I'd say it's technically false because it's not prestige in the context of what we are talking about here. It's also not called prestige.

Oh, I agree with you on all accounts. Implementing the suggestions in this thread would fix alot.

Prestige in D1 should be a combination of school success and conference strength. A school like Gonzaga no matter how good they do will never be on the level of the best BCS schools because of the rest of their conference. But the fact that conferences have caps on high their prestige can be which therefore caps how good the prestige of their members can be is a bad system for a "Whatif" game.

However if eventually if St. Mary's and San Diego became good enough that they themselves were fringe top 15 teams every season and then 1 or 2 other schools made appearances in the top 25 every season then that conference would become a power and Gonzaga could be on the level of the best Pac-10 schools. The thing is, in real life that isn't possible in this game it is.

If there is a conference like the one dalter is in where multiple teams are among the elite every season than there is no reason why teams shouldn't be able to elevate to truely elite status. The fact is having as much tourney success as Dalter's conference has had would put the conference in the national spotlight and earn them tons of money which would allow them to upgrade their facilities so they won't have to play in the same 7500 seat arena that was built in 1953. Do you realize how much money a school would get from 2 Elite 8 and 2 Final Four appearances? Then when you have other schools in the same conference consistenly making the tourney and winning games and another team winning the title the amount of money th econference made would be tremendous.

Damnit, I said the next person who disaparaged Dahlberg Arena was going to have to engage in fisticuffs! kmasonbox, prepare to me Jack Johnson and Tim O'Leary!

DYK: Dahlberg can be converted to seat 5,500 for a traditionally staged concert.

The easy fix is to remove the prestige caps -- and keep the prestige floors.

What Montana in Allen has done would make it a destination school regardless of its conference's success or any other factor. Right now it's a D baseline prestige. I don't see why it can't stay there, just without any cap. With its recent success, Montana should be A+ right now. If it goes 13-15 next season, I don't think a precipitous drop would be unrealistic. (North Carolina can have a losing season, I don't think Montana can.)

I've done some quick research and can't find any team in either world I'm in that's gone: E8, E8, F4, F4. Clearly that doesn't get a D baseline school to A+, would it get a C baseline school there? If so, then my simple proposal is that all schools be treated as C prestige for their upper end, and their current baseline for their lower end.

Quote: Originally Posted By drsnell on 3/20/2010The easy fix is to remove the prestige caps -- and keep the prestige floors.

What Montana in Allen has done would make it a destination school regardless of its conference's success or any other factor. Right now it's a D baseline prestige. I don't see why it can't stay there, just without any cap. With its recent success, Montana should be A+ right now. If it goes 13-15 next season, I don't think a precipitous drop would be unrealistic. (North Carolina can have a losing season, I don't think Montana can.)

I've done some quick research and can't find any team in either world I'm in that's gone: E8, E8, F4, F4. Clearly that doesn't get a D baseline school to A+, would it get a C baseline school there? If so, then my simple proposal is that all schools be treated as C prestige for their upper end, and their current baseline for their lower end

LSU in Naismith went E8, F4, F4, F4 seasons 35-38 under meany38 and were only an A prestige.

my understanding is prestige is determined partially where you started from, a b- geting to a a- with a D base is not unrealistic. 4 MORE years of success, the a- start, and maybe an a or a+ is possible, is that real life, I think it might be. Is it good for the game, depends on ones outlook, the everyone and everything is equal approach works very nicely for soccer moms, maybe is good for HD too. Anyhow, this issue will look like guppies swimming in a pond compared to what is coming up.

