Has there ever been an updated baseline pretiege list?

I have Powerbrokers from some years ago.

Is there a current one?

It's something the new owner/dev team have discussed wanting to update but no changes yet!

This reminds me of two of my perpetual wishlist items: 1) a more adaptable division and conference setup that allowed for user-driven re-alignment, including promotion (and relegation); and 2) eliminate team baseline prestige, replaced with floating prestige over a ~30 year period.

I have always thought *individual* prestige was a bad concept in a recruiting game. First off, it's completely made up. There's no objective, quantifiable "prestige" factor that affects anybody's perception of a team in any kind of universal way. So that's absurd.

And we're like 150-250 seasons into these worlds at this point. The idea that a program would have the same "baseline" prestige over decades *regardless of success* is even more absurd. Lots of examples of teams with baselines that are and always were obviously way too high, before we even get into how different these conferences look now than they did in 2001.

If prestige exists as a quantifiable modifier at all, it has to flex with the user, be based on performance, and have a shelf life. And it's way past time these conferences had some ability for updates, even while I acknowledge it's not good to force it on conferences that are functioning and don't want it.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2026 7:54:00 PM (view original):
This reminds me of two of my perpetual wishlist items: 1) a more adaptable division and conference setup that allowed for user-driven re-alignment, including promotion (and relegation); and 2) eliminate team baseline prestige, replaced with floating prestige over a ~30 year period.

I have always thought *individual* prestige was a bad concept in a recruiting game. First off, it's completely made up. There's no objective, quantifiable "prestige" factor that affects anybody's perception of a team in any kind of universal way. So that's absurd.

And we're like 150-250 seasons into these worlds at this point. The idea that a program would have the same "baseline" prestige over decades *regardless of success* is even more absurd. Lots of examples of teams with baselines that are and always were obviously way too high, before we even get into how different these conferences look now than they did in 2001.

If prestige exists as a quantifiable modifier at all, it has to flex with the user, be based on performance, and have a shelf life. And it's way past time these conferences had some ability for updates, even while I acknowledge it's not good to force it on conferences that are functioning and don't want it.

I've been making this argument for a long time. The problem is you have real life purist that think if Duke or North Carolina win 5 games over the next 10 years, they should maintain their "baseline" prestige, because people want to see the top teams look like top teams in terms of prestige. In reality, prestige should be performance based dynamic. If Coppin St averages 22 wins over the next 5 seasons while Duke averages 5, Duke should not have an unbreakable baseline that props it up. 30 years would be nice with weighted impact for recency of the season.