With all this(admittedly fun conversation) about firings and different proposals that have come out since Adam released the impending apocalypse called Firings return, something came to my thoughts. So now there is additional risk as you move up the NCAA proverbial food chain because you have a more prestigious program.

So what? Whats the BENEFIT of having such a program if there is no benefit other than the name of the school. "I am coach soandso and I coach UNC". But Lets say a mid major has been dominating their world and they have the same prestige. But theres little to no risk about being fired so once you get a program successful why bother moving up?

So the question put to the universe is : should there be a benefit if you decide to take on the risk of a school thats in the new classification - and if so - what should it be?

Q: Why are firings being implemented?

A: To open “dream jobs” from inactivity and longtime coaches sitting on a coveted position without achieving expected results.

The dream jobs factor in HD isn’t changing. More coaches here dream of UConn or UNC than they do mid majors. For me, personally, the answer to your question is that there isn’t a benefit to “moving up”. I’d be happy with a perennial NT tournament team and maintaining a threat for deep runs at a “no name” school.

I don’t think most other coaches feel that way.

Well because baseline prestige still exists, there can be a pretty significant benefit, and that’s part of the problem. The changes rolled out 4+ years ago with HD 3.0 addressed a lot of he old log jam problems, increasing the competitiveness of mid-majors in the first place. It is completely plausible now to compete from mid-major and even low D1 conferences, where that wasn’t true (except in some very specific and unique circumstances) prior to 3.0 launch.

I’d be MUCH more in favor of a revamp of the way prestige works, especially the baseline concept. Being a “what if” universe, I’ve always wanted a system where long term prestige was a lot more pliable than it is in this game, where a Gonzaga, Villanova, or Baylor could rise (and an Illinois could fall) based on the events in *this* universe.

I've had my dream job -Maryland - in several worlds. Would enjoy that even if didnt have baseline prestige locked in the early 2000's

Also have enjoyed several other schools - places in good conferences or with unique challenges.

Lots of ways to enjoy, but agree the big names are a major draw.

I have never in any world, under any name, coached UNC or Duke..........This is not an accident.

I agree with looking at baseline prestige. Teams shouldn’t retain a certain status after year’s or even decades of sub 5 win seasons just because. As to the original conversation, big programs already have loads of advantages. Big conference, prestige, fear factor,etc.

I love baseline as it is myself. I've always been a believer in "the game needs something to work towards". If not, you have a game of just wandering. Free roaming. And for those of you that want baseline removed completely, coaches that join from here on out will subconsciously view this game different, when they're first here and seeing Valpo and Portland State and Akron with consistent dominance (because great coaches happen to choose there). It will lessen the realistic feel. And I'm sorry that's just not AS interesting to the public. When I came here, it just would've lost its appeal upon first look.

I like that it's possible for smaller schools to compete now. It's great. It is a little hard to continue success. But that's good. So when ****** coach B takes over, it crashes and burns like it should.

I tend to feel like everyone is ok with the game and the way it functions now. If anything, maybe make it a tiny tiny bit easier to hold the prestige higher for another season or two when mid majors have success?

Other than that, the real issue is we all wanna fix the Gonzaga situation. The Boston College, Maryland, Illinois prestiges (just random examples I've heard mentioned along the way). If we could magically all agree on all the baselines, to be honest I don't think we'd hear a peep out of this issue.

I feel the system is solid as is and the elites should stay elite. Firings should make that possible if it's implemented the right way

regarding: "the game needs something to work towards".

Building up a program?, post season success?, winning a title? Aren't these things to work towards? To me that's the goal. I shouldn't be forced to move to Power 5 conferences to chase those dreams. If baseline is a recruiting variable, this should show on the recruit. In my admittedly limited experience, it feels like it's an "I win" in recruiting when two schools are of differing Baselines. Doesn't seem to matter if your VH and their lower than VH at all or even if they don't have big conference.

Posted by topdogggbm on 6/7/2021 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I love baseline as it is myself. I've always been a believer in "the game needs something to work towards". If not, you have a game of just wandering. Free roaming. And for those of you that want baseline removed completely, coaches that join from here on out will subconsciously view this game different, when they're first here and seeing Valpo and Portland State and Akron with consistent dominance (because great coaches happen to choose there). It will lessen the realistic feel. And I'm sorry that's just not AS interesting to the public. When I came here, it just would've lost its appeal upon first look.

I like that it's possible for smaller schools to compete now. It's great. It is a little hard to continue success. But that's good. So when ****** coach B takes over, it crashes and burns like it should.