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010With pure floating prestige based on just the last 4 seasons, you wouldn't have much of a reason to leave your first Div I school. The Div I career aspect is interesting and decisions involved in what type of school to move to within Div I doesn't really exist in Div II and adds to game. Now I'm not a fan of the tethering being stuck to 2002 or whenever, but wish it was based the long-term history (say 20-30 seasons) of the world. So you could get Montana to A+, but it would take a pretty long time. When I think of A+ prestige, I think of schools that could get top coaches/recruits even after a couple bad seasons (Kentucky, UNC).  There's just too many examples of schools that have a short period of success (UNLV), but quickly regress. The baseline prestige shouldn't trump actual results in the long-term, but should move slowly over time. The trade-off should be that higher baseline prestige should be firing people much more quickly that they are currently. (Also, please add attractiveness of the cheerleaders to arena/tv/money as prestige components. I was looking at Cornell's cheerleaders today and could just tell they weren't a big-time school.) 

I would generally agree, however I noticed that Siena's cheerleaders were relatively attractive. I even thought at the time that it was unusual...

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010With pure floating prestige based on just the last 4 seasons, you wouldn't have much of a reason to leave your first Div I school. The Div I career aspect is interesting and decisions involved in what type of school to move to within Div I doesn't really exist in Div II and adds to game. Now I'm not a fan of the tethering being stuck to 2002 or whenever, but wish it was based the long-term history (say 20-30 seasons) of the world. So you could get Montana to A+, but it would take a pretty long time. When I think of A+ prestige, I think of schools that could get top coaches/recruits even after a couple bad seasons (Kentucky, UNC).  There's just too many examples of schools that have a short period of success (UNLV), but quickly regress. The baseline prestige shouldn't trump actual results in the long-term, but should move slowly over time. The trade-off should be that higher baseline prestige should be firing people much more quickly that they are currently. (Also, please add attractiveness of the cheerleaders to arena/tv/money as prestige components. I was looking at Cornell's cheerleaders today and could just tell they weren't a big-time school.) 

Nobody said that we wanted to increase the variablity based purely on the last 4 years, We are talking something like the 10-20 year window of a teams individual worlds history creating a floating baseline prestige, instead of an arbitrary one built in 2004.

Quote: Originally posted by Lizak on 3/20/2010I'd say it's technically false because it's not prestige in the context of what we are talking about here.  It's also not called prestige.

It is in the sense of recruiting and job openings, but not directly tied to the schools prestige, which is where i think you all would like it.

Quote: Originally Posted By pottle on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/19/2010

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010

There's a difference between something being broken and you just not liking how it's set up. Montana plays in 7500 seat arena built in 1953. I'm guessing there's not much of a TV deal and the facilities don't match up with VA Tech's. 4 great years wouldn't change that. It's no secret that in HD (as in real life) getting the low Div I teams to highest level of prestige is very difficult. There are 14 schools in Allen with a prestige better than Montana, that sounds about right to me. You've done a great job at Montana, but I'm not sure why you'd think Montana could be an A/A+ prestige without even making a championship game.

I'd be willing to bet that a real life Montana team that goes to 2 straight Final Fours and 4 straight Elite Eights would have sufficient demand for tickets to consider expanding their arena and would have little problem getting the funds to do so. Gonzaga doesn't seem to have a prestige problem despite its conference's lack of a TV contract - in fact, I'd argue that Gonzaga's real life prestige is at least equal to dalter's Montana squad and they haven't had nearly the success dalter has.

Prestige caps (or boosts in the case of bad power conference schools), BY DEFINITION, are against the "what if" spirit of this game. As a world grows, it should develop its own "power conferences" that have no bearing to real life.

Does the fact I can't sign a unicorn to play power forward goes against the "whatif" spirit of the game as well? If you want a level playing field, then play Div II, it's a great game. But I like Div I because it's an uneven playing level. I like the initial challange of building a low Div I team and eventually getting to a top conference and competing against the top coaches in the world. And maybe this is east coast-bias, but I don't see a lot of people wearing Gonzaga gear or watching them on national tv games. I also don't George Mason would have been the new Duke with another deep run or two. The money and TV behind these big name schools are just too powerful.

lol. I tend to agree with pottle - although I feel your pain dalt. you are the 15th best prestige in DI at Montana w/o winning a NC in the last 4 years. Had you advanced to or won a NC game I have no doubt thats an A+ prestige for you (see combalts Delawarre prestige).

