Well, the Naismith season ended today I opened the d1 season as a C prestige school (not in a Big 6 conf.) and I thought I did pretty well.
28-4 record, conf and CT wins. Top 30 rpi nationally ranked, Ranked 25th nationally and Knocked off the number one seed in my bracket on the way to the sweet 16. I also had the National DPOY, and a guy as  Second team All American. At least one, or both of these players will be drafted.

Without peeking, Take a guess at the bump/drop/no change my prestige got after this season.

For a hint, in the MAC, A sim team started with a D prestige, went to the 2nd round and ended up with a C+. (He had zero previous postseason appearances in the past 3 years before this, I have had one a PIT loss in the first round).

What did the year that dropped off look like?  My conference mate in D3 just went to a Sweet 16 and stayed put at A-.  So I'd imagine unless you knocked off something very good or very bad with 28 wins it bumps you up to about a C+, maybe B- if you were a high C to start with.  That's assuming the baseline prestige is about a C so you're fairly mobile in that range...  If it's a D you probably didn't improve on your C and if it's B or higher I would definitely say B- to even B.

do it again and i bet you get to b or b-...if both your players get drafted you might get to b- this year.

Simon's gonna get drafted, probably late second round by the local Jiffy-Lube, sorry, C+ looks right to me.... put 2 of 3 NT's together like you did in #44 and the B- is yours.

You will move to a B- if one of your guys gets drafted. Check my history in Phelan. My Alcorn State team took a similar path to yours (although I didn't get past 2nd round like you)

nb, it's much, much easier to increase your prestige at the lower levels -- so it takes far less to go from D to C (for instance) than from C to B.

That said, I think a 28-4 season w. a Sweet 16 should've been worth more than C to C+.

(As an aside, not a big deal, but stuff like NDPOY and AA have no impact on your team's prestige.)

I was under the assumption that all americans did have an effect on prestige, just like having players drafted. I take it, that's incorrect?

I think my issue is with the relation between baseline prestige and job stability. I think baseline is a good quality of the game, not necesssarily fair to everyone, but useful to keep some semblance of  real world hoops. That being said, outside of the Big 6 conferences, and a couple others (Memphis, Xavier etc). I think most schools should generally be equal.
To compare Western Michigan (can you tell me their nickname? I had to look it up) Has been to a total of 3 NTs in their history (1976, 98, 2004) in real life. In our game,  after 18 years of no postseason whatsoever and 9 straight losing seasons and d- prestige, last year they put together a dominant 15-13 record and got a bump to "d". The season just passed, they had a nice 27-4 record and went to the second round of the NT. They got bumped to a C+ immediately.
Duquesne, my team in Naismith, in real life plays in the A10 (as a side note, all teams in the A10 have a b/b- baseline). In their longer history, they have been to 5 NTs and 17 NITs. In our game, Duquesne has been to the postseason 6 times in the past 8 years (3/3). Their prestige has fluctuated between C and B-.  Aftera similar season to W. Michigan, the only real differences being Duquesne won their CT, and went one round further in the NT, the prestige went from a C to a C+.

Doesn't this seem a little abnormal to you? If they are going to take the trouble to rank each Big 6 conference team's baseline, shouldn't they do this with the other 21 D1 conferences where at least half of us play (in D1)?
True, true, I should have checked out the baseline prestige thing more closely before taking the job, but when I took it, I had played atotal of 2 D1 seasons in other worlds and was still learning the ropes. (Seems I still am).

I understand Simon and Thornton were not "dominant" 950 ranked players, but I thought rankings determined early entries and stats determined seniors getting drafted. Maybe I was misinformed, although DPOY and AA alcolades don't affect my teams prestige, players drafted do. Hence, I thought IF they were drafted (due to their season numbers, not player rankings) it would positively affect my prestige. The only player I've had drafted was from Duquesne, Price in s44. Strangely enough, my team got a B- that year,before the draft, where he went first overall. I was shocked at this as his ranking was only about 750 or so. I got no bump from the player being drafted, but I figured I was a very low B- and need alot more to move up to a B.

I guess my biggest problem with this is: If my Duquesne team has such a crappy prestige to begin with, why are boosters complaining after only 4 yearssince last time I was in the NT? During that time, I've slacked off, but have still been to the NIT twice. If the boosters can complain and eventually get me fired, shouldn't this correlate to the prestige of my school? I was under the impression that a job at Kentucky demanded more success than ABC North southeast Delaware agricultural. I looked into the past records of some Big 6 teams who all  have B- or higher baseline, and have seen instances of coaches going 8 seasons without a postseason before getting fired. This doesn't seem to be much of a correlation to me. I have never had Boosters complain before and therefore have never been fired, but I'm sure once they start, "In Jeopardy" isn't far away, and neither is the axe.

I have no problem with working my way to the top, I just feel that teams with programs in real life who have not been successful should start on equal ground. Also, since Duquesne was an original member of the A10, why are they penalized 2 complete baseline letter grades for being put in another conference, yes I understand logistics requires 12 team conferences, but why are they (and Fordham) getting shafted on their baseline prestige. Finally, I think if you get the benefits of playing in a conference with a high baseline in general, your job should be in a more volitile situation than other coaches, and require more success to keep. Having the extra cash and prestige should mean you have to work harder to keep jobs. As it is now, the haves and the have nots appear to lose them at the same rate.

nb, I do agree with a lot of what you said.

I'll point out the main thing I don't think is much of an issue, which is job status. It's almost impossible to get fired, and even more impossible from a non-Big 6 school, where standards are even lower (if that's possible, lol). So while I understand that point from a straight-up logic standpoint, to me, the simple fact that it's nearly impossible to get fired makes this a non-issue. (I do agree, however, that it should be much easier to get fired at a Big 6 school -- and particularly elites and semi-elites -- than it is now. Much easier.)

But I do agree that the engine does a terrible job of differentiating between teams that have done reasonably well vs. ones that have done quite well vs. those that have done exceptionally well. (Or that that have done well for a season or two vs. those that have done well consistently for quite some time.) I expressed this to seble when I was at Montana and he ultimately agreed that they could do a better job ... but basically said it was pretty far back on the list.

Right now all you can do is express your thoughts here and to seble ... and just keep winning.