Posted by l80r20 on 4/1/2018 12:57:00 PM (view original):
1. Huge programming resources to have every world be different, and for little or no gain.

2. It's a rich-get-richer scheme.

3. It's a GAME, not real life.

+1
It's a GAME! Should be able to build high prestige programs anywhere not based on what real life counterparts are doing either good or bad? Who cares. Nobody is asking you to run the real life program.

Posted by grimacedance on 4/2/2018 4:24:00 PM (view original):
I know it came up in another thread and was shot down by some, but I liked the idea of baseline prestige being equal among all teams within a conference.

The idea being that, yes, there are advantages to being in the Big East as opposed to the Big West. But within a conference, all of the teams should have an equal chance of success. Just because Illinois has had more success than Northwestern IRL should not put NW at a disadvantage here. Your success within your WIS conference should be determined by how well you recruit/develop/gameplan your fake players, not by whether your real life AD had the foresight to hire Coach K or Jim Boeheim 40 years ago.

This makes absolutely no sense.

You don't want Michigan State to have an advantage over Rutgers despite the huge difference in real life success....

But you want the Big Ten to have an advantage over the Big West because of the difference in real life success.

Wut?

"You don't want Michigan State to have an advantage over Rutgers despite the huge difference in real life success....
But you want the Big Ten to have an advantage over the Big West because of the difference in real life success."

You're cherry-picking. Real life doesn't necessarily drive the WIS worlds, and it shouldn't. What would be wrong is for a good run or a bad run at real XYZ University to have any impact on sim-XYZ University in WIS. And whatever your perception of RL success of any program is, it's irrelevant here.

Posted by l80r20 on 4/2/2018 8:52:00 PM (view original):
"You don't want Michigan State to have an advantage over Rutgers despite the huge difference in real life success....
But you want the Big Ten to have an advantage over the Big West because of the difference in real life success."

You're cherry-picking. Real life doesn't necessarily drive the WIS worlds, and it shouldn't. What would be wrong is for a good run or a bad run at real XYZ University to have any impact on sim-XYZ University in WIS. And whatever your perception of RL success of any program is, it's irrelevant here.

Hey Spud. Don't you have me blocked?

AFAIK Spud's not here. I unblocked you long enough to respond to one post on its merits, suspecting all along that you couldn't handle that. I was right about that, too, and you are blocked again.

OUCH!

Well your post was worthless because it didn't address anything that I said. I didn't say I did or didn't like the baseline prestige. I just pointed out how highly contradictory grimeace's proposal was.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 3/31/2018 6:25:00 PM (view original):
What are your thoughts on a rolling baseline prestige based on the last 30 years IRL of the school.

This would be a small (1/30th) change in baseline prestige. Every year IRL the farthest back season is removed and the current one finished is added to the baseline prestige equation. Basically looking at some where between every 6-10 WIS seasons we would have a minimal change to baseline prestige.

New powers IRL would slowly see their baseline prestige rise and powers from the past that are no longer relavent would slowly fade. The WIS coach could easily make up for that small dip and keep their schools prestige high.

Possible side effect is coaches chasing the highest prestige schools may move around more to grab the next hot team with a great coach locked up (Like Gonzaga or Wichita State) or dump one signing LaVar Ball to a 20 year deal to coach their school. Flash in the pan teams with one or two great seasons


Open to thoughts on this...

I actually kind of like this suggestion. It's not a bad idea because you're right - teams will turn into powers post 2005 when baseline prestige came out.

Posted by Benis on 4/2/2018 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 4/2/2018 4:24:00 PM (view original):
I know it came up in another thread and was shot down by some, but I liked the idea of baseline prestige being equal among all teams within a conference.

The idea being that, yes, there are advantages to being in the Big East as opposed to the Big West. But within a conference, all of the teams should have an equal chance of success. Just because Illinois has had more success than Northwestern IRL should not put NW at a disadvantage here. Your success within your WIS conference should be determined by how well you recruit/develop/gameplan your fake players, not by whether your real life AD had the foresight to hire Coach K or Jim Boeheim 40 years ago.

