Baseline prestige is why I don't play DI. It defeats the purpose of hoops dynasty, because even with sustained success, you will not pass a team with high baseline and decent success which is stupid. The idea that the elite teams should be able to stay elite, because that's where people want to go is ridiculous, not because of great success. If you like that team, then go to that team and have success. If they don't succeed, improve firing logic and allow someone else to rebuild them. A static prestige based on a declining multiplier per year would be best for the purpose of allowing dynasty building imo.

In Div-1, I always thought that all 12 teams per conference should each have the same prestige. So Duke and Virginia Tech would be even in prestige.

Big Six conferences would have equal top prestige (6 conferences at B+).
Mid majors would be a notch down (6 or 8 conferences at C+).
Low majors would be at the lowest level (13 or 15 conferences at D+).

Clean, neat, balanced. No advantage within each conference.

Posted by npb7768 on 6/27/2017 8:44:00 AM (view original):
In Div-1, I always thought that all 12 teams per conference should each have the same prestige. So Duke and Virginia Tech would be even in prestige.

Big Six conferences would have equal top prestige (6 conferences at B+).
Mid majors would be a notch down (6 or 8 conferences at C+).
Low majors would be at the lowest level (13 or 15 conferences at D+).

Clean, neat, balanced. No advantage within each conference.

Not a bad idea. It gives a little more balance that poncho is suggesting but still provides some incentive to move to B6.

Personally, I think baseline prestige is a good idea just for the fact that it creates a different type of game at D1 vs D2/D3. If it wasn't there, it'd just be more of the same game but with different (albeit MUCH more recognizable) team names.

I'd like npb's idea or an update on prestige like the0nlyis suggested

Posted by Benis on 6/27/2017 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 6/27/2017 8:44:00 AM (view original):
In Div-1, I always thought that all 12 teams per conference should each have the same prestige. So Duke and Virginia Tech would be even in prestige.

Big Six conferences would have equal top prestige (6 conferences at B+).
Mid majors would be a notch down (6 or 8 conferences at C+).
Low majors would be at the lowest level (13 or 15 conferences at D+).

Clean, neat, balanced. No advantage within each conference.

Not a bad idea. It gives a little more balance that poncho is suggesting but still provides some incentive to move to B6.

Personally, I think baseline prestige is a good idea just for the fact that it creates a different type of game at D1 vs D2/D3. If it wasn't there, it'd just be more of the same game but with different (albeit MUCH more recognizable) team names.

I'd like npb's idea or an update on prestige like the0nlyis suggested

I agree that baseline prestige and the ability to sign D1 prospects in session one makes D1 a different game than D2, and that's why I think I'll always want teams in both. I'd feel the same way about D3 if it differed from D2, but I think you know where I'm going with that...