Hooray for baseline! Topic

girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 1/21/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
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.
So much higher? I'd say that's pretty darn close.
1/21/2011 4:41 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect

It just occurs to me that perhaps allowing baseline to "float" higher if certain criteria are met over a 5-10 season span wouldn't be a horrible idea.  That way, for example, Iowa won't be back down to an A- if they made the PIT next year despite having back-to-back Final Four teams. 

1/21/2011 4:45 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
P.S. - how in the name of all things holy are teams like BC, NCSU, and Wake A- and Virginia a B+?  Neither NCSU nor UVA have been consistently good in the real world since the 80's. 
1/21/2011 4:47 PM
doomey
Posts: 141 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 329 12 13
Prospect
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. 

Since baseline is a reflection of expectation, what exactly do you think the expectation of B- prestige would be? My stance is that 3 post-season appearances of any type is more than expected, conversely, I'd ay 6-7 losling seasons is far below below the expectation of a A- school. Not saying Fresno should be much higher, but I've seen schools go from B- to B with just 3 appearances in the PI and one win, which is why baseline is BS, and the ACC baselines are, on the whole, absurd.

Still say they should just set a low limit on prestige for schools that they cannot drop below and let the coaching do the work to keep them at any higher level.
1/22/2011 2:16 PM
uglyskunk3
Posts: 550 (0)
Hall of Famer
156
Prospect
Posted by doomey on 1/22/2011 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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. 

Since baseline is a reflection of expectation, what exactly do you think the expectation of B- prestige would be? My stance is that 3 post-season appearances of any type is more than expected, conversely, I'd ay 6-7 losling seasons is far below below the expectation of a A- school. Not saying Fresno should be much higher, but I've seen schools go from B- to B with just 3 appearances in the PI and one win, which is why baseline is BS, and the ACC baselines are, on the whole, absurd.

Still say they should just set a low limit on prestige for schools that they cannot drop below and let the coaching do the work to keep them at any higher level.
agreed!
1/22/2011 2:45 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by doomey on 1/22/2011 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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. 

Since baseline is a reflection of expectation, what exactly do you think the expectation of B- prestige would be? My stance is that 3 post-season appearances of any type is more than expected, conversely, I'd ay 6-7 losling seasons is far below below the expectation of a A- school. Not saying Fresno should be much higher, but I've seen schools go from B- to B with just 3 appearances in the PI and one win, which is why baseline is BS, and the ACC baselines are, on the whole, absurd.

Still say they should just set a low limit on prestige for schools that they cannot drop below and let the coaching do the work to keep them at any higher level.
I think one of the main factors is that the PIT is garbage. No BCS team gets excited about making the NIT in real life. I live in Chicago, and not even a team like Northwestern -- who's never made the NT -- gets excited about it.

While I do agree with you on Wake needing to be a bit lower, remember that they are buoyed somewhat by not only baseline but playing in basically the top DI conference in all of HD. And I do agree with you that, in general, what happens on the court should matter more in determining prestige.

But I'll say it again: Fresno has gone up from D+ to B- (with a high of B) w. only one NT appearance. If anything, I might term that overly generous.
1/22/2011 2:58 PM
doomey
Posts: 141 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 329 12 13
Prospect
While I tend to agree with you about Fresno, it doesn't take much to pull a D+ team to B-, just a modicum of success (and a successful conference). As for Wake, you kinda reinforce my arguement by talking about the ACC as a conference. The whole conference is bouyed up by some pretty rediculous baselines. Heck there was a Duke coach who spent 11 seasons with only one NT run (a EE) and went from a B- to an A- based on PI's...

