Posted by brip87 on 1/5/2011 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Another huge flaw is the hiring process in d1.  D1 is a complete mess.

I've written books on this and how I really think an easy change to how schools prestige is calculated as well as some small tweeks to hiring process would make a huge difference, I'll try to outline them quickly.

• New Prestige (moving Baseline)

Have a moving baseline prestige of 20-30 years
have this 'baseline' help schools who have decades of success get rewarded for that and keep those that ruin duke/unc and other elites get punished
use this moving baseline as your 'hiring tool' base hires off of this prestige.
I suggest calculating this with some portion of the 'moving basline' the current 'fixed basline' IE duke will get a boost with an A+ value in this category which would keep them from ever falling to the very bottom

This doesn't solve all the problems but I think the idea of moving baseline is something to consider, again I don't want 500 people saying "it takes more than the four year window to become elite" - yes i totally agree, hence why I say 20-30 years being used in the baseline calculation.

Knew you'd be back once the Big 10 conference schedule started - Welcome back.

Posted by jthieme1 on 1/5/2011 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Knew you'd be back once the Big 10 conference schedule started - Welcome back.

haha yeah finally decided it was time. Thanks!

Posted by zhawks on 1/5/2011 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brip87 on 1/5/2011 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Another huge flaw is the hiring process in d1.  D1 is a complete mess.

I've written books on this and how I really think an easy change to how schools prestige is calculated as well as some small tweeks to hiring process would make a huge difference, I'll try to outline them quickly.

• New Prestige (moving Baseline)

Have a moving baseline prestige of 20-30 years
have this 'baseline' help schools who have decades of success get rewarded for that and keep those that ruin duke/unc and other elites get punished
use this moving baseline as your 'hiring tool' base hires off of this prestige.
I suggest calculating this with some portion of the 'moving basline' the current 'fixed basline' IE duke will get a boost with an A+ value in this category which would keep them from ever falling to the very bottom

This doesn't solve all the problems but I think the idea of moving baseline is something to consider, again I don't want 500 people saying "it takes more than the four year window to become elite" - yes i totally agree, hence why I say 20-30 years being used in the baseline calculation.

i've had a similar idea in mind for a while:

-prestige should be adjusted based on the perceived prestige of the school for 18-year-old recruits. thus you have the last 10 years, plus an "all-time" factor that kids pick up on in their formative years. this "all-time" factor includes the original baseline prestige as well as all seasons predating the 10-year window (where the very very best seasons and dynasties get a large advantage over one-time-champs or no-championship consecutive final 4 runs, etc. because they would be very historically significant).

to summarize:
-10-year prestige window (example season weighting scale: last season 10.0, season before 6.3, season before 4.4, 3.3, 2.6, 2.1, 1.8, 1.6, 1.5, 1.4. more than half of the weight is in the last 3 years, and all of the last 10 years matter.)
-moving baseline prestige based on baseline prestige AND all other seasons put together, with exponential effects for multiple and consecutive titles

also, i like the idea of the number of local recruits increasing based on your success 8-12 years ago, i.e. if your win a title BYU and Colorado makes the elite eight, there's a slight uptick in the number of 6-10 yr olds who pick up basketball in Colorado.

I think many will agree with me but 10 years is not long enough, I think you need 20 years minimum to be able to show dominance that is required to get a A+ prestige. Unless you are making 10 very deep tourney runs in a row.

I've also been a proponent of a few other things, 1) to have an A+ prestige (not floating the one you see on the team page) the school needs to have won a national title. I've got a few more things i've had in the past... but it's been so long...

Posted by zhawks on 1/5/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
I think many will agree with me but 10 years is not long enough, I think you need 20 years minimum to be able to show dominance that is required to get a A+ prestige. Unless you are making 10 very deep tourney runs in a row.

I've also been a proponent of a few other things, 1) to have an A+ prestige (not floating the one you see on the team page) the school needs to have won a national title. I've got a few more things i've had in the past... but it's been so long...

well take 10 years combined with the 10+ before contributing to a moving baseline prestige, ends up being somewhat similar to what you're describing

Posted by zhawks on 1/5/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
I think many will agree with me but 10 years is not long enough, I think you need 20 years minimum to be able to show dominance that is required to get a A+ prestige. Unless you are making 10 very deep tourney runs in a row.

I've also been a proponent of a few other things, 1) to have an A+ prestige (not floating the one you see on the team page) the school needs to have won a national title. I've got a few more things i've had in the past... but it's been so long...

20 yrs min is too long. Would you say what I did at Montana (about 10 seasons) wasn't worthy of A+?

Lol, how long were you gone?  Why did you quit to begin with?  Was wondering where you were because I want you to peep my win percentage now lol, since that was such a point of contention in the past.  Good to see you back Zachary ;)

I was at D1 for 2 seasons and I agree with the rest here...D2 is where it's at.  I didn't care for the recruit generation at first, but it's tolerable...not a deal breaker...this is still easily the best cbb game running, regardless if they can fill the thing or not.

Lastly, as an aside to everyone...I don't know how you all carry 2+ teams all the time...I'm just starting a season with my 2nd active team currently and am already feeling mildly burnt out or like my attention is too far stretched lol...esp being in different divisions.

Posted by girt25 on 1/5/2011 10:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 1/5/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):
I think many will agree with me but 10 years is not long enough, I think you need 20 years minimum to be able to show dominance that is required to get a A+ prestige. Unless you are making 10 very deep tourney runs in a row.

