To be clear, I'm not advocating for eliminating baseline prestige entirely. As I said before, baseline made a lot of sense when this game was first created. But a dynamic, weighted prestige system looking at more than the last 3-4 seasons makes way more sense at this stage in the game.

Personally, fairness of the game is far more important to me than trying to create an illusion to draw in new players that would only play if the blue bloods are still the blue bloods.

Posted by dillon_b12 on 12/22/2021 10:25:00 AM (view original):
To be clear, I'm not advocating for eliminating baseline prestige entirely. As I said before, baseline made a lot of sense when this game was first created. But a dynamic, weighted prestige system looking at more than the last 3-4 seasons makes way more sense at this stage in the game.

Personally, fairness of the game is far more important to me than trying to create an illusion to draw in new players that would only play if the blue bloods are still the blue bloods.

I think a common theme is that people view the idea of "fair" differently. For me, as long as we know the rules we are playing under, it's "fair". Your success certainly could have allowed you to jump to a higher baseline prestige school a long time ago but you choose not to. I had a similar situation with my alma mater as well (TCU) and decided the trade-off was worth it to move to a higher baseline prestige school.

I like it when the game forces myself and the other players to make choices. Do I want to enter a battle for a better recruit? Do I want to develop my EE player? Do I want to switch to a higher baseline school? I like having to evaluate those decisions, it makes the game more dynamic for me.

Certainly not trying to imply your definition of "fair" is wrong, I can clearly see your side of the argument. I just look at it differently. And again, am also in favor of the ability to stretch beyond the current prestige limits more, or potentially upping the floor to C for all teams.

Posted by dillon_b12 on 12/16/2021 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Baseline never changing is why I despise it. I was at A after my championship (granted I had 3 first round exits preceding it) and got to A+ after the draft.

The Phelan Bonnies had 10 NT berths in the previous 115 seasons. We will have 29 in the past 45 seasons once this season is over. Are we still only worthy of a B- baseline?

In that same timeframe(45 seasons), Phelan Michigan has 1 NT berth and only 15 seasons above .500. Yet, as far as anyone knows, they still have a B baseline prestige. No offense to the coach there, but wouldn't a very "prestigious" school in actual NCAA basketball lose a little shine after 45 seasons of sub-par performance?

I totally agree with this. 1. I don't think that Baseline should be a hidden metric and 2. I think baseline should be measured by a 50 season history. I do think that certain schools, especially power 6 conferences, should have a limited amount of downward movement in baseline, but If you take a school like Old Dominion and have a strong run with them, their baseline should be able to improve. While there does need to be some sort of realism, baseline never moving does make this game less enticing to new players since the chances of them getting to a high baseline school is slim to none.

the more i read all these the more i worry about the inflationary effect on prestige. there's already a ton of B schools or higher competing for top tier recruits, i feel like this would just further compress those into a higher range, where we'd have a significantly higher number of a- type schools and up, and a significantly higher in B or higher range, and it just would be really hard to differentiate, would get even more competitive.

maybe that's good, i know a lot of the tiering, folks are not fans of. but at the same time, if you had 160 people on the same footing in a d1 world, today's recruiting model probably does not hold up very well. the competitiveness gets to a point that exceeds what most people are looking for, and i am concerned that turning a dozen or two b/b+ schools into a/a- schools, and presumably having those b/b+ themselves replaced by the b-/c+ schools of old... i am concerned it takes the competitiveness into the unsustainable range (the only relief being from lower world population)

Posted by gillispie on 12/22/2021 3:46:00 PM (view original):
the more i read all these the more i worry about the inflationary effect on prestige. there's already a ton of B schools or higher competing for top tier recruits, i feel like this would just further compress those into a higher range, where we'd have a significantly higher number of a- type schools and up, and a significantly higher in B or higher range, and it just would be really hard to differentiate, would get even more competitive.

maybe that's good, i know a lot of the tiering, folks are not fans of. but at the same time, if you had 160 people on the same footing in a d1 world, today's recruiting model probably does not hold up very well. the competitiveness gets to a point that exceeds what most people are looking for, and i am concerned that turning a dozen or two b/b+ schools into a/a- schools, and presumably having those b/b+ themselves replaced by the b-/c+ schools of old... i am concerned it takes the competitiveness into the unsustainable range (the only relief being from lower world population)

Honestly, I think the # of B- and B teams is adequate. I think the problem with the current system isn't that more teams can't get higher prestige. It's all about the baseline and keeping those teams at that level. For instance, my W. Kentucky team is able to keep a B- prestige pretty easily even though I haven't made the NT in 3 seasons (twice I went 16-0 in conference play and then lost to Sim AI in a major unexplainable upset twice in a row). And I think making the NT multiple seasons in a row and getting to a B or even a B+ prestige isn't necessarily bad. You can compete for some of the top players at that level. You just won't pull multiple top players year in and year out.

I just think the hard line baseline prestige is the issue. If I happen to make W. Kentucky into a team at some point which consistently can get into the Sweet 16 and maybe further on occasion... after a while I should be able to push their baseline up. I do believe that the Power 6 should have a minimum baseline of B- and mid level teams should have a maximum baseline of B+.

For example, as much as I am a UNC fan, there was a world and I can't remember which one where the UNC coach apparently bought a 10 pack and set to auto renew and disappeared. They went 0-27 for about 7 seasons in a row. Their baseline should not stay at A+. It should drop to maybe a B+. And Baseline should not be a hidden rating. When you take over, you see the current prestige and the current baseline prestige, so you know what you're working with.

As I said above I think the last 50 seasons (or you can go 30-40 seasons if you think that's too much) and use Win%, post season results, draft picks, conference power, so on to pick the top 10 teams to be A+, next 10 to be A-, next 10 to be A and 25 B+, 25 B, 25 B-, 50 C+ and the rest C. But it should constantly change just not as quickly as current prestige. But it should be tied to conference as well as team to ensure that the top conferences have the benefit, and it should be somewhat realistic to make sure that the UNC/Duke/Kansas/UCLA and other teams don't drop too far down because of the diminishing value of popular teams that drive this game.

Posted by upsetcity on 12/21/2021 10:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/21/2021 10:09:00 PM (view original):
Also I'd like to add that the low D1 tark conference that kicks butt, I've always viewed that as THE premier non power 6 group. They have title(s). We in WCC/Rupp do not. But there was a comment made by gil or Chap (I forget which one) stating that they consistently finish above a big 6 conference each year. That's fantastic!

But I'm hoping we're gaining some traction on that group, as we routinely finish above MOST big 6 conferences each year! So we're slowly trying to gain the credibility too!

Any no offense to any other low D1 conference that is doing big things! I just maybe haven't noticed you yet. Keep on making noise!

Hey that’s us!

Even if it’s being known as “chap or Gil’s” conference (now home to both of them so either works), it’s cool to pop in the forums every so often and see us in Tark MEAC being mentioned.

It sounds like we share similar goals. We’ve finished 1st several times in conference RPI (as well as top 2-3 multiple times), we’ve had teams win/make the NC, and put most of our teams into the postseason in a single season (I’m not sure what our personal bests are there). We’ve had countless many of the top HD coaches leave and we remain a really, really strong unit.

Keep crushing it over in the WCC and I’m excited to e see your successes grow as a conference!

Yes sir! And there is no #1 and #2. It's all just fun to debate and argue! I thought I'd get more fire back than I did!

And I agree it's more than Chap and gil. Our WCC is more than the two teams I mentioned. What really makes a good conference is actually the strength of the bottom of the conference in a given season.