Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gomiami1972 on 2/18/2010
baseline prestige should be eliminated. It exists for marketing purposes, not because it is good for the actual game itself.

A baseline prestige is needed - it is how you get that baseline prestige that turely matters

Quote: Originally Posted By gomiami1972 on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gomiami1972 on 2/18/2010
baseline prestige should be eliminated. It exists for marketing purposes, not because it is good for the actual game itself.

A baseline prestige is needed - it is how you get that baseline prestige that turely matters.

Fair enough, I simply do not support baseline prestige being rooted in RL. This is supposed to be a "what if" game, not a mirror of the status quo

Quote: Originally Posted By gomiami1972 on 2/19/2010
You know, it's a good thing that HD was not created in the 1950s because we would be forever stuck with Bradley, La Salle and San Francisco being arificially propped up with bulls**t prestiges just like the "mystery" team that zhawks posted above.

Quote: Originally posted by wareagletom on 2/19/2010do you know the baseline prestige of San Diego in WCC? They are not listedthanks

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/19/2010Another reason that Prestige needs to be worked on

Quote: Originally Posted By chief2677 on 2/23/2010
I hate the baseline. The problem I have with it is that in my mind there should be absolutely no connection to real life when determining the prestige of programs. I think you are being very unrealisitic here - there has to be some connection or we might as well just have the schools with made up names. And the worlds have to start from somewhere. A starting baseline prestige is not bad for the game at all. I think the biggest problem is not that real life is taken into account but how much it is taken into account, currently we have a Fixed Baseline Prestige (FBP) and that is where the real problem lies, it is the FBP that is the problem not that the FBP also happens to be based on real life. If HD were to move to a Floating Basline Prestige (FlBP), where a coach could improve / destroy a schools baseline you would see more back for your buck in terms of team success (or lack thereof). I still hold that RL should be used, but instead of making RL 100% and having a FBP, if you moved to a FlBP where RL baseline value was 20-25% of your teams Baseline and added in the last 20 or so years of a teams individual world history with added boosts for any National Titles and Final Four apperances (because even if those are 45 years ago, the banners are still up!) You would have a much solider system that would allow for a coach - given a very godo amount of success - to be able to raise a schools baseline prestige enough that they would not have to worry about 1 bad season taking away many seasons of progress (I don't think the current system does that too bad but it doesn't reward long time coaches as much as i think it should). You could also set the FlBP up to gravitate back towards what is now the FBP when a great coach leaves a mediocore school. Popularity of certain schools over other schools will dictate long-term success of one school versus another simply because more people like UNC than do Colorado State. I don;t believe that this is inheritly true. While it makes sense to think so I can pull many examples of where mid-major / low-major schools out perform the elites over many many seasons. A baseline amplifies this edge and so it becomes very difficult for a coach to take a no-name school and turn it into a success. Again, a slight overexaggeration, I can point to many examples to disprove this. I coach Colorado State in Tark and I am just entering my 21st season. When I started, the program had a D- prestige. During my 20 complete seasons I've had 17 winning seasons, gone to the NT 15 times, the PIT once, made it to the sweet 16 7 times, the elite 8 three times the final four twice and won 1 national championship, and yet my prestige is only an A. To be honest, I didn't looka t your resume, solid job tho, but I don't really see anything wrong with you being at an A for what accomplishments you have stated. You still do play in a lesser conference, which should and does have a negative effect on your prestige. This is not a slight against Gillispie or any of the previous coaches at Kentucky but during that same time Kentucky in tark has had 12 losing seasons, gone to the PIT twice and the NT 4 times with 2 visits to the sweet 16 and 1 trip to the final four. Kentucky's prestige is also an A right now, and I would venture a guess that it is a higher A than mine. Again, I understand exactly wher eyou are coming from but this is basically what you are arguing for, only you'd rather have it based on the worlds history, I have no problems with the big dogs still having a slight RL advantage but one that can be lost (ie it could hurt the school enough to move them below the B- prestige 'wall' that exisits for Elites). Speaking as someone who does not plan to leave CSU to take a "higher prestige" job this is very frustrating because I am competing for recruits each year versus "higher prestige" programs. I know that if I have one bad season my prestige will tumble whereas my competitors (Colorado for example) need only have moderate success to overtake me. I see this as a big flaw in the game and would prefer that prestige work based on actual results in the WIS world without borrowing from "real life". The point of the game is to be able to take your favorite team, powerhouse or not in real life and turn it into a powerhouse in WIS is it not?