This has been discussed so many times, so I know this isn't the first, and won't be the last.

But how many of you would be in favor of updated baselines? Or how many of you would oppose? And why?

We've proven that as a community, with the right effort we can get things accomplished by working together on certain topics. A lot of changes that are desired by the community are controversial, and sometimes too large to create changes we all agree upon (such as conference realignment. That would make one group happy while irritating another group).

I believe a one time upgrade of baseline wouldn't be hard to push for change. I'm sure that some Illinois coaches may not be in favor. But since Illinois is A+ now, most coaches that have them are built strongly anyways. And can easily maintain that A+ they have now. Changing them to say an A- wouldn't cripple current users. While coaches of Michigan, Gonzaga, Baylor, etc would probably get a bump up for the future, and benefit from it.

I'm not wanting to create a war, but what are some opinions regarding this? If most are in favor, I think this is potentially something we could all come together on and push for "official" change. (Again, if you don't like the idea, don't flip out! Just share your opinion why. I'm not rallying the troops just yet! I'm just asking for input)

Another idea would be to just remove baseline prestige from the prestige equation all together.
Then just calculate prestige on what the school has done in the last decade, 2 decades, or whatever from within the game.

It seems much easier than adjusting all the baseline prestiges that will probably be wrong again in another 5-10 years anyway.

As a coach desperately trying to keep Northwestern at A+ prestige, I would HATE if they did this. It's bad enough that I have to do 3 times as much to stay at A+ as Michigan State or Illinois, but now you're going to give a bump to the coach at Michigan just because they've been good in real life? At least with the current system I knew this was what I was getting into when I took over Northwestern.

If anything, instead of a one time bump in baseline to more clearly mirror real life prestige......I would favor a gradually changing baseline prestige so if say, Indiana State is a MONSTER for 10 years maybe they can build their baseline to B or even higher. Would probably be much trickier to do because each world would eventually have distinctly different baseline prestiges.

I DO think any change has to be implemented with SUPER ADVANCED warning. So if one day I decide to bail on Northwestern and take the Illinois job, I don't regret it a month later when Northwestern suddenly gets credit for recent in game success and now has the same baseline as Illinois.

Think about what Gonzaga has done in real life. I have been a huge fan of them since the 90's. They really came from nothing. A good season was winning half of their games in conference play. It's taken them 20 years, but they've put themselves at the same level as any program in the West except maybe Arizona.

Posted by jimmychino on 8/16/2020 10:32:00 AM (view original):
As a coach desperately trying to keep Northwestern at A+ prestige, I would HATE if they did this. It's bad enough that I have to do 3 times as much to stay at A+ as Michigan State or Illinois, but now you're going to give a bump to the coach at Michigan just because they've been good in real life? At least with the current system I knew this was what I was getting into when I took over Northwestern.

If anything, instead of a one time bump in baseline to more clearly mirror real life prestige......I would favor a gradually changing baseline prestige so if say, Indiana State is a MONSTER for 10 years maybe they can build their baseline to B or even higher. Would probably be much trickier to do because each world would eventually have distinctly different baseline prestiges.

I DO think any change has to be implemented with SUPER ADVANCED warning. So if one day I decide to bail on Northwestern and take the Illinois job, I don't regret it a month later when Northwestern suddenly gets credit for recent in game success and now has the same baseline as Illinois.

Think about what Gonzaga has done in real life. I have been a huge fan of them since the 90's. They really came from nothing. A good season was winning half of their games in conference play. It's taken them 20 years, but they've put themselves at the same level as any program in the West except maybe Arizona.

All this is fair enough. Thank you for your input!

As far as Gonzaga you mentioned, they are a prime example of why I wanted to discuss this. They are an A prestige type of team now. So I feel they should be moved up (in the circumstance that changes were made). Why should Gonzaga still be like a Northwestern? When they aren't anymore. They're a powerhouse. And with change, Michigan may move up, you're correct. But Illinois would surely move down. Creating similar balance.

