I've reached a new level of exasperation with "floating" prestige. The caps that are still in place that are arbitrarily tied to nothing in particular are ridiculous and don't make any sense.

Now, I understand if a UCLA is down a bit and still maintains a high prestige. I get that. What I don't get is something like the following (and this is nothing against reinsel, who is a great coach and a buddy of mine):

Here's me at Montana over the last four seasons:

40	dalter	28-5	11-2	12-1	5-2	15-1	6	9	A-	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Final Four)
39	dalter	29-5	13-0	9-4	7-1	15-1	3	2	A-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Final Four)
38	dalter	28-5	12-1	11-2	5-2	14-2	8	2	B+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Elite 8)
37	dalter	30-3	12-1	12-1	6-1	16-0	3	3	B	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)

Here's reinsel at Wichita State:

40	reinsel	28-5	12-1	10-3	6-1	14-2	8	10	B+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
39	reinsel	23-7	12-1	8-5	3-1	13-3		16	B	CT Champion NT (1st Round)
38	reinsel	22-7	12-2	9-3	1-2	14-2		42	B	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
37	reinsel	23-7	10-4	10-2	3-1	14-2		46	B-	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (1st Round)

There is simply no way you can look at those two resumes, both coming from non-BCS conferences, and think the prestige should be very close. (And the first person that gives me a, "Well, um, you could be a high A- and, um, he could be a low B+ and stuff ..." gets an immediate punch to the ovary. Yep, right to the babymaker.)

I've made very deep runs each of the last four seasons and have the best resume in Allen over that time. He has been out of the first round once. I've had single-digit rpi's every season.

And not only have I played some of the tougher non-cons in Allen, but the Big Sky has been a de facto BCS conference. We've ranked 5th, 3rd and 5th in conf rpi and sent 4-6 teams to the NT each of the last three seasons. This year we had two F4 teams and the champs; two seasons ago we had three S16 teams. So we have elevated ourselves to be a really strong conference.

There simply has to be a system in place that provides a meaningful differential between two resumes like the ones above, rather than arbitrarily capping Montana. I'm not saying it should be easy, but putting together that kind of resume isn't. (The only other team in Allen that's even made the S16 the last four seasons is UConn.)

If I hadn't worked hard to help build up the Big Sky into a great conference, what reason in the world would I want to stay?

I just find this very, very disheartening and de-motivating.

Now I'll pick on another buddy of mine, lol (again, no offense, Andre). Here's Va Tech's last four:

40	aporter	14-15	9-5	5-9	0-1	4-12		62	B	PI (2nd Round)
39	aporter	14-15	8-7	5-7	1-1	6-10		77	B-	PI (1st Round)
38	aporter	14-16	7-6	6-9	1-1	5-11		63	B-	PI (2nd Round)
37	aporter	11-16	8-6	3-9	0-1	4-12		136	B-

No winning record. No NT bids. Trust me, I understand what conference they're in. And in Allen it's particularly brutal (I've had to face the majority of them in the NT over the last few seasons.) But Va Tech has no basketball history; this isn't UNC or Duke or even a team like Ga Tech being down and still maintaining.

I just don't get how a team with no basketball tradition and without a winning season can still be within shouting distance of a team that's gone to the Elite 8 or F4 four seasons in a row. This system is broken.

There's a difference between something being broken and you just not liking how it's set up. Montana plays in 7500 seat arena built in 1953. I'm guessing there's not much of a TV deal and the facilities don't match up with VA Tech's. 4 great years wouldn't change that. It's no secret that in HD (as in real life) getting the low Div I teams to highest level of prestige is very difficult. There are 14 schools in Allen with a prestige better than Montana, that sounds about right to me. You've done a great job at Montana, but I'm not sure why you'd think Montana could be an A/A+ prestige without even making a championship game.

As a member of ACC-Allen, I appreciate where you're coming from.

Also, it's not just a four-year run. Montana has made the NT eight straight seasons and the postseason 11 straight seasons. I bring up the four-year window because, as you know, that's what our prestige grades are based on.

And with that in mind, it's really hollow to make the argument that it needs to occur over a longer period of time, because what Montana did eight seasons ago doesn't have any direct impact on my prestige now.

