Do Not Like Changes Topic

isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 6/28/2012 7:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/27/2012 9:43:00 AM (view original):
And the adjustment is probably the effect of the false prop up of conference\baseline. One season tells you less than nothing. This seqson is going to be unique ...
Maybe ... kinda/sorta. If this didn't include the new changes, then obviously it doesn't matter.

But if it did (and I'm not sure),some of what he posted seems pretty troubling.

LSU with three straight Sweet 16's only at an A-? That doesn't make any sense, no way to rationalize it.
I absolutely do not agree that 3 straight S16s should be an automatic A.
6/28/2012 12:56 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
m4284850
Posts: 453 (0)
All Star
30 1
Prospect

I don't really like the prestige changes either. Look at Dayton here in Phelan: http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=13820    They are D+ prestige.  Granted they're pretty awful but  they've never been lower than C- and they have like a B baseline (something like that). They shouldn't be able to drop that low.

6/28/2012 1:52 PM
dwoelflin07
Posts: 97 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 6 5
Prospect
Posted by professor17 on 6/28/2012 8:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm guessing that post-season success is not the only factor in calculating prestige. RPI is probably a component, and that is probably what is holding LSU back. Their average RPI over the 4-year window is "only" 30.
100% agreed. RPI IS greatly tied into prestige IMO. 30 rpi average in a 4 year window is NOT an A prestige. I understand the arguement of 3 straight s-16s however I tend to believe the product of 26-29 games better represents a team than a 2-3 game span during an end of season tournament. Where you can EASILY see a better draw than say a 30 rpi team deserves. This is a product of a HORRIBLE SEC and so many competitive mid-majors in phelan.
6/28/2012 2:19 PM
dwoelflin07
Posts: 97 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 6 5
Prospect
but i mean to take nothing from mmt. He has done an amazing job with LSU.
6/28/2012 2:20 PM
namshub
Posts: 280 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 3 308 2 37
Rookie
Posted by girt25 on 6/28/2012 7:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/27/2012 9:43:00 AM (view original):
And the adjustment is probably the effect of the false prop up of conference\baseline. One season tells you less than nothing. This seqson is going to be unique ...
Maybe ... kinda/sorta. If this didn't include the new changes, then obviously it doesn't matter.

But if it did (and I'm not sure),some of what he posted seems pretty troubling.

LSU with three straight Sweet 16's only at an A-? That doesn't make any sense, no way to rationalize it.
there are less A+ and A's now.  that's what's happening moving forward.  check naismith if you need verification.
6/28/2012 3:15 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Posted by dwoelflin07 on 6/28/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by professor17 on 6/28/2012 8:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm guessing that post-season success is not the only factor in calculating prestige. RPI is probably a component, and that is probably what is holding LSU back. Their average RPI over the 4-year window is "only" 30.
100% agreed. RPI IS greatly tied into prestige IMO. 30 rpi average in a 4 year window is NOT an A prestige. I understand the arguement of 3 straight s-16s however I tend to believe the product of 26-29 games better represents a team than a 2-3 game span during an end of season tournament. Where you can EASILY see a better draw than say a 30 rpi team deserves. This is a product of a HORRIBLE SEC and so many competitive mid-majors in phelan.
And let's not forget that the impact of baseline prestige was only reduced slightly, per seble. So LSU's B baseline prestige is also probably a significant factor here.
6/28/2012 3:56 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by sully712 on 6/28/2012 1:04:00 PM (view original):

How do you figure?  You are saying that a school, from a Big 6 conference, with 3 straight S16 plus winning the conference title, is not going to be an "A" in real life?  When you look at other programs that are an "A", there is no way to keep a school with 3 straight S16 from being an "A" as well.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Real life is terrible comparison for you, because teams have 2-3 year runs all the time and it doesn't propel them to getting elite recruits/constant national attention/whatever else comes with A prestige in real life.

If you want to make an argument, make one that there aren't X number of better teams, so they should be an A.  But the real life example doesn't work.

6/28/2012 4:25 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
This thread should be renamed: "MMT0315's Phelan LSU Team" Sheesh...for the record its there is no justification for LSU to not have an A prestige, while an A+ would be an overreach not being an A is silly, recruits do not select schools based on RPI. They select schools based on School, School success, Tournament success and conference success. LSU plays in the SEC, has made the National Tournament 5 straight seasons including the aforementioned 3 straight S16s; just won the SEC tournament and so on...The point of these changes (June 26 changes) was to make DI more competitive by hurting the top tier schools through EEs and limiting prestige.

