Posted by MyGeneration on 1/19/2014 10:59:00 PM (view original):
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are just speculating without really following real life college basketball programs and their recruiting, because the real life facts run contrary to basically all your stated assumptions. Pope chose SDSU over Kansas. Kell, local kid, chose SDSU over several Big 6 programs. Cheatham -- big fish. All were 4-5-star recruits. UNLV also has recruiting success in real life that eclipses most Big 6 programs. It's ptetty interesting. I'll edit later and add more details. Cheers,

Posted by cjones4mvp on 1/20/2014 12:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MyGeneration on 1/19/2014 10:59:00 PM (view original):
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are just speculating without really following real life college basketball programs and their recruiting, because the real life facts run contrary to basically all your stated assumptions. Pope chose SDSU over Kansas. Kell, local kid, chose SDSU over several Big 6 programs. Cheatham -- big fish. All were 4-5-star recruits. UNLV also has recruiting success in real life that eclipses most Big 6 programs. It's ptetty interesting. I'll edit later and add more details. Cheers,

I follow it and you're right..  SDSU has a top 15 class coming in this year.  If pope can get/stay healthy he's gonna be a stud imo.  I figured he'd end up at UCLA.  Zabo was their only non-4 star.  I know WVU (im from wv but a marshall fan) was after him at one point.

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/19/2014 7:45:00 PM (view original):
i agree, if those programs got in a crappy coach and had a few bad seasons, i think they would lose much (but not all) of what they've gained. i still dont buy the number of lofty incoming freshman going to the zags or sdsu is anywhere near that of the top bcs programs. they've broken through, IMO, to more of a middle of the pack BCS status, and are (on the merit of prestige) still disadvantaged to the bigger programs, and i just dont mean the top 5. 

in that sdsu class, im curious, where were those recruits ranked? winning a 3 star over a bigger program is much easier, arguments about getting the spotlight etc. weigh heavily on certain recruits. also, what about the locality? local factors can outweigh prestige for many players.

i think one way the game could be improved is to have prestige be a larger effect on bigger recruits than smaller ones. i can see sdsu going head to head with the kinds of programs you listed for local guys who aren't really the mcdonalds all american types. but for a top 10 guy? rarely a local guy picks the local school (and its usually still big 6) over the elites, who is in the top 10 or so, but it seems to me its at best very rare for that kind of thing to happen with top non-bcs programs.

Posted by MyGeneration on 1/19/2014 3:58:00 PM (view original):
80 seasons at a school is not only unrealistic, it makes the game less fun for others, because of the inequality programmed into the game. This SIM has many built-in advantages for high prestige D1 jobs and with guys camped out at a school for 5 real life years or more, it's a tough road to hoe to obtain one of those once-in-a-blue moon opportunities. And so we see guys that choose to stay at D3 or D2 rather than grind it out with a low baseline prestige D1 program for the same price somebody pays for the A+ lifestyle. If baseline prestige was eliminated, while your favorite school might remain locked up for a real life decade, you could have the same experience elsewhere.

The baseline prestige element is unrealistic too. Georgia, Vanderbilt, Hawaii -- these programs have higher prestige than SDSU? In real life college basketball, the "thing" being simulated, programs have next level jumps in prestige where they are not thereafter vulnerable to a prestige topple after one rebuilding season. Gonzaga and San Diego State can recruit with anyone -- we've seen a next level jump with those programs. But this artificial construct of baseline prestige does not allow those jumps to happen in HD. Baseline prestige makes the game easier and more fun for some at the expense of others. It would only make sense if it was necessary to preserve realities (& if that was valued more than an equal gaming experience), but that's not the case.

Posted by bobmeyer on 1/21/2014 2:05:00 AM (view original):
Yeah I had thought about trying to build up to a DI program, but I have heard so much negativity that I decided against it. I am having fun with my current team, which is really the point of playing.
I do disagree a bit with an earlier post. I think it is realistic to see non-BCS schools have consistent success in DI basketball. Look at what Butler did...I agree the staying power may not be there, but now that are in the new Big East, who knows. Then take the case of a Xavier...they played in upper mid-major for years, and had 3 straight Sweet 16s and 2 Elite Eights. There are many, many BCS schools that have not had even a sniff of that kind of success. It would be realistic to assume (as it has happened in real life) that they can compete in recruiting against the powers. I agree that the top top tier of teams would always get the nod, but outside of a small handful of schools, a team like Xavier would be able to recruit and get 4 and 5 stars. WIS does not allow this to happen.

The latest mid-major poll includes Gonzaga and BYU. Those programs probably don't consider themselves as 'mid-major' either

Posted by alblack56 on 1/19/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):
"or the coach would just die."  I'm 59 and would rather not be reminded of my mortality. LOL  But, if I have to die in WIS, can I at least pick my method?

 I'd like to be killed by a tortoise dropped by an eagle that had mistaken my bald head for a rock suitable for shattering the shell.

It would have to be something cool like that...I'd hate it to say, "you died of diabetes" or cancer or something.

Mine would be dying when my parachute didn't open while sky-diving. The rapture of falling followed by the splat of finality.

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/21/2014 10:29:00 AM (view original):
i totally understand where gomiami/alblack are coming from, but i think making d1 as flexible as d2/d3 would be a massive mistake. to me, there is already not much purpose in having d3 and d2, although i recognize the budget does make things somewhat different. i do believe baseline prestige should be fluid, but very slowly - something like baseline starts at 100% original baseline, and each HD season starts to count for 2%, reducing original baseline by 2%, down to a minimum of say 50%. once there are more than 25 seasons, you could have something like the last 15 seasons count for 2% and the 20 before count for 1%, or something like that.

i think a system like that would make sense because a highly fluid baseline would just result in the low level conferences becoming the BCS conferences - why would anybody ever leave? i think the ladder system is a vital carrot on a stick, and also, the big schools have a ton of fans so from a business standpoint, it makes sense to keep them good. maybe this suggestion is too slow, but i think if you could say average an a at a c prestige school, and eventually get them to a B (combining 50% of an A with 50% of a C), that would be plenty high enough - i think high end coaches can fairly easily keep an a range prestige on a b- prestige (low end BCS) school, so there isn't much need to allow you to take someone all the way up to a+ baseline. note i don't mean you need A prestige in a given season for 50 seasons, but just the non-baseline component, the success of teh season component, to be an A. i'd also support something where over 100 seasons or so, HD results totally replace baseline, but i would be absolutely against something quick like 10-20 seasons comprising the lion's share of baseline prestige.