I am for baseline prestige. It provides a goal to work towards which provides a significant reward if you can get there. The advantage is not so great however that non-A+ schools cannot win championships (they do frequently).

The problem is the failure of WIS HP to follow through with their promise to re-institute firings. This would prevent high baseline prestige schools from being run incompetently.

I'm anti-baseline prestige, at the extreme end of the spectrum. If I can gradually build some mediocre program into a title contender, that should speak for itself. The teams that were bigtime when HD first started should not have a perpetual advantage. There should be alternate universes where some school like Robert Morris or Idaho State is king of the basketball world - and that should be possible in a game that bills itself as a game where you can build a dynasty.

While I support the idea of having a longer period to calculate prestige (maybe 10-20 seasons instead of 4), just remember that means it will take 10-20 seasons to truly rebuild a team. You'll be waiting a long time for those sim seasons to drop off the calculation.

And from my experience with newer coaches, I don't think many will have that kind of patience. 10 seasons is roughly a year in real life.

Not everyone likes the power schools. I hate duke and unc. I have no desire whatsoever to coach them, other than how easy it must be. My goal for the decade plus of Hoops Dynasty that I have been playing was to take the school I went in lifetime debt for and make them a powerhouse. I went to the NC game and lost once and then won it all the next season. Then the poop went downhill again. That success is just not sustainable at a low baseline prestige school. So I am expected to keep paying real money to play my low baseline prestige school while the high baseline prestige schools are playing for free. It really is an effed up system. To those that say just play D2 and D3, great advice, except my school isn't D2 or D3.

Posted by mlitney on 11/7/2022 2:52:00 PM (view original):
While I support the idea of having a longer period to calculate prestige (maybe 10-20 seasons instead of 4), just remember that means it will take 10-20 seasons to truly rebuild a team. You'll be waiting a long time for those sim seasons to drop off the calculation.

And from my experience with newer coaches, I don't think many will have that kind of patience. 10 seasons is roughly a year in real life.

its a good point. they could fairly easily do something like, calculate prestige over a 4 year window, calculate over a 10 year window, and take the maximum. it would inflate overall prestige but that is generally going to be an outcome of *any* of the baseline adjustment ideas mentioned over the years.

I once saw my team go from B+ to a B because I only made the Sweet 16. And I only held on to that high a rating because I still had an elite 8 appearance 2 seasons before (while making the tourney each year). So obviously my feeling on the system is one of frustration given the supposed goal of building a dynasty.

That said, I see value to the baseline as it's a thing in the real world. But so are firings and without them the system is already pretty far skewed from real life. I understand the business reasons for not wanting to fire paying customers so what's the answer?

What I'd like to see is coach prestige that is based solely on results used along with the school prestige. Have some sort of weighting where a successful coach can then help overcome, to some level, the low prestige of a school. But only as long as they stay at the school. If they leave the school is at the mercy of the next coach to take over. No idea what is reasonable and it probably doesn't affect the big schools but it helps mitigate that feeling that you can't make any real progress in building a dynasty at most schools because you will always be pulled back to your baseline pretty quickly.

Posted by davis on 11/7/2022 10:14:00 AM (view original):
I'm anti-baseline prestige, at the extreme end of the spectrum. If I can gradually build some mediocre program into a title contender, that should speak for itself. The teams that were bigtime when HD first started should not have a perpetual advantage. There should be alternate universes where some school like Robert Morris or Idaho State is king of the basketball world - and that should be possible in a game that bills itself as a game where you can build a dynasty.

This has been my argument for years. Baseline prestige goes against the concept of dynasty building unless you just want the high-end schools to be the only dynasties. It's a big part of why I have mostly only played DII and DIII over the years.

Posted by gillispie on 11/11/2022 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 11/7/2022 2:52:00 PM (view original):
While I support the idea of having a longer period to calculate prestige (maybe 10-20 seasons instead of 4), just remember that means it will take 10-20 seasons to truly rebuild a team. You'll be waiting a long time for those sim seasons to drop off the calculation.

And from my experience with newer coaches, I don't think many will have that kind of patience. 10 seasons is roughly a year in real life.

its a good point. they could fairly easily do something like, calculate prestige over a 4 year window, calculate over a 10 year window, and take the maximum. it would inflate overall prestige but that is generally going to be an outcome of *any* of the baseline adjustment ideas mentioned over the years.

1) isn't prestige/success currently based on prior 5 seasons?

2) i think my suggestion of making baseline float based on past ~20 seasons like prestige/success currently does could address the concern of inflating average prestige, no? WIS would just also have to set the scale with a lower cap. personally, i would not be opposed to capping baseline at B. perhaps the simple solution here would just be to decrease the impact of baseline across the board

Posted by trail on 11/15/2022 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 11/11/2022 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 11/7/2022 2:52:00 PM (view original):
While I support the idea of having a longer period to calculate prestige (maybe 10-20 seasons instead of 4), just remember that means it will take 10-20 seasons to truly rebuild a team. You'll be waiting a long time for those sim seasons to drop off the calculation.

And from my experience with newer coaches, I don't think many will have that kind of patience. 10 seasons is roughly a year in real life.

its a good point. they could fairly easily do something like, calculate prestige over a 4 year window, calculate over a 10 year window, and take the maximum. it would inflate overall prestige but that is generally going to be an outcome of *any* of the baseline adjustment ideas mentioned over the years.

1) isn't prestige/success currently based on prior 5 seasons?

2) i think my suggestion of making baseline float based on past ~20 seasons like prestige/success currently does could address the concern of inflating average prestige, no? WIS would just also have to set the scale with a lower cap. personally, i would not be opposed to capping baseline at B. perhaps the simple solution here would just be to decrease the impact of baseline across the board

1) 4 seasons (d1 - d2/d3 is half the last season and half prior, with a cap on how much growth is allowed in 1 season, of like 1 grade or something)

2) this would cause inflation because most humans at high prestige schools are doing at least fine, while many humans at mid majors significantly out perform the baseline. also, if you were to list out all the baselines, then all the season-only prestige performances, the latter would on the whole have a significantly higher number of b- and up teams (for example). so making baseline float based on performance is going to cause inflation of prestige just basically by default.

this could be counter-acted but i don't think that is normally the case in suggestions folks make on the forums about this, in the things the community would get behind.