Taken from one of my survey answers:

I'd like to co-pick Job Search and School Prestige.  What I've seen a lot of lately is coaches building up a midmajor (or lower - Dalter at Montana) to a good prestige, only to have the school go Sim when they leave because everyone who's qualified is also qualified for schools like Wisconsin, and it's so damn hard to fight against a low baseline prestige.  In relatively full worlds, schools should lower their standards a bit to assure that they stay coached.

But I'd love to see a true float - maybe instead of baselining schools to their 2003 RL prestige, baseline them to a cross between their 2003 RL prestige and, say, their HD prestige for the last ten seasons.  Real-life Gonzagas and Memphises shouldn't only be possible at Gonzaga and Memphis - if a coach takes Navy to the Sweet 16 for five years straight, Navy should start acting like it actually has some recruiting clout.

The fact is, RL Butler would be impossible in HD because unless Brad Stevens gets them to the Final Four every year, they're going to have a tough time beating out, say, Oregon for recruits.

and RL Butler won't remain an Elite Eight team in real life either and won't beat out Big 6 schools for many recruits in RL either just based upon this year's run.  What happened to George Mason after their Final Four run?  History and conference affiliation still play in RL more than your taking into account.  Don't disagree with your ten-year run and floating prestige argument just your last paragraph which is misplaced imo. 

George Mason was a one-and-done; Butler's has had quite a bit of success in recent years.

But my last paragraph is definitely weaker than the others.  Maybe instead, we should be a little more willing to let the A and A+ -baseline schools fall as far as a B or a B- if they consistently suck.


Better idea: make it easier to get fired at an A+ prestige school.  If you don't make the Sweet Sixteen twice every four years, you should really be gone.

Nam, Memphis with Calipari was in the running for any type of recruit that a traditional power might have been (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky) recruiting.  Yes?

Well, we do offer booster gifts for the Calipari's of HD.  On a serious note, I agree that the way prestige operates is not great.  I don't think I would completely abandon the baseline prestige, but it could be loosened up some more.  I'm also concerned with the 4 season evaluation period, because that causes some confusion and frustration.

Posted by cornfused on 7/13/2010 4:15:00 PM (view original):
George Mason was a one-and-done; Butler's has had quite a bit of success in recent years.

But my last paragraph is definitely weaker than the others.  Maybe instead, we should be a little more willing to let the A and A+ -baseline schools fall as far as a B or a B- if they consistently suck.


Better idea: make it easier to get fired at an A+ prestige school.  If you don't make the Sweet Sixteen twice every four years, you should really be gone.

I'm all for ramping up firings, but your last paragraph seems a bit of an itchy trigger finger. If that criteria was used in real life, Jim Boeheim, Jim Calhoun and Bruce Weber all would have been fired in 2008, Tom Izzo would have been In Jeopardy in 2008 and Coach K would have been In Jeopardy in 2009.

yes rails, with booster gifts being an option Memphis can in HD too (that would be like RL). 

don't get me wrong here i think that prestige should have a little more float and should be based on more than the last 4 seasons.  sustained success at a mid-major should open up some avenues to better recruits but i like how the overall landscape of HD somewhat mirrors that of RL.  its not spot on but in the tourney (Sweet 16 and beyond)  you normally have the power conferences and then some upstarts from mid-majors.  not the same upstarts year after year but they are there.  its individual preference i guess.  conference prestige should play in my opinion. 

the reward of success at a mid-major is currently the availabilty to get a Big 6 job (they are more available now than ever).  either you take it or you can continue on at the mid-major pretty much guaranteeing yourself a bid each year out of your conference. 

i don't think there should be built-in prestige for teams within each conference (Va. Tech should be the same as UNC)  and all schools in that conference should have the same baseline.  the way it is now, it is often harder to rebuild from a lower tier school (that has a low prestige) within the Big 6 than it is to rebuild a mid-major and make the NT due to the ability to win more conference games and the conference tourney.  not crying for Big 6 coaches but that has been my experience.

i still like the game at this point and i probably won't leave due to the game engine etc.  i'll leave because i'll get bored at some point although that hasn't happened yet.  also, the product that WIS has in HBD is simply a better product and is getting more of my attention now.  they do compete against themselves somewhat. 

wow!  I AM NOT seble. LOL.  that was amazing.  we must've been typing at the same time. 

I think boosters need to be revamped I have used them for a few seasons and need to be better utlilized like real life.

Lengthen the 4 year evaluation period..... make it 8.   Tweek the baseline presitge just a little bit to make it less powerful (but a marginal change).   Maybe add in a coach pretige based on NT wins.    Then you've just about got it.