My Guilford team has an A prestige and a team I am recruiting against, McDaniel has an A prestige as well. Here are the teams last four seasons:

Guilford-
This season-Elite Eight
Last season-NT 1st round
3 seasons before-Final Four
4 seasons before-2nd round

McDaniel
This season-Sweet 16
Last season-2nd round
3 seasons before-2nd round
4 seasons before-2nd round

so thats 5 games won by McDaniel in the NT and 8 by Guilford...

not a big deal but just noticed it....are they both A programs?

Records also mean a lot in the sims prestige. There's more to prestige than tourney runs.

Record, National Ranking, Conference Championships, CT Championships all affect prestige as well. You should also include the starting prestiges.

Also, don't forget that there are ranges within each. You may be a higher A than McDaniel.

And conference prestige

The difference is basically all in the 3 seasons before, so that isn't a huge factor. I bet Guilford is slightly higher, but doesn't surprise me that they are close.

Quote: Originally Posted By beatfrance on 1/17/2010And conference prestig

That's only in DI.

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 1/17/2010The difference is basically all in the 3 seasons before, so that isn't a huge factor. I bet Guilford is slightly higher, but doesn't surprise me that they are close

Honestly, I would think Guilford would be at least a 1/3 of a grade higher than McDaniel. It is too easy to improve prestige at the lower levels, imo. That said, I don't think this example is egregious.

I'll throw the numbers I use to predict prestige.

The four most recent seasons are weighted by 8x-4x-2x-1x. I include the ending RPI (which does factor in heavily post-season success) and weigh that equally with the tourney success. A loss in the first round of the NT means you finished among the 33rd-64th teams and are awarded an average of 48th. A loss in the Sweet Sixteen means you ended up between 9th-16th and get a 12th.

Then total the scores and divide by 15 (8+4+2+1).

McDANIEL
RPI NT avg
17 12 14.5 x8 116
53 24 38.5 x4 154
49 24 36.5 x2 73
35 24 29.5 x1 29.5
372.5/15 = 25

GUILFORD
RPI NT avg divide
20 6 13 x8 104
62 48 55 x4 220
7 3 5 x2 10
29 24 26.5 x1 26.5
360.5/15 = 24

Yeah, the original poster out the fact that McDaniel had an rpi edge in three of the four seasons.

Quote: Originally posted by Iguana1 on 1/17/2010I'll throw the numbers I use to predict prestige.The four most recent seasons are weighted by 8x-4x-2x-1x.  I include the ending RPI (which does factor in heavily post-season success) and weigh that equally with the tourney success.   A loss in the first round of the NT means you finished among the 33rd-64th teams and are awarded an average of 48th.  A loss in the Sweet Sixteen means you ended up between 9th-16th and get a 12th.Then total the scores and divide by 15  (8+4+2+1).McDANIEL
RPI  NT avg
 17 12   14.5 x8    116 
 53 24   38.5 x4 154 
 49 24   36.5 x2  73 
 35 24   29.5 x1 29.5 
372.5/15 =  25

GUILFORD
RPI    NT avg  divide
 20  6  13 x8 104 
 62 48  55 x4 220 
  7  3 5  x2 10 
 29    24   26.5 x1 26.5 
360.5/15 =  24

interesting formula you've got there iguana (as usual :) ... thanks for sharing!

i am curious what you (and others) think about the 8, 4, 2, 1 breakdown. my gut reaction is that it is probably a little too sharp, although i don't think it is unreasonable... is that something you came up with off intuition or through applying your formula to real examples and tweaking until it lines up with the real outcomes? it just seems to me that you can notice when a great season "drops off" so to speak, which makes me feel 1/15th is too low of a weight. i would guess, really based on nothing, that instead of dropping half weight at each step, it was more like a third. it makes the formula way messier, and i know you want nice numbers for formulas like this. but i am curious if people think 8, 4, 2, 1 is just about what WIS uses or maybe it is a little to steep? or maybe not steep enough?

In DI it's way too steep. In DII it's probably about right. in DIII it's probably not steep enough.