George Mason had one freak run. I don't think anyone is advocating something for one freak run, but rather sustained excellence ala Gonzaga. And while Zaga isn't a UNC/Duke type elite, they've clearly elevated themselves to the level of a strong BCS school, as evidenced by the McDonald's recruits they've brought in, and many other recruits where they defeated Pac-10 and Big 12 teams to sign the kid. Clearly, Gonzaga is the model.

I understand where you're trying to go w. your baseline prestige argument. But he's basically saying that the baseline prestige should be based on -- gasp! -- what the team has actually done in that world, rather than what they did awhile ago in real life.

That's why you might have Army as a D in some worlds and an A- in others. That's a true Hoops Dynasty.

Any conference can be an elite one if you fill up all of the coaching slots.

Which is why someone should take over Duquesne to help us get the Ivy league built up!

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 10/22/2009

George Mason had one freak run. I don't think anyone is advocating something for one freak run, but rather sustained excellence ala Gonzaga. And while Zaga isn't a UNC/Duke type elite, they've clearly elevated themselves to the level of a strong BCS school, as evidenced by the McDonald's recruits they've brought in, and many other recruits where they defeated Pac-10 and Big 12 teams to sign the kid. Clearly, Gonzaga is the model.

I understand where you're trying to go w. your baseline prestige argument. But he's basically saying that the baseline prestige should be based on -- gasp! -- what the team has actually done in that world, rather than what they did awhile ago in real life.

That's why you might have Army as a D in some worlds and an A- in others. That's a true Hoops Dynasty.

I would agree that HD shouldn't swing to reward short-term success, but if a mid-major can win consistently, then they should be able to maintain a level of prestige that allows them to compete on a national level. Looking at Lizek's case, there are a couple of things that stand out to me:

1)If you win the NT, your prestige should go to an A+. I don't care if it's only for one season or if its a fluke; if your team makes that run, you should get an A+ prestige regardless of where you were before that season or your baseline prestige.

2)The window for NT results should vary based on result. It seems a little silly that the window for prestige bump from winning the NT doesn't last any longer than exiting in the first round. Can't the impact of results be tiered? So, maybe a 1st round NT lasts 2 seasons but winning it lasts 6.

3) The impact for advancing in the NT should be inversely proportional to your current prestige or the school's history. To a certain extent, success in the NT is a much bigger deal for schools with low prestige than it is for ones with high prestige. If Northwestern (which has never made the NT in real-life) were to make the NT and lose in the first round, it would be a huge success. If that were to happen to Michigan State, it would be a huge failure. HD seems to have it backwards. It appears that schools with higher baseline prestige get bigger and/or faster increases in prestige compared to schools with lower prestige for similar/lesser results. This may not be an accurate perception, but if it is, it should change.

4) At certain grades, your prestige shouldn't drop if you reach the S16. I realize that this is arbitrary, but I think that there is a certain cache to reaching to S16. When most schools get there, their prestige should be protected. Looking at Army, their prestige was a B+, which put them between 23-31 among DI programs. So, I can see where getting to the S16 and seeing their prestige drop would be a troubling.

5) Remove the caps on prestige growth. Dalter's examples of taking a team to the Elite 8 and receiving no prestige growth from a B is ridiculous. I get that the Big Sky isn't an elite conference (coaching Montana in a different world), but that shouldn't completely screw schools from those conferences that achieve on a national level. Once again, moving up to a B+ would only place a school between 23-31 (using Smith numbers)--- hardly an outrageous position for a school that's made the Elite 8.

I think that there are probably flaws with these recommendations, but in general, I think that they might allow the baseline power conferences to maintain their high standing while still rewarding those relatively few mid-majors that are able to achieve long-term success.

pdanao, mostly agreed.

1. This is the one I'd challenge. If you've been just decent and catch fire with a sr/jr dominated team, I agree in a big bump, but not automatically to A+. One big run viewed in a bubble doesn't put you on par with a UNC that's been consistently making deep runs. It just doesn't.

2. In general, they just need to refine (or preferable scrap) the 4-yr window system. It's a relic of the previous regime, and a bad one. Simply put, it doesn't make sense.

3. Agreed. This seems very straightforward. Your prestige should not drop if you make the Sweet 16. I don't care if you've got an A+, a S16 is a fantastic season.

