Baseline Prestige - No dog in this fight Topic

sublightd
Posts: 220 (0)
Hall of Famer
315 2
Prospect
Posted by mullycj on 12/7/2011 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2011 9:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by sublightd on 12/6/2011 12:28:00 AM (view original):
I've also pondered keeping baseline prestige the same, but giving FSS for free to everyone, with no distance advantages. The top players would still be recruited by top schools, but it wouldn't be the lottery it seems now. As it is, I sit and pray every rollover that the overall number 1 is 10 miles from me when really as an A+ school I should have a shot no matter where he is.
I have proposed nationlized recruiting in the past too, but could you imagine the way some of these conferences gang up to make post season money, the ACC in allen might get all 50 of the top 50 if you nationalized recruiting?
Agreed - I cringe when I see the proposals of many users in these type threads.  
Well, in reality you don't know how players and the game might react. It's easier to stick with the status quo. Truth is, we kind of already have this system with international recruits. I can see recruiting would get even more cutthroat and new strategies not needed to be used before would have to be developed to meet the changes.

I agree that the above named scenario is highly likely. But I trust the player base to combat it as well.
12/8/2011 1:48 AM
swiners
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
178
Prospect
Here is my 2 cents: 
1) Update current baseline prestiges to more reflect real life and re-evaulate on a 10 season rolling basis.
2) No ceiling of prestige for any school but much harder to maintain that for a mid-major or lower school.
3) More firings of coaches at high baseline prestige schools as they are held to a much higher standard.

12/8/2011 8:52 AM
ryrun
Posts: 452 (0)
Hall of Famer
96
Rookie
Posted by reisel on 12/7/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ryrun on 12/6/2011 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 12/5/2011 6:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by reisel on 12/4/2011 3:43:00 PM (view original):
As a professional programmer, I can tell you that trying to have different rules for different worlds would be a maintenance nightmare. In addition, how are you going to explain these different rules to new potential players who don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about? No, the rules need to be the same in all worlds.

So if JUST the prestige calculator is different, it'd still be a nightmare?

Also, you'd have 5 "replicant universe" worlds where you explain that the "conference powers are similar to that in real life." and 5 "parallel universe" worlds where "conference powers are completely up to the coaches' success over time"
Definitely wouldn't be a nightmare if it were coded correctly... should actually be quite simple, the more I think about it and how I'd do it.

I like the idea of a 10-year rolling system.  The idea of HD having to have this particular connection with the real world doesn't make sense to me.  I understand why they did it initially, but to have that decision still impacting the game today isn't very logical.  Things change over time, reputations of schools move up and down with time.. WIS should be able to reflect that and have a moving baseline.

Implementing the change originally is not hard; it's what happens afterwards. You have to remember to fix bugs in two different versions. You have to make sure that you don't copy the wrong file to the wrong place. All it takes is one slipup and you've got a real mess.

You're over complicating it... you could (and should) still have one engine with two different logic trees for baseline.  Make a configuration key for the worlds with the new logic or create a simple XML file to parse through and make the logic choose its baseline calculation based on those settings (for the old method, it would be static, for the new method there would have to be a calculation).  It's not like you're changing the impacts of tempo or positioning on the various defensive sets.

To create two separate engines with different file sets just to have different baseline logic would be insane and you would deserve the big mess, in my opinion.
12/8/2011 8:53 AM
treyomo
Posts: 405 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 4 3 1 251 362 7
Prospect
I would be against adjusting baselines based on what has happened in the real life NCAA. To me, the solution is simple - raise the ceiling on all non Big 6 schools to an A or A-. A successful small school would be rewarded for continued success to better compete for top recruits, but the elite schools that maintain high levels of success would always keep an advantage, albeit smaller. If an elite North Carolina starts missing the tourney regularly, their prestige would drop in line with a successful small school.
12/8/2011 9:01 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by treyomo on 12/8/2011 9:01:00 AM (view original):
I would be against adjusting baselines based on what has happened in the real life NCAA. To me, the solution is simple - raise the ceiling on all non Big 6 schools to an A or A-. A successful small school would be rewarded for continued success to better compete for top recruits, but the elite schools that maintain high levels of success would always keep an advantage, albeit smaller. If an elite North Carolina starts missing the tourney regularly, their prestige would drop in line with a successful small school.
I disagree, a little.  I think we should adjust the big 6 schools some.  There are a lot of baselines that are out of whack, and the conferences should be made more equal.  The ACC has better baselines than the Big East and Big Ten, and that should not be the case.  I would like to see a system where the true powerhouse schools are A's, all the other big 6 schools are B's and then the mid majors are lower.

We can argue a little over who the A's are, but a list off the top of my head:   UCLA, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan State, Kentucky, Florida, Duke, UNC, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse.  That would be a start.  Maybe pick 2-4 schools from each big conference.  But having the whole ACC at A- or better while the SEC is at a B is based on 2002 or something which is dumb.  The big10 is killing the ACC in the challenge these days and having the baselines the other way is just dumb.
12/8/2011 9:38 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
The problem with adjusting baselines is twofold --

1. It's just a bandaid fix because their real life prestiges will still continue to change and evolve.
2. People have selected teams with expectations for a certain baseline.Yanking the rug out from under them isn't the way to go. (Not to mention rewarding others who only qualifed for teams with a certain baseline prestige, and then they hit the jackpot and have those arbitrarily bumped up.)

