Quote: Originally Posted By buckeye_jg on 2/23/2010
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?

GL in the second half, buckeye.

Quote: Originally posted by buckeye_jg on 2/23/2010I 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?

I don't think so. It literally only affects the "tier" a team is in -- at that, only who the 14 Elites are. From there, the prestige system works exactly as it currently does.

Let me give you an example with some imaginary numbers.

We'll call the Elite score threshold 250 for this example.

At the end of Season 50, Michigan's Elite score is 230 (below the threshold). At the end of that same season, Boston College - which has been overachieving for the better part of the last 25 seasons - has an Elite score of 290 (over the threshold).

We now have the requirements for an Elite change - one Elite (Michigan) lost Elite status AND one non-Elite (Boston College) gained it. Now, on the season rollover, Boston College is tagged as an Elite for that world, while Michigan is tagged as non-Elite BCS. That's it -- the only change.

Now you can forget that Michigan was ever an Elite and think of Boston College just like you used to think of Michigan. Each team's prestige is calculated exactly as before, only that UM now falls in the non-Elite BCS range and BC now falls in the Elite range.

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

Quote: Originally posted by buckeye_jg on 2/23/2010 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?

I don't think so. It literally only affects the "tier" a team is in -- at that, only who the 14 Elites are. From there, the prestige system works exactly as it currently does.

Let me give you an example with some imaginary numbers.

We'll call the Elite score threshold 250 for this example.

At the end of Season 50, Michigan's Elite score is 230 (below the threshold). At the end of that same season, Boston College - which has been overachieving for the better part of the last 25 seasons - has an Elite score of 290 (over the threshold).

We now have the requirements for an Elite change - one Elite (Michigan) lost Elite status AND one non-Elite (Boston College) gained it. Now, on the season rollover, Boston College is tagged as an Elite for that world, while Michigan is tagged as non-Elite BCS. That's it -- the only change.

Now you can forget that Michigan was ever an Elite and think of Boston College just like you used to think of Michigan. Each team's prestige is calculated exactly as before, only that UM now falls in the non-Elite BCS range and BC now falls in the Elite range.

In this case, their would need to be an indicator of which schools are of elite status, right? How else would you be sure if Michigan lost its status and Boston College gained it?

Yes, I think so. It could be posted in the News. Or there could be some sort of indicator for each team, as ddingo stated for HD.

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

Quote: Originally posted by ddingo on 2/23/2010
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.

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).

Here are the current top 5 teams in Naismith (just over halfway through post season tourney)

Syracuse - Record: 28-5Conference: Big EastCoach: pottlePrestige: A+RPI: 14SOS: 62

St. Peters - Record: 29-3Conference: MetroCoach: lostmyth2Prestige: BRPI: 9SOS: 89

Kansas - Record: 28-4Conference: Big 12Coach: mmt0315Prestige: A-RPI: 7SOS: 63

Alcorn St. - Record: 29-3Conference: Big SkyCoach: kkyutzyPrestige: C+RPI: 12SOS: 73

California, Riverside - Record: 27-5Conference: Big WestCoach: mccabemiPrestige: A-RPI: 15SOS: 65

Notice the prestige is right there on the team page. California, Riverside has the same prestige as an elite Kansas.

You can also find the conference prestige. I have the conferences sorted by prestige below. At the moment the Big 6 are the top 6, but that isn't always the case. The higher the conference prestige the better it is for every team in the conference.

4.	Big 12	B+	184-161	.5581	.5494
1.	ACC	B+	213-138	.5933	.5948
6.	SEC	B	185-159	.5499	.5440
5.	Big East	B	179-163	.5585	.5464
2.	Big Ten	B	199-151	.5727	.5688
3.	PAC 10	B-	197-153	.5617	.5617
7.	Atlantic 10	C+	183-160	.5369	.5385
10.	Big West	C	168-175	.5220	.5107
8.	Mountain West	C	183-159	.5315	.5328
18.	Horizon	C-	162-176	.4817	.4792
17.	Northeast	C-	161-176	.4832	.4802
16.	WCC	C-	158-180	.4868	.4833
15.	Conference USA	C-	165-177	.4933	.4898
13.	Mid-Eastern	C-	166-171	.5003	.4982
9.	Metro-Atlantic	C-	178-163	.5290	.5242
27.	Southland	D+	152-184	.4554	.4520
23.	Ohio Valley	D+	153-182	.4732	.4671
22.	Summit League	D+	158-180	.4735	.4691
21.	Missouri Valley	D+	160-175	.4720	.4711
20.	MAC	D+	159-179	.4742	.4732
19.	Sun Belt	D+	158-179	.4804	.4743
14.	Ivy League	D+	165-175	.4983	.4966
12.	Big Sky	D+	176-163	.4949	.4984
11.	Southern	D+	175-164	.4979	.5014
26.	Patriot League	D	149-186	.4563	.4538
25.	Big South	D	149-186	.4617	.4576
24.	Colonial Athletic Association	D	158-178	.4649	.4661

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.

Guys would just stop REJECTING the challenges. They would just let them sit there until they filled up their schedule and the challenges went away. You couldn't add a time limit to where they would have to accept/reject the challenge because that would punish guys who were unavailable to get to their computer and had their team on autopilot.

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

Absolutely nothing at all. THAT is my point. At this time, those teams can't win an NC. I do not think a computer simulation should should be designed where only certain teams can win.

This is called WHAT IF, not WHAT IS.

I knew it was your point. I agree. It was a question for those who feel differently.

Any change to the current system needs to incorporate the conference prestige aspect. Teams should be rewarded for participating in a highly competitive conference. That's one of the aspects I enjoy the most about the HD system.

Quote: Originally posted by ddingo on 2/23/2010Any change to the current system needs to incorporate the conference prestige aspect. Teams should be rewarded for participating in a highly competitive conference. That's one of the aspects I enjoy the most about the HD system.

Any direction you could give as to how the conference prestige works (calculation and application) would be very valuable.