Wanted to get thoughts from DI vets re: resetting baseline prestige to more properly reflect the current college basketball landscape.

The obvious pro is that a lot of the prestiges are currently outdated and kind of silly.

The obvious con is that people have already chosen schools based on a certain baseline prestige, and it would kind of suck to be the coach at Stanford (for instance) and watch them go from an elite baseline to an average BCS baseline.

Thoughts?

I think it would be reasonable to reset them going forward with new worlds, but to change the current worlds seems unfair, unnecessary, and unlikely. We;ve had plenty of time to adjust our expectations to the perceived reality of 2001 (or whenever they were done).

I would also encourage some conference realignment with new worlds-- someone had a pretty comprehensive suggestion list out here a couple of months ago that made things better geographically and made it closer to today's reality. 

I think it would be a good idea.  One thing however -- they should give people enough notice ahead of time to make adjustments, maybe two seasons.

Posted by wronoj on 3/10/2011 9:09:00 AM (view original):
I think it would be reasonable to reset them going forward with new worlds, but to change the current worlds seems unfair, unnecessary, and unlikely. We;ve had plenty of time to adjust our expectations to the perceived reality of 2001 (or whenever they were done).

I would also encourage some conference realignment with new worlds-- someone had a pretty comprehensive suggestion list out here a couple of months ago that made things better geographically and made it closer to today's reality. 

+1

girt - here is an example of matching reality seems to be a good ideal even if not quite realistic to pull off, the implementation just needs to be fair & consistent.

I would consider updating the fake baselines each and every May ... that would make the real national tourny have some consequences.  This might be uncomfortable to start this may, heck just start next may if folks don't like it without time to react.  I'd be fine to start after this national tourny, baseline only affects future improvement potential, not current ratings as far as I understand them.

Also, I would be in favor of conference realignment - the only issue I don't know for sure but am guessing, isn;t real life d1 bigger than real life d2 by quite some margin?????  I have not looked up the real numbers of d1 vs d2 vs d3, they may be right in this game - but for some reason, I get the feeling they are adjusted to make each division roughly equal in numbers.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have baseline prestige reflect upon how a team has been doing in a particular world, rather than relying on the real world to set it?

Back in 2001 they had nothing to go off of for baseline prestige, so they leaned on real world stats.  Now they have 50+ seasons in some worlds that they could draw off of to restructure baseline prestige.

It could be a rolling 15-20 seasons... that way mid-majors would have some ability to bump their baseline if they consistently succeed for 15 seasons in a row or something.

Just an idea - personally I wouldn't want my SIM team to be hurt based on how the real life version of that team performs.  If my real life counterpart gets hit with a slew of NCAA penalties for recruiting violations, I'm just out of luck and watch my baseline prestige take a hit.

+1 to the original as well as the last 3/4 ideas. Not exactly sure how to do it, but it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense, and needs to be done.

One caviat though, I'd through out the 1st 10/15 seasons for all teams considering (and this is a guess) probably 80 to 90 % of the teams were SIM teams back in the beginning and only count the seasons were there was a real life coach for most of the teams. This way the Prestige represents more closely a team that is 75/80% real person coached team, or at least 50%, vs. a team that may be only 35/40% real person coached, and may be only 20/25% at best.

baseline prestige should slowly change based on a school's success in its HD world. for example, st bonaventure in iba should be the #1 job in the country for the next 10-20 seasons now that LM left.

i think, when a player signs up for an HD world, and sees that st bonaventure is the top d1 dynasty and UNC has been busted up, he'll have 1 of 2 reactions

1. "what? now i don't want to go to unc as much, even tho its my favorite team. that should be the top job. the A10 shouldnt be that good."
2. "oh cool, maybe i can make my own school like st. bonaventure. or take UNC back to prominence. wait, the A10 is a top conference? interesting."

the players that enjoy HD and keep signing up for more seasons are almost always the type that see it the way of #2. those that see it the way of #1 are probably not going to enjoy simulation games with computer generated players.

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/10/2011 12:08:00 PM (view original):
baseline prestige should slowly change based on a school's success in its HD world. for example, st bonaventure in iba should be the #1 job in the country for the next 10-20 seasons now that LM left.

i think, when a player signs up for an HD world, and sees that st bonaventure is the top d1 dynasty and UNC has been busted up, he'll have 1 of 2 reactions

1. "what? now i don't want to go to unc as much, even tho its my favorite team. that should be the top job. the A10 shouldnt be that good."
2. "oh cool, maybe i can make my own school like st. bonaventure. or take UNC back to prominence. wait, the A10 is a top conference? interesting."

the players that enjoy HD and keep signing up for more seasons are almost always the type that see it the way of #2. those that see it the way of #1 are probably not going to enjoy simulation games with computer generated players.

jet - I think there is some merit to your POV - a ? for you - if butler in HD was a sim and had a C- prestige and lets say a baseline of C+ under your system, and if in real world after the final appearance last season and success over the past few years the real world baseline was lets make up the letter A, of 3 choices, the current, one based on annual  real life updates, or one based on HD, which would you really want - the C (HD) - the A (current real life) or the B (current HD)

My opinion still is the A based on real life, but I do understand why the C is appealing to you, of the 3 choices, the only one I don't like is the stagnant one.

What is the reason for wanting the real life scenario?  Just because you can read about the team on ESPN or ?

Seems to make more sense to me to have the prestige reflected by what is going on in the game - not have it connected to real life, which you have no control of (unless someone on here plays for Butler while also coaching them...).

And what about the scenario where a team gets NCAA penalties in real life - that penalizes you for something you didn't do.  Anyone would want the scenario where their baseline improves because of an unexpected F4 run by a George Mason/Butler/etc, but I doubt many people would see it fair to see their team hurt by something they didn't do.

I'd just use the last 20/25 seasons on a rolling basis here at HD for Baseline Prestige. This way "WE" as coaches earn and get merits for our accomplishments.

Agree with the 'base prestige on HD success, not NCAA success' crowd.

Heck, I'd rather see it be based on an aggregate of all HD worlds rather based on the real world.

I think there should be a better combintaion of real world and HD world baseline prestige.  The advantage, as I see it, of having HD baseline match RW is that it allows for a quick glance at various schools to know which one's "should" be good and which ones will take a lot of effort to build up.  This is especially true, as some people have a hard time finding the baseline prestige of each school and it can be a pain to have to refer to that list all of the time if it is too out of whack from RW.
On the other hand, a team like St. Bon in Iba referenced above, should not reset to a low level baseline after such prolonged success when the coach leaves. Instead, it should receive a significant baseline bump.  That said, while a team like Gonzaga has gained a lot of attention over the years in RW and had some success with multiple coachs, if Mark Few left, I don't think big time coaches would be clamoring for that job the same way they would for, say, Wake Forest, a team Gonzaga has arguably outperfomed over the last 10 years, but one that has a more storied history and the advantage of being in a big time conference on the east coast (i.e., better TV exposure). 

Anything that eliminates or greatly lessens the gravitational pull of baseline prestige, I'm in favor of it.