Team Prestige in NCAA Football 10

[jsquigg]

Quote: Originally Posted by BBkobe87

Well let me first say do you honestly believe that Michigan should be a 6 star program at this point. I'm alright with it, i suppose, but current success obviously has little to do with these prestige ratings. I believe a 5 star for Michigan would be good for this year. I would like to know what a Michigan fan thinks about that. As far as MSU I am dissapointed in the 3 star but I can see it being justified as a 3 or 4. Our recruiting classes are getting better every year, had a top 20 class this year by most publications ratings. And have gotten 3 ESPN150's so far this recruiting year. We have consistently been winning more and more games every year under Dantonio, so its just tough to see us progressing as a program in real life and then it not showing in this game at all

Let me say that I think being the program #1 in wins and percentage currently should get you an automatic 6. I do think that is subject to change if we keep sucking. I don't care so much about prestige anyway, but all this fuss about MSU is based on one mediocre season. I hope they get better, because I suspect Rodriguez will have Michigan on track in spite of the naysayers. In terms of recruiting, we still have out recruited MSU on a national level year in and year out, but you are right that MSU's recruiting has improved, especially in state.

[utahman19]

Quote: Originally Posted by BORN4CORN

Whats tough to determine is a reference point or a base for these.. Is it weighted in favor of tradition, or more like you said with recent history? I think the teams with more tradition should have it easier to go up in prestige than down. Teams like Utah should have it the other way.. Being harder to move up, but with one bad season they move down a star or 2 just because they lack that "historical cushion".

I can go with that, with the caveat that it will take more than one bad or great season for teams with "less tradition" (even though Utah is top-35 all-time in wins and winning %) to move up or down. A great year (11+ wins) followed by another great year or three good (8+ wins) can move a team up a ranking (maybe throw half-stars in, too) while a team with "history" might only need a good year and a great year to move up. Likewise with losing seasons or years where you only win 2-3 games might have to combine to move a team down.

I guess a rolling 3-5 year window would work. If a program with not as much tradition has a winning % of, say, .800 or higher over a three-year period they go up a level. If they have a winning % of .300 or lower in a 3-year period they go down. Something like that. Teams with more tradition might need a winning % of .650 or so to go up while needing a .250 % to go down.

Of course, in the course of a dynasty teams can build tradition to earn that cushion.

[OMT]

This thread is turning out to be more fun than I anticipated!

[Potatoes002]

Quote: Originally Posted by BORN4CORN

*Prepares for comments about being negative* Initial Thoughts & Opinions: Syracuse is too high, they have been god awful for the last 4 or 5 years. Iowa should be 4* - good season last year, plus a big bowl win last year deserves a bump Iowa St. should be 2* - they have shown nothing the last several seasons to put them at the same prestige as Iowa or many of the other 3* star teams. TCU should be 4* - Consistant last couple of seasons + a couple bowl wins Washington St. should be 2* (sorry Potatoes) - did they go up one from 09? A 2 win season should severely diminish you're rep. Otherwise these look pretty solid. Nice work.

Hell no
Us and UW were powerhouses in the late 90's early 2000's up until about 2005 when we went downhill. If Notre Dame and Michigan are high prestige because of history we should be able to stay at 3 for awhile. Look at Vandy there a 2 star and they have had 1 good season in the last 25 years. 2 star is too low, if anyone stanford or uw but not us.

[jsquigg]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChicagoSparty

How about the fact that we're the worst-rated team in the Big Ten, though?

That is a mistake, but I promise you that MSU won't win ten games this year. Flame on....

[ChicagoSparty]

Quote: Originally Posted by jsquigg

That is a mistake, but I promise you that MSU won't win ten games this year. Flame on....

Well, I don't think I dispute that. Not many teams will win 10 games.

I think we'll probably go somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-4, maybe 9-3. But the risk exists to be bad, too, breaking in a brand new QB and RB.

[shmoeco]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

This thread is turning out more fun than I anticipated!

any incite as to why MSU is still only a 3 star?

[jsquigg]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChicagoSparty

Well, I don't think I dispute that. Not many teams will win 10 games. I think we'll probably go somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-4, maybe 9-3. But the risk exists to be bad, too, breaking in a brand new QB and RB.

I appreciate the first honest MSU fan to post in a long time. I think 8-9 wins is reasonable for MSU. I can see UM winning 6-8 this year easily. I know many will disagree with me there, but I can't wait to point to the scoreboard.