“That way It would consistently be ME knocking YOU out of the NT each season!”

Well now that you’ve grown a pair and joined D1, maybe we’ll see if that plays out some day. (:

Basically, if this game was created in 1985, the base prestiges handed out woould include:

A+ would be:
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Memphis State.
Houston
Louisville
UNC.
DePaul

A would be:
UNLV
Temple
UAB

B would be:
Duke
Syracuse
Northeastern
Illinois-Chicago <-- Alfrederick Hughes
East Tennessee State
James Madison

C+plus would be:
Wisconsin
Stanford
UConn
Clemson
Seton Hall
Baylor

D would be:
Gonzaga
Butler
Xavier

And in 2005 with those baseline prestiges, someone would say, why the hell are we playing a game with Illinois-Chicago equal to Duke? And someone would say "it's always been this way, it cannot change. The guy who worked his way up to Northeastern or DePaul or Temple will get mad and it's not fair, and the UAB guy put in his time. Houston is an elite school and it will always be this way."

And you may think, wow, what a weird logic. Why dont we make the Big Six all have the same base prestige, except take 4 of the best and give the A+. And you may ask yourself, this is not my beautiful house, and you may say to yourself, this is not my beautiful wife, and you may say to yourself, well, how did i get here?

Posted by Benis on 8/20/2020 9:53:00 PM (view original):
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.

Maybe you should stick to this concept. Windmills and alley oops and diaper dandies baby! Dook!

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/20/2020 9:53:00 PM (view original):
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.

Maybe you should stick to this concept. Windmills and alley oops and diaper dandies baby! Dook!

I literally lol'ed when i read these two posts.

Posted by npb7768 on 8/21/2020 4:20:00 PM (view original):
I think we all have described our positions pretty thoroughly.

Couple of final points (hopefully) on my end...

- Prestige is absolutely totally relevant in recruiting. It absolutely and completely provides advantages to high-prestige teams. Whether it was even more relevant in 2.0 (not really sure i agree, but whatever) is beside the point. Today in 3.0 prestige is freakin huge.

- Fine, in Big Six world, A+ base prestige can be given to Duke, UK, KU, and UNC. Whatever. But again, there's no real reason for base prestige to be different for any of the middle 68 or 64 teams. They should all have the same A baseline prestige. I understand that people don't agree with me on this.

But I've followed college hoops since 1977 at the age of 9, and in those 43 seasons I've seen basically every one these middle 68 teams rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall... elite teams rise and elite teams fall... i could name basically every team and give you examples... and yes, it includes Rutgers with their 1976 Final Four at the Spectrum, with Creed-Balboa-1 as the undercard.

Based on 43 earth years of watching this sport, in my opinion, there is no need to separate any of these 64 teams with an artificial prestige advantage, based on 2001 to 2005... yes i know why it was done... i don't care... if something has outlived its logic, then change and improve it. Creating "elite" teams from oddball 2005-era results, then not adjusting to at least make things even, is very weird and tough to defend... the only defenses are "it's always been this way", and "human owners of these teams will get mad if things change cuz they worked hard to get to Illinois and Stanford and now it's being changed on them".

And again, there's no question in my mind that high base-prestige provides an enormous, colossal, gargantuan advantage.

Also, i realize that this game isnt likely to change on this topic, and i will still keep playing, and will continue to enjoy it.

Big +1.

Also, just to add, I suspect the whacked out way this game treats “baseline prestige” has also been a prime driver of (what I believe to be) the irrational response so many D1 coaches have to not being able to field complete rosters full of future NBA players. The absurdly significant gap between “A+” teams and the rest of the power conference schools has trained us to think in very unrealistic terms, such that many of us can’t seem to tolerate the kinds of players who comprise the backbone of championship caliber teams in real life. In reality, how many real life teams have had more than 5 future NBA players on their roster at a time? Maybe a handful or two, tops. Likewise, we seem to think these teams are more dominant than they actually are. Kentucky and Kansas have one title each in the last 20 years (1 more than UCLA), fewer than Villanova and Florida. Kansas has like 3 final fours ever. You’re absolutely right that this treatment of baseline prestige has grossly exaggerated the historical differences between the vast majority of teams, for no good reason.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2020 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 8/21/2020 4:20:00 PM (view original):
I think we all have described our positions pretty thoroughly.

