Analyzing EA's prestige rankings vs ESPN system

[schumj]

I have started calculating prestige for all of the teams rated 6* and 5* in the game to compare. I used the ESPN formula they did back in 2009 to get their rankings but adjusted it to stats only back until the inception of the BCS (1998) as it is obvious the game does not look that far into history. Below are my findings in order of highest prestige points by the formula with EA's Prestige rating listed.:

6	Ohio State	6	528
1	Oklahoma	6	489
29	USC	6	467
20	Florida	6	421
34	Miami	5	388
22	Texas	6	385
10	Florida State	5	375
4	LSU	6	323
17	Virginia Tech	5	260
2	Alabama	6	245
27	Georgia	5	239
12	Auburn	6	222
33	Michigan	5	214
11	Wisconsin	5	210
5	Oregon	6	205
8	Boise State	5	202
41	Tennessee	4	202
16	Nebraska	5	198
14	TCU	5	185
28	Penn State	6	169
31	Utah	4	158
26	West Virginia	4	156
38	Iowa	5	136
51	Kansas State	3	106
21	Notre Dame	5	94
18	Arkansas	4	84
23	Missouri	4	71

*Note ESPN's system did have negative points for probations, etc and I was unable to find enough consistent data on this so I removed it from the equation. However I did not calculate USC's NC's or Bush's heisman. If you were to add those they would be at 525 points total.>>
>>
I will be calculating more teams in the future and will update as I do.>>

[schumj]

I'll apologize now to all the Notre Dame fans cuz this system does not help you with all the people hating on ND. I for one love Notre Dame, I love that there fans allowed my husker fans to turn their stadium red when we played there. It was one of the easiest away tickets to get!

[schumj]

I added 3 4* teams, West Va, Utah, and Arkansas.

[The JareBear]

The number one thing that confuses me is that the in-game rules for losing or gaining stars don't apply to the off-season year to year, out of the box, changes. If they did, Texas would have lost a star and schools like Hawaii and Fresno would have gained one, if at least stayed the same, instead of losing one.

I wish they put more science into it instead of seemingly just giving ratings on a whim.

[Pokes404]

I think EA's prestige system fits pretty well in this game. When you think about it, the only thing team prestige really factors into in the game is recruiting. And I think most people would agree, a lot of recruits don't put a lot of weight in what a school did back in the 50s, 60s, 70s. They focus more on what the team has done in the last 10-15 years, and especially what they've done in the last 4-5 years.

That's not to say that a long tradition of winning should be a non-factor, and not every recruit is indifferent to a school's history, but I think the fact that EA only takes recent history into account for team prestige reflects the modern recruiting landscape pretty well.

*Thank goodness for me, because if total history were taken into account, Oklahoma State (despite it's recent success) would probably still be a 2 star program.

[Michgantown]

Quote: Originally Posted by jaredlib

The number one thing that confuses me is that the in-game rules for losing or gaining stars don't apply to the off-season year to year, out of the box, changes. If they did, Texas would have lost a star and schools like Hawaii and Fresno would have gained one, if at least stayed the same, instead of losing one. I wish they put more science into it instead of seemingly just giving ratings on a whim.

Sometimes I have seen a cpu team win their conference and only lose 2 game, not go pass a 1*.

[schumj]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pokes404

I think EA's prestige system fits pretty well in this game. When you think about it, the only thing team prestige really factors into in the game is recruiting. And I think most people would agree, a lot of recruits don't put a lot of weight in what a school did back in the 50s, 60s, 70s. They focus more on what the team has done in the last 10-15 years, and especially what they've done in the last 4-5 years. That's not to say that a long tradition of winning should be a non-factor, and not every recruit is indifferent to a school's history, but I think the fact that EA only takes recent history into account for team prestige reflects the modern recruiting landscape pretty well. *Thank goodness for me, because if total history were taken into account, Oklahoma State (despite it's recent success) would probably still be a 2 star program.

I agree with a lot of what you say. But it doesn't reflect real life for recruits 100%. Boise St does not recruit top ranked talent. They develop well and recruit to their style. There are other 4* programs who don't "recruit" 4* talent.

[TheGamingChef]

Just proves that EA overrated the Hawkeyes this year! Why does an 8-5 season get you to 5*?