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

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You believe that often outdated real-life prestige ties should carry more precedence than the actual on-court results, and I do not.

we can agree on this. The BCS confs may have outdated real-life prestige ties in your opinion - I think they have been the best confs in real-life for decades and still are. Thats proven by the many NC teams they have sported.

Dalt - How many times has a team from the HD Big Sky won a NC in the last 40 seasons? Anton - how many times has a Big 6 team won a NC in RL over the same time span? Is there any comparison? How about the last 10 seasons for both?

You have to go back to 1990 to find a non-bcs NC winner... outdated real-life prestige ties?



RL teams and conf to win NC:

1991 Duke ACC

1992 Duke ACC

1993 UNC ACC

1994 Arkansas SEC

1995 UCLA Pac 10

1996 UK SEC

1997 Arizona Pac 10

1998 UK SEC

1999 Uconn Big East

2000 Michigan St Big 10

2001 Duke ACC

2002 Maryland ACC

2003 Syracuse Big East

2004 UConn Big East

2005 UNC ACC

2006 Florida SEC

2007 Florida SEC

2008 Kansas Big 12

2009 UNC ACC



This is why these confs get an "out-dated" prestige baseline.

Another list I have no desire to pull up would be #1 ranked NT seeds in RL and what conf they come from.... I bet the list is similar.

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

in dalter's defense, over the last 5 years in his world, montana is the #1 dynasty on my corrected dynasty list (the old one had a couple bugs, most important, the last season being omitted). its by the smallest of margins though. on the weighted list, he is by the smallest of margins 2nd. i personally think it should take more than being roughly the best team over 5 years to take a program like montana to better than an a-, but if you are only going to look at the last 4 years instead of something more reasonable, i kind of see his gripe.

weighted, over the last 10, he is 8th. unweighted, 12th. i would consider an a- pretty good for that, maybe even a bit generous. but as mentioned, in a 4 year system (which is fundamentally flawed IMO), i kind of see where he is coming from. i still don't think its that big of a travesty. i mean montana has so far to go to being an a range prestige school in real life :O

The prestige system as it exists actually depends on more than 4 years.

Quote: Originally posted by lostmyth2 on 3/21/2010The prestige system as it exists actually depends on more than 4 years.

Right, it depends on a constant baseline prestige and to a very small amount draftees.

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

Quote: Originally posted by lostmyth2 on 3/21/2010
The prestige system as it exists actually depends on more than 4 years.

Right, it depends on a constant baseline prestige and to a very small amount draftees.

and school success weighted higher towards the more recent seasons. Also - I am not sure its a constant baseline. I think its more like a floor baseline prestige. Somehow the conf prestige factors in as well.

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

Quote: Originally posted by lostmyth2 on 3/21/2010The prestige system as it exists actually depends on more than 4 years.

are you saying there are other factors, or it also takes into account the 5th to last season (maybe more)? ive always heard it was 4, looking at history i was a bit skeptical but figured it wasn't worth worrying about. its not like it changes how i coach my team!

It would be nice to have a coach rating that ties into the job process and prestige. That I could go for.

Quote: Originally posted by girt25 on 3/21/2010Moy, I was in that conference w. combalt, and even when he won the title w. Delaware he only got up to an A- (I just double checked to make sure). And here's the thing: I'm not recruiting against C and D level schools, if I was I wouldn't be consistently beating BCS teams in the NT. When I look at other schools before recruiting, I don't even look at what the C/D schools have going on. I look at the Pac-10 schools. And the fact that there may be a good # of B/B+ schools from non-BCS conferences kind of makes my point. There simply has to be something to meaningfully differentiate between a non-BCS school that has had moderate success with one that's had big-time success. A school that's gone F4/F4/E8/E8 and has made eight straight NT's shouldn't have a prestige that's almost the same as one that's been sporadically in the NT with little or nothing in the way of deep runs.

the first 4 seasons i coached d1, i took a d+ school to 4 straight NTs (two legit low at large bids, two 120rpish CT victories), and we were a C+. i think steven f austin is probably pretty similar to montana in terms of baseline. 4 straight nts to me is good, 2 final 4s and 2 elite 8s is great. but c+ to a- for that difference sounds perfectly reasonable, i don't think the distinction needs to be bigger.

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 3/21/2010

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

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.

we can agree on this. The BCS confs may have outdated real-life prestige ties in your opinion - I think they have been the best confs in real-life for decades and still are. Thats proven by the many NC teams they have sported.

Dalt - How many times has a team from the HD Big Sky won a NC in the last 40 seasons? Anton - how many times has a Big 6 team won a NC in RL over the same time span? Is there any comparison? How about the last 10 seasons for both?

Moy, there you go again, you're making a point that has nothing to do with what what we're talking about and is not being debated.

Yes, we all know that the BCS teams have been much more successful in real life. No graphs or lists or statements or debates are necessary on that one.

The question being asked is, "Do you think that the fact they have been more successful in real life should trump what actually happens on the court in HD?"

I do not think so. You do. We have a philosophical disagreement.

Quote: Originally posted by moy23 on 3/21/2010It would be nice to have a coach rating that ties into the job process and prestige. That I could go for.

my objection to something like this is if the coach history makes a meaningful difference, how are new coaches to a world going to compete with the ones who started in season 1? i think the great coaches can compete just fine without the built in advantage of their previous success.

You also keep saying, "If a successful team wins the NT and still stays at A-, then I'd think that was wrong". But I've pointed out that there have been a bunch of teams who've accomplished that (Delaware, Cleveland State, Yale, etc.) and you won't acknowledge it.