Couple of final points (hopefully) on my end...

- Prestige is absolutely totally relevant in recruiting. It absolutely and completely provides advantages to high-prestige teams. Whether it was even more relevant in 2.0 (not really sure i agree, but whatever) is beside the point. Today in 3.0 prestige is freakin huge.

- Fine, in Big Six world, A+ base prestige can be given to Duke, UK, KU, and UNC. Whatever. But again, there's no real reason for base prestige to be different for any of the middle 68 or 64 teams. They should all have the same A baseline prestige. I understand that people don't agree with me on this.

But I've followed college hoops since 1977 at the age of 9, and in those 43 seasons I've seen basically every one these middle 68 teams rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall... elite teams rise and elite teams fall... i could name basically every team and give you examples... and yes, it includes Rutgers with their 1976 Final Four at the Spectrum, with Creed-Balboa-1 as the undercard.

Based on 43 earth years of watching this sport, in my opinion, there is no need to separate any of these 64 teams with an artificial prestige advantage, based on 2001 to 2005... yes i know why it was done... i don't care... if something has outlived its logic, then change and improve it. Creating "elite" teams from oddball 2005-era results, then not adjusting to at least make things even, is very weird and tough to defend... the only defenses are "it's always been this way", and "human owners of these teams will get mad if things change cuz they worked hard to get to Illinois and Stanford and now it's being changed on them".

And again, there's no question in my mind that high base-prestige provides an enormous, colossal, gargantuan advantage.

Also, i realize that this game isnt likely to change on this topic, and i will still keep playing, and will continue to enjoy it.

Big +1.

Also, just to add, I suspect the whacked out way this game treats “baseline prestige” has also been a prime driver of (what I believe to be) the irrational response so many D1 coaches have to not being able to field complete rosters full of future NBA players. The absurdly significant gap between “A+” teams and the rest of the power conference schools has trained us to think in very unrealistic terms, such that many of us can’t seem to tolerate the kinds of players who comprise the backbone of championship caliber teams in real life. In reality, how many real life teams have had more than 5 future NBA players on their roster at a time? Maybe a handful or two, tops. Likewise, we seem to think these teams are more dominant than they actually are. Kentucky and Kansas have one title each in the last 20 years (1 more than UCLA), fewer than Villanova and Florida. Kansas has like 3 final fours ever. You’re absolutely right that this treatment of baseline prestige has grossly exaggerated the historical differences between the vast majority of teams, for no good reason.

3 final fours, 15, whats the difference :)

i dont really disagree with you or anyone i just don't think it matters enough for how hard of an issue it is to resolve. i like a lot of the ideas and would mostly be fine with any of them, it just seems like a thorny issue relative to (what i perceive to be) a minimal payoff.

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 8:28:00 AM (view original):
When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

I think that was based on a longstanding relationship, not Hopkins' prestige. No?

Yeah exactly my point. The coach mattered to the player more than the school.

So if Slick Rick is at Iona, the player may choose to play for Slick Rick (and for the hookers of course) and not for Iona. A hall of fame coach with multiple titles, multiple early entry draft picks walks into your living room, you're going to listen regardless of the school.

Of course, not all players choose the coach over the school but it's definitely one of the biggest reasons a player chooses a particular school.

That had zero to do with Hopkins' general reputation as a coach, everything to do with the attention he put into the particular player. And that's already built into this game.

Kcs 2, Benis 0.

No it's not. Not at all. You leave a school, the attention towards a recruit stays with the school. Nothing travels with the coach.