So I don't think that solves much, and certainly creates additional problems.

Reinsel, the real problem that needs to be addressed isn't between one BCS school or conference to the next. From world-to-world, different conferences are dominant
The real problem is the current status of the non-BCS schools relative to the big boys, and that's really what needs to be addressed.  
12/8/2011 10:13 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by girt25 on 12/8/2011 10:14:00 AM (view original):
The problem with adjusting baselines is twofold --

1. It's just a bandaid fix because their real life prestiges will still continue to change and evolve.
2. People have selected teams with expectations for a certain baseline.Yanking the rug out from under them isn't the way to go. (Not to mention rewarding others who only qualifed for teams with a certain baseline prestige, and then they hit the jackpot and have those arbitrarily bumped up.)

So I don't think that solves much, and certainly creates additional problems.

Reinsel, the real problem that needs to be addressed isn't between one BCS school or conference to the next. From world-to-world, different conferences are dominant
The real problem is the current status of the non-BCS schools relative to the big boys, and that's really what needs to be addressed.  
I don't disagree, but one of the ways to solve the BCS to non-BCS gap is to bring down the baselines of the BCS schools, and I think that is a better idea than raising the non-BCS schools.  The Virginia/Georgia Tech NC State/Cincy/Stanford type schools with A- prestiges could be brought down to a B and that would help things I think.  If you drive every prestige up, we'll end up with 20 A+ teams and that's no good. 

I'd love to see all the A+ baseline schools go down to an A, and the A-'s go to a B+, the B's can probably stay where they are at. 
12/8/2011 11:35 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I think you guys really do underestimate the effect super conferences have on prestige.  Eliminate the connection between how a conference performs and prestige/recruiting, and I think you'll see immediate positive effects on the competitive balance side. 
12/8/2011 12:03 PM
options
Posts: 67 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 58 11
Prospect
Posted by jslotman on 12/8/2011 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I think you guys really do underestimate the effect super conferences have on prestige.  Eliminate the connection between how a conference performs and prestige/recruiting, and I think you'll see immediate positive effects on the competitive balance side. 
I don't think you can completely eliminate it, but you can definitely reduce the impact.  I don't think you can completely remove it because that makes it quite likely that individual schools can get buried with relation to their conference mates and then those jobs can become graveyards.
12/8/2011 2:23 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I'd rather those jobs become graveyards than have 0-27 seasons and stay at B+. 
12/8/2011 4:08 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 12/8/2011 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 12/8/2011 10:14:00 AM (view original):
The problem with adjusting baselines is twofold --

1. It's just a bandaid fix because their real life prestiges will still continue to change and evolve.
2. People have selected teams with expectations for a certain baseline.Yanking the rug out from under them isn't the way to go. (Not to mention rewarding others who only qualifed for teams with a certain baseline prestige, and then they hit the jackpot and have those arbitrarily bumped up.)

So I don't think that solves much, and certainly creates additional problems.

Reinsel, the real problem that needs to be addressed isn't between one BCS school or conference to the next. From world-to-world, different conferences are dominant
The real problem is the current status of the non-BCS schools relative to the big boys, and that's really what needs to be addressed.  
I don't disagree, but one of the ways to solve the BCS to non-BCS gap is to bring down the baselines of the BCS schools, and I think that is a better idea than raising the non-BCS schools.  The Virginia/Georgia Tech NC State/Cincy/Stanford type schools with A- prestiges could be brought down to a B and that would help things I think.  If you drive every prestige up, we'll end up with 20 A+ teams and that's no good. 

I'd love to see all the A+ baseline schools go down to an A, and the A-'s go to a B+, the B's can probably stay where they are at. 
Well, sure. But the suggestion was to mold prestiges to current college hoops. That would mean some BCS prestiges go up, and others go down, which is what we were talking about. If you just want to move some down, well, I guess that could be one step towards achieving things. But to me, it's just an artificial bandaid and no less accurate or silly than the current system.

But I think if you just make prestige less tied into baseline and conference success, and make it more possible for non-BCS teams to increase their prestige, the issue is really solved without trying to artificially monkey around with baselines.
12/8/2011 10:58 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie

half dozen or 6 apiece, baseline and conference prestige has too big an effect on things, and results not enough.  A longer window (6 seasons) would help, and I think that conference prestige is more a problem than baseline, on both the holding the little guy down and proping the big guys up.

12/8/2011 11:10 PM
rak
Posts: 59 (0)
Hall of Famer
19 1 156 2 1
Prospect
Could someone please point me to the baseline prestige table?  Am mulling a return to the game, and in some worlds qualify for a number of D1 teams so would like to get a sense for what I am getting into.
12/8/2011 11:35 PM
◂ Prev 1234
Baseline Prestige - No dog in this fight Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.