4. If not remove the caps, at least soften them. It's not just the E8 run. The last three seasons we've been a 1, a 2 and a 3 seed in the NT, been to five straight NT's and nine straight postseasons (started by kevthekidd). To be unable to clear a B with that history while BCS teams that only make the postseason every few years have the same prestige is just dumb, and I believe goes against the spirit of HD.

dalter--

As you can see, I added one more item after thinking about the issue :)

A couple of thoughts.

1) I see your point regarding the A+ increase. That being said, I think that it should jump up higher than the bump to A- that Army received after winning the title. Looking at the current RPI rankings in Smith, there are 9 A+ teams and 5 A teams, I think having the current national champion move into that neighborhood makes sense. College basketball is relatively fluid, but winning a national championship should put a program on an elite level, if only for a couple of seasons.

2) I think that we're in agreement that HD needs to do something to take into account the longer-term history of a program. I think that immediate results should matter the most, but to say that a national title means nothing after four seasons or that making the tournament 10 seasons in a row matters as much as only making it four times in a row is a little silly.

3) I might disagree with you on this one. If you're an A+ program, consistent S16 appearances might not be viewed as a success; ask Tubby Smith about that one. However, for schools outside of that rarified air, a S16 appearance should be considered a great year.

4) I think we agree with each other on this one. Soften them, eliminate them, but do something about that.

Winning the National Title should not instantly put you at an A+.

Quote: Originally Posted By pdanao on 10/22/2009
dalter--

As you can see, I added one more item after thinking about the issue :)

A couple of thoughts.

1) I see your point regarding the A+ increase. That being said, I think that it should jump up higher than the bump to A- that Army received after winning the title. Looking at the current RPI rankings in Smith, there are 9 A+ teams and 5 A teams, I think having the current national champion move into that neighborhood makes sense. College basketball is relatively fluid, but winning a national championship should put a program on an elite level, if only for a couple of seasons.

2) I think that we're in agreement that HD needs to do something to take into account the longer-term history of a program. I think that immediate results should matter the most, but to say that a national title means nothing after four seasons or that making the tournament 10 seasons in a row matters as much as only making it four times in a row is a little silly.

3) I might disagree with you on this one. If you're an A+ program, consistent S16 appearances might not be viewed as a success; ask Tubby Smith about that one. However, for schools outside of that rarified air, a S16 appearance should be considered a great year.

4) I think we agree with each other on this one. Soften them, eliminate them, but do something about that.

So more or less what you are saying here is he should have jumped to an A+ due to winning the title and then since he isn't an 'Elite' program he should be allowed to stay there more easily with Sweet 16 apperances?

They can also use conference prestige ONLY as way to keep programs from falling too low, not to limit how high they can climb. I've posted this before, but here is a history that could only rise to an A- in prestige, because of the conference they were in:

27-5, Sweet-16
29-3, Sweet-16
29-3, Sweet-16
26-7, Elite-8
35-0, National Champion
24-8, Sweet-16
31-3, Final-4
30-4, Final-4
29-4, Elite-8

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

You know if the answer to my ticket was that conference baselines are currently a strong part of prestige and that perhaps they might look at them again in the future, I would not have been happy but I would have understood. I would have faced a difficult decision about moving or staying. Instead I get (paraphrased):

Me: Why after those 4 seasons did it drop?

Them: Because your NC dropped off the 4 season window of consideration.

Me: I understand that but the 4 seasons I had would have been good enough in other conferences to maintain a B+.

Them: Conference has only a little to do with it.

Me: So why is it that my success is greater than other schools and they maintain a B+ and I drop?

They: "You can't compare yourself to other schools, because each school is in a unique situation." (Actual quote)

That's sealed it. A complete bunch of BS. I dropped to a B level prestige because I no longer have a NC in the window. That's the answer. I guess I need to win one every 4 years. If I want to stay above a B level.

As much as I liked playing this game, I dislike being treated like an idiot even more strongly. I will play out the string at Army until my seasons are gone. I'm sure they won't miss my money.

Triple OT game to win the conference tournament....and an alley-oops wins it. NICE!

Lizak, I encourage to nicely ask the Level 1 CS person to forward you on to seble, and then see if you can have a rational dialogue with him.

He was the one I was speaking to.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to find that the rules of this game work the way they do. For a game called Hoops Dynasty, the mechanics of the game make it virtually impossible for 80% of the D1 programs to be able to maintain a national level dynasty over the long haul. I was extremely lucky to have such a great run without any down season and look where I ended up after all.

I thought the canvas was blank but I find it it's really a paint by the numbers. Knowing this, I find the game much less interesting.

That's really discouraging to hear Lizak. Kinda makes one rethink the whole HD experience, doesn't it?