I'm all for trying to keep a sembelance of conference power and traditional power, but I think it should be enforced by a low cap so the schools and conferences don't dip past a certain low water mark, not by doing everything possible to keep them at a high prestige no matter what. Let the coaches create the world they coach in by thier actions, no some false inflation.
1/23/2011 2:47 AM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
when i read "low cap so the schools and conferences don't dip past a certain low water mark" i see "baseline prestige"... what am i missing here? (not trying to be sarcastic, just really sounds exactly like what we have-- do you just want them to be lower?)
1/23/2011 9:53 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by wronoj on 1/23/2011 9:53:00 AM (view original):
when i read "low cap so the schools and conferences don't dip past a certain low water mark" i see "baseline prestige"... what am i missing here? (not trying to be sarcastic, just really sounds exactly like what we have-- do you just want them to be lower?)
No, I think he's saying not to let power conference schools dip below a certain level, which we do have now. But he's (I believe -- doomey, correct me if I'm mistaken) that he is in favor of simply relying on that, then also propping some of these schools up by having their prestige rise w. out NT appearances just because of who they are/the conference they're in. 
1/23/2011 10:19 AM
_hannibal_
Posts: 455 (0)
Veteran
23
Prospect
wronoj, I think the proposal is to eliminate the factor baseline prestige plays in the calculation, except to establish a minimum.  The difference would be as follows.  Consider two schools, one with a D baseline and one with an B- baseline.  Given identical performances that are good enough, both schools would be at a B prestige under the proposal.  Under the current system, you would expect the B- baseline school to have a better prestige than the D baseline school.
1/23/2011 10:21 AM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
I would expect that, but largely due to conference strength. If you too, say, Gonzaga (B or B- baseline) in a weak WCC, and some D school in an equal conference, I would expect them to be the same, or really close to it. If you're at Wake you have ACC recruiting cash and you have to compete every season against all those A+ schools... Not sure there's much to be done from the top end.

I'd like to see prestige loosened up a bit on the lower-end schools, maybe. (?) I really don't know-- there are still mid-majors competing for NTs in Naismith and Wooden (UCR and Gonzaga, at least, respectively). I have no idea what the best solution is. More humans would help a lot, though. The WCC in Wooden is being/has been decimated by SIM takeovers, will be tougher for the Zags to continue competing...
1/23/2011 10:44 AM
jwilli7122
Posts: 435 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 80 2
Prospect
i think that baseline prestige as is is much better than just setting a prestige floor for every school.   i really don't see the problem as is and my impulse is to lump this complaint with all the others in the category of "my team isn't as good as i want it to be" / "the game isn't as easy as i would like"
1/23/2011 8:31 PM (edited)
car_crazy_v2
Posts: 619 (0)
All Star
32 3
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 1/21/2011 4:47:00 PM (view original):
P.S. - how in the name of all things holy are teams like BC, NCSU, and Wake A- and Virginia a B+?  Neither NCSU nor UVA have been consistently good in the real world since the 80's. 
NC state was a consistent NCAA team in the early 2000s.
1/23/2011 8:53 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
So NCSU goes to a single Sweet 16 since Chris Corchiani was in uniform and all the sudden they're a freaking A- baseline.  Right.  Makes plenty of sense.  Thanks for clearing that up for me. 
1/23/2011 9:59 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by girt25 on 1/23/2011 10:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wronoj on 1/23/2011 9:53:00 AM (view original):
when i read "low cap so the schools and conferences don't dip past a certain low water mark" i see "baseline prestige"... what am i missing here? (not trying to be sarcastic, just really sounds exactly like what we have-- do you just want them to be lower?)
No, I think he's saying not to let power conference schools dip below a certain level, which we do have now. But he's (I believe -- doomey, correct me if I'm mistaken) that he is in favor of simply relying on that, then also propping some of these schools up by having their prestige rise w. out NT appearances just because of who they are/the conference they're in. 
I think this is a decent idea....use baselines to prevent UNC/Duke/etc from going below a B-, but allow mid-majors with great success to gain prestige.   Or at least limit the effect of conference prestige and baseline.  Its really not fair, and as a coach at a A- baseline school, I really benefit from it. 
1/23/2011 10:34 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
Hooray for baseline! Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.