it is definitely NOT true that mid majors are capped at B-

Now, conference prestige can limit prestige growth at a midmajor - esp - as discussed if the conference includes a number of SIMs.  But there are examples of non BCS conferences with a number of good coaches that have gone above that

CUSA in Rupp is in effect a major because of the great coaching there - and no SIMs.  Now, if some teams went SIM there could be a quick deterioration of the conf prestige, but that has not happened

On a lesser scale, but we are trying, WCC in Allen has made strides and had two schools over B- and a couple at B-.  By the way, two openings if someone wants to join the effect to create a new BCS confernce,  WCC at #5 conference now.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/7/2013 6:38:00 PM (view original):
In Phelan I got to a Big 6 job in 10 seasons, and there was nothing special about my resume. Big 6 conferences are like 90%+ full, why does something need to be changed?

i'm not saying that anything is 'broken', per se. i think it would be more fun if the Big 6 conferences were always full YET a handful of coaches were fired each season, and those were the openings. so long as you have openings in the Big 6 every offseason, the best case scenario is to have the leagues full during the season.

for all we know, we might have a lot of new players that aren't enthralled by the prospect of coaching SUNY Fredonia, St. Thomas Aquinas and Quinnipiac for 1-2 years once they figured the game out, and thus quit. my impression is that most people don't start playing HD thinking "imma make a D3 dynasty!", rather they acquire that taste once they get a feel for the game. a big part of getting subscribers to any game is the notion that there's something reasonably within reach to strive for, and a more quickly achievable high-D1 career would be just that.

Posted by plague on 6/8/2013 5:45:00 PM (view original):
I don't think baseline prestige needs to be removed, just don't cap  prestige, allow  low major schoosl to get A+ just make it hard to keep at a A+ for mid majors. That way you meet realism half way. I wanted to coach Pacific because its my home town school, but I gave up after awhile when I realized I was never going to attain greater than a B- prestige. I probably would of stayed there if it was possible to get A+ while still having a low baseline prestige.

The point I was trying to make about removing baseline prestige is this. In football, long ago teams like Princeton, Yale, and Harvard won the title every year. Then you have teams like GT, Army, and Minnesota that won a few titles. Teams like this don't carry the same prestige they once had. Same goes in basketball. I think it would be better if prestige was based on the teams histories considering we have worlds that have run over 70+seasons. What if we had someone take over Duke from day 1, and since then, they have never had a good coach in the 70+seasons of that world.Should Duke still maintain their baseline prestige after 70 seasons of mediocre success?

Expand prestige past 4 seasons and let that determine each school's prestige. Maybe 20 seasons or something. Like Mamxet said, a non BCS conference that loses a few users would drop in conference prestige very quickly. Why should it be like that if that conference was better than a big 6 conference for a long period of time, maybe say 10-15 seasons.

Not an arguement from me, but just thoughts. It seems there is no point in moving to DI unless you have aspirations of a big 6 job and that seems to defeat the purpose of building your own dynasty at whatever school you want.