Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/31/2018 6:46:00 AM (view original):
My point is that Syracuse is just kinda al she good. Maybe they don’t have the leak of some me other schools but over the last 50 years they are a top ten program.

8th in top ten seasons
8th in ncaa tournament will wins
8th in final four appearances

they ate are just kinda always there...... They are like Eddie Murray.

I agree with you.

On a side note, if you read your post with a Lucky Charms leprechaun accent, it's pretty funny.

Syracuse had a really long streak of 20 win seasons and being over 500.

Also, both Eddie Murray's make sense in your example... the Orioles 1B and the Detroit Lions kicker.

Posted by MWalpole on 3/30/2018 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 3/30/2018 7:11:00 PM (view original):
I would favor having baseline prestige updated every season to reflect the last 30 seasons of play IRL. Just have to drop off the furthest back one and add the latest. Then plug that grade in as the new baseline in the equation. Do it at the start of each WIS season starting after June 1st.

They used the last 30 seasons at the time for prestige. Why not make it fluid always using the same 30 season criteria?

The reason for that being a bad idea is because if I take over a team, like an Illinois, and worked them up to an A or A+ and I get penalized by them being terrible in real life, I’d be very upset. Someone mentioned it earlier somewhere, but baseline prestige & conference alignment should 0NLY be updated if a new world is created.

I don't think a rolling 30 year baseline change would affect you very much year to year. A full year in real life is like 6 HD seasons.

I think its a good compromise and would keep the real baselines somewhat realistic. Not that it will ever happen.

I would be fine with a baseline prestige change.

But, I think an idea that more people could get around would be to allow you to change your baseline prestige. Meaning, after 30 years of success or whatever at a school, your teams baseline prestige changes more to reflect how good your team is. So basically, it allows you to take the cap off of your team, so teams that can only get to an A prestige when they succeed can now get to an A+ if they are successful for a long period of time.

I have always hated the fact that even if you dominate at a C prestige school and win back to back to back national championships, you would only be like a B+ prestige.

I think it would encourage people to make their own dynasty’s and change the perception of their school just like what Wichita St. has done.

I play the game as it is, not as I would want it to be, so this isn’t complaining in the least. A lot of these discussions are more speculative about what changes peoples would like to see in the game, even if those changes aren’t particularly likely. Here’s where I’d like some clarity in some of the thinking, as I throw my infrequent but longwinded 2 cents in as well.

If I were coming up with the game concepts from scratch, there are some areas where you’d want a sim to emulate reality fairly closely, and some other areas where maybe matching reality needs to be sacrificed some for game play purposes. One area I’d probably set up that would match reality more closely would be recruit generation. If Maryland and Virginia have the highest per capita D1 recruits and Texas/California have the most overall D1 recruits, I’d think that you’d want to see that reflected in recruit generation, rather than Montana or Idaho having much higher recruits per capita, just as an example. If D1 schools’ recruits are 900+ miles away on average, I’d think you wouldn’t want distance to be a strong inhibition in this game, even if it would still play a role. Maybe distance is more of an inhibition in D2 or D3 in real life. If there’s no way a top D2 team in real life could have a good enough team to make a S16 in D1 (or even make the NIT), I’d think you’d want to see substantial differences in what recruits D1 and D2 teams can get. If D1 and D2 schools are really fighting over the same recruits, let that be part of the game. Again, it isn’t complaining (I like D2 more than D1 anyway – but often suggested changes get labelled as complaining), just thinking about how I’d do things if it was getting designed from scratch. Maybe folks would think those characteristics don’t need to match reality that closely and things are set up good as they are for the sake of competitive game play, and that’s fine, just giving my take. Might be hard to implement that way or it just wouldn’t work for all I know, but those would be parts of the game I’d think you’d want to match reality as closely as you can get it.

