Yup, reinsel, that's exactly what I'm saying. And I'm at two schools that are beneificiaries of the current system, but then reality sets in.  It's really just got to have more to do with what the coaches do on the court.

jwilli, the problem with baseline is that all schools try to trend towards their baseline, often at surreal expense of on-court performance. It most definately is NOT any excuse for a person's team. With a low end cap, the powerhouses won't loose major recruiting power, but it does allow for we as coachs to create the next Gonzaga or Duke. The system the way it stands is just trying to arbitrarily keep programs either artificially depressed or inflated regardless of how well a team actually does. It also keeps some average coachs in good schools, it's damn tough to get fired if it is tied to prestige and the elites are always trending toward A's.

As I've always said, this is supposed to be about creating dynasties, but with a few exceptions (lm2's St. Bonaventure team being one), baseline works hard to hold back coachs who pull thier teams up to great levels. Baseline doesn't allow for a B team to maintain greatness without ongoing considerable success. I say put a low water mark that the schools can't drop beyond, then let the coachs do their thing and create their own world, not an ongoing copy of what someone thought was the heirarchy of college hoops was nearly 10 years ago. That and they need to re-assess those base levels, low ceiling or baseline; Virginia hasn't been relevant in ages and Texas has become a hoops powerhouse, just as examples. Re-aline, re-assess and set low caps. That's my take.

Pretty close to what I was thinking.

girt, coach success is tied to school prestige, that is evident. What we all agree should have gotten farmlife fired at Wake (with all due respect to farmlife who seemed just get burned out) would have done so at a mid-level school, primarily because Wake's prestige mitigates failure, while a lower school would sink to a lower prestige, prompting coach firing. I've seen it. Six straight losing seasons will get you fired from many schools. Heck my ISU squad went from a great run that included a NC and ended with at second round and a A prestige: now we are 3 seasons past and some recruiting tragedies and ISU is now a B- and boosters complaining (below their baseline) after a PI appearance. Wake had 6 of those seasons.

Coachs make dynasties, not schools. Schools can only try to bring in coachs they think can continue the dynasty and create their own. Duke isn't Duke without Coach K and who knows where they will be afterwards, the next coach will determine that. Will there be traditional powers? Sure, North Carolina has been down and up, KU is always strong, but that again is because of the coachs they bring in. If a school IS considered a traditional power and the coach they hire doesn't get pretty immediate results, that coach is fired; and much more quickly than your average school. That is the disconnect in HD, they tie it all to the school regardless of world history or current coaching. Elites allow some coaches to float some pretty average seasons (no appearances, only PI appearances). In my opinion, the higher the baseline/floor the shorter grace period and higher expectation.

The overall school prestige is a simular issue and that can easily be solved with the above floor settings. That way any school can be a dynasty, the major players just get head start, not a constant gimme.

Dynasties are tied to coachs, the school might have the legacy, but it is the coachs and they players they bring in that create the dynasties.