Sick and tired of being sick and tired Topic

lostmyth2
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
191 3 2
Prospect
According to billyg's unweighted dynasty list Montana is #18 over the past 10 seasons and not in the top 50 over the past 20 seasons.
3/21/2010 3:13 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 112
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By muredskin00 on 3/21/2010You and I are apparently posting at the same time, so when I responded previously, you hadn't edited your post to include the link
3/21/2010 3:14 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 112
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By lostmyth2 on 3/21/2010According to billyg's unweighted dynasty list Montana is #18 over the past 10 seasons and not in the top 50 over the past 20 seasons
which in HD terms puts them right at the high end of A- teams.
3/21/2010 3:17 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Moy, what i find confusing is that numerous times throughout this discussion you have, basically, agreed that "if this and this and this is happening" then yes they would be elite but yet you still hold that they shouldn't be elite, even when they meet your criteria, so what is it?
3/21/2010 3:23 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
And fyi, I would love a harder prestige scale where getting to an A+ required a championship for the team.
3/21/2010 3:23 PM
smackawits
Posts: 170 (0)
Hall of Famer
148 71
Prospect
first of all, what a pleasure it was to read this HOF discussion with some of the most brillant minds in this game without having some ninny come in and start calling all your holinesses names.

Secondly, I moved from Seattle to Miami two years ago. I see more Gonzaga games on TV here (now in Key West) than I was ever able to see in Seattle. I have no idea why this is.
3/21/2010 3:32 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 112
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/21/2010
Moy, what i find confusing is that numerous times throughout this discussion you have, basically, agreed that "if this and this and this is happening" then yes they would be elite but yet you still hold that they shouldn't be elite, even when they meet your criteria, so what is it?
I'm saying prestige is not as broke as we might think. I don't have a formula - wis does. I agree with wis that Montana is not an A/A+ team despite their tourney success.

I have also stated that even expanding the prestige baseline to 10-20 seasons as proposed may not help in dalt's case because of all the teams that have had NC success... he may actually drop from his current #15 position in HD.

I am more and more thinking the prestige system is fine as is on a macro level. sure there may be some one-off instances that are hard to explain - but as a whole its not bad. hell, there are some bubble teams in RL i can't for the life of me figure how they missed the NT - but that doesn't warrent the NCAA to revamp the selection system.

I look at the B+B schools in Rupp and many are low-DI schools which is good. I see teams like Delaware and Louisanna St, and yes Montana (in Rupp) win a NC. I don't think there is anything wrong here.
3/21/2010 3:52 PM
muredskin00
Posts: 18 (0)
Hall of Famer
41
Prospect
You may be right but we'd have to discuss how it would be implemented. I would opt for a weighting system over 15 years in which the most recent years would be weighed more heavily. I don't know billyg's methodology - he may have taken this into account.

By the way, it's true that several lower level Rupp teams have won titles, but it's also true that those prestige caps kicked in heavily to limit their effects:

Toledo rose only to a B after their title. UNC Wilmington and Delaware went from a B to an A- after their titles.

To me, Clemson in Rupp is an interesting case study there. They won a title 8 seasons ago (became an A+), subsequently dropped to a B a few seasons later, and went back to a A- on the strength of one second round appearance and one final 4 appearance. Does that sound right when compared to dalter's run at Montana?
3/21/2010 4:08 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
My thought on a forumla, which I think could work really well is something along those lines. 15-25% or so of a 'Real Life Baseline, More recent success is worth more in a 20 year window, added bonus for any Final Fours or better, those do not drop off.

Again, this is just a baseline prestige that would help determine your "prestige" that we all see.
3/21/2010 4:11 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010Fine - use Memphis - how many Memphis players went pro compared to UK (since UK has been only good the last decade) over the last 10 years.

Memphis sent eight players to the NBA in the 2000s - Antonio Burks, Rodney Carney, Joey Dorsey, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Tyreke Evans, Derrick Rose, Dajuan Wagner and Shawne Williams.

Kentucky has sent seven - Keith Bogans, Joe Crawford, Jamaal Magloire, Jodie Meeks, Scott Padgett, Tayshaun Prince and Rajon Rondo.

Kansas, to pick another perennial K power, has sent 10 - Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers, Nick Collison, Drew Gooden, Kirk Hinrich, Darnell Jackson, Ryan Robertson, Brandon Rush, Wayne Simien and Julian Wright.

