“If Rutgers is equal to Kansas, we have a game that looks ridiculous to a group of folks.”

Beyond using the most extreme example you can think of, you're also stretching this into an argument no one is making. No one says they need to have the same record. No one says recruits need to ignore differences in the programs’ short and long term histories. Calling the two programs “equal” in this hypothetical is an extreme abuse of logic. The idea here is simply to replace program specific “baseline” prestige with a conference baseline, and let the programs and coaches be responsible for their own “prestigious” achievements beyond that. Kansas and Rutgers are not equal in real life, are they? And yet, the NCAA doesn’t feel the need to manipulate the system to funnel elite recruits to certain programs (we assume, wink wink). They’re not equal because the coaches and players in their histories have made them not equal. That’s how dynasties work.

Wow man. I'm talking about the basic info from before.... both schools having the same baseline. Didn't think I had to explain that with big words

Haha the BC is a great example of current prestige being WAY out of wack.

But Northwestern is trash. One title APPEARANCE ever. Rutgers got screwed this year but they haven't been competitive in forever. I don't think putting those two schools on the same playing field as MSU or even Michigan makes any sense.

Thinking more about the idea of putting them all on equal playing field.. I don't think this makes sense when you look at the purpose of prestige.

Prestige is a recruiting tool that we use to influence a player to sign with our team. It's not JUST success and it's not JUST the history. The other pieces are the training facilities, the arena, the fan factor, etc. Those are all real life advantages that teams like Syracuse has over teams like Boston College. Recruits sign to play for Cuse because of the Melo center, because of the Dome, because they pack 33,000 fans in.

So you bundle all those recruiting factors together and you get 'baseline prestige'.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/20/2020 3:20:00 AM (view original):
Wow man. I'm talking about the basic info from before.... both schools having the same baseline. Didn't think I had to explain that with big words

If you don’t mean to make it sound like you think npb’s plan is to make Rutgers and Kansas look equal, don’t say that. Use whatever size words work for you, but use different ones. The truth is with that very reasonable counter proposal, they would be “equal” in one very small way, a way in which they are already equal in the preference profile of some recruits, for conference strength. We’re saying the concept of baseline, as a tether or rubber band rather than just a starting point, works a lot better with gameplay for a game like this applied to a conference, rather than to individual programs.

I am also saying the schools can keep a concept of “prestige” in some sense, 10-year success profile some recruits will be looking at, and a coach prestige factor that travels with the coach.

To Benis’s point, this game is 100+ seasons in in every world. If CUSE is still in the Melo in 2135, I doubt it will be a draw. Program prestige has a shelf life, and it isn’t hundreds of years. Doggg’s Providence example actually makes this point pretty well.

I don't usually get involved when the heavyweight coaches are having their discussions. You guys get way deeper into the inner workings of the game than I would ever care to. BUT I think shoe is onto something here. Maybe leave the school prestige system alone, as there doesn't seem to be a fair and equitable way to fix it. Instead, as has been suggested, maybe incorporate some kind of change for a school's prestige for the success of the coach they employ. This success can be determined through tournament appearances (and victories), titles, coach of the year awards, etc. It seems there ought to be some appeal to a recruit to play for an accomplished coach beyond just the school that coach is employed by. If Mike Krzyzewski were to leave Duke to become head coach at (insert low prestige team here) do we truly believe that his mere presence there wouldn't attract some higher level talent? I think it would, so maybe there should be some kind of way to factor that in. I will now exit the discussion and let the heavyweights get back to action.

Boxxy - I've long advocated for a coach prestige that you carry with you throughout your career, I think it's a great idea. We KIND OF have this with loyalty but that doesn't really factor in much. I'd love to see a coach prestige factor into recruiting and job changes. TONS of recruits choose based upon the coach rather than the school so that should definitely be a factor beyond just the Long Time coach preference (you can be a terrible coach for 30 seasons and be very good here).

Coaches already generate "coach prestige" by winning, which leads to job offers from schools with increasingly good baseline and existing prestiges, which in turn attracts the recruits.

If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother.

What exactly would you change? Do you just want to see a letter grade next to your name? Because an invisible numeric grade certainly already exists and impacts a lot of stuff.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/20/2020 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Coaches already generate "coach prestige" by winning, which leads to job offers from schools with increasingly good baseline and existing prestiges, which in turn attracts the recruits.

If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother.

What exactly would you change? Do you just want to see a letter grade next to your name? Because an invisible numeric grade certainly already exists and impacts a lot of stuff.

