Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 1/29/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By cheeznsweet on 1/29/2010

This is what i was getting at earlier. I'm not nearly smart enough to know if S16 every year is good enough to be A-. But what I do know is that it depends in a large part on the other teams in the conference. And that's tough because the odds are of one or two teams will slip up or go Sim and their prestige will fall, dragging down everyone else.

I think the impact of conference prestige on school prestige should be smaller. There's plenty of inherent advantage in the higher baseline prestiges of BCS schools - this means they'll have higher upside, more rec money, etc, etc which help them as long as they do a decent job. They don't need the help of conference prestige too. All it does is penalize the succesful mid-majors.

And pork, just because you started the thread like a year ago doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else how much they suck when they're not even disagreeing with you.

I disagree. As much as I love the MVC (my undergrad was from ISU, thats Illinois) the fact that ISU and the rest of the teams suck year in and year out hold the better teams back (from the national scene) like Creighton and SIU. Conf really does play a big role in overall team prestige imo. The fact that there is a RL term called the big-6 proves this

Quote: Originally Posted By george633 on 1/30/2010



There are a number of issues with prestige and one could talk a long time about all of them. The following are just a couple of things that come to mind.

1. The prestige levels for some of the BCS schools is unrealistic. Someone made a post about WI being 'sneaky good', but let's be realistic here. WI does not compare to Duke, KY, or some of the other more prominent ACC and Big East programs, and WI's prestige level is likely too high as are others like them.

WI would be, at most, 1/3 of a grade off. IRL they've been to 11 straight NT's, the fourth-longest streak nationally. They're not in the Duke/UNC stratosphere, but they're very clearly not down with B teams like Minnesota, Clemson, FSU, Providence, Seton Hall, etc. No way. There are probably better examples than WI that I would agree with.

2. If you are at a school that has a high baseline, then you should be held accountable for a higher level of success. Going to the NT one and out should get the AD, etc. upset about that.

Agreed. But they don't want to fire coaches and chase them out of the game.

3. There is the issue of taking into consideration the overlapping workings of RL, simulation, and trying not to discourage coaches who are at lower level schools. Once you reach your baseline level, the conference does drag you down and quickly I might add.

Part of what was sold me when HD introduced prestige was that it would encourage coaches to build up a Duquesne or some other similar program and stay there. This would alleviate some of the frustration coaches were having from being blocked at moving into BCS positions.

However, the reverse has happened. Getting a low or mid-major to a high level of prestige is one thing entirely, but there is no way they can compete with those conferences that pull in large sums of tournament money. I recognize that this is RL, but there are schools who will allocate more of their budget to support a one sport program. This is not clearly built into the game, and a smart AD at some small school is going to allocate more funds in order to bring in more funds via game revenue.

There are elements of truth to what you're saying, certainly. But there's absolutely no doubt that floating prestige has made life better for the non-BCS schools. Floating prestige still very much encourages coaches to stick around and build up smaller schools vs. the old system. But the fact is that there will always be an overall gravitation towards the "name" schools from real life.

4. We all have made out nc schedules we expect are going to be strong only to find out that many factors combined for that not being so true. Yet, this practice of scheduling a pile of SIMS, winning those games, and then having a decent rpi needs to halt. The thing is it seems that the teams with the high prestige do not get penalized as severely for this tactic as do the small school programs. Prestige keeps them built up.

An excellent example of this is UCLA in IBA. The team had 10 SIMS on their schedule and won those games. They did/do have a weak sos and rpi, but they are still ranked in the Top 25. Now, how can that happen?

Being ranked in the top 25 doesn't really matter (and is largely a product of past success). RPI is what matters and what gets you into the NT. In general, this is a poor strategy, and I've seen many, many teams pay for it.

They should be knocked down severely for having made such a schedule and ending up with a lowered prestige. Yet, their baseline and conference is going to keep them propped up. That is just not right, and if I were a fan, I would be PO spending hard earned money to see these guys playing a crappy product.

I do agree that caliber of competition should be taken into account more in a number of areas.

5. Since this is a 'simulation', I don't feel that we should change baselines over time. There are way too many factors that can affect that, and though I do not agree with some of the baselines shown for certain schools and how they are handled, it was not a bad idea to set them. A balance needs to be struck. To me, prestige is something that needs to be tweaked not rebuilt from ground up.

6. Thanks to Porkpower for the posting of the school prestige levels. It was interesting to see these again.

Quote: Originally posted by porkpower on 1/30/2010Just as I suspected, South Florida starts out as a C-. List has been updated!