A coupld of years ago, I was  upset with the prestige formula and went round and round with seble about it.  I finally just accepted that it wasn't going to change. 

My issue, at the time, was my team had won 18 NT games in 6 seasons but missed the NT in the 7th year. My prestige dropped behind a school that finished 28-2, SOS 320, and lost in the first round. It was their first NT in many many seasons. 

Posted by darnoc29099 on 4/8/2014 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 4/8/2014 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 4/8/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):

even with the current season counting for 50%, he made the tourney. back to back titles as the other 50%? this is definitely ticket worthy. 

The other seasons really don't matter.    It's 50% current season, and 50% current prestige.  It doesn't matter HOW he got to A+; he's only slight better than the other A+ teams.   When you average the A+ with a 13-loss season, prestige will drop.

 I don't agree with the system but that's the way it is.

I think this sums it up very well.  I also think wins play a far bigger role than most people realize.  My gut says had you had a 20+ win season you would have stayed at A+.  I'm not saying the current system makes sense, but based on how prestige is calculated the drop to A does not surprise me.

I don't think people are paying enough attention to this comment. 

I remember admin/seble saying (can't remember if it was in a public post or in a ticket exchange with me) at D3, the winning% is really important, and to some degree more important than playing in 1 or 2 NT games.  So if you lost 13 games, then yeah, that prestige is going to suffer. 

Posted by jdno on 4/9/2014 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 4/8/2014 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 4/8/2014 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 4/8/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):

even with the current season counting for 50%, he made the tourney. back to back titles as the other 50%? this is definitely ticket worthy. 

The other seasons really don't matter.    It's 50% current season, and 50% current prestige.  It doesn't matter HOW he got to A+; he's only slight better than the other A+ teams.   When you average the A+ with a 13-loss season, prestige will drop.

 I don't agree with the system but that's the way it is.

I think this sums it up very well.  I also think wins play a far bigger role than most people realize.  My gut says had you had a 20+ win season you would have stayed at A+.  I'm not saying the current system makes sense, but based on how prestige is calculated the drop to A does not surprise me.

I don't think people are paying enough attention to this comment. 

I remember admin/seble saying (can't remember if it was in a public post or in a ticket exchange with me) at D3, the winning% is really important, and to some degree more important than playing in 1 or 2 NT games.  So if you lost 13 games, then yeah, that prestige is going to suffer. 

You're correct, jdno.  I had a big debate with seble about this.  He feels that a 32-2 Murrary State team, that lost in the 1st round, is just as pretigious as a 25-10 VCU team that makes the Final Four.

Thats retarded id take an 8 loss Big Ten school over a 2 or 1 loss mid major any day as far as their prestige and "power" goes. Also im pretty sure no-one is calling for Izzo's head.

well I vividly recall seble/admin saying this is more true at D3.  His logic was that nobody remembers Podunk St. making the Final 4 in D3, but going 27-2 before the NT starts is more important at that level.  His logic, not mine.

In D1, I thought he also said that postseason success and baseline prestige and all that had more to do with prestige than at the D3 level.  But al's comment is from an exchange with seble that's more recent than the incident that I'm remembering, so maybe even D1 has been tweaked a bit in favor of win%.

At any rate, at D3, my observations are the same today as they have been all along.  If you go 16-13 instead of 27-2 then you're at risk of losing some prestige unless you make a deep run in the NT.  If you only go 1 or 2 rounds, then you may take a step backward at 16-13.  Go 27-2 instead and you have more leeway even in an early exit situation.

Thanks for the insight its been an interesting read/debate