Regarding what, exactly, *I* would change, this is what I said: “Remove program prestige altogether. Replace it with a coach prestige that travels with the coach, a bit less strong than current program prestige, but replacing much of that lost power on the recruiting trail. Institute conference prestige tiers, along the lines of what npb outlines.” I would also keep whatever functions as the “success” paradigm recruits use to measure success, for those with that preference. No need for a grade on that. And no, I don’t care much one way or the other if there’s a grade next to a coach’s name denoting the prestige. If I was the developer I would leave it obscured, but I don’t feel strongly about it.

Either that, or leave it alone. In any case, injecting real life “updates” for aesthetic purposes at this point is a non-starter for me.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/20/2020 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Coaches already generate "coach prestige" by winning, which leads to job offers from schools with increasingly good baseline and existing prestiges, which in turn attracts the recruits.

If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother.

What exactly would you change? Do you just want to see a letter grade next to your name? Because an invisible numeric grade certainly already exists and impacts a lot of stuff.

"impacts a lot of stuff."

I mean... not really. It impacts getting a different job. That's it.

Let's say for example I'm a baller a$$ coach at UNLV. I've won a couple titles, made the NT for 30 seasons straight. Then I go to Purdue which happens to be a dumpster fire for the past several seasons and is currently sitting at a C prestige. I take over the job, I'm recruiting with a C prestige and that's 'what the recruit sees'. The past baller coach status at UNLV doesn't impact whether or not recruits would want to play for me at Purdue.

"If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother."

You're also 100% wrong about this.

Larry Brown went to SMU in 2013, taking over a butthole squad that hadn't made the tourney since 1993. He signed the #1 player in the class Emmanuel Mudiay in 2014.

Posted by Benis on 8/20/2020 2:38:00 PM (view original):
"If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother."

You're also 100% wrong about this.

Larry Brown went to SMU in 2013, taking over a butthole squad that hadn't made the tourney since 1993. He signed the #1 player in the class Emmanuel Mudiay in 2014.

Maybe they need to add the option to spend some recruiting budget to "hire player's dad" to the coaching staff like Larry Brown did to sign Danny Manning.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/20/2020 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/20/2020 3:20:00 AM (view original):
Wow man. I'm talking about the basic info from before.... both schools having the same baseline. Didn't think I had to explain that with big words

If you don’t mean to make it sound like you think npb’s plan is to make Rutgers and Kansas look equal, don’t say that. Use whatever size words work for you, but use different ones. The truth is with that very reasonable counter proposal, they would be “equal” in one very small way, a way in which they are already equal in the preference profile of some recruits, for conference strength. We’re saying the concept of baseline, as a tether or rubber band rather than just a starting point, works a lot better with gameplay for a game like this applied to a conference, rather than to individual programs.

I am also saying the schools can keep a concept of “prestige” in some sense, 10-year success profile some recruits will be looking at, and a coach prestige factor that travels with the coach.

To Benis’s point, this game is 100+ seasons in in every world. If CUSE is still in the Melo in 2135, I doubt it will be a draw. Program prestige has a shelf life, and it isn’t hundreds of years. Doggg’s Providence example actually makes this point pretty well.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I said a word about Providence

our different view point is that you prefer what YOU have done at a school to matter. I don't. If you make Rutgers a champion, I still believe baseline Rutgers should be an C. Because they are a sucky basketball school and if new people join and see a list of schools in the E8 that aren't "the norm", they'll think..... what kinda game is this? Where is Duke and UK and UNC?

I believe the game should have schools you work towards
On the other hand, it's clear that you (shoe) have always been a participation trophy type of guy. Where I'm the type of guy that feels you have to earn that top spot. Making Rutgers more powerful than Kansas should be something earned. Not given

I think it'd be cool if you got a prestige high enough you can teach new moves to your player. Like a C prestige gets you the reverse dunk. While B gets you sky hook. And A gets you through Tomahawk dunk.

Posted by Benis on 8/20/2020 2:38:00 PM (view original):
"If Rick Pitino coaches Iona, he's going to attract some really good kids because he's Rick Pitino, but at the end of the day he's still at Iona so he won't be pulling in a Ball brother."

You're also 100% wrong about this.

Larry Brown went to SMU in 2013, taking over a butthole squad that hadn't made the tourney since 1993. He signed the #1 player in the class Emmanuel Mudiay in 2014.

Cool story. How many minutes did Mudiay play for SMU?

I'm a reasonable guy who is willing to be educated. Got a better example?