Season 82: 19-11 (NT first round)
Season 81: 30-5 (NT title game)
Season 80: 30-6 (NT title game)
Season 79: 31-4 (NT title game) 

Prestige: A


I know I only made the first round this season, but how can I have a 15-4 NT record in the last four seasons and be at just A prestige? Is that not absurd? 

(This is D3)

A long time ago, sable explained it like this:

Prestige is based on 50% of the current season's results. The other 50% is your starting rating for the season. So, I'm assuming a 19-11 record with a 1st round loss, is an A-. which averaged with your A+, gives you an A..

I've found results that varied slightly from this but it's pretty close.

I agree that it's absurd. It makes the current season worth 4X more than the previous 4 seasons.

Also, he views wins as nearly equal to post-season success. So, a team with 28 wins who loses in the 1st round could be considered more prestigious than a 20-win team that makes the Sweet 16.
He and I debated this for a couple of weeks. He feels that Murray State's 31-2 season that ended in the 2nd round was equally prestigious to VCU's 2011 season that ended at 28-12 in the Final Four

I wonder what a fair current season amount would be... 25% perhaps?  50% is crazy high...

prestige should take into consideration record for sure, but in context of conference RPI.  So, more favor to harder conferences and less favor to lesser conferences.

and I think it should also matter how far you got - getting to the sweet 16, elite 8, etc should have a little more weight in prestige. 

I mean, I know recruits have a short memory, but this is just ridiculous. 

At D3, I once had this resume:

season 50: Sweet Season 16
season 51: Runner-Up
Season 52: National Champion
Season 53: Elite Eight

That's a 16-3 record in NT games. Then, after going 17-13 and losing in the first round, I dropped from A+ to A-

In contrast,:

AMHERST was 28-2 and lost in the 1st round. They only played 4 teams in the top 150 and had a SOS of 341. In the last 7 seasons, they were 59-131 with no NT games in 26 years! They improved to a B prestige.

At the time, it reallyh bothered me. But I understand that new coaches need incentive to renew. A warped prestige formula is good encouragement for them.

Tarv - same thing happened to me at WVA several seasons back

75 mullycj 20-10 9-3 9-5 2-2 11-5 45 32 A NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
74 mullycj 31-4 11-1 12-2 8-1 14-2 2 5 7 A+ Conf Champion
CT Champion
NT (Championship Game)
73 mullycj 23-8 11-1 9-5 3-2 11-5 17 10 5 A+ NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)

I have dropped all the way to B+ the year following a national title (although I really bombed that season, so it's a little more understandable, although that still seems kinda extreme). But that's just one good year. Being in the title game three friggin' years in a row. I guess it'd have mattered a lot more in D1 than D3, but I think D3 is overreacting the other way

i used to disagree with al, because the wording from the admins was vague enough to leave an opening for a more realistic paradigm than what it really is. i guess, i never wanted to believe it would be stupid enough to consider the most recent season half the freaking equation. but ive resigned to al being right. it just lines up more closely than whatever i hoped it was. i think there is something to floor the loss at a full grade, but there is no ceiling on the recent season. is it ridiculous? yes. does everyone agree? yes. does any of that matter? no.

I imagine the scale isn't linear and that its easier to fall in the a's than to rise to the b's so to speak ?

Prestige needs to be corrolated with the number of years a owner spend at his location... I am not saying you get to A+, I am saying someone with a losing record every season, spending 10 years or more at the same spot should not be D-, he should get to D. After ten years, your reputation should have some sort of impact. Your face is associated with your program. So 33 % of a letter should be rewarded.

Agree fully with the op.
In D1 baseline also screws it up considerably. I had three straight championship game appearances at colorado... Including one championship, And rightfully got to A+... For one season, where I immediately dropped to an A after MAKING THE SWEET 16!

The whole time, Kansas, my conference mate, did sweet 16, 1st round NT, pT, 2nd round NT, and was also an A.

The next season, after a PT bid, I was at A- and I could no longer recruit vs. Him (who again, made it to the first round of the NT and went to A+ the next year). If you can't ride a national championship and multiple final four runs and championship games to an A+ prestige, something's wrong.

I've always thought that prestige needs to take into consideration longer term results and do away with baseline prestige. So, IOW- the most recent season having a high impact like 25%, but then an average of the most recent 4 seasons being 35%, then an average of the most recent 10 season being 20%, then an average of the last 20 seasons being 10% and, finally, conference prestige being 10%. (I've always thought that conference prestige should be directly factored in so that we can all plainly see the result.)

Posted by stewdog on 9/23/2015 9:23:00 AM (view original):
Agree fully with the op.
In D1 baseline also screws it up considerably. I had three straight championship game appearances at colorado... Including one championship, And rightfully got to A+... For one season, where I immediately dropped to an A after MAKING THE SWEET 16!

The whole time, Kansas, my conference mate, did sweet 16, 1st round NT, pT, 2nd round NT, and was also an A.

The next season, after a PT bid, I was at A- and I could no longer recruit vs. Him (who again, made it to the first round of the NT and went to A+ the next year). If you can't ride a national championship and multiple final four runs and championship games to an A+ prestige, something's wrong.

that sounds insane - was that in naismith? i see the title runner up runner up s16, but it shows you had an a+ for several seasons thereafter, 

MIchigan state in real life would have some trouble 8,8,9, and 12 losses but S16, S16, E8, and F4 in that time period...

Wins are valued too much over post season results.

8-12 losses with a S16 or better should be fine.

Most recent season is weighted too much, tarv shouldnt even come close to dropping to A prestige.

To not have an A+ prestige after that four season stretch is beyond ludicrous.  In fact, I'd like to see someone at CS try to justify that and keep a straight face while doing it.  Just plain ridiculous.