To the comment about removing baseline all together, I'm not a fan of that idea at all. Doing that would turn D1 into D2/D3. And the idea of grabbing a big 6 program becomes pointless and irrelevant. For example, George Mason made the F4 a while back. Moving them to an A+ doesn't make sense. That's not a job people strive for. And after that F4 they went back to never being heard from again. Some type of baseline has to be put in play to make the good jobs stay being good jobs.

If you move Gonzaga to A, the WCC becomes unplayable.

Not broken, don't fix.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/16/2020 11:33:00 AM (view original):
If you move Gonzaga to A, the WCC becomes unplayable.

Not broken, don't fix.

No to mention the impact to other teams that arent even in the same conference anymore.

If they ever roll out a world where every team is in the correct conference then OK, otherwise you create just as many new issues as the ones you are fixing.

The only change I would make (if we had to) was have a continuous rolling baseline prestige based off some formula using the past 20 years of real life. Seble (or the system) would update at the end or beginning of every season and post the update. Seems like a lot of work with small benefit.

I think you want to either keep current baseline or updates it with 10 HD year advance notice or something

I've been advocating for a dynamic baseline prestige over the current version for years. Unfortunately there are too many that cry about wanting to ensure the blue bloods remain at the top forever.

Sounds like you're crying

Ok well my thought wasn't accepted in the manner I expected, so I'm cool with this being a dead issue. I wouldn't see this change as a massive overhaul. Like a conference realignment would be. It would just be a tweak to update to the standard in which we view college bball today.

Except sundevils comment...... it IS broken. The only reason you say it's not is because you choose to see it that way. Which is fine for your view point. Others have a different view point. If we moved Gonzaga to A, it would be exactly how it is in real life. I don't wanna base everything around this game on the WCC conference. I actually play in that conference currently with 10 other humans. I wouldn't care if Gonzaga went to A

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/16/2020 4:10:00 PM (view original):
Ok well my thought wasn't accepted in the manner I expected, so I'm cool with this being a dead issue. I wouldn't see this change as a massive overhaul. Like a conference realignment would be. It would just be a tweak to update to the standard in which we view college bball today.

Except sundevils comment...... it IS broken. The only reason you say it's not is because you choose to see it that way. Which is fine for your view point. Others have a different view point. If we moved Gonzaga to A, it would be exactly how it is in real life. I don't wanna base everything around this game on the WCC conference. I actually play in that conference currently with 10 other humans. I wouldn't care if Gonzaga went to A

"I wouldn't see this change as a massive overhaul."

Just pulling this quote so seble and any other professional programmers here can have a good chuckle.

Prestige isn't broken dude. The game works as intended. The fact you don't like how prestige is hard coded doesn't make it broken.

I can agree with that. I'm not saying it doesn't "work". If we changed the prestige of every D1 team in the game, it would still "work". The engine isn't what I'm saying is incorrect. I'm saying that the decision to make schools whatever prestige they are, is dated.

Where as you don't havea problem with it, I know there are some that would prefer an updated upgrade. Not changing the way the prestige works, relative to how we play the game.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/16/2020 7:26:00 PM (view original):
I can agree with that. I'm not saying it doesn't "work". If we changed the prestige of every D1 team in the game, it would still "work". The engine isn't what I'm saying is incorrect. I'm saying that the decision to make schools whatever prestige they are, is dated.

Where as you don't havea problem with it, I know there are some that would prefer an updated upgrade. Not changing the way the prestige works, relative to how we play the game.

Are a small number of the baseline prestige ratings meaningfully out of date? Sure.

Does it matter? Reasonable people like us can agree to disagree.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/16/2020 10:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/16/2020 7:26:00 PM (view original):
I can agree with that. I'm not saying it doesn't "work". If we changed the prestige of every D1 team in the game, it would still "work". The engine isn't what I'm saying is incorrect. I'm saying that the decision to make schools whatever prestige they are, is dated.

Where as you don't havea problem with it, I know there are some that would prefer an updated upgrade. Not changing the way the prestige works, relative to how we play the game.

Are a small number of the baseline prestige ratings meaningfully out of date? Sure.

Does it matter? Reasonable people like us can agree to disagree.

Absolutely. And it's why I said I'd retreat on this subject. I felt it would be a helpful idea to the community if it was borderline unanimous. I just didn't expect as much push back on it.