Posted by long_ge on 4/2/2018 10:58:00 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.

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.

Let me clarify.

What I said didn't make sense was Grimace's post wanting reality for one aspect but not the other. Pick one.

Does it make sense for D2/D3? I don't know... maybe? But honestly take the average basketball fan and ask them to name the best D2 or D3 programs. I doubt anyone would know.

Another reason for baseline prestige at just D1 - the way this game is structured is to move up through the ranks. Start at D3, build a program. Move to D2, build another program. Move up to Low Major D1, build another program. move up to Mid Major, build another program. Move to bottom dweller High Major, build another program. Move up to a blue blood program.

That's the way the game is set up. The incentive to make it to Kentucky isn't about the name for most folks. They want the advantages that the real life Kentucky has and they can compete for titles every season. Nearly all the advantages for going to those teams has already been neutered. This is the only thing left.

Another reason baseline makes sense for JUST D1 is that the gap between the haves and have nots in real life is huge in D1. Is it really that much different in the lower levels? I doubt it. In D1 you have one school paying a coach $5 million and another one $200,000. Does that type of discrepancy exist at D3?

Yeah, I totally get the argument you've built. For Grimace and others, I'm saying it is a logical set up as well. In a competitive game, you could see where at least in the same conference, folks would want equal footing, without artificial advantages based on success of a team in real life. Having the league structures in into tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 conferences at D1 and keeping teams in each on equal footing is not contradictory, it is just setting up a game.

Baseline prestige should represent something in real life. I'd say that means that even when teams have a period of down years, they'd still have the reputation, facilities, fan base, etc to have relatively high long-term prestige to recover to success not based on the coaching program. This would be the case at D2 or D3 as well, regardless if anyone has heard of any of the teams. That's part of the point. If it is so critical, it does seem D2 and D3 do just fine without them. Second, if baseline prestige really wasn't based on the success of a certain coach, in real life, why would certain teams need to roll their baseline prestige down in the game? Must have been short-term, not really baseline at all in the first place.

Just saw the other note, yes, I think the emphasis schools put into successful programs would have even more of a relative advantage at lower divisions. Having better facilities, money, strong bases, compared to teams that leave their programs in relative neglect? You could make a strong argument that baseline prestige is more relevant at lower divisions, although I wouldn't want to see D2 ruined.

While I'm in favor of removing or updating baseline prestige, Benis makes some really good points. That being said, this IS whatif sports, not simulated reality sports

"keeping teams in each on equal footing is not contradictory, it is just setting up a game"

Then keep them on equal footing for ALL D1. Not by conference. Because, ya know, that's based upon real life. That's my point.

Last comment (maybe), I'm not in love with baseline prestige or anything. If it was removed then whatever, I'm fine with it. It's less incentive for me to work my way up to one of those high prestige schools but it'd help my low prestige school win more easily.

I just understand why it was implemented and why for D1 only.

Let's face it. The only reason Vanderbilt is in the SEC is because they raise the GPA of the conference. :)

I completely understand your point, although it does seem that you either think we should have complete reality or none at all, at D1. (It's okay if D2 doesn't follow reality...) I'll grant you, setting up conferences as they exist at D1 is somewhat troublesome for the game to mimic, mainly due to the different tiers of conferences. It isn't the same as setting up an MLB or NFL sim where the divisions would clearly be on even footing, although I'd still think in those instances you wouldn't handicap certain teams based on their history in a fictional sim.

You could keep all teams on equal footing across the board for all of D1, in the sense that would bring competitive balance (it might be better than current state) in a way that would sacrifice some reality for better game play, but just as D2 and D3 are different than D1, it is not contradictory to have tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 conferences. In real life, the results will vary wildly within a conference over time, but just because a team has been successful over time does not mean they had an prestige advantage helping doing so. Teams with resources (that prestige represents) will still not be able to build elite programs.

Yeah, I don't have time to mess with message boards much, and will continue to play regardless. I do think D2 in this game s superior to D1 though, so take my D1 comments with a grain of salt. All I'm really getting at is there is a case for what Grimace and others suggest. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

"What I said didn't make sense was Grimace's post wanting reality for one aspect but not the other. Pick one."

Won't be around much today, but it hit me last night that I needed to ask about this. Why do you have to pick one? Already the game is filled with factors based somewhat on reality that are compromised to some degree for game play purposes. It seems to say to pick one or the other is kind of arbitrary (especially since you are not as strict about it except when it comes to D1).

To draw the line there and say baseline prestige will be based on conference but won't extend to individual teams is a clear distinction. You might not think it is the best way to go, but it isn't contradictory or nonsensical.

Posted by long_ge on 4/3/2018 7:28:00 AM (view original):
"What I said didn't make sense was Grimace's post wanting reality for one aspect but not the other. Pick one."

Won't be around much today, but it hit me last night that I needed to ask about this. Why do you have to pick one? Already the game is filled with factors based somewhat on reality that are compromised to some degree for game play purposes. It seems to say to pick one or the other is kind of arbitrary (especially since you are not as strict about it except when it comes to D1).

To draw the line there and say baseline prestige will be based on conference but won't extend to individual teams is a clear distinction. You might not think it is the best way to go, but it isn't contradictory or nonsensical.

It's his reasoning for why there should be conference prestige but not individual prestige. It's contradictory.

He says this-

"The idea being that, yes, there are advantages to being in the Big East as opposed to the Big West."

This is very true. There are advantages for being in the BE vs Big West. Totally 100% agree. But then he says this-

"Just because Illinois has had more success than Northwestern IRL should not put NW at a disadvantage here"

So he wants conference prestige based upon success but thinks that individual team success shouldn't be considered. This makes no sense. The reason that there are benefits of being in those conferences is because of the teams that are successful within the conference!

And there is this statement

"not by whether your real life AD had the foresight to hire Coach K or Jim Boeheim 40 years ago."

But you should be rewarded because the Seton Hall AD had the foresight to join the BE conference 40 years ago?

And then produce a mediocre basketball only program riding on the coat tails of other more successful programs?

Basically what I'm saying is this - individual team success and conference success are connected. You can't talk about one without the other. That's why I think you have to pick realism or 'the game' in this particular case and not cherry pick which one you like to apply. They go together like peas and carrots.

Whether the rest of HD is is totally realistic or should be is another conversation.

It’s not a contradiction, it’s an accommodation for the sake of good gameplay. It’s alright for people to value realism, and still make sacrifices or accommodations to allow for good, competitive gameplay.

Posted by Benis on 4/3/2018 8:16:00 AM (view original):
Basically what I'm saying is this - individual team success and conference success are connected. You can't talk about one without the other. That's why I think you have to pick realism or 'the game' in this particular case and not cherry pick which one you like to apply. They go together like peas and carrots.

Whether the rest of HD is is totally realistic or should be is another conversation.

I like carrots. I don’t like peas. I can pick one. It’s really ok.