Posted by dahsdebater on 12/13/2011 5:55:00 PM (view original):
It's almost impossible to be unranked and outside of the RPI top 25 and keep an A+.  While I'm not sure I agree that this is entirely realistic, I generally agree with it.  In any given world in D2 or D3 there are usually something in the vicinity of what, 8-10 A+s?  I don't think a team coming off a season outside of the top 25 should qualify with those elite programs.

There are 9 A+ schools, but do you really think either of these last 4 would qualify are more elite than mine above?

Season	Coach	Overall W-L	Home W-L	Road W-L	Neutral W-L	Conf W-L	Rank	RPI	Prestige	Notes
55	xxx	22-7	8-3	13-2	1-2	13-3	22	21	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (2nd Round)
54	xxx	32-3	12-1	12-1	8-1	16-0	2	2	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Championship Game)
53	xxx	24-6	11-2	10-3	3-1	12-4	10	11	A-	CT Champion NT (1st Round)
52	xxx	18-12	10-3	6-7	2-2	12-4		43	A-	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)

or

Season	Coach	Overall W-L	Home W-L	Road W-L	Neutral W-L	Conf W-L	Rank	RPI	Prestige	Notes
55	xxx	33-2	10-0	16-0	7-2	16-0	2	2	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Championship Game)
54	xxx	23-7	6-2	15-3	2-2	11-5		50	B-	NT At-large Bid NT (2nd Round)
53	xxx	17-11	5-4	11-6	1-1	7-9		122	C
52	xxx	13-15	5-8	7-6	1-1	7-9		188	C-

Aaron, that first one is bad, the second one is flat-out embarrassing. Wow.

Part of the problem everyone's having here is looking at 4-year windows.  CS has confirmed repeatedly that they DO NOT use 4-year windows in D2 and D3 but use a floating value.  It is very apparent that at least 50-60% of prestige at the end of a D2 or D3 season reflects the most recent season.  Asking me what I think about his 4-year window is irrelevant - it's not a D1 team.  And I think an unranked, RPI 31 season is not A+ caliber.  Like I said, it's not entirely realistic, but it prevents the kind of easy dynasties in D2 and D3 that everyone complains about in D1.  Sure, you can stay A+ forever, but 1 down year and you have to recruit with an A.  Not a huge difference anyway, but it's something.

dahs, in all honesty, if you're making any attempt to defend anadeau's program being at an A and the two programs above being above him at A+, then we're too far apart to even have a rational discussion.

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/13/2011 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Part of the problem everyone's having here is looking at 4-year windows.  CS has confirmed repeatedly that they DO NOT use 4-year windows in D2 and D3 but use a floating value.  It is very apparent that at least 50-60% of prestige at the end of a D2 or D3 season reflects the most recent season.  Asking me what I think about his 4-year window is irrelevant - it's not a D1 team.  And I think an unranked, RPI 31 season is not A+ caliber.  Like I said, it's not entirely realistic, but it prevents the kind of easy dynasties in D2 and D3 that everyone complains about in D1.  Sure, you can stay A+ forever, but 1 down year and you have to recruit with an A.  Not a huge difference anyway, but it's something.

I point blank asked what percentage the most recent season is in DII.  I won't get an answer that matters, but there it is.  Unfortunately for your point, this makes it even easier to have an easy dynasty in DII than DI - all you need is one good season.  At least in DI you need a good season at a school with a good baseline in a good conference.

obviously being ranked matters a great deal. All the As are not and all the A+ examples are...good thing the rankings system works

Being ranked is the main determinant here. I found another example of a team losing A+ prestige after not being ranked:

54	azamat	19-11	8-3	9-6	2-2	11-5		38	A	NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
53	azamat	33-2	12-0	13-1	8-1	16-0	1	1	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid National Champion
52	azamat	33-2	14-0	12-0	7-2	16-0	2	3	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Championship Game)
51	azamat	33-2	10-0	15-1	8-1	16-0	2	2	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Championship Game)
50	azamat	28-5	13-0	9-4	6-1	15-1	5	3	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)
49	azamat	30-3	13-0	11-2	6-1	15-1	5	3	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion NT (Elite 8)

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=4704

Being in anadeau's conference is bringing me to this fight as I think it's a damn shame he dropped in prestige.  However, azamat's prestige drop is such a ridiculous joke you have to wonder just how broken prestige truly is.  NC loss, NC loss, NC title, first round isn't topped out in prestige?  That's just indefensible.  I truly hope WIS takes a look at this.  There is no possible logical explanation for this.    

The logical explanation is there in 3 or 4 posts.  If you are not ranked in the top 25, you are not an A+ ... that would seem to be the thing.

Now, should he be ranked in the top 25 or not, that is debatable.

What caused the team to drop in prestige is not ... no top 25 finish.

(I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the policy, just pointing out what it seems the cause it :D)

Has anyone been sending these samples to seble? Some of these are just ridiculously egregious.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.  A low at-large bid (30's RPI) and 2nd round exit, unranked, and that's worth an A instead of A+.

The two 'counter' examples include ranked teams at the end of the season, with top 25 RPIs.  I'll bet the 21 RPI is the low end of A+, but I have no problem with the #2 team in RPI, rank, championship game loser, winning 33 of 35 games...

To the extent this is an "issue", it has been for a while:

15	kujayhawk	19-9	7-1	12-6	0-2	15-1		23	A	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
14	kujayhawk	31-4	7-1	16-2	8-1	14-2	1	1	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid National Champion
13	kujayhawk	32-3	9-0	14-3	9-0	15-1	1	1	A+	Conf Champion CT Champion National Champion
12	kujayhawk	26-6	7-2	15-2	4-2	14-2	14	10	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Sweet 16)

Asher - I think the "problem" as I see it is that the resumes for these teams is a lot better than other A+ teams.

When I had my back and forth with CS on this for a few days, I don't think I helped my case by stating that I was ok with my own team dropping to A given that I had back-to-back shock upsets in the CT and NT.  But I wasn't ok with the drop when there were teams that hadn't made it past the Sweet 16 in any of the past four seasons that were at the A+ level.  I was ok being an A as long as there weren't better resumes at A+.

If making it to A+ was a super difficult thing, I don't think the drops to A would be that big a deal.  But getting to A+ doesn't take all that much success (relative, of course).  Given the relative ease it takes to get to A+, these teams shouldn't be seeing drops to A.

Unfortunate that being ranked matters this much for prestige. It is extremely hard for D1 midmajors to get ranked so this burden makes it even more difficult for them to get higher prestige.