The place where I’d be least concerned about having the sim match reality is with baseline prestige. In a ‘what if’ scenario that simulates essentially an alternate reality in each world, why would it matter if Nebraska ended up with a dynasty rather than Kansas, if Vanderbilt was dominant instead of Kentucky? Would it matter if Duke and Michigan St. never developed powerful basketball programs - unless you were trying to create a sim based on some specific era? I don’t see the point in a competitive game of giving an artificial advantage to certain individual schools based on what happens in real life. Okay, I’d see the argument in giving prestige differences in power conferences to mid-majors to small majors, same as D1 vs D2 vs D3, but those are structural differences, and I think those differences in baseline prestige would be good to make sure things stay loosely based on real life. I’d think if you wanted to move baseline prestige around based on performance, you’d rather do that based on success in a given world, whether we are looking at individual teams or conferences. That way, a non-power conference team (or conference) that was really successful wouldn't be unrealistically handicapped based on the history of their real world counterpart - or not so much changing the baseline as removing the caps. If folks would rather determine baseline prestige on real life results, is there a reason not to raise the baseline prestige in D2 for Winona St., Metro St., and Kentucky Wesleyan?

Posted by npb7768 on 3/31/2018 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/31/2018 6:46:00 AM (view original):
My point is that Syracuse is just kinda al she good. Maybe they don’t have the leak of some me other schools but over the last 50 years they are a top ten program.

8th in top ten seasons
8th in ncaa tournament will wins
8th in final four appearances

they ate are just kinda always there...... They are like Eddie Murray.

I agree with you.

On a side note, if you read your post with a Lucky Charms leprechaun accent, it's pretty funny.

Syracuse had a really long streak of 20 win seasons and being over 500.

Also, both Eddie Murray's make sense in your example... the Orioles 1B and the Detroit Lions kicker.

“Maybe they don’t have the leak of some me other schools”

in a leprechaun accent.

thanks for that.

:)

Glad I didn't proofread....blue diamonds.

Posted by long_ge on 3/31/2018 3:29:00 PM (view original):
I play the game as it is, not as I would want it to be, so this isn’t complaining in the least. A lot of these discussions are more speculative about what changes peoples would like to see in the game, even if those changes aren’t particularly likely. Here’s where I’d like some clarity in some of the thinking, as I throw my infrequent but longwinded 2 cents in as well.

If I were coming up with the game concepts from scratch, there are some areas where you’d want a sim to emulate reality fairly closely, and some other areas where maybe matching reality needs to be sacrificed some for game play purposes. One area I’d probably set up that would match reality more closely would be recruit generation. If Maryland and Virginia have the highest per capita D1 recruits and Texas/California have the most overall D1 recruits, I’d think that you’d want to see that reflected in recruit generation, rather than Montana or Idaho having much higher recruits per capita, just as an example. If D1 schools’ recruits are 900+ miles away on average, I’d think you wouldn’t want distance to be a strong inhibition in this game, even if it would still play a role. Maybe distance is more of an inhibition in D2 or D3 in real life. If there’s no way a top D2 team in real life could have a good enough team to make a S16 in D1 (or even make the NIT), I’d think you’d want to see substantial differences in what recruits D1 and D2 teams can get. If D1 and D2 schools are really fighting over the same recruits, let that be part of the game. Again, it isn’t complaining (I like D2 more than D1 anyway – but often suggested changes get labelled as complaining), just thinking about how I’d do things if it was getting designed from scratch. Maybe folks would think those characteristics don’t need to match reality that closely and things are set up good as they are for the sake of competitive game play, and that’s fine, just giving my take. Might be hard to implement that way or it just wouldn’t work for all I know, but those would be parts of the game I’d think you’d want to match reality as closely as you can get it.

The place where I’d be least concerned about having the sim match reality is with baseline prestige. In a ‘what if’ scenario that simulates essentially an alternate reality in each world, why would it matter if Nebraska ended up with a dynasty rather than Kansas, if Vanderbilt was dominant instead of Kentucky? Would it matter if Duke and Michigan St. never developed powerful basketball programs - unless you were trying to create a sim based on some specific era? I don’t see the point in a competitive game of giving an artificial advantage to certain individual schools based on what happens in real life. Okay, I’d see the argument in giving prestige differences in power conferences to mid-majors to small majors, same as D1 vs D2 vs D3, but those are structural differences, and I think those differences in baseline prestige would be good to make sure things stay loosely based on real life. I’d think if you wanted to move baseline prestige around based on performance, you’d rather do that based on success in a given world, whether we are looking at individual teams or conferences. That way, a non-power conference team (or conference) that was really successful wouldn't be unrealistically handicapped based on the history of their real world counterpart - or not so much changing the baseline as removing the caps. If folks would rather determine baseline prestige on real life results, is there a reason not to raise the baseline prestige in D2 for Winona St., Metro St., and Kentucky Wesleyan?

