VPI should be no higher than a C, neither should Miami. Hell, Maryland at "A" is being pretty f'ing generous.  I'd agree that NCSU, BC, and Wake being A- is also a little unnecessary. 

I picked out Mississippi State because that's a team who's rated similarly to VPI or Miami and has, comparably speaking, a better recent real-world history. 

Wait, Virginia is a B+?  How did I miss that?  A team who hasn't been relevant nationally since Ralph Sampson was playing shouldn't be a B+ baseline prestige.  End of story. 

My $.02: There are some issues with recruit generation, but every update has caused another problem. I DO NOT think that is the primary cause of conference inequality. The best players in this game are smart and they go where the biggest rewards are given. The game is designed to benefit the higher prestige schools conferences. Good coaches go where there has been success because of the double whammy of conference prestige and recruiting money. Those are bigger reasons than recruit generation IMO.  The biggest problem this game has is a lack of interest from FOX. If they spent any amount of effort cross promoting WIS, this place would be packed. Thatsaid Newscorp is such a huge outfit, i am sure that the muckity mucks at fox sports and higher up have no clue we even exist.

Posted by kannc6 on 8/8/2011 2:01:00 PM (view original):
My $.02: There are some issues with recruit generation, but every update has caused another problem. I DO NOT think that is the primary cause of conference inequality. The best players in this game are smart and they go where the biggest rewards are given. The game is designed to benefit the higher prestige schools conferences. Good coaches go where there has been success because of the double whammy of conference prestige and recruiting money. Those are bigger reasons than recruit generation IMO.  The biggest problem this game has is a lack of interest from FOX. If they spent any amount of effort cross promoting WIS, this place would be packed. Thatsaid Newscorp is such a huge outfit, i am sure that the muckity mucks at fox sports and higher up have no clue we even exist.

There are a lot of gaps there.

In a nutshell: There's been a lack of interest from Fox since they've been involved. Yet DI (particularly non-BCS) only became a decrepit ghost town immediately following the changes to recruit generation.

So while it would be fantastic to have more support from Fox w. advertising, etc. and I'm sure that would add more coaches, it's very clear that is not the culprit when it comes to the enormous discrepancy between the haves and the have nots in DI.

I also have to disagree with girt on Clemson.  Traditionally, they really aren't that strong a basketball team.  When was the last time they beat Carolina in Chapel Hill?  Elden Campbell is not walking through that door. 

Just noticed UConn could potentially be a SIM next year in Allen.  UConn.  That's pretty big. 

Posted by jslotman on 8/8/2011 2:20:00 PM (view original):
I also have to disagree with girt on Clemson.  Traditionally, they really aren't that strong a basketball team.  When was the last time they beat Carolina in Chapel Hill?  Elden Campbell is not walking through that door. 

Fantastic reference.

But they're no worse than Miss State.

Posted by jslotman on 8/8/2011 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Just noticed UConn could potentially be a SIM next year in Allen.  UConn.  That's pretty big. 

Not too surprising, though - local rival BC has a baseline two notches worse but 2 extra schollies' worth of money each year.

I sent a message to CS this morning specific to Iowa and Wake (same prestige, one school has made the postseason 24 of 26 years, the other had a losing record in 10 of the last 12), and was given a link to the "how prestige is calculated" FAQ.  Customer service at its finest, folks! 

Anyway, prestige wouldn't be so asinine if how a particular conference does didn't have something to do with its calculation.  Retarded baseline prestiges are what they are, but getting bumped up (or down) simply because the rest of your conference is good (or bad) is beyond absurd. 

Posted by jslotman on 8/8/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
I sent a message to CS this morning specific to Iowa and Wake (same prestige, one school has made the postseason 24 of 26 years, the other had a losing record in 10 of the last 12), and was given a link to the "how prestige is calculated" FAQ.  Customer service at its finest, folks! 

Anyway, prestige wouldn't be so asinine if how a particular conference does didn't have something to do with its calculation.  Retarded baseline prestiges are what they are, but getting bumped up (or down) simply because the rest of your conference is good (or bad) is beyond absurd. 

I would push back ... you know you never get a good response the first (and sometimes the second) time.

I would flat out say to them, "I read the link, there is absolutely nothing in there that can possibly explain this".

I'd even offer up Wake and LSU -- I believe Wake is higher. (That way they can't say, "Well, Iowa is a higher A- than Wake ..."

seems like we all can't win on some of these issues of late.  As seble was preparing to change the engine 2 years ago, some vet who often does not post and I can't recall his name, posted something like changing the engine is like pushing a balloon, push one side and the balloon changes shape somewhere else.  I think the rise of the power BCS conference(s) is one such issue, an unintended consequence of the lebron james recruit generation era.

Many have brought up prestige here, my 2 cents, base prestige used to be much unfairer when I started, we could not even see prestige then & best I can remember, did not change much at all - so in that regard, I am glad it is how it is now.  Still, anytime the computer gets a say in the long term health of a program, I am not in favor, so I would prefer base prestige to be even less a factor. 

There of course are limits to any of these issues, and taken to extreme, any idea in this game will go haywire, I think the notion of the balloon tells us all, that when CS decides to make a change, when they finish, they should halve the amount of the change 'factor', and that would be just about right.

Nothing in the way of a response from CS yet.

The aspect of baseline prestige that bothers me is how inflexible it is. I could take George Mason and win 10 straight national titles, making them one of the most prestigious teams ever, but if I left, they would inevitably fall back down to a C and eventually a D if no good coach was able to get a job there. 

The more success you have over time, the higher your baseline prestige should raise. Obviously, this would be MUCH more gradual than raising your teams current prestige, but that's just my humble opinion of what would be best for the game. 

This way, if a decent coach is able to keep his team at a C prestige for... let's say 5 seasons, the baseline might raise from a D+ to a C-. 5 more seasons at C, the baseline would raise to C. Then he could get better recruits and with effort, continue on to a B prestige. Obviously, not every coach would be able to do this, but it would make the game much more welcoming to newcomers at DI and reward those coaches for their consistent hard work. 

Girt, I am unsure what there are some gaps there means. Please elaborate. My point is that the best coaches have taken advantage of the rules. They will always do that.. OR's point about the balloon is excellent. I don't see huge issues. New coaches are moving into the top 20 every year in my world and no conference has shown dominance. (a-10) had a good run, but seems to be slipping because coaches are deserting, not because they have not been successful.

I do agree that there should be more flexibility in baseline. Of course some schools have improper bases, but that doesn't affect fairness from a gameplay aspect, just which schools are given the advantage initially.

Conference success shouldn't have anything to do with an individual school's prestige. I brought this up in another ticket and haven't seen a response.

What do you mean "given the advantage initially."  More like given the advantage permanently.  One so-so year from a team without an elite baseline and they drop way back to the pack and lose much of the advantage it takes many seasons to gain.  Improving (or losing) prestige away from your baseline is hard, regressing to the mean is a much quicker process.  There is little margin for error at a poor baseline school, a fact that was a challenge even before it became harder to be consistently successful at such programs.  I'm not saying anything about my stance on baseline prestige - I don't even play D1, so I really couldn't care less.  But to try to dismiss it as an initial condition of sorts is ridiculous.