If you consider quality and well as quantity, Memphis beats both of them and it's not even close.
3/21/2010 4:19 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 3/21/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 3/21/2010

A big part of my beef is also being ignored. Moy, take a look at Pg. 1 and compare Montana to Wichita State. I'm sorry, but nothing you can say can justify us being A- and them being B+.

Okay - so you are an A- or a 93% prestige.... they are a low end B+ at 87%

Wichita will more than likely drop faster with a NT 1st round loss then you would because they don't have a strong last 4 like you do.

Incorrect. They'll drop more slowly because someone decided their baseline prestige should be higher.

You are about as far into the upper-eschelon of prestige in HD as you can be w/o winning a NC and coming from a small conf. Its not going to be easy to push that A- higher w/o a NC.

Incorrect. Even NT-winning low/mid teams are not getting above A-, i.e Delaware, Yale, Cleveland State, etc. etc.

3/21/2010 5:45 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By lostmyth2 on 3/21/2010
According to billyg's unweighted dynasty list Montana is #18 over the past 10 seasons and not in the top 50 over the past 20 seasons.
That list is not updated to include MT's most recent F4 season. We'd now be a good bit higher, and obviously in the weighted rankings (which are more relevant -- clearly Final Fours each of the last two seasons should mean more than Final Fours 19-20 seasons ago) we're even better than that, in the top 5-6.

Also, Montana was a sim for a nice chunk of that 2nd 10 seasons, so no **** that they're not going to rank highly in that time frame.

But the reality is that it doesn't take RL teams anywhere close to 20 seasons to establish themselves as legit programs, especially when they're making big-time runs. When a big-time coach like Calipari takes over at Memphis and they have some success, they're on the map as a major player immediately (see anton's comparison earlier on this page between Memphis, KU and UK). The notion that it should have to take 20 seasons is misguided and not rooted in reality.
3/21/2010 5:55 PM
gillispie
Posts: 1766 (0)
Hall of Famer
116
Rookie
i think having floating prestige only take into account 4 seasons is crazy. you can't build a dynasty in 4 seasons. if they made it 10 seasons, then it would be easier to reward consistent success from min majors, i think.
3/21/2010 5:58 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 3/21/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/21/2010
Moy, what i find confusing is that numerous times throughout this discussion you have, basically, agreed that "if this and this and this is happening" then yes they would be elite but yet you still hold that they shouldn't be elite, even when they meet your criteria, so what is it?
I'm saying prestige is not as broke as we might think. I don't have a formula - wis does. I agree with wis that Montana is not an A/A+ team despite their tourney success.

I have also stated that even expanding the prestige baseline to 10-20 seasons as proposed may not help in dalt's case because of all the teams that have had NC success... he may actually drop from his current #15 position in HD.

That notion is an absolute joke. Unless you think (to take a real-life example) that Arkansas' title from 94 automatically would put them ahead of any non-title winning team despite the other team being way, way better than them in the recent past, that argument doesn't hold the tiniest bit of water.

I am more and more thinking the prestige system is fine as is on a macro level. sure there may be some one-off instances that are hard to explain - but as a whole its not bad. hell, there are some bubble teams in RL i can't for the life of me figure how they missed the NT - but that doesn't warrent the NCAA to revamp the selection system.

I look at the B+B schools in Rupp and many are low-DI schools which is good. I see teams like Delaware and Louisanna St, and yes Montana (in Rupp) win a NC. I don't think there is anything wrong here.

Your logic is consistently beffudling and filled with holes. The fact that a team is capable of winning a NC is not what we're talking about, nor does it prove your point. It actually helps prove my point, because teams like Delaware, etc. are winning national titles and still stuck at A-. So you have NC teams at A-, and teams that have gotten past the second round once at B and B+. That doesn't make sense.

In the end, it may come down to a philosophical disagreement.

You believe that often outdated real-life prestige ties should carry more precedence than the actual on-court results, and I do not.
3/21/2010 6:02 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie on 3/21/2010i think having floating prestige only take into account 4 seasons is crazy. you can't build a dynasty in 4 seasons. if they made it 10 seasons, then it would be easier to reward consistent success from min majors, i think
Absolutely. The whole 4-year notion was crazy and broken before floating prestige, and it's even more crazy and broken since the advent of floating prestige.
3/21/2010 6:03 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10 Next ▸
Sick and tired of being sick and tired 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.