I tend to feel like everyone is ok with the game and the way it functions now. If anything, maybe make it a tiny tiny bit easier to hold the prestige higher for another season or two when mid majors have success?

Other than that, the real issue is we all wanna fix the Gonzaga situation. The Boston College, Maryland, Illinois prestiges (just random examples I've heard mentioned along the way). If we could magically all agree on all the baselines, to be honest I don't think we'd hear a peep out of this issue.

I feel the system is solid as is and the elites should stay elite. Firings should make that possible if it's implemented the right way

If it was to follow your reasoning, and I’m not saying it’s not valid, the game is at a crossroads, and really has been stuck here for a while. It needs to decide what it’s going to be - a game that stays up to date and looks very much like the constantly updated EA offerings (except sim-only), where real-life changes are followed by in-game changes, to conferences, divisions, etc; or a game that is truly its own “what-if” fantasy sports universe. If the latter, to be frank, it needs to ignore your concerns, and the thoughts about the kinds of players who may be immediately turned off by the thought of Gonzaga not being a powerhouse, or Maryland in the ACC, or South Dakota State and Abilene Christian in D2. It needs to return to its roots and make the best fantasy universe it can make *at least for the 10 existing worlds. (New worlds, or a new iteration of the game can be a whole different conversation).

If the former, well it’s going to be a ton a work, and probably require a major code re-write, as I understand it, because of how the schedules work.

In any case, right now it’s not optimizing either side.

I am okay with firings and will be looking at teams in different tiers for the challenge. I think movement is good for the game whether it is in coaches or other aspects.

I understand there will be a chance for me to be fired at a job I wanted and I accept that risk.

I always liked the idea of a fluid baseline that is based on the last 25-30 seasons every year. Take out the one furthest away which is at the bottom, bump them all down a spot, and insert the latest IRL season. For a 25 season baseline might look like: last five IRL seasons count for 30%, seasons 6-10 years ago count for 25%, season 11-15 20%, 16-20 15%, and 21-25 is 10%. Frustrating for some but expands the whatif to another level

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 6/8/2021 11:23:00 AM (view original):
I am okay with firings and will be looking at teams in different tiers for the challenge. I think movement is good for the game whether it is in coaches or other aspects.

I understand there will be a chance for me to be fired at a job I wanted and I accept that risk.

I always liked the idea of a fluid baseline that is based on the last 25-30 seasons every year. Take out the one furthest away which is at the bottom, bump them all down a spot, and insert the latest IRL season. For a 25 season baseline might look like: last five IRL seasons count for 30%, seasons 6-10 years ago count for 25%, season 11-15 20%, 16-20 15%, and 21-25 is 10%. Frustrating for some but expands the whatif to another level

I'm all for a fluid and changing baseline. That happens in real life and I don't need HD to mimic real life.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/7/2021 7:00:00 PM (view original):
Well because baseline prestige still exists, there can be a pretty significant benefit, and that’s part of the problem. The changes rolled out 4+ years ago with HD 3.0 addressed a lot of he old log jam problems, increasing the competitiveness of mid-majors in the first place. It is completely plausible now to compete from mid-major and even low D1 conferences, where that wasn’t true (except in some very specific and unique circumstances) prior to 3.0 launch.

I’d be MUCH more in favor of a revamp of the way prestige works, especially the baseline concept. Being a “what if” universe, I’ve always wanted a system where long term prestige was a lot more pliable than it is in this game, where a Gonzaga, Villanova, or Baylor could rise (and an Illinois could fall) based on the events in *this* universe.

I think this is a great idea. Makes absolutely no sense to me why our fictional worlds are tied to the college basketball hierarchy from 15 or so years ago.

It'd ruffle a LOT of feathers though so I doubt they do it, the old coaches who have been at super-high baseline prestige schools forever would have a fit. Can't say I really blame them, but that's how I see it.

i think the pushback would be about re-working baseline to be updated baselines on the fly, giving a lot of coaches major benefits and negatives, for really nothing they did.

i don't think there'd be nearly as much pushback about re-working it to be floating, like shoe is suggesting, even if the original baseline eventually dropped to 0% of the equation

Who remembers life here before they floated prestige, in like season 25 of Naismith? They were 100% stuck at whatever they started at, no matter your success or failures-- the built-in advantages of prestige were brutal.

I took Loyola-Chicago to the Eilte 8 (probably still one of my best accomplishments), and moved to NC State for the higher prestige... they floated it a season or so after that. Still remember that Loyola team ticking above 700 on OVR rating and thinking "man, I'm in business". Different world.