What is better for a school's prestige, Making the NT as a 15 seed or 16 seed and being knocked out in the first round, or making the PIT as a #1 seed and making it to the championship game or even winning it? There must be some kind of formula to help determine this? Anyone know?

I've won PIT and not seen much of a jump before.  The prior year I made S16 in the NT and was a B+, the next year won the PIT and was still a B+.

Not sure the math of it, but NT run absolutely mean more than PI runs.

I had to straight seasons where I made the NT Sweet Sixteen. My prestige was A+. The following season, I won the PT and dropped to an A-.

The old "forum fact" was that winning the PIT was the equivalent of making the second round of the NT.

Posted by mmt0315 on 2/14/2014 1:25:00 PM (view original):
The old "forum fact" was that winning the PIT was the equivalent of making the second round of the NT.

And - again a "forum fact" - was that a PIT final four was about the same as a NT first round washout.

FWIW, I got to an A after a NT at-large and a final 4 run, and fell to an A- the next season after winning the PI. 

I'm sure someone has a NT final 4 run followed by a 1-win-in-NT season to compare with that and see how the prestige may have differed. 

http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=3870

Check out season 61/62 in the history.  Prestige was probably near the top end of A+, coming of a national title, and a 10-18 1st round PI dropped prestige to B+.

data points = data points +1

Posted by mmt0315 on 2/14/2014 1:25:00 PM (view original):
The old "forum fact" was that winning the PIT was the equivalent of making the second round of the NT.

im pretty sure seble shot this down.

i think winning the PIT is at best slightly better than a 1st round, and probably roughly on par. in the original question, its definitely better to go and win the PIT though, because now you have 5 more wins and a better rpi. but if you had a set rpi, set record, with a PIT championship or a NT round 1, its probably about even. 

Posted by bobmeyer on 2/14/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I had to straight seasons where I made the NT Sweet Sixteen. My prestige was A+. The following season, I won the PT and dropped to an A-.

I had A prestige one year and then made the Sweet Sixteen the following year and dropped to A-. 

Hey tarvolon, what was your W/L record that season? I thought I read that regular season wins play a big part in maintaining an A or A+ rating.

The current season counts for more than 1/2 of your prestige ranking. Seble told me that he considers wins and tournament results to be equally important.  I  don't remember the RL example we debated but it was a very good team that season.    Seble believes that a 34-0 team that loses in the 1st round is more prestigious than a Final Four team with several losses. 

I remember a school that went 28-2 with a SOS of 300+.  They lost in the 1st round and improved from C to  A- prestige.  This was their first NT in many years.  

My team had two RU finishes and four Sweet 16s in the previous 6 seasons. We missed the tournament and dropped to B+, below the 28-2 team

Posted by bobmeyer on 2/15/2014 3:34:00 AM (view original):
Hey tarvolon, what was your W/L record that season? I thought I read that regular season wins play a big part in maintaining an A or A+ rating.

I have a strong suspicion that that was right. I was only 18-13 (it was last year with Dallas). I understand why it's like that, but it's pretty weird to have seven NT wins in the last three seasons and only have A- prestige

Posted by alblack56 on 2/15/2014 4:28:00 AM (view original):
The current season counts for more than 1/2 of your prestige ranking. Seble told me that he considers wins and tournament results to be equally important.  I  don't remember the RL example we debated but it was a very good team that season.    Seble believes that a 34-0 team that loses in the 1st round is more prestigious than a Final Four team with several losses. 

I remember a school that went 28-2 with a SOS of 300+.  They lost in the 1st round and improved from C to  A- prestige.  This was their first NT in many years.  

My team had two RU finishes and four Sweet 16s in the previous 6 seasons. We missed the tournament and dropped to B+, below the 28-2 team

Al, I hope that Seble didn't give you that exact example in the first section because if he actually thinks that it's possible for an HD team to finish 34-1 with a first round NT loss.....        :^)  I'm sure if he did it was just to use extreme situations as examples, benefit of the doubt and all.

Posted by emy1013 on 2/16/2014 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 2/15/2014 4:28:00 AM (view original):
The current season counts for more than 1/2 of your prestige ranking. Seble told me that he considers wins and tournament results to be equally important.  I  don't remember the RL example we debated but it was a very good team that season.    Seble believes that a 34-0 team that loses in the 1st round is more prestigious than a Final Four team with several losses. 

I remember a school that went 28-2 with a SOS of 300+.  They lost in the 1st round and improved from C to  A- prestige.  This was their first NT in many years.  

My team had two RU finishes and four Sweet 16s in the previous 6 seasons. We missed the tournament and dropped to B+, below the 28-2 team

Al, I hope that Seble didn't give you that exact example in the first section because if he actually thinks that it's possible for an HD team to finish 34-1 with a first round NT loss.....        :^)  I'm sure if he did it was just to use extreme situations as examples, benefit of the doubt and all.

No,. we were referring to the NCAA. Wichita State, for instance, could be 34-0 entering the tournament.

 I believe our specific debate was, "which was more prestigious:  Murray State, 31-2, losing in the 2nd round  or  VCU, 28-12, making the Final Four."   Seble thinks Murray State's season was more prestigous; I argued for VCU.

Posted by alblack56 on 2/16/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 2/16/2014 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 2/15/2014 4:28:00 AM (view original):
The current season counts for more than 1/2 of your prestige ranking. Seble told me that he considers wins and tournament results to be equally important.  I  don't remember the RL example we debated but it was a very good team that season.    Seble believes that a 34-0 team that loses in the 1st round is more prestigious than a Final Four team with several losses. 

I remember a school that went 28-2 with a SOS of 300+.  They lost in the 1st round and improved from C to  A- prestige.  This was their first NT in many years.  

My team had two RU finishes and four Sweet 16s in the previous 6 seasons. We missed the tournament and dropped to B+, below the 28-2 team

Al, I hope that Seble didn't give you that exact example in the first section because if he actually thinks that it's possible for an HD team to finish 34-1 with a first round NT loss.....        :^)  I'm sure if he did it was just to use extreme situations as examples, benefit of the doubt and all.

No,. we were referring to the NCAA. Wichita State, for instance, could be 34-0 entering the tournament.

 I believe our specific debate was, "which was more prestigious:  Murray State, 31-2, losing in the 2nd round  or  VCU, 28-12, making the Final Four."   Seble thinks Murray State's season was more prestigous; I argued for VCU.

As someone who has vaguely followed the NCAA since 2006 the things that stand out in my mind from mid-majors

George Mason's run (I can't remember how deep, i remember them winning an OT game.. might have been final 4 might have been elite 8)
Butler's near NT champ
VCU's final 4 run
Gonzaga always finishing with a crapload of wins, lots of hype and never doing anything

Curry nearly helping Davidson upset Kansas as a... freshman? then going on a big run as a sophomore
 

Maybe for a more hardcore fan (or kid being recruited) regular season wins matter.