These changes were well intended but not thought through. Examples go beyond LSU's prestige. Boston College just lost multiple players to EEs despite a non postseason season and Seble's logic was "they have an A-" prestige. Well, before long they will be at a B because how the hell can they compete in the ACC if they cant keep their players. UNC in Naismith just dropped to a B prestige. Putting aside whether the coach there shoulda been canned 15 seasons ago...UNC should NEVER, EVER be a B prestige. A byproduct of my non prestige bump at LSU is my inability to land the UConn job which just opened. Under the old system I woulda been bumper to an A and the qualified. Im also not qualified for A+ NC State. Less coaches qualified for top tier jobs guarantees, both programs will be destroyed. This is no good for the game. I can go on and on...but just dont have the time.

Its a shame that WIS always seems to think there is a large demand for things based on the 15-20 people that have nothing better to do than troll the forums all day.
6/28/2012 4:29 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
I didn't think your current team's prestige was a factor in the job search process. Am I mistaken on that? 
6/28/2012 4:41 PM
stinenavy
Posts: 4004 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 330 1
All Star
I don't understand the rationale for UNC never being a B. The coach there has sucked them down to that level. What really should happen is a firing, but there seems to be a silence over that matter from seble.
6/28/2012 4:42 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Just as a real broad generalization, when I think of A+ schools, I think of teams that make Final Fours; A teams are those that go to Elite 8's. A- are Sweet 16 teams; B+ are 2nd Round teams; B are one and done in the NT, or win some games in the PT. So I don't think LSU being at an A- instead of an A is an egregious failing of the system.

Prestige has to be based on both post-season and regular season; otherwise a team that was ranked in the Top 10 all season, but went out in the first or 2nd round, would have a prestige that was too low, whereas a team like real-life George Mason would suddenly have vaulted up to the A level after their Final 4 appearance, despite being off the radar throughout the entire regular season. 

No, recruits don't care about RPI, but the RPI is one way to evaluate the regular season portion of the equation, flawed metric that it is. The other alternative would be to use Top 25 ranking, and there LSU in the four year window was a #10, #19 and two unranked seasons. That does not scream "A" to me, either.

So again, while I respect that people can disagree about A- vs. A, we're splitting hairs over 1/3 of a letter grade, and as such, this just can't be held up as an example of some great failing of the system. I'm not saying things are perfect by any means, and I'm sure there are good examples of prestige being out of whack. I just don't see this as being one of them. And this is not meant in any way as being a knock on mmt, who's a great coach.
6/28/2012 4:51 PM
barretchap
Posts: 194 (0)
Hall of Famer
321
Prospect
I agree with stinenavy.  This is whatifsports.  It should not be completely tied to real life.  If UNC is bad for 50 seasons should they still be a B or better?  I thought the purpose of this site was to compete to see if you could take any team and make them the best.  The prestige system is nice to keep some order, but the world should be dictated by actual success.  Isn't that what girt and others were trying to accomplish by taking mid-major conferences and trying to make them elite? 
6/28/2012 6:23 PM
namshub
Posts: 280 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 3 308 2 37
Rookie
Posted by professor17 on 6/28/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
Just as a real broad generalization, when I think of A+ schools, I think of teams that make Final Fours; A teams are those that go to Elite 8's. A- are Sweet 16 teams; B+ are 2nd Round teams; B are one and done in the NT, or win some games in the PT. So I don't think LSU being at an A- instead of an A is an egregious failing of the system.

Prestige has to be based on both post-season and regular season; otherwise a team that was ranked in the Top 10 all season, but went out in the first or 2nd round, would have a prestige that was too low, whereas a team like real-life George Mason would suddenly have vaulted up to the A level after their Final 4 appearance, despite being off the radar throughout the entire regular season. 

No, recruits don't care about RPI, but the RPI is one way to evaluate the regular season portion of the equation, flawed metric that it is. The other alternative would be to use Top 25 ranking, and there LSU in the four year window was a #10, #19 and two unranked seasons. That does not scream "A" to me, either.

So again, while I respect that people can disagree about A- vs. A, we're splitting hairs over 1/3 of a letter grade, and as such, this just can't be held up as an example of some great failing of the system. I'm not saying things are perfect by any means, and I'm sure there are good examples of prestige being out of whack. I just don't see this as being one of them. And this is not meant in any way as being a knock on mmt, who's a great coach.
+1
6/28/2012 9:52 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Posted by professor17 on 6/28/2012 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I didn't think your current team's prestige was a factor in the job search process. Am I mistaken on that? 
Im pretty sure it does...whether it is on the books or isnt...there has always been a spot on correlation...
6/28/2012 10:05 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
Do Not Like Changes Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.