Let's talk about the Prestige Ratings in NCAA 12

[Andrews85]

Quote: Originally Posted by MVPevy

Penn State should not be a 6 star prestige...

Joe Pa alone makes them a 7*, the team itself drops them to a 6* lol.

[Gosens6]

The prestige ratings have been off for a while. Most of the 6 star teams are correct, but I agree, Auburn and Oregon should NOT be up there.

[KillerNuts]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Everyone has their own idea what prestige means. Let people customize prestige ratings (and customize a school's different recruiting ratings). Only way to resolve things outside of changing how they handle prestige overall.

This is very true.

I think of it as how an offer from program A compares to program B. Recent performance is obviously a big part of that, and being a consistent powerhouse through the years (or sucking in the past) is the other half.

[Siggy778]

The past 5 years Iowa is 40-24. Certainly not 5-star worthy. Nor is their tradition.

[IIx Nautica xII]

Prestige is directly related to the quality of recruits that have interest in a program. IMO ND and UM should be still 6star programs. ND year in and year out is a top 10 to top 15 recruiting class and have a VERY rich history and the same with UM. Placing Oregon above both those programs is ridiculous.

[Andrews85]

Quote: Originally Posted by IIx Nautica xII

Prestige is directly related to the quality of recruits that have interest in a program. IMO ND and UM should be still 6star programs. ND year in and year out is a top 10 to top 15 recruiting class and have a VERY rich history and the same with UM. Placing Oregon above both those programs is ridiculous.

I think prestige should be based off 3 factors.

1. History of Program (Championships/etc.)
2. Recent Team Record (5 or so Years)
3. Pro-Factory

In that order.

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by IIx Nautica xII

Prestige is directly related to the quality of recruits that have interest in a program. IMO ND and UM should be still 6star programs. ND year in and year out is a top 10 to top 15 recruiting class and have a VERY rich history and the same with UM. Placing Oregon above both those programs is ridiculous.

But what has that top 10 recruiting class gotten them? I think recruiting class ranks are blown so out of proportion. These guys haven't played college ball yet. Sure, you think they will, but it's not always the case. If prestige is directly related to recruiting [results] then I'd say what Miami has done over the years with recruiting should make them a 6*. How many draft picks did they create in the first part of the the 2000's? That's more than some produce in a decade or more. But I still think Miami is a 5* given the mediocrity since leaving the Big East. Same reasons why Michigan and ND are 5*'s. Notre Dame had that good BCS run in 2005-2006 with bad losses in the Fiesta and Sugar, but they have been up and then down up and then down otherwise. 6* programs have to be consistently good. 8, 9, 10+ wins yearly. 5 seasons of .500 or below football in 10 years doesn't cut it in my opinion.

[KALP69]

Quote: Originally Posted by IIx Nautica xII

Prestige is directly related to the quality of recruits that have interest in a program. IMO ND and UM should be still 6star programs. ND year in and year out is a top 10 to top 15 recruiting class and have a VERY rich history and the same with UM. Placing Oregon above both those programs is ridiculous.

I totally agree that Oregon shouldn't be a 6* but I totally agree with ND being a 5* because all they have for them right now is their history they may get a top 10 or 15 recruiting class but they do nothing with them last year they went 8-5 which was their best year sense '06 when they went 10-3 in '09 they went 6-6, '08 they went 7-6, '07 they went 3-9 so they have barely gone .500