Commented the new baselines and comparison of the distribution in a later comment
Actual new baseline prestige's are near the bottom but you need to understand how they work otherwise you might not like them since they clearly would not work under this system as well as needing some other factors changed I will present soon that will help fix some problems that could arise.
Went around ordering the top teams in college basketball through some stats(I did all 324 HD teams so we can look at every team)
4 main factors are
- Average RPI of the past 10 seasons
- Win%
- Post season results
- Conference Prestige
Post season results were awarded by points and the amount of times you reached that round I did:
NIT appearance 1 pt
NT play in game 1 pt
NT 1st rnd 2 pt
2nd round 4 pt
S16 8pt
E8 12 pt
F4 16 pt
NC Game 20 pt
NC champs 30 pt
So if you had 3 1st rounds and a S16 in 10 seasons you'd get [(3*2)+(1*8)]=14 pts
Each of the 30 categories the highest value I used to divide from 100(100/highest value) and took that multiplier to every team so the highest team would be at 100. So for example Duke had the highest RPI value at .6563 and the multiple was 152 and a bunch of decimals so Duke gets a 100 "rating".
I did that so when I calculated the final ranking I could actually weight each factor specifically since a .6 RPI is really good, but compared to a 100 Post season results they'd be heavily skewed. Hence why everything was scaled to 100.
This would have to change for HD and I would need to see the number to letter grade scale they use to implement into my baseline changes and prestige calculations.
Conference prestige was a way to take into account SOS as well as boosting power conferences over mid-majors over low end jobs. Since with everything equal a ACC team still has better prestige than Eastern Washington. I didn't want to use SOS since it can benefit teams with bad W-L and I felt Conference Prestige was able to include the SOS factor as well.(I will discuss conference prestige calculations in a later section.
Then those 4 scaled ratings are added together and weighted, the weights are:
35% Team RPI
10% Win percentage
30% Post season results
25% Conference Prestige
And that is the final rating and then just sorted biggest to smallest and ranked by that number.
So its basically a 1-100 scale and a 100 rating would mean you had the #1 avg rpi, win%, post season results, and top conference prestige for the past 10 seasons of any team(not all time however, so a 100 doesn't mean it’s the best run of all time)
The highest ranking was a 95.70(then scaled to a 100) by Duke and the worst a 37.81->39.51 by San Jose St.(their were 3 teams that changed divisions or stopped playing basketball so San Jose was #321)
And then I applied A+ through D prestige based on their final numbers(not rank)[again method would change a tiny bit based on how HD correlates numbers to letters]
The current scalings of how each prestige is open to change but tenatively I have
|
New Prestige
|
Low
|
High
|
Count
|
|
A+
|
90
|
100
|
10
|
|
A
|
80
|
89
|
8
|
|
A-
|
75
|
79
|
6
|
|
B+
|
70
|
74
|
14
|
|
B
|
67
|
69
|
15
|
|
B-
|
63
|
66
|
20
|
|
C+
|
60
|
62
|
19
|
|
C
|
57
|
59
|
26
|
|
C-
|
53
|
56
|
50
|
|
D+
|
50
|
52
|
51
|
|
D
|
0
|
49
|
105
|
|
|
|
|
324
|
The upper 40's and then 50's low 60's is where most teams fell hence why I had to change things a bit from 10 point per each grabe then to 5 and then to 3 to separate them out a bit.
Now this probably is a bit weird and require a little bit of getting used to since it dramatically lowers the number of elite schools and the number of D schools. The biggest amount of teams comes from the C- to C+ range. I think that might actually provide some interesting results.
Clearly getting to one of those A- or higher schools is really nice as there are so few(but don't worry they don't get overpowered due to some other changes I have or will mention.
Another big thing would be how current prestige is calculated I believe its just (current+baseline)/2 which heavily factors in baseline prestige and I think current prestige needs to be included more so yes baseline is important but not as clearly one of the biggest factors in the game, I've been messing around with some numbers as so far I have really liked 70% current prestige 20% baseline and 5% conference prestige. This makes it more important of your actual results while still making baseline and conference prestige a factor. Using these numbers you would start to see some more higher prestige non major programs as well as weak Big 6 schools deservedly receive a drop in prestige instead of being able to stay C+/B- with no post season results or just the occasional PIT.
This would also help regulate the prestige's since in my product there are few elites and more average teams making success really show at schools.
The effect I think of having so many C- to C+ teams is in recruiting where the playing fields are separated into 3 categories: the elites(B+ or higher) the average(C to B) and the weak(C- and lower). I think with having so many average teams its almost a level playing field and we should see more competition(the elites have a huge adv but I think a proposed recruit generation change it would reflect that(less elite recruits more average recruits) and then we see a huge shift into coaching ability coming into factor since we have the ~30 elite schools probably consisting most of the teams going far in the post season but then the average schools would be the ones where we see the "surprise teams" come from.
Now I think this would scare a lot of people as the few amount of elite teams you would think they would have an insane adv but with the recruit generation change(i have in mind and can explain later) as well as someone not really talented enough getting one of those high prestige jobs but not being able to produce at a level required(increased firings/hiring's)
I guess the prestige letter grades are the most important part of this post, I kind of got sidetracked and I know these prestige numbers would not work with the current recruit generation and I know that and they are not supposed to work with the current recruit generation system because my next big topic would be how to fix recruit generation because seble is wrong and recruit generation is honestly the 2nd biggest needed change in the game needed.
Next on the list is my proposed changes to recruit generation(another of my top 3 changes) which I'm not sure how long it will take me to come up with all of that.
10/10/2015 5:22 PM (edited)