Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/28/2011 8:41:00 PM (view original):
Smith DI now has 14 A+ prestiges.  Doesn't that seem like a little much?  14 RL Dukes?  For one school, all it took in 6 seasons was 3 first-round NT exits and 2 second-round exits, with only two ranked seasons at #17 and 19.  So: a team can never make the Sweet 16, never even sniff the top 10, and still be considered by fans and players the ultimate pinnacle of NCAA basketball achievement?  14 A+'s?  Really?

Can we please finally fix prestige?

Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/29/2011 7:42:00 AM (view original):
Well, that's a fair argument, though the situation now is that a small group of the rich get richer, rather than just one or two. But the example I mentioned -- Illinois -- in the 45 seasons before my example, they made 14 NTs: 5 1st rounds, 3 2nds, 3 s16 and 3 e8. They are 84th all-time in winning %, with more losing than winning seasons. If Duke did that, and then in the year 2056 we said, well, they've made the first or second round 5 of the last 6 years, no one would be saying how they'd finally reascended back their original glory of a half-century ago.

Why not finally do away with baseline prestige for schools, but keep it for conferences? It would still maintain the order of the game -- there would never be a world where the Metro constantly dominated the ACC -- but would still allow for gonzagas, while also allowing for the fact than in some worlds, Florida state would, through years of hard work and success, simply be a more desirable destination than Duke? A BCS could never fall below C- still, but which BCS school became an A+ would finally be decided by results and by history, rather than the world's opinion in the RL equivalent of 1960.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/29/2011 7:42:00 AM (view original):
Well, that's a fair argument, though the situation now is that a small group of the rich get richer, rather than just one or two. But the example I mentioned -- Illinois -- in the 45 seasons before my example, they made 14 NTs: 5 1st rounds, 3 2nds, 3 s16 and 3 e8. They are 84th all-time in winning %, with more losing than winning seasons. If Duke did that, and then in the year 2056 we said, well, they've made the first or second round 5 of the last 6 years, no one would be saying how they'd finally reascended back their original glory of a half-century ago.

Why not finally do away with baseline prestige for schools, but keep it for conferences? It would still maintain the order of the game -- there would never be a world where the Metro constantly dominated the ACC -- but would still allow for gonzagas, while also allowing for the fact than in some worlds, Florida state would, through years of hard work and success, simply be a more desirable destination than Duke? A BCS could never fall below C- still, but which BCS school became an A+ would finally be decided by results and by history, rather than the world's opinion in the RL equivalent of 1960.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/29/2011 7:42:00 AM (view original):
Well, that's a fair argument, though the situation now is that a small group of the rich get richer, rather than just one or two. But the example I mentioned -- Illinois -- in the 45 seasons before my example, they made 14 NTs: 5 1st rounds, 3 2nds, 3 s16 and 3 e8. They are 84th all-time in winning %, with more losing than winning seasons. If Duke did that, and then in the year 2056 we said, well, they've made the first or second round 5 of the last 6 years, no one would be saying how they'd finally reascended back their original glory of a half-century ago.

Why not finally do away with baseline prestige for schools, but keep it for conferences? It would still maintain the order of the game -- there would never be a world where the Metro constantly dominated the ACC -- but would still allow for gonzagas, while also allowing for the fact than in some worlds, Florida state would, through years of hard work and success, simply be a more desirable destination than Duke? A BCS could never fall below C- still, but which BCS school became an A+ would finally be decided by results and by history, rather than the world's opinion in the RL equivalent of 1960.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/29/2011 7:42:00 AM (view original):
Well, that's a fair argument, though the situation now is that a small group of the rich get richer, rather than just one or two. But the example I mentioned -- Illinois -- in the 45 seasons before my example, they made 14 NTs: 5 1st rounds, 3 2nds, 3 s16 and 3 e8. They are 84th all-time in winning %, with more losing than winning seasons. If Duke did that, and then in the year 2056 we said, well, they've made the first or second round 5 of the last 6 years, no one would be saying how they'd finally reascended back their original glory of a half-century ago.

Why not finally do away with baseline prestige for schools, but keep it for conferences? It would still maintain the order of the game -- there would never be a world where the Metro constantly dominated the ACC -- but would still allow for gonzagas, while also allowing for the fact than in some worlds, Florida state would, through years of hard work and success, simply be a more desirable destination than Duke? A BCS could never fall below C- still, but which BCS school became an A+ would finally be decided by results and by history, rather than the world's opinion in the RL equivalent of 1960.

Posted by girt25 on 6/28/2011 10:51:00 PM (view original):
Jeff, I debate this all the time w. a buddy of mine who plays HD. He takes your side, and I play devil's advocate, which goes a little something like this:

If prestige worked more like real life and there were significantly fewer teams with elite prestige, it would be horrible for HD. The elite prestige teams would absolutely destroy everyone. It would be the ultimate rich-get-richer scenario.

It may not be exactly true that the very few elite teams would end-up dominating. I don't to know much about the current state of upper-level DI recruiting, but as long as the amount of high quality recruits remained larger than the capacity of those few elite teams then the B prestige schools would still have the opportunities to compete against them. To me, it would seem that having 14 A+ prestige schools would be more likely to create the rich-get-richer situation you previously hinted at because the player capacity of 14 teams is much greater than that of 6 or 7 teams.