I've also been a proponent of a few other things, 1) to have an A+ prestige (not floating the one you see on the team page) the school needs to have won a national title. I've got a few more things i've had in the past... but it's been so long...

20 yrs min is too long. Would you say what I did at Montana (about 10 seasons) wasn't worthy of A+?

Maybe I need to take a second look, You did a great job at Montana I'll take a second look at that resume. Did you win a title? I can't remember. If so then maybe. And don't get me wrong with a 'moving baseline' there would still be a small weight towards more recent seasons than the one twenty years ago (or whatever number we use).

42 dalter 23-9 11-2 8-5 4-2 11-5 17 8 A- NT At-large Bid
NT (Elite 8)
41 dalter 25-6 11-2 11-2 3-2 14-2 13 5 A- Conf Champion
NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
40 dalter 28-5 11-2 12-1 5-2 15-1 6 9 A- Conf Champion
NT At-large Bid
NT (Final Four)
39 dalter 29-5 13-0 9-4 7-1 15-1 3 2 A- Conf Champion
CT Champion
NT (Final Four)
38 dalter 28-5 12-1 11-2 5-2 14-2 8 2 B+ Conf Champion
NT At-large Bid
NT (Elite 8)
37 dalter 30-3 12-1 12-1 6-1 16-0 3 3 B Conf Champion
CT Champion
NT (Elite 8)
36 dalter 26-5 12-1 10-3 4-1 16-0 17 20 B- Conf Champion
CT Champion
NT (2nd Round)
35 dalter 25-6 11-2 10-3 4-1 15-1 18 18 B- Conf Champion
CT Champion
NT (2nd Round)
34 dalter 22-7 11-1 10-4 1-2 13-3 35 C+ Conf Champion
NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)

Over that stretch we were one of the top five programs in DI Allen, probably more like top two or three. And as you know, the Big Sky was consistently a top five conference as well during that time.

Z, one other thing you may or may not be aware of: They restored full rewards points at DII and DIII. I think this is a great thing and got back into DII once that change was made.

Dan,,,, I say Montana never gets an A+ prestige unless there's a title or 2 in there. I know you feel / felt strongly about it... but I disagreed then and now.... The game I began playing was tied to the real NCAA.... I personally don't want to see that changed.
There's no question about your ability to take a program to the top.. but if you chose to do it at a small school, from the Big Sky conference... I personally want a pretty heavy weight around the neck of that program as well as you as the coach.
I think WIS / HD is about trying to put out a game that resembles the real NCAA and attracks attention from people who are fans of the real NCAA and college basketball. If 8 guys can go to the Big Sky and take over a world and all achieve A+ prestige,,, and take recruits from Duke, Kansas, UNC, UCLA, etc... I (PERSONALLY), feel you now have less of a product and even fewer people interested in playing it than what we have now.... this is probably not the popular opinion we see on this forum from the most vocal 10-15 coaches who are on here alot... but I think it is probably a more popular opinion with the masses than some of you think.... IMHO of course.

Posted by teamrc on 1/6/2011 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Dan,,,, I say Montana never gets an A+ prestige unless there's a title or 2 in there. I know you feel / felt strongly about it... but I disagreed then and now.... The game I began playing was tied to the real NCAA.... I personally don't want to see that changed.
There's no question about your ability to take a program to the top.. but if you chose to do it at a small school, from the Big Sky conference... I personally want a pretty heavy weight around the neck of that program as well as you as the coach.
I think WIS / HD is about trying to put out a game that resembles the real NCAA and attracks attention from people who are fans of the real NCAA and college basketball. If 8 guys can go to the Big Sky and take over a world and all achieve A+ prestige,,, and take recruits from Duke, Kansas, UNC, UCLA, etc... I (PERSONALLY), feel you now have less of a product and even fewer people interested in playing it than what we have now.... this is probably not the popular opinion we see on this forum from the most vocal 10-15 coaches who are on here alot... but I think it is probably a more popular opinion with the masses than some of you think.... IMHO of course.

You're definitely entitled to your opinion, and I understand where you're coming from. There are certainly other people who agree with you.

That said, I would much rather have prestige, etc. decided by what actually happens on the proverbial court in HD than by what the college basketball landscape looked like in 2003.

(And I'll point out that since the new engine was rolled out and they made it dramatically more difficult to put together a legit national contender at a low/mid DI school, it's had a very detrimental effect on DI, with the population dwindling and many non-BCS conferences turning into ghost towns. So I think that speaks volumes on how the masses feel about whether it is attractive for non-BCS teams to be able to compete at a high level.)

Dan, I agree with you 100% that the new engine making mid to low level DI a ghost-town is not a good  thing... however, I just disagree that letting the lower tier teams have the same ability to reach an A+ prestige is the answer to that or any other problem.

TeamRC BTW... (too tired to find the right account)  

Posted by zags27 on 1/7/2011 3:30:00 AM (view original):
Dan, I agree with you 100% that the new engine making mid to low level DI a ghost-town is not a good  thing... however, I just disagree that letting the lower tier teams have the same ability to reach an A+ prestige is the answer to that or any other problem.

TeamRC BTW... (too tired to find the right account)  

Hey man, didn't realize that teamrc was an alias -- you're missed in Rupp.

I never said that they should have the same ability to get an A+. Currently they don't have the ability to achieve an A+. I'm talking about a happy medium. (And it's really not even A+ that I'm talking about specifically, it's making prestige more flexible in general.) I do think it's pretty clear that to keep DI healthy, the low/mid teams simply have to be able to compete more than they can now.