Make at least the EE in 4 of the last 6 seasons, have one bum rebuild season in the mix and drop in prestige after an Elite 8... During the same span Kansas (no offense to metsfan at all, good coach) has a NC and a 2nd round in the same timeframe and is an A+ (which is their baseline). There are much worse examples of A+ schools who maintain with mediocre performances. I suppose they may get fired eventually, but what's the point of doing well if you can't maintain it without a much greater effort.

I get that we want to maintain some resemblance to the RL, and I know it's been discussed ad nausium, but hell...

Ive always though baseline prestige is way too harsh and kind of takes away the "build your dynasty" aspect at the D1 level.

what's wrong with it? I think it makes it more realistic.. In reality a school like Kansas doesn't have a hard time landing great recruits even after a mediocre ending to a season. You can still build good programs at lower level schools in this game, . I think it is more interesting to build up a D school than taking over an A prestige school

What's wrong with it is that we are stuck with the assumed prestige set back in 2003. What is wrong with it is that it is counter to the name of the game Hoops DYNASTY. A coach should be able, through his own merit, to build a dynasty and maintain it realisticly. Yes, for one or two seasons Kansas can have a "bad" year, but string them together, not only will the coach be fired, but the school WILL lose their standing as an elite.

Baseline prestige is great as a starting point, but I'm on the side that says that, just like at Duke, a coach can turn an ok program into a dynasty and keep it there. Start schools at that assumed prestige, but then let it slide towards success or failure based upon the coaches at that school's success over time. Resample baseline up or down off of 5 year segments. Heck even 10 year. I'd like to think that lostmyth's St. Bonaventure team in Iba is a good representation of a school that went all Duke-ish and that school's baseline should then be raised to reflect that. So that teams like his don't have to work harder than some of the "A+" schools to maintain it. Schools that only have to make a tourney or two to maintain a A rating every 5 years.

Conversely if some coachs can't maintain the set starting prestige of, say a Duke, then Duke's baseline should slide downwards. Duke ain't Duke if Duke doesn't make deep runs. Duke then becomes another good school in a power conference.

I think it is frankly rediculous for a team like my ISU squad to drop in prestige after an elite 8 run. There is no logic to it.

Damn straight doomey.

I have never understood why people get so up in arms about rankings but think there's no problem with a static baseline prestige model which affects the most critical component of the game (yes, rankings are broken - but they're far less important than prestige). Floating baseline prestige would be fine with me - we could debate how many years the baseline should be but I'd rather be having THAT debate than whether the current system should be kept.

The concept is supposed to be What If Sports, not Status Quo 2003 Sports. DI is all about marketing to make sure the big conferences and the RL (2003) big schools stay on top.

Personally, as I have stated many times over the years, DIII and DII are the true "What If" divisions in HD.

was this addressed in the new hd?

there shouldn't be a baseline prestige. totally unfair.......so those coaches at unc and duke basically get bonus points every recruiting season. whats funny is some of the better coaches flock to those two schools...do they really need to cheat? I know its not technically cheating but gaining an unfair advantage over other teams is skating the line....How many of those coaches are actually coaching the team they root for irl?

Wasn't addressed. But I agree 100%. Baseline prestige is one of the reasons why I've got zero teams currently. PSU writes about what's wrong with Kansas landing good recruits after a bad season. IRL nothing. The difference is that they've earned it on the hardwood court IRL. In HD they haven't. In HD they could have achieved less on the court than Wake Forest but still have an easier time because of baseline. I have no idea how it passed the acid test.

Prestige should be about what is earned in HD results--just like it is irl. If two teams have the same results, their prestige should be the same (just like in DII and DIII).

Seble?

rails, I agree...seriously considering dropping my d1 school...i had no idea about this...I am totally ****** right now...I am coaching my alma mater and to think they will always be at a disadvantage no matter how much time and money is sunk into them is disheartening at best....What does 2003 have to do with 2010?

Quote: Originally Posted By texrangers19 on 5/17/2010rails, I agree...seriously considering dropping my d1 school...i had no idea about this...I am totally ****** right now...I am coaching my alma mater and to think they will always be at a disadvantage no matter how much time and money is sunk into them is disheartening at best....What does 2003 have to do with 2010

Even if it was using 2010 rl prestige levels it's still not relavent. Who cares what is happening irl. What matters is HD results. And in theory it should be possible for USC to be what UCLA is irl. And I know that there are some that will say they can become what UCLA is irl. The difference is that similar HD results produce different prestige levels between the two schools.

At a lower baseline prestige school, you have to achieve better results for you to have the same prestige as someone who is at a school with higher baseline.

Disheartning for me too after reaching my alma mater, rangers.

rails, pick up some DII or DIII schools. With the exception of Hawaii, I've dropped all my worlds down to the lower divisions where the game still has legitimacy. Don't sit out for long, brother.

Not until both geographic recruit generation and FSS cost structure is changed me boy.

Quote: Originally posted by doomey on 5/16/2010Make at least the EE in 4 of the last 6 seasons, have one bum rebuild season in the mix and drop in prestige after an Elite 8... During the same span Kansas (no offense to metsfan at all, good coach) has a NC and a 2nd round in the same timeframe and is an A+ (which is their baseline). There are much worse examples of A+ schools who maintain with mediocre performances. I suppose they may get fired eventually, but what's the point of doing well if you can't maintain it without a much greater effort.I get that we want to maintain some resemblance to the RL, and I know it's been discussed ad nausium, but hell...

you failed to mention that the season before you missed the post season entirely, yet prestige stayed at an A+.

maybe it should have dropped to an A last season, and then stayed at an A this season. But i really dont see too much wrong with this example.

Personally the baseline prestige doesn't matter as much as not firing coaches. You talk about Duke, UNC, Arizona and such. I wouldn't mind having a baseline prestige that can move over time little by little but I think coaches at these schools should get fired more.

Miss the tourney 1 or 2 years in 5 your out. You don't win the NC every 5-7 years your out, no matter how much other games you win.

You have seen a lot of coaches get canned in real life for not making the National Championship or not winning it I don't see a difference in this game.

Now if your at a B/B+ school you need more room for error. You can just make the National Tourney each year and your fine. Think of some of the schools out there right now in that second tier of top teams.

In the end though, those top schools should have an extremely short leash on their coaches.

Totally fair, and I expected a slight drop last year, but again, one 15 win season doesn't scuttle a good program in what has been the top RPI conference in Iba for several seasons now. I did have a draft pick that year to keep it somewhat afloat and may get back to an A+ after this draft, but that is beside the point. I'd have been fine with a drop to an A, but would have expected an A+ this year after returning to the EE.

For that matter, Auburn in Iba has won the NT 2x in the last 5 years and been PIC as well and they are only at an A... Redicidunk. In RL recuits would be flocking to both programs.