NCAA 14 - Prestige Ratings

[CallMeKD]

How does prestige ratings effect the Offline and Online Dynasties

[MrSerendipity]

Given that Prestige plays a role in recruiting, I don't see how Texas could be anything less than a 5 Star Program. Despite the past few seasons, Texas is still one of the most highly sought Universities to attend for High School Football Athletes. It's also one of the more historic schools in the history of College Football. If you think otherwise, you simply don't like UT. In my opinion, this is how each Texas school should rank in regards to Prestige:

1. Texas *****
2. Texas A&M *****
3. TCU ****
4. Baylor ****
5. Texas Tech ***
6. Houston ***
7. SMU ***
8. Rice **
9. UTEP **
10. Texas State *
11. North Texas *
12. UTSA *

I also think the game puts too much stock into each Season. If you have a One-Star team, it should take them two years of noticeable success to bump up to a Two-Star Prestige. Once they've reached Two Stars, it should take another year to reach a Three-Star Prestige. Afterwards it should take two more additional years of success before that school reaches the next Prestige Ranking. It should take three years of failing seasons for a Six-Star to drop to a Five-Star, two more to drop to a Four, one more to drop to a Three and then one more for a Two. But no school that has ever been a Six Star Team, should ever be dropped below a Two-Star. And no team currently in any of the Major Conferences like the Big 12, PAC, SEC, ACC and BIG should ever fall below a Two-Star.

[TheKnack]

Going back to the WSU controversy, here's some food for thought.

If prestige is in fact based partly on recruiting, WSU has never had a recruiting class outside of the top 60. Teams like Idaho, South Alabama, New Mexico State... teams that have never if not seldom seen three star recruits commit should not be in the same sentence with WSU, right?


One further question for producers, is a prestige rating something that can be patched?

[gameface1324]

WVU never gonna get that 5th star, 3 BCS wins or not....


Miami should be 4, Stanford 5, Okey St 4, Penn St 4

[MrSerendipity]

Quote: Originally Posted by WSUCougars

Going back to the WSU controversy, here's some food for thought. If prestige is in fact based partly on recruiting, WSU has never had a recruiting class outside of the top 60. Teams like Idaho, South Alabama, New Mexico State... teams that have never if not seldom seen three star recruits commit should not be in the same sentence with WSU, right? One further question for producers, is a prestige rating something that can be patched?

Honestly, I think your complaints are going to fall on deaf ears. And I wouldn't hope or expect for any form of patch or update that will change WSU's Prestige. If this is how they feel now, it's how they'll feel later. I think for the most part, most here would agree with you that WSU shouldn't have a One-Star Prestige. Simply being in the PAC should give them a Two-Star Prestige as the PAC is a more desirable and respectable Conference than the Sun Belt, Conference USA, Mountain West and etc. With that said. WSU has been at the bottom of the pack lately (No Pun Intended). So I would think that WSU should have been a Two-Star school in NCAA 14.

But as I said, I wouldn't expect anything to change. At least this way you get to take your favorite school all the way from the bottom and build them into the next Juggernaut.

[TheKnack]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrSerendipity

Honestly, I think your complaints are going to fall on deaf ears. And I wouldn't hope or expect for any form of patch or update that will change WSU's Prestige. If this is how they feel now, it's how they'll feel later. I think for the most part, most here would agree with you that WSU shouldn't have a One-Star Prestige. Simply being in the PAC should give them a Two-Star Prestige as the PAC is a more desirable and respectable Conference than the Sun Belt, Conference USA, Mountain West and etc. With that said. WSU has been at the bottom of the pack lately (No Pun Intended). So I would think that WSU should have been a Two-Star school in NCAA 14. But as I said, I wouldn't expect anything to change. At least this way you get to take your favorite school all the way from the bottom and build them into the next Juggernaut.

Oh, no complaints here, I was just guaging conversation and picking everybody's brain. The rating is what it is.

Just sheer curiousity on my part

[wbc7828]

Quote: Originally Posted by KushNstien

That is way too generous. They should be 5* if anything.

Michigan a 6? Now thats very interesting.. They should be a 5 as well. Stanford (23-4) 2 bcs Appearance, Michigan (19-7) 1 bcs Appearance last 2 yrs.. And I like Michigan because of Brady hoke, he coached San Diