Quote: Originally posted by sluggo on 2/22/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gt_deuce on 2/22/2010Elite status eligibility will be determined by some minimum score (formula referenced above). If an Elite falls below that threshold AND a non-Elite has a score above it, the non-Elite would become Elite and the Elite would become non-Elite. Let's give two unbalanced examples:

1) Let's say two Elites drop below Elite status, but only one non-Elite goes above Elite status. In that case, only the lowest-score Elite of the two would lose their status and the one non-Elite would gain it.

2) Let's say one Elite drops below, but two non-Elite go above. In this case, the highest-scoring non-Elite would gain Elite status and the Elite would lose it. The second-place non-Elite would have to wait.

That is a lot of words to say: "Take the highest 14 scores"

Not true. Let's say you have 15 teams whose score is over the threshold for Elite status. Let's say the #14 score team is currently a non-Elite. Since the #15 team - an Elite - still hasn't scored below the Elite threshold, then the #14-score team won't have his Elite status granted.

The key here is: A current Elite has to lose its Elite status for a current non-Elite to gain Elite status. So it's a little more complex than just having the 14 highest scores.

I don't necessarily think it's best to have things reshuffle every season. This is why the provision was added for Elites needing to lose their Elite status AND a non-Elite gaining it, for something to reshuffle. It keeps it a little less volatile, but still allows for the dynamic ability.

Quote: Originally posted by unclevic on 2/22/2010And Troy State, while not currently a BCS program nor eligible to rise to artificially acquired elite status, would be able to rise to be an elite if the distinctions that divide D1A at present are to be discontinued in order to allow "floating elites."  Nothing in deuce's post of 9:55 pm above prevents it.

Sorry to pull an excerpt, but I only wanted to comment on this point. I'm glad you brought it up, because I meant to add this. Non-BCS teams would not be eligible for this system.

My rationale is that WIS seems to prefer keeping things tiered and they seem content with artificially suppressing the non-BCS teams. My model attempts to preserve that.

Quote: Originally posted by DKC on 2/23/2010if we are talking about reforming the elite system, why continue to artificially keep the non-BCS schools down?  Allow all DIA schools the possibility to have the highest prestige.

I just commented on another post regarding this, but I'm glad y'all are bringing it up. The reason is because WIS seems content with "keeping the non-BCS schools down." So my system aims to preserve that.

Quote: Originally posted by tarheel1991 on 2/22/2010See, I still think this is overthinking it. Prestige is hidden at every other level. Why can't it be hidden in DIA? Why do we need some sort of display who the current elites are? Let people figure it out by looking at recent success, the same way they do it at every other level. Use the exact same prestige formula as the other levels do (well, it's different because of bowls/playoffs, but basically the same) and add in a multiplier to assure that the non-BCS schools have a lower ceiling (which I think is certainly realistic). Why make it so complicated?

The reason for the "overthinking" and added complexity is because WIS has repeatedly stated that they are happy with the tiered approach to D-IA prestige, which is somewhat unlike the lower three levels.

At those lower three levels, prestige is more of a spectrum within a range. Every team at those lower levels has the same prestige range available to them. Their prestige moves along a continuous spectrum within this range.

However, as I'm sure you know, the D-IA level is not like this. There are three artificial tiers - non-BCS, BCS and Elite. Each of those tiers has their own independent, but somewhat overlapping, prestige range. The range of an Elite is not available to a non-BCS and vice-versa. Within those ranges, prestige does work like the lower levels, but I think it's important to maintain the tiered approach, which I believe WIS is very happy with.

I think it's important that any proposal maintains as much of the current system as possible for two reasons:

1) It preserves much of WIS's intention for the D-IA level of this game, and

2) It simplifies the changes to the code that would be necessary to implement a new system

This is great discussion and delightfully on-topic with maybe one or two borderline exceptions. Keep it coming!

Quote: Originally Posted By willgibson on 2/22/2010
I'd like to see tweaks on scheduling where rejecting challenges carries some sort of penalty.

I know these are just somewhat off-point, but they require a response. For this one, beware of the law of unintended consequences. I see what you're getting at will, but what if you have a middling program that you want to take to the next level by facing tougher competition, and before you can get a full schedule you get 5 challenges from non-BCS rebuilds? Should you be forced to accept those challenges at the risk of some penalty? Same holds true if you are an Elite and you want to have a kick-*** schedule with nothing but the best teams OOC because your conference is SIM-heavy. Or if you are a SIM rebuild and you don't want to drag yourself out of contention for a low-level bowl by playing 5 BCS heavies OOC.

I guess I know there are some guys out there who ***** out on challenges on a regular basis, but there are very reasonable bases for rejecting challenges, and we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quote: Originally Posted By sluggo on 2/22/2010

WHAT IF... Joe Paterno had been hired at Bowling Green instead of Penn State?

WHAT IF... Bear Bryant had been hired at Troy State instead of Alabama?

Again, I get your point. But I suspect that if JoePa had gone to BGSU or Bear Bryant had gone to Troy State, we may just have never heard of JoePa and Bear Bryant. Larry Kehres at Mount Union is one of the greatest coaches of all times, but I don't think Mount Union is going DIA any time soon.