Kc zero

point to kc because the dude went with the coach for reasons other than coaching prestige, actually when coaching prestige would actively push the player in another direction - any other direction. the question was about coaching prestige. some random player picking some random coach because they are buddies or something is the opposite of that.

we could replace the old 'favorite school' with 'favorite coach'... 'hey look 4 random dudes from across the country who happen to be unthinkably awful are my biggest fans'. we definitely need to bring that back, that's definitely the solution

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/21/2020 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/21/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/21/2020 8:28:00 AM (view original):
When Mike Hopkins left as asst coach at Syracuse for the head coach job at Washington, he brought along with him 5 Star Isaiah Stewart. Who was from Rochester NY btw. Hopkins got this top 5 recruit to go across the country to play for a team that hadn't been to the tourney in 10 years and hadn't even been recruiting him.

And yes, he played a couple minutes at Washington.

I think that was based on a longstanding relationship, not Hopkins' prestige. No?

Yeah exactly my point. The coach mattered to the player more than the school.

So if Slick Rick is at Iona, the player may choose to play for Slick Rick (and for the hookers of course) and not for Iona. A hall of fame coach with multiple titles, multiple early entry draft picks walks into your living room, you're going to listen regardless of the school.

Of course, not all players choose the coach over the school but it's definitely one of the biggest reasons a player chooses a particular school.

That had zero to do with Hopkins' general reputation as a coach, everything to do with the attention he put into the particular player. And that's already built into this game.

Kcs 2, Benis 0.

No it's not. Not at all. You leave a school, the attention towards a recruit stays with the school. Nothing travels with the coach.

Kc zero

point to kc because the dude went with the coach for reasons other than coaching prestige, actually when coaching prestige would actively push the player in another direction - any other direction. the question was about coaching prestige. some random player picking some random coach because they are buddies or something is the opposite of that.

we could replace the old 'favorite school' with 'favorite coach'... 'hey look 4 random dudes from across the country who happen to be unthinkably awful are my biggest fans'. we definitely need to bring that back, that's definitely the solution

Well I guess I have no idea what "coach prestige" means in real life sense.

To me it's all the things about the coach. Winning games primarily. But also recruiting.

I dunno how Hopkins and Stewart were buddies haha. They're not shooting Js together at the Y on Sunday and then grabbing a beer afterwards.

Bottomline is that in real life a player chooses where to play based upon the school AND the coach. HD really only captures one of them - especially during a job change. I don't really consider the 1/3 grade bump you may get to be meaningful at all.

“3 final fours, 15, whats the difference”
Haha, yeah my brain was discussing titles. And somehow fingers typed “final fours”. I was moving onto another topic and started editing in my head too fast. Happy Friday, you’re welcome.

I'll also add - I just think itd be a COOL and FUN feature that would enhance gameplay.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2020 4:25:00 PM (view original):
“That way It would consistently be ME knocking YOU out of the NT each season!”

Well now that you’ve grown a pair and joined D1, maybe we’ll see if that plays out some day. (:

Grown a pair? I'm yawning. It's boring and not fun by any means. And I haven't even reached the good part yet. EEs and removing practice minutes.

It's gonna be so fun!

Posted by npb7768 on 8/21/2020 4:20:00 PM (view original):
I think we all have described our positions pretty thoroughly.

Couple of final points (hopefully) on my end...

- Prestige is absolutely totally relevant in recruiting. It absolutely and completely provides advantages to high-prestige teams. Whether it was even more relevant in 2.0 (not really sure i agree, but whatever) is beside the point. Today in 3.0 prestige is freakin huge.

- Fine, in Big Six world, A+ base prestige can be given to Duke, UK, KU, and UNC. Whatever. But again, there's no real reason for base prestige to be different for any of the middle 68 or 64 teams. They should all have the same A baseline prestige. I understand that people don't agree with me on this.

But I've followed college hoops since 1977 at the age of 9, and in those 43 seasons I've seen basically every one these middle 68 teams rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall... elite teams rise and elite teams fall... i could name basically every team and give you examples... and yes, it includes Rutgers with their 1976 Final Four at the Spectrum, with Creed-Balboa-1 as the undercard.

Based on 43 earth years of watching this sport, in my opinion, there is no need to separate any of these 64 teams with an artificial prestige advantage, based on 2001 to 2005... yes i know why it was done... i don't care... if something has outlived its logic, then change and improve it. Creating "elite" teams from oddball 2005-era results, then not adjusting to at least make things even, is very weird and tough to defend... the only defenses are "it's always been this way", and "human owners of these teams will get mad if things change cuz they worked hard to get to Illinois and Stanford and now it's being changed on them".

