This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/21/2010

I would have taken Illinois, regardless of their prestige. I can assure you that a vast majority of the coaches would take a school based on name over prestige, it is why many play the game.

I took it for the elite baseline and location (for recruiting - I can reach the whole country for the top recruits). Infact - I lost out on UCLA to bmckay and Illinois was still not taken by day two of jobs even though it was only a B prestige.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

when I say top recruits - I mean 5 stars and I am talking in generalities not one-offs. For instance - the Big 10 signs probably 15-20 5 stars per season.... not one or two. Any school above a C prestige can bring in a 5 star on the right day in HD. If the Big Sky (over 10-15 seasons) is winning NCs, getting players drafted, and keeping up with the BCS' in rpi... then yes - the Big Sky should be landing top recruits in large #s - not just one here and one there (depending on the conf recruiting talent of coaches - some aim low)

we all agree prestige only affects recruiting in the sense that we are discussing (jobs as well - but that is another thread) What gets involved in prestige is mostly its a pride thing - like dalty... people feeling they should be an A+ because of how well they have done. If we take the emotion out - Montana is not an A or an A+ althought to dalt I have no doubt he feels they should be. I was there with Marquette a few years ago. I see it from where he is sitting. Looking back I think the sim was right about Marquette. At A- prestige I can land 1-2 5 stars on a good season... as an A+ at illinois I can land an entire 5 star class. Thats the prestige difference between the programs.

Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010The more I thiink about it the more I think prestige is not that far off in DI - Lets say we did extend prestige to 20 seasons for a moving baseline... you'd be having the same arguement with Montana.... 20 other teams would have won an NC and another 20 have been there and lost... probably dropping Montana father down than the 15th spot.

So by this logic, if a real life Montana accomplished what dalter did from 2005-2009/10, Arkansas should still have better prestige by virtue of its title in 1994. Sorry, not buying it. The rolling system being discussed would (or should) diminish the importance of a 10+ year old title in the absence of any significant subsequent success.

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/21/2010

Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010
The more I thiink about it the more I think prestige is not that far off in DI - Lets say we did extend prestige to 20 seasons for a moving baseline... you'd be having the same arguement with Montana.... 20 other teams would have won an NC and another 20 have been there and lost... probably dropping Montana father down than the 15th spot.

So by this logic, if a real life Montana accomplished what dalter did from 2005-2009/10, Arkansas should still have better prestige by virtue of its title in 1994. Sorry, not buying it.

Out of those 40 teams that have been to a NC game in the last 20 years you don't think 15 of them may have had some continued success? I'm not saying all 40 will (and some teams have been there more than once) but at least 15 would have had more success imo than Montana's 2 Final 4s in 20 seasons. I'll name a few here - UI, UMD, UNC, UK, Duke, KU, UCLA, UConn, Florida, Mich St, Syracuse to name 11 of that 15 for you. You disagree?

Here is a list of alltime NCAA final Four appearances listed by schoool - HD Montana has 2 in a 40 year history. Just to put it in perspective.... A/A+ prestige?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Final_Four_appearances_by_school

Notice the list below in that link above - Most NT appearances w/o a Final Four. BYU leads that list, Mizzou and Xavier all have 20+ appearances... and in RL and HD these schools are not A prestiges. Just getting to the NT is a great accomplishment especially if you can consistantly get there--- but winning NCs is how you get to an A+ prestige imo.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010Notice the list below in that link above - Most NT appearances w/o a Final Four.  BYU leads that list, Mizzou and Xavier all have 20+ appearances... and in RL and HD these schools are not A prestiges.  Just getting to the NT is a great accomplishment especially if you can consistantly get there--- but winning NCs is how you get to an A+ prestige imo.

I would agree with you. However:

1. Montana has made two final 4s - shouldn't that at least put them ahead of BYU, Mizzou, and Xavier? What would you assign those schools' prestiges?

2. What prestige would you assign Arkansas today?

I agree that winning NCs should be what gets you to A+, and it should be darned tough to keep that A+, but the impact of a single NC diminishes over time if a program can't keep putting runs together. That's what separates UNC and UK from Arkansas, Illinois, and Maryland. Somewhere between there is where I believe Montana fits in.

Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010when I say top recruits - I mean 5 stars and I am talking in generalities not one-offs.  For instance - the Big 10 signs probably 15-20 5 stars per season.... not one or two.  Any school above a C prestige can bring in a 5 star on the right day in HD. If the Big Sky (over 10-15 seasons) is winning NCs, getting players drafted, and keeping up with the BCS' in rpi... then yes - the Big Sky should be landing top recruits in large #s - not just one here and one there (depending on the conf recruiting talent of coaches - some aim low) we all agree prestige only affects recruiting in the sense that we are discussing (jobs as well - but that is another thread)  What gets involved in prestige is mostly its a pride thing - like dalty... people feeling they should be an A+ because of how well they have done.  If we take the emotion out - Montana is not an A or an A+ althought to dalt I have no doubt he feels they should be.  I was there with Marquette a few years ago.  I see it from where he is sitting.  Looking back I think the sim was right about Marquette.  At A- prestige I can land 1-2 5 stars on a good season... as an A+ at illinois I can land an entire 5 star class. Thats the prestige difference between the programs.

Moy that basically was what the Big Sky was doing. I was at Weber, davy at PVAM, indians at southern, uch at asu, gfox at EWash, ams at Montana State. We only had 2 openings at a time. We signed top level talent, Ie the classes that you are speaking of and had one of the top conference prestiges.

You and I are apparently posting at the same time, so when I responded previously, you hadn't edited your post to include the link.

Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/21/2010

Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010Notice the list below in that link above - Most NT appearances w/o a Final Four. BYU leads that list, Mizzou and Xavier all have 20+ appearances... and in RL and HD these schools are not A prestiges. Just getting to the NT is a great accomplishment especially if you can consistantly get there--- but winning NCs is how you get to an A+ prestige imo.

I would agree with you. However:

1. Montana has made two final 4s - shouldn't that at least put them ahead of BYU, Mizzou, and Xavier? What would you assign those schools' prestiges?

2. What prestige would you assign Arkansas today?

I agree that winning NCs should be what gets you to A+, and it should be darned tough to keep that A+, but the impact of a single NC diminishes over time if a program can't keep putting runs together. That's what separates UNC and UK from Arkansas, Illinois, and Maryland. Somewhere between there is where I believe Montana fits in

Completely agree. Montana would be better at this point in time than a RL Arkansas which won a NC but has rarely danced since. That said - there are lots of programs in HD now that have been in NCs over the last 20 seasons... even with diminishing returns they still are making the NT more seasons than not. Montana has only been in the final 4 twice in its 40 year existance. Its like tony dungy - he needed to win one to be great... otherwise he was just very very good at getting the team in the playoffs. I don't think Montana is an A or A+. I do think they deserve an A- prestige. If dalt wins the NC next season and is not an A+ prestige I will hold the banner in a charge against seble about small conf team prestige!!