Just took a look at Allen. Here are the non-BCS/A-10 with significant NT streaks:

-High Point (B) - 7 NT's in 8 seasons, w. 1 PI. Last four seasons include an E8 and a F4.

-Montana (A-) - 7 straight NT's. A F4 and two E8's in last four seasons.

-Memphis (B) - Postseason 22 of last 23. Four straight NT appearances and 5/6. Not past 2nd round in last four.

-Rice (B) - jreitz this season, but before that, they'd had six straight NT appearances and 8/9. Two S16's in last four seasons.

-Cleveland State (B+) - Five straight NT's, 8/9 in postseason. A championship and S16 in last four. They dropped from A- to B+ after their recent S16 season. Some will point out that the NC dropped to the fourth season on the list, but for any team to drop in prestige after making the S16 is ridiculous.

-UWGB (B) - 4/5 in NT. E8 appearance in last four seasons.

-Yale (A-) - Five straight NT's, postseason in 8/9. NC and S16 in last four.

-Dartmouth (B-) - Six straight postseason, and 7/8. Nothing past 1st round NT last four seasons.

-Bucknell (B-) - Postseason 8/9, though last two years were PI.

-Wichita State (B) - Five straight NT's, though nothing past 2nd round.

-N. Iowa (B-) - 10/11 postseason, 5/6 NT, nothing past 2nd round in 4-yr window.

-Elon (B-) - 5/6 postseason, not past 2nd round NT in 4-yr window.

-San Diego (B) - 7 straight NT's, S16 in the last four.

I don't subsribe to the "losing players" argument. Besides the point cheeznsweet makes above, which is valid, I don't see why it would drive players away any more than some other things already inherent in the game. It's not like they force players to quit. They just can't coach at the top again until they re-establish some success. The entire game is designed to reward success rather than just "showing up and paying your money". Yet people continue to play it, even those that are not as successful as others.

It just becomes part of the requirements at that level. After all, it takes success all the way through the game to move to the next level. Why not have a requirement to keep on having success once you are actually there? For those plyers not interested in that, it's incentive to stay at the lower level schools or divisions.

I don't see why coaches should have a sense of entitlement to those top jobs. The game should continue to stress success at the top just like it does all the way along the path to the top. People will either be interested in that or not. If they are, they strive for the top jobs. If they aren't, they stay lower. It helps the game either way. If they are the type of people who take a risk and then quit if it doesn't work out, they probably aren't long for this game anyway.

Dalt, not to discredit any of that info that you posted but you need to take into account draftees too (while I assume we likely agree that they should count for more at that leve) I do believe that draftees are a 1 year boost to the prestige and none of it is retained upon the completion of the next season. That is just my observation in how prestiges work and I believe might explain your Cleveland State? I wouldn't know though without knowing the draft results in Allen.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/29/2010
Fine. I will prove you wrong. I will stay at Coastal Carolina and build it up. I will get back to you in a year or two after I have finished.

I will say taht I already mentioned it is hard to do as a 1 man operation. Yet you continue to not actually address what I have said. You also seem to throw out data as quick as colonels does.

What data? I've always said dynasty. That's 10-15 seasons to me, not 5 or 6. Have you shown me a team that's done that? St. Bonnies mentioned here isn't in the same category as others point out the A-10 is right up there in baseline prestige.

If it's so possible, there should be examples.

What does this list say to me? A few things:

-There's not enough differentiation between teams that have been really good and just pretty good. Not picking on anyone here, but Cleveland State is a B+ with major postseason success, and Wichita State is a B w. no postseason runs. High Point also at a B despite several deep runs.

-It's too easy to lose prestige. The Clev State deal that I have bolded is the best example.

-I think it's very, very possible to have sustained success outside of the major conferences. These are 13 programs, which I think is a lot considering (a) a lot of coaches leave after a few years of low/mid success and (b) I was fairly picky, omitting several potentially deserving schools because they hadn't been consistent enough.

That said, I do think they need to open up prestige more. Make it more feasible for non-BCS teams to improve their prestige w. sustained success. I think Yale and Montana are the two best examples of this, because not only have they had elite-level success, but they've done them in conference that have consistently ranked in the top 6-7 in conf rpi. I'd like to see those types of results yield A/A+, which also opens the door for more differentiation between, say a High Point and a Wichita State.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 1/29/2010
-Cleveland State (B+) - Five straight NT's, 8/9 in postseason. A championship and S16 in last four. They dropped from A- to B+ after their recent S16 season. Some will point out that the NC dropped to the fourth season on the list, but for any team to drop in prestige after making the S16 is ridiculous.

I don't care what math or rationalization gets you to this outcome. Crap like this is impossible to defend.

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

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

-Cleveland State (B+) - Five straight NT's, 8/9 in postseason. A championship and S16 in last four. They dropped from A- to B+ after their recent S16 season. Some will point out that the NC dropped to the fourth season on the list, but for any team to drop in prestige after making the S16 is ridiculous.

I don't care what math or rationalization gets you to this outcome. Crap like this is impossible to defend.

Again, I am not saying I agree with this but I need the draft data to know where the problem possibly lies.

Their conference did finish dead last in RPI this year.

Plus with an early entry they will be back to A- after the draft.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen people have multiple draftees and not actually move up a letter grade.

I don't care if their conference was worse than half the DII's. A S16 should never, ever result in your prestige going down.

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

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

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

-Cleveland State (B+) - Five straight NT's, 8/9 in postseason. A championship and S16 in last four. They dropped from A- to B+ after their recent S16 season. Some will point out that the NC dropped to the fourth season on the list, but for any team to drop in prestige after making the S16 is ridiculous.

I don't care what math or rationalization gets you to this outcome. Crap like this is impossible to defend.

Again, I am not saying I agree with this but I need the draft data to know where the problem possibly lies

Sorry Z, started writing this before I saw yours. I wasn't calling out your comment.

Not that cheez or I have a dog in this fight, lol ...

dalter - some of those schools kind of make my point. While I'm not overly impressed with NT appearences because it's not hard for a good team to win their conference tourney regularly, there are some on their who have really done well in the last 4 seasons. Look at their prestige. It's not all that good for what they've done. Watch it fall once a final 4 or a NC falls off after four seasons.

You can't make a High Point into a Kentucky. It's just not going to happen with the current system. Every 4 seasons, you lose everything you gained previously. And only if you are winning a NC in those 4 seasons can you even hope to be anywhere close to Kentucky in prestige.

Again, if people think this is the way it should be that's fine, but arguing that its not that way is silly.

Lizak, I've been mostly agreeing with you this whole time.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 1/29/2010Lizak, I've been mostly agreeing with you this whole time.

I agree with you guys to an extent, especially with your guys ideas of how it should work where I think our biggest difference is I think that it should take a little longer for a conference to move into a power conference prestige then you do dalt. But I'd be willing to take anything that would allow this to happen other then what we currently have.

Sorry, trying to work and post on here at the same time doesn't lead to the best of responses. Especially, when I take too long in between and 10 messages hit the thread before I click Post.

It's just ironic to me that WhatIf and Hoops Dynasty are the names for a place that really isn't about what ifs and doesn't really allow the great majority of coaching jobs to build a dynasty.