And if you don't think I should have an A prestige, that's your right. I understand your point, but don't agree with it. But even if you think I should be at A-, hopefully you can see my point that there needs to be some meaningful separation between a team like Montana and other non-BCS teams at B or B+ that have been only moderately successful.

And pottle, if you speak disparagingly again about Dahlberg Arena, you and I are going to have to engage in fisticuffs.

Oh, and you're not the only one who can do a bit of research ... Va Tech plays in a 10,000-seat stadium built in 1961. Doesn't sound much different than Montana's. (And yes, I know the ACC-Allen receives more fake media coverage.)

My vote: Let's let on-court performance determine how good the school is, not the size of the arena (insert size joke here).

Ouch Dalter, that stings having me as the undeserving B+, I think you are discounting the power of the MVC conference prestige vs. the lowly Big Sky:)

Great Final Four Run BTW!

Kidding :)

I didn't read the responses but I can say with full confidence that there is no reason to maintain caps on prestige. Remove Prestige Caps Now!!! I'm serious, there is no reason to have them.

The only reason I can see to have them is in a new world. Then it might be useful to have them in a place for the first 10 seasons or so. However, even that is a straw man argument. Who cares if someone sets up shop at Belmont early on and turns them into a top program. There will still be plenty of people who want to coach at Duke, UK, etc. and after 20 or 30 seasons things will even out. The good coaches will build good programs and the bad ones will not, end of story.

Just cap the a+'s?

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 3/19/2010
Ouch Dalter, that stings having me as the undeserving B+, I think you are discounting the power of the MVC conference prestige vs. the lowly Big Sky:)

Great Final Four Run BTW!

Kidding :)

Sorry man, lol ... I'm not even necessarily saying you're undeserving of a B+. You've done a great job. I'm just saying the current system isn't properly differentiating between a team that's had solid success and great success, and I view that as a problem.

Honestly, in those types of situations I'd much rather post the resume of someone I'm friendly with who I know won' t be offended. And, you know, it never huts to get in a shot at the lowly MVC ...

Dalt...I feel your pain - precisely why I Yale last year. Right or wrong, the system as its constructed makes it painful to stay at the mid-majors and what sucks about that is: 1) the firing logic is totally broken meaning fewer jobs open up in Big 6 conferences than should (see Phelan D1 for some really interesting examples), and 2) if coaches leave successful mid-majors there's no one at all that is both qualified and interested in picking them up meaning they go into free-fall (see Yale's performance this year with a pretty high talent level).

screw the big sky. i say your prestige is too high

Quote: Originally posted by pottle on 3/19/2010There's a difference between something being broken and you just not liking how it's set up. Montana plays in 7500 seat arena built in 1953. I'm guessing there's not much of a TV deal and the facilities don't match up with VA Tech's. 4 great years wouldn't change that. It's no secret that in HD (as in real life) getting the low Div I teams to highest level of prestige is very difficult. There are 14 schools in Allen with a prestige better than Montana, that sounds about right to me. You've done a great job at Montana, but I'm not sure why you'd think Montana could be an A/A+ prestige without even making a championship game. 

I'd be willing to bet that a real life Montana team that goes to 2 straight Final Fours and 4 straight Elite Eights would have sufficient demand for tickets to consider expanding their arena and would have little problem getting the funds to do so. Gonzaga doesn't seem to have a prestige problem despite its conference's lack of a TV contract - in fact, I'd argue that Gonzaga's real life prestige is at least equal to dalter's Montana squad and they haven't had nearly the success dalter has.

Prestige caps (or boosts in the case of bad power conference schools), BY DEFINITION, are against the "what if" spirit of this game. As a world grows, it should develop its own "power conferences" that have no bearing to real life.

Dalter if only you had won a NT perhaps things would be different. . .not.

Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 3/19/2010screw the big sky. i say your prestige is too hig

Lol, kel, I figured you'd be too hyped about the Illini's march to NIT glory to pay any attention to HD. And I am quite sure your sentiment has nothing to do with being knocked out of the NT by a Big Sky team each of the last three seasons.

If it wasn't for the Big Sky, kelby would be the 3x defending national champ in Allen!