And again, there's no question in my mind that high base-prestige provides an enormous, colossal, gargantuan advantage.

Also, i realize that this game isnt likely to change on this topic, and i will still keep playing, and will continue to enjoy it.

Big -1

I disagree.

Teams you mentioned.... Nebraska, Penn St, Rutgers...
those programs are garbage! (As far as basketball that is!). They are not "prestigious". You mentioned 1976 F4.... that's ONE SEASON! Not prestige! We're talking about baseline, a starting point that will change. But trying to create a fair starting point. It's mindboggling to think that people feel all schools are equal past the top 8. Louisville? Michigan? Xavier? Virginia?

Some others, San Francisco, George Mason, Houston, Indiana State.... those type of teams have had "A" peak. That's not prestige.

Last point..... of course we won't all agree. But my point of this was an "update". Meaning bring just a very small handful of teams up or down, to appeal to the "bulk" of the users here, not a mass overall to change every single team and start over. Sure the guys here that grew up in the 60s are gonna root and say "My Cincinnati should be an A+, you remember that run we had back in the day?". But that ship has sailed. (I love UC by the way)

There's NO WAY 8 thru 70 or whatever are equal. Not in a manner of prestige. I'm sorry. I'm not even really arguing for the game any longer. I'm just arguing for simple understanding of what basketball has looked like the since the day HD began.

I agree with Top here. 1976 was a few minutes ago.

And Nebraska has won exactly ZERO tourney games in their history. Zero.

There is definitely a difference between Nebraska and say..Pittsburgh. Who is pretty trash these days. Which I love.


Or you're saying Rutgers and Syracuse are equal prestige which makes me want to puke thinking about that.

“Teams you mentioned.... Nebraska, Penn St, Rutgers...
those programs are garbage!”

So let’s acknowledge first of all, these are the bottom of the barrel, the worst examples (along with previously mentioned Northwestern) you have. Sure. They’re garbage. And you know what? At any point, any one of those teams *could* turn around and begin to build what becomes a dynasty, like UConn did in the Calhoun era. They *probably* won’t but they *can*, because the NCAA isn’t holding them back with an imaginary baseline tether.

“We're talking about baseline, a starting point that will change. But trying to create a fair starting point. It's mindboggling to think that people feel all schools are equal past the top 8. Louisville? Michigan? Xavier? Virginia?

Some others, San Francisco, George Mason, Houston, Indiana State.... those type of teams have had "A" peak. That's not prestige.”

No offense doggg, but sometimes I’m like “what in the actual hell is he talking about?” This is one of those times. This game *does not* use baseline as a “starting point” that will change. You understand that, right? Am I misunderstanding you? That’s the whole problem. If it was, that would be completely rational, and I’d have no issue. But that isn’t how this game works. Baseline in this game is a tether, binding the team relatively close to that baseline, making it difficult to maintain anything more than a grade and 1/3 or so up or down from it. I think you probably get that, but just so everyone reading this is clear. Baseline prestige in this game IS NOT just a starting point.

And what the hell do SF, GM, Houston, and Indiana St have to do with anything? Those are not power conference schools. They are not involved in this discussion. No one is talking about “making them equal“ with Syracuse.

“I'm just arguing for simple understanding of what basketball has looked like the since the day HD began.”

But you’re really not. You have admitted this isn’t about realism, since there is obviously no official NCAA mechanism keeping BC or Stanford (or Cal) at their established 2005 “baseline”. This is about what kind of game you want to play. So while we’re discussing, let’s stay really clear on that point.

Put me in the camp of baseline prestige being equal for power conferences. I don't think anyone needs an additional reason to jump to Kansas over Rutgers. People will make those decisions themselves just fine.

What I do like about it is that it adds that extra benefit of taking a bottom power conference team. Getting to a power conference, even if its Fresno St, would be a big achievement. This would ideally keep power conferences filled.