11 post 1st page.

It essentially takes a baseline prestige and compares it with what your "real" prestige should give you and pulls up/down based on that. For example, a team with a B- baseline will take at least 2-3 deep runs in a 4 year cycle (along with no missed NT seasons) and some draft picks to get to an A+ while a team with an A+ baseline will really only need to consistently make the 2nd round or so over a 4 year cycle.. that's why the "elite" schools like Kansas, UNC, Duke, Arizona (lol), UCLA, Michigan State, etc hardly ever fall below an A-..

What does that exactly do though in this new 3.0 climate? I took GW to a B+...why do I care about my baseline?

Does it help me win games? Does it help me with recruits?

Not trying to be snarky, I still legitimately do not get how this helps me...I mean in world Smith Duke fell to a B+ and will fall even farther once this season is over

Essentially, think of the baseline as a water level. Say Duke is down and currently at a C+. With a baseline of A+, it will be (much) easier to get the team back up. It also means it's easier to maintain a high prestige. No weight in recruiting or winning games.

It ties into jobs too. It's harder to get to a high baseline school, even if their current prestige is low. Both prestiges are a factor.

Posted by pallas on 6/1/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Essentially, think of the baseline as a water level. Say Duke is down and currently at a C+. With a baseline of A+, it will be (much) easier to get the team back up. It also means it's easier to maintain a high prestige. No weight in recruiting or winning games.

It ties into jobs too. It's harder to get to a high baseline school, even if their current prestige is low. Both prestiges are a factor.

Gotcha, that makes some sense...thanks!

If George Washington had A baseline prestige your current prestige would be A+ for sure.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/1/2017 5:38:00 PM (view original):
If George Washington had A baseline prestige your current prestige would be A+ for sure.

Interesting, though not sure what that would still gain me? I could see it being important in 2.0 to win recruits, but 3.0 has kind of neutralized that.

Posted by crabman26 on 6/2/2017 12:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/1/2017 5:38:00 PM (view original):
If George Washington had A baseline prestige your current prestige would be A+ for sure.

Interesting, though not sure what that would still gain me? I could see it being important in 2.0 to win recruits, but 3.0 has kind of neutralized that.

I don't think it's neutralized. Prestige still carries a considerable weight in 3.0. It has a multiplying effect when it comes to recruiting effort. If your team has good preferences on a given recruit AND you have a prestige advantage over the other teams on the Considering list, you would have a sizable advantage.

I've lost a number of recruits to higher-prestige teams. With decent effort.

Posted by pallas on 6/2/2017 1:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 6/2/2017 12:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/1/2017 5:38:00 PM (view original):
If George Washington had A baseline prestige your current prestige would be A+ for sure.

Interesting, though not sure what that would still gain me? I could see it being important in 2.0 to win recruits, but 3.0 has kind of neutralized that.

I don't think it's neutralized. Prestige still carries a considerable weight in 3.0. It has a multiplying effect when it comes to recruiting effort. If your team has good preferences on a given recruit AND you have a prestige advantage over the other teams on the Considering list, you would have a sizable advantage.

I've lost a number of recruits to higher-prestige teams. With decent effort.

I agree. Prestige always seems to be quite important in recruiting.

Not as important like in 2.0. Not by a long shot.

prestige is still very important, it's the so-called "dice roll" that makes people think it's much weaker, because they occasionally lose to teams they would have easily beaten in HD2, when you only have to get to the equivalent of 50.1% to win every battle. all things being the same, better prestige equals better odds, and in HD3 playing the odds is pretty big.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 6/2/2017 11:58:00 AM (view original):
prestige is still very important, it's the so-called "dice roll" that makes people think it's much weaker, because they occasionally lose to teams they would have easily beaten in HD2, when you only have to get to the equivalent of 50.1% to win every battle. all things being the same, better prestige equals better odds, and in HD3 playing the odds is pretty big.

Not really. Its the fact that you no longer have prestige caps or "vision" of recruits. That's a HUGE difference.

what are the "prestige caps" you speak of? educate me, please. i haven't seen the movement of prestige behave any differently in HD3. that said, I've almost exclusively played HD3 at D1, so maybe it's different at lower divisions? IMO if we were still in HD2 but they introduced the "dice roll" instead of "leader-take-all," i think we'd be seeing some similar repercussions and similar opinions on the power of prestige.

Posted by Benis on 6/2/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 6/2/2017 11:58:00 AM (view original):
prestige is still very important, it's the so-called "dice roll" that makes people think it's much weaker, because they occasionally lose to teams they would have easily beaten in HD2, when you only have to get to the equivalent of 50.1% to win every battle. all things being the same, better prestige equals better odds, and in HD3 playing the odds is pretty big.

Not really. Its the fact that you no longer have prestige caps or "vision" of recruits. That's a HUGE difference.

Really really. Having better prestige makes your odds a lot better. Every bit of your effort is worth more, so it takes less investment to match effort. It works differently than 2.0 - the recruiting process on the whole is more rational, realistic, and competitive now - but prestige is not "neutralized", not remotely.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 6/2/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):
what are the "prestige caps" you speak of? educate me, please. i haven't seen the movement of prestige behave any differently in HD3. that said, I've almost exclusively played HD3 at D1, so maybe it's different at lower divisions? IMO if we were still in HD2 but they introduced the "dice roll" instead of "leader-take-all," i think we'd be seeing some similar repercussions and similar opinions on the power of prestige.

Agree.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 6/2/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):
what are the "prestige caps" you speak of? educate me, please. i haven't seen the movement of prestige behave any differently in HD3. that said, I've almost exclusively played HD3 at D1, so maybe it's different at lower divisions? IMO if we were still in HD2 but they introduced the "dice roll" instead of "leader-take-all," i think we'd be seeing some similar repercussions and similar opinions on the power of prestige.

Everyone who signed a 4 or 5 star player with a D prestige in 2.0 raise your hand.

Also, did you forget how pull downs worked? Even at D3 there was prestige vision. C prestige teams might have to pull down a D2 player while an A prestige may not need to for the very same player.