This makes absolutely no sense.

You don't want Michigan State to have an advantage over Rutgers despite the huge difference in real life success....

But you want the Big Ten to have an advantage over the Big West because of the difference in real life success.

Wut?

It makes sense given those are structural differences. I could see where someone would say power conferences would be expected to have more success than mid-majors, which would be a slight bit ahead of small majors, and that teams within a given conference are on equal footing. Agree or disagree, we can make sense of the reason behind it.

"teams within a given conference are on equal footing"

But they're not.

So, it does makes sense and you just disagree then?

Do you think this should only apply to D1? Schools like Winona St and Kentucky Wesleyan are clearly not on the same level as Missouri S&T.

Posted by long_ge on 4/2/2018 10:43:00 PM (view original):
So, it does makes sense and you just disagree then?

Do you think this should only apply to D1? Schools like Winona St and Kentucky Wesleyan are clearly not on the same level as Missouri S&T.

It's not whether I disagree. Facts are facts.

Either you want it to be like real life or you don't. If you want it to be like real life so High Major teams have an advantage over Low Major teams then you also need to take along with it that teams within those conferences are not the same.

Those are just facts of how real life basketball works these days.

Posted by Benis on 4/2/2018 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by long_ge on 4/2/2018 10:43:00 PM (view original):
So, it does makes sense and you just disagree then?

Do you think this should only apply to D1? Schools like Winona St and Kentucky Wesleyan are clearly not on the same level as Missouri S&T.

It's not whether I disagree. Facts are facts.

Either you want it to be like real life or you don't. If you want it to be like real life so High Major teams have an advantage over Low Major teams then you also need to take along with it that teams within those conferences are not the same.

Those are just facts of how real life basketball works these days.

So then take it to a discussion of RL basketball. This is a computer game.

"What are your thoughts on a rolling baseline prestige based on the last 30 years IRL of the school."
Perfectly reasonable metric to try to apply to RL schools. But HD is up and running, and any such change (besides being a big project for programmers for next to nothing) would be unfair to a number of HD coaches. Why should a RL coach's success or failure reflect on you or me or any other HD coach?

Posted by l80r20 on 4/2/2018 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/2/2018 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by long_ge on 4/2/2018 10:43:00 PM (view original):
So, it does makes sense and you just disagree then?

Do you think this should only apply to D1? Schools like Winona St and Kentucky Wesleyan are clearly not on the same level as Missouri S&T.

It's not whether I disagree. Facts are facts.

Either you want it to be like real life or you don't. If you want it to be like real life so High Major teams have an advantage over Low Major teams then you also need to take along with it that teams within those conferences are not the same.

Those are just facts of how real life basketball works these days.

So then take it to a discussion of RL basketball. This is a computer game.

Based upon real life teams chief. Which grimace brought up.

Posted by Benis on 4/2/2018 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by long_ge on 4/2/2018 10:43:00 PM (view original):
So, it does makes sense and you just disagree then?

Do you think this should only apply to D1? Schools like Winona St and Kentucky Wesleyan are clearly not on the same level as Missouri S&T.

It's not whether I disagree. Facts are facts.

Either you want it to be like real life or you don't. If you want it to be like real life so High Major teams have an advantage over Low Major teams then you also need to take along with it that teams within those conferences are not the same.

Those are just facts of how real life basketball works these days.

I as rambled on about earlier I’m for getting as much reality into the game as we can. Baseline prestige is probably the least important of all game factors in that regard. You don’t think it is important for D2 or D3? Why is it critical for D1 and not matter at all for D2 for instance, you know, if it is so important?

Fact is, this is a what if simulation, not something designed to re-create past or real-life results. You said it didn’t make sense. I think there is a rational case for that kind of set up, whether you agree or disagree. I can see the case for basing baseline prestige from real life results, just don’t think that’s the best way to do things.