. 

From my experience, going into the early rounds of the PI with 15-18 win seasons generally don't help your prestige that much. I guess Wake prestige should be a little lower but I don't think yours should be higher. 

I think Northwestern gets screwed by prestige.  I'm biased. 

i love how everyone thinks that this is crazy but in D1 recruiting you have to offer up to 60+ cvs to get a guy to sign, talk about realistic. 

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Mott, you just made my day with that quote.  Billy Madison appreciates you remembering him.

Posted by joshj87 on 1/21/2011 2:19:00 PM (view original):
i love how everyone thinks that this is crazy but in D1 recruiting you have to offer up to 60+ cvs to get a guy to sign, talk about realistic. 

I mean you don't have to, but it does happen. And in real life there is a limit to the # of CVs any player can take. I forget what the # was when I was covering high school ball, I want to say 5 but even if that's right it may have been changed.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/21/2011 10:24:00 AM (view original):
From my experience, going into the early rounds of the PI with 15-18 win seasons generally don't help your prestige that much. I guess Wake prestige should be a little lower but I don't think yours should be higher. 

100% agreed.

Wake should be a bit lower, but the reality is that playing in a dominant conference like that does have its advantages. Doomey, your prestige has gone up from D+ to B- with the benefit of only one NT appearance. I think that's more than generous.

The problem with baseline prestige in relation to real life is that in the real world, if you stink for a long, long time, there is no bottom to where your "prestige" might go.  Take, say, a school like LaSalle or even PC where they produced good team after good team after good team in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even the 80's.  Now, after 20+ years of just not being that great (I know, PC had an elite eight run in '97, but that was more of a blip than anything), they're not as prestigious on the basketball front as they were in the Speedy Morris days.  In this HD example, Wake could have a zillion bad seasons in a row, but not be as penalized by poor play because they're dragged up a superior conference.  Meanwhile, if you're at a Big Six school with a lower baseline prestige (Iowa, Northwestern, etc.), you could have 395 good seasons in a row, make the PIT a year or two, and bam, you're all the way back down in the B's despite never having a truly awful season simply because the gods of HD stuck those schools with lower baseline prestiges in the first place than Illinois and Michigan State. 

Oh, and EE's.  They also suck. 

My main point above really is that the baseline prestiges in the ACC seem disproportionately high compared to other conferences. 

Posted by jslotman on 1/21/2011 3:43:00 PM (view original):
My main point above really is that the baseline prestiges in the ACC seem disproportionately high compared to other conferences. 

Agreed.

A+ Duke

A+ North Carolina

A Maryland

A- Georgia Tech

A- Wake Forest

A- North Carolina State

A- Boston College

B+ Virginia

B Clemson

B Florida State

B Miami (Fla)

B Virginia Tech

Most of the Big 6 have the bottom feeders at B-, and only the top teams at A- level.  

	Total	Ave
ACC	42.7	3.56
B East	41	3.42
Big 10	40	3.33
SEC	38.6	3.22
Pac 10	38.7	3.23
Big 12	36.8	3.07

(A+ = 4.3, A- = 3.7, etc.)

I think the ACC being so much higher than the big east is pretty nuts, unless you are Dick Vitale.  Maybe bringing them a little bit closer makes sense.