If you're going to give teams in a college basketball sim names like "Kansas" and "Nebraska," those names have to mean something. Not saying KU should perennially automatically be better than NU, but starting them from the same place would be silly.

I get your point. I guess if we were trying to replicate historical performance, you’d want Kansas to have an advantage over other schools (even the ones they won’t play in real life, outside losing to them in the tournament). If we were wanting to replicate the 1988 season for instance, you’d want Kansas to have a strong advantage over Nebraska. However, in a ‘what if’ scenario that isn’t based on historical results, I don’t see what purpose it really serves. If anything, it would be a negative aspect to the game, given that it impacts competitive play. I could see the argument for it in the event that people wanted to see what if results somewhat mimicking the results of history, but I didn’t think that was what this was. Plus, it doesn’t seem critical that Winona St. doesn’t have a baseline prestige advantage in D2.

Also, I didn’t so much state it directly, but I would think baseline prestige for D1 schools is far less important to match reality as other aspects of the game that currently don’t match reality much at all. To me, matching baseline prestige to reality for specific schools is far from critical, especially given it hasn’t in a lot of cases. Baseline prestige reflecting reality for individual schools is important enough for the game that D1 needs it, while it isn’t important at all for D2 or D3? An NFL sim in season 47 would need to make sure New England and Pittsburgh had advantages over Detroit and Cleveland if teams are being called by those names?

A point I was trying to express toward the beginning of the earlier post was that in some areas you want the sim to mimic reality, and others you would have to sacrifice matching reality for the sake of game play, so we don’t disagree there. I’m definitely not suggesting real life as the solution for all of the questions in the game. However, I don’t see where geographical distribution of recruits more closely aligning with reality would lead to anything remotely close to having schools match their real life winning pct. This is especially the case when you consider the average distance from schools the average recruit is in real life. I doubt the average distance of recruits in the sim comes anywhere close to matching what we’d see of real world counterparts, so having less restrictions on distance and a more realistic recruit distribution would increase competition rather than hinder it.

The reason I think it makes sense to have a more realistic recruit distribution is that not doing so creates artificial advantages and disadvantages based on the density of schools in an area, at least in the current state of the game. Having relatively fewer recruits in populated areas just becomes an unrealistic barrier, although certainly not one that is impossible to overcome, but let’s call it what it is. Having more recruits than the population would normally provide makes it easier for schools in sparse areas. Not seeing how changing the population distribution would cause schools in the sim to have success correlated with real life counterparts. I don’t think the success of programs in the NCAA is so determined location, if I’m understanding you correctly.

Anyway, that was just an example of why I think there are parts of the game that would make more sense to emulate real life than having baseline prestige differences for specific schools. If a team has no success for a couple of decades of play in the sim, I guess I don’t see a good reason for that team to be kept at a higher prestige because of what the team does in real life. Not pushing for a change or anything. I’m fine with the game if nothing changes, I’ll be fine with it if things do change. More of it is wanting to understand why folks would care about baseline prestige being realistic for individual teams, particularly when artificially boosted baseline prestige impacts competitive game play, and I'd see other areas as being preferable when looking at making the game more realistic. I’m probably in the minority on that. I’d agree with you, though, that certain aspects of the game can de-emphasize the importance of coaching, and those aren’t especially good.

Geez long_ge lives up to his name.

lol....sorry, I don't post much, so I figure I have to get all my points out at once.

I think that long_ge is right that making some parts of the game resemble reality is more important than other parts.

"The reason I think it makes sense to have a more realistic recruit distribution is that not doing so creates artificial advantages and disadvantages based on the density of schools in an area, at least in the current state of the game."
Nope. It's my understanding that in a general way where schools are more concentrated, so are recruits, and where schools are more sparse, so are recruits. From a game playability standpoint, that's ideal. I think the only thing they get wrong in that is not considering Divisions. Look at Wisconsin and Minnesota, for example. Recruits are generated there based on the concentration of schools, which is considerable. However, the schools are not evenly divided over the divisions, but the recruits are. No wonder Wisconsin does unexpectedly well in so many worlds. The recruit environment is made richer by all the lower division schools.