Lizak if you are discussing strictly the extra boosts that elite schools get I wish they would be done away with.

Why are you kicking Gonzaga, Providence, Charlotte and Tulane out of conferences that they actually belong to? That doesn't seem to solve any problems.

True, but if you're going to make every conference 12, there has to be some realignment - and Gonzaga makes the most sense for PAC-10 expansion in basketball, Providence in the A-10 makes more sense than S.Florida in the Sun Belt (at least to me), plus with 16 in the Big East, 4 teams have to miss out, and Charlotte used to be in CUSA and Tulane would have rivals in the Sun Belt with all the other LA teams. OK, so it's not perfect, just an idea.

Lizak, I understand where you are coming from but there are always going to be those coaches who can't shake the real world from their brain when they play HD. As long as the teams are labeled Duke, or UNC or Kansas that is what many coaches expect. If the teams were labeled Chessboard Univ or Tornado State it still probably wouldn't help because they could still see what city the team is located in. Maybe the best solution is to eliminate DI prestige altogether and make it like DII/DIII. Somehow I just don't see that making everyone happy though.

Weena, what do you think about the thought that I brought up? I think that that might be the closest way to get everyone on the same page... I agree that there needs to be a bit of RL in the prestiges of some schools but I also think that Duke that hasn't won 10 games for 10 years straight doesn't deserve to be in the B range of prestiges...

I know what you are saying Weena. It's more attractive if the world feels normal with most of the programs at the top the ones we expect to be there. But it's also frustrating when it limits the players too much.

I think there's a sweet spot somewhere in there. I don't think the current design will ever find that spot.

I would agree that after a given amount of time the baseline should probably be changed. I think the ceiling and floor of the various conferences might be the way to approach it. IIRC, no team in the ACC can drop below B+ and that shouldn't be right. I know they have all the TV contracts and huge attendance etc. but I think a C- might be more fair. Likewise, the ceiling of some of the smaller conferences could be raised. That doesn't change any individual school's baseline but it would certainly give them more room to grow (or fall).

Clemson (Allen) was awful before Kelby took over, they fell all the way to a C (granted, that required two consecutive years with 6 combined wins).

One idea I've always wanted to see explored was that each coach has his own prestige. So the combination of school prestige and coach prestige determines the recruiting effects.

The school might be hard to raise or fall much beyond a certain amount, but a great coach brings up a program and a bad coach takes it down. But as soon as the coach moves on, the schools that have great programs will recover, where the schools that were really just the coach, fall back to mediocrity.

I believe it has many parallels in real life.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/28/2010

Instead of quoting the few people who have said how impossible it is to improve prestige of a school far beyond its baseline, you're wrong.

Is it easy? No, is it possible, yes without a doubt. It takes more then 1 school / coach to do it but it is possible. I will find a link and add it to the end of this post to my Weber State team that you can use to look at the rest of the conference and their past prestiges to see it in action.

Also, it is tough to get beyond the A- range, but why is that so bad? Would anyone consider Gonzaga IRL more then a B+/A- range school? I wouldn't.

I agree on many points stated, my biggest thing is that I believe baseline prestige should start to change after 20 ish years of a world and use a smaller and smaller portion of 'Real Life Baseline' and more and more of a schools 'WIS Resume' to create some sort of new baseline for a school that helps dictate where the teams prestige lies on the A-F scale.

Weber State link

We had numerous coaches who did a fantastic job at their schools, gfox, davey, mets, uch, indiansrck, ams, hbmerlin, gomiami, naufan, gw and trustme. It is my all time favorite conference I have played in in HD.

that school seems like a bad example as it was in a new world which didn't have much Big 6 competition when you built the conference (i'm guessing here based upon the seasons you were in during your success). if so, then getting "good" vs. sim competition certainly makes the discussed challenge much easier. you also had a conference full of knowledgable coaches who have played this game at a high level for some time which helped with recruiting cash and conference prestige. not to take away from your accomplishment but its just not the same as the discussion which seemed to be based upon a mid to low level conference team in an established world. much different discussion imo.

if there wasn't an easier route to continued success then why did you and the other coaches leave if you could truly compete with the Big 6 conferences over a lengthy period of time? probable answer is that you just can't the way the current system is set up. sure you can have some excellent seasons but overall the conferences with higher baseline prestige have a built-in game advantage. that's just the way the game plays no matter what individual examples are posted.

edit: i posted this after reading page 2 and alot of the subjects i brought up seem to have been discussed.

Why did we leave? Because we all joined that world with specific destinations. I had a very hard time leaving Weber. Yes we all did take a step back when we moved. I never said it wasn't easier at the Power 6 level, so I don't really understand why you are arguing with me about that.

And so what if it was in a new world? The conference kept going at a solid level for seasons after many had . I guess I don't understand why having knowledgeable coaches takes anything away from it? The fact is we proved that it can be done.

Have you ever recruited in a new world? It isn't nearly as easy as you make it out to seem. For the first few years it is very very hard to shake any Simmy from anyone because of the vast prestige difference along with the fact that sims are allowed to recruit nation-wide with no penalty, unlike human teams.

And if we had all stayed I guarantee you that the conference would still be at where it was then, today. Again I already stated earlier that it takes more then 1 coach to keep a team in the A range easily in a lower conference, since conference prestige plays a roll and that is an average of the entire conferences individual teams prestige's. So I don't think your question on why we all has any weight what-so-ever.

Quote: Originally posted by namshub on 1/28/2010edit:  i posted this after reading page 2 and alot of the subjects i brought up seem to have been discussed. 

Gotcha, I likely just addressed them again! haha

Most things have been discussed.

Lizak, read my reply a couple pages back about La Salle and St Bonnies in IBA. Proves your "theory" wrong.

pork, the A-10 in this game is darn near a 7th BCS conference. I think Lizak's comment is definitely on the money when applied to the overwhelming majority of non-BCS teams.

His comment was that a non-bcs school could not maintain success. La Salle and St Bonnies in IBA prove that wrong. "darn near a..." has no significance.