Which is more prestigous in real life:

1)  Being ranked in the Top 10 but losing in the 1st round of the NT;

2)  Being a #14 or #15 seed and advancing to the Sweet 16 or beyond

Clearly No. 1. Otherwise George Mason, Davidson, etc. would have seen significant improvements in the quality of their recruits after their deep NT runs (granted, those weren't 14-15 seeds, but still fitting the implied criteria of being small-time schools, since those are the only teams that ever get seeded 14-15).

Edit: No. 2 may well get more short-term media exposure, but I don't think that translates into "prestige", which for the purposes of HD translates directly/exclusively to recruiting power.

I'm with professor. Duke/UNC/Syracuse/etc. being ranked in top 10 but getting cracked in 1st or 2nd round will remain as more prestigious than the cinderellas. 

At the risk of criticizing three people who are smarter than me: 

1. I'm not sure the question is the correct one.  #14 or #15 seed in real life doesn't equate well to WIS.  In real life these are poor auto-bid teams with 100+ RPI's that are at a big disadvantage.  That parallel doesn't exist in HD.   Maybe #15 seed some seasons but the #14 in HD typically includes at large qualifiers, some of which come from the Big conferences.

2. I think both answers are assuming prior prestige.  Duke, UNC, Syracuse are blue bloods.  A+ prestige from the season before.  A better question would be if Murray State was undefeated and lost in the first round, how would that compare to Akron (to choose a #14 seed from ESPN Bracketology) making it the Sweet 16. For hard core fans, Murray State is on top but Akron is going to grab the attention of a lot more eyes.

I would say incoming recruits - the people for whom prestige in this game is truly significant - qualify as "hard-core fans," particularly given that when you say hard-core fans you basically seem to mean people that aren't just watching the tournament and pay at least some attention to the regular season.  Which is the majority of fans.

Short term: Option 2, the underdog going to the sweet 16. Might get a boost that summer for recruiting, but not much more unless they have continued success. Davidson is a great example, made the Elite 8 that season with Curry, et. al, and they didn't see much of a recruiting boost. But see: Gonzaga, not many sweet 16s last few years (one I believe, vs UNC 2008) but consistently a top 25 team who bring in very good recruits and have a national prestige.

al, the problem with that question is that the type of teams that get 14/15/16 in HD are often very different than the ones who get those seeds in real life. Talent disparity is just much, much more pronounced in real life, so those teams aren't taken as seriously -- they're seen as fun, Cinderalla curiosities.

But there's a difference with a lot of those teams in HD.

Let's also not forget when the impact is felt- usually by March all of the top HS seniors have committed, and a good chunk of the juniors- so the big run impacts the 15/16 year old kids, and if you fall off the planet the first 10 games of the next season, they've forgotten where Northern Iowa even is.

ive got to agree with being top 10. but its all relative. if you had a team, 10 years in a row, be top 10 and not make it out of the 2nd round, that might be worse than a team who was say an 11 seed (so its still an at large bid) and makes the sweet 16 ten years in a row. but if you a relatively prestigious program, it would look better for them to be top 10 all season IMO.

now, for a low prestige school, i would also think being top 10 could be better for them. there are enough low prestige programs pulling off elite 8s or final 4s that really 1 sweet 16 isn't that big of a deal. if you are top 10 all season, then people are thinking about you all season, instead of just for 1 week, and i think that is bigger.

not to change topics really... but its true about how quickly these teams are forgotten IMO. even ones nobody forgets right away, like george mason - in 5 years, if george mason makes the NT (or even next season), is anybody going to think they are REALLY that much more likely to pull upsets? i don't even know if they have the same coach anymore, if they did, i would care about that. if not, they wouldn't really get any extra consideration from me.

along those lines - how many people were shocked the butler coach didn't move on after his back to back title game appearances?

Let me phrase the question a different way.  Which is more prestigous:

1)  VCU making the Final Four last season

2) Murray State entering this year's tournament 30-1 but losing in the first round

In this case, al, I'd go with #1. Both are similar programs in terms of overall success, but I think the final four run bumps them higher because ultimately you get so much more exposure for a trip like that.

By the way, could we add a 3rd option: 

3) Harvard having an alum take over the NYK spotlight and looking like a mainstay in the top-25 for the season. (Obviously this is outside of the tournament success piece but, wow, what a bump they've gotten over the past couple of months.)

Posted by alblack56 on 2/11/2012 6:02:00 AM (view original):
Let me phrase the question a different way.  Which is more prestigous:

1)  VCU making the Final Four last season

2) Murray State entering this year's tournament 30-1 but losing in the first round

VCU -- and I don't think it's all that close in this particular example.