You could very well be the high end of the A- whereas reinsel could be the low end of the B spectrum.

I'm not sold on "broken" although I would love to see the baseline more incorporative of the last 10-15 seasons or so.

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/19/2010

Why stop there? Why don't we give the BCS conferences in HD millions of extra recruiting dollars from imaginary TV contracts, football, boosters, etc.? I mean, if we're going to have a sim with an uneven playing field based on criteria totally outside of the boundaries of the sim "universe," why don't we just go all the way with it? Maybe you could even sign your unicorn. :)

You and I obviously have very different ideas of what makes a college basketball sim enjoyable. Personally, I want to finish what I start building and believe you should be able to compete against great coaches without having to go to a BCS program.

Would a real life Montana automatically be another Duke with what dalter achieved? No, but if the Big Sky as a conference matched the accompishments dalter listed above, I cannot believe people wouldn't be demanding a national TV contract for the Big Sky and they'd at least be on their way.

Oh, by the way, I live in the midwest and see plenty of Gonzaga gear. Probably a trendy thing, but I can tell you without question that their appeal extends well beyond the boundaries of Spokane.

my opinion - as you are entitled to yours - is that DII and DIII are boring because of the even playing field. I like the additional challenge of DI based on its built-in conf prestiges.

I also live in the midwest and have never seen a gonzaga jersey - or true fan for that matter. despite UK's medicrity in the recent decade they still have 80000 fans showing up to Blue Orleans this year.

Quote: Originally Posted By Lizak on 3/19/2010

dalter - you are 100% right that the current system is terrible for this type of sim. But the people who can do something about it don't think so.

seble has been looking into this... I know this for fact. It was suggested to him that we get the new sim engine makeover done first and see how the baseline prestige pans out rather than changing the baseline prestige first and then revamping the sim engine. right or wrong... who knows. makes sense to me though. btw - where is that shiney new sim engine?!?!

I'm only in two worlds now but looking at the A+ to A- team prestiges (about 25 teams or so) in each world suggests that there are a respectable amount of non-elite bcs' making the cut. I know Delaware was an A+ a few seasons ago so this list will change. flyers Louisianna St team is always on this list. I'd like to see what some of the other worlds look like

In Rupp:

Vanderbilt (the easiest of the SEC to get into when applying)

Texas Tech

Miss St

Texas A&M

Louisianna St

Miss

Gonzaga



Tark rankings are not out yet.

Looking at the Rupp B to B+ range there are a ton of low-DI schools there. This is a huge conference advantage when recruiting at B levels vs the rest of the schools recruiting at D and C levels. This is one reason a school like Montana can stay atop the conf for so long. In the BCS confs the A's are mostly recruiting and playing against B prestiges. Just thought I should bring this up since a by-product of tampering with baselines would make these in-conf gaps larger.

I remember recruiting at Marquette - The horizon and similar conf folk would stay away from me as a A- prestige and it was usually an easy round of recruiting - I won the conf every season and advanced far in the NT. Most of the time I would get the elite recruits but occasionally the more known/prestigous schools like UI and UW (damn you tigerdad ;) would put me back in my place. That seems realistic to me... and good for the game too.

Moy, I was in that conference w. combalt, and even when he won the title w. Delaware he only got up to an A- (I just double checked to make sure).

And here's the thing: I'm not recruiting against C and D level schools, if I was I wouldn't be consistently beating BCS teams in the NT. When I look at other schools before recruiting, I don't even look at what the C/D schools have going on. I look at the Pac-10 schools.

And the fact that there may be a good # of B/B+ schools from non-BCS conferences kind of makes my point. There simply has to be something to meaningfully differentiate between a non-BCS school that has had moderate success with one that's had big-time success. A school that's gone F4/F4/E8/E8 and has made eight straight NT's shouldn't have a prestige that's almost the same as one that's been sporadically in the NT with little or nothing in the way of deep runs.