There are some institutional advantages in real life that helped good coaches become great and great coaches become legendary; and, indeed that masked the foibles of mediocre coaches (John Cooper, come on down). And some of those advantages (location, to be precise) are built into the game already.

But to your real point - that we are making our own history within each world of GD - I don't see why Troy State or BGSU couldn't have become great college programs if circumstances were different. And if that is the point of GD - to play out how things may have been different if different people had made different decisions under remotely similar circumstances - then what's so bad about Troy State becoming an elite program?

Quote: Originally Posted By steinrat on 2/23/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By willgibson on 2/22/2010
I'd like to see tweaks on scheduling where rejecting challenges carries some sort of penalty.

I know these are just somewhat off-point, but they require a response. For this one, beware of the law of unintended consequences. I see what you're getting at will, but what if you have a middling program that you want to take to the next level by facing tougher competition, and before you can get a full schedule you get 5 challenges from non-BCS rebuilds? Should you be forced to accept those challenges at the risk of some penalty? Same holds true if you are an Elite and you want to have a kick-*** schedule with nothing but the best teams OOC because your conference is SIM-heavy. Or if you are a SIM rebuild and you don't want to drag yourself out of contention for a low-level bowl by playing 5 BCS heavies OOC.

I guess I know there are some guys out there who ***** out on challenges on a regular basis, but there are very reasonable bases for rejecting challenges, and we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree with you. I'm kind of hoping to hear some feedback on how WIS could make scheduling work so programs are rewarded for accepting tough challenges and penalized for ducking challenges. What I'm thinking is an elite school would be penalized for turning down challenges from any school in the top 25. Non-elite BCS schools would be penalized for turning down invites from other non-elite BCS schools and so on. The system could also rewards mid-majors for accepting or getting their challenges accepted with non-sim BSC schools and non-elite BCS schools for challenging or having challenges accepted by elites.

Although I agree that wins should be accounted for in determining the Elites and/or prestige of a team. I think it should rank less than NCs, CCs, level of bowls and WIS ranking. My reasoning is scheduling. I currently have 3 BCS teams and i usually play a very tough schedule. While I may only have 8-10 wins, I still am usually ranked in the top 25. If total wins is a major factor, I would be less inclined to play the Elite schools every season (knowing that I'll probably lose, but have an outside shot at a HUGE win), and more than likely find easy BCS and non-BCS schools to make sure i'm 5-0 going into conference play.

This could help with the scheduling penalty willgibson is throwing around, too. (BTW, good luck in 2nd half will)

I realize if I can't beat the Elites my team has no business being Elite. But a new system would affect the prestige of all schools, not just who is Elite and who is not. Correct?

So wait... scheduling willgibson in OOC should be a penalty?

I agree, buckeye. Wins, while counting towards the score, should count significantly less than larger achievements -- Top 10/25, CC, bowl win, NC.

Most definately...he leaves 'Cuse for FSU and I still end up playing him in a Bowl. I can't seem to get away from the SOB!

Found the old formulas from our initial attempt at this system (see below). Please feel free to critique this system. At the time we did this, most coaches were fairly comfortable with this, but I am not set on these being the final weights:

TW-10 = 0.667
TW-20 = 0.333
CC-10 = 2.000
CC-20 = 1.000
NC-10 = 5.000
NC-20 = 2.500
T15-10 = 1.500
T15-20 = 0.750

TW - Total Wins
CC - Conf Championships
NC - Nat Championships
T15 - Top-15 Finish

The -10 suffix indicates the most recent 10 seasons. The -20 suffix indicates the 10 seasons prior to the most recent 10 seasons (so seasons 11-20 going backwards).

Quote: Originally Posted By gt_deuce on 2/23/2010This is great discussion and delightfully on-topic with maybe one or two borderline exceptions. Keep it coming

+1

This ranks up there as maybe one of the most productive threads. Hopefully, some of these ideas make it to the update.

Look at the prestige system in HD ... it works and it works well imo.

Each team's prestige is based on historical success with an adjustment for logical factors like conference prestige (which adjusts each season) and drafted players.

Schools like Kansas and UConn start with a higher base prestige than a team like Santa Clara or SE Missouri State but the prestige is much more fluid. I also like that the prestige of each school is listed right on the profile. Transparency is a good thing for an system like prestige ... just my take.

Quote: Originally posted by ddingo on 2/23/2010Look at the prestige system in HD ... it works and it works well imo.

Each team's prestige is based on historical success with an adjustment for logical factors like conference prestige (which adjusts each season) and drafted players.

Schools like Kansas and UConn start with a higher base prestige than a team like Santa Clara or SE Missouri State but the prestige is much more fluid.  I also like that the prestige of each school is listed right on the profile.  Transparency is a good thing for an system like prestige ... just my take.

Unfortunately, I don't have visibility into HD, so I'll just have to rely on people relaying me information.

I guess the discussion of whether to maintain the Elite system or move to a more fluid system (like HD) is a different topic. The former makes this thread relevant. The latter makes this an academic exercise (which it may already be if WIS gives this idea the middle finger).

Quote: Originally Posted By gt_deuce on 2/23/2010So wait... scheduling willgibson in OOC should be a penalty?

I agree, buckeye. Wins, while counting towards the score, should count significantly less than larger achievements -- Top 10/25, CC, bowl win, NC

It wasn't a penalty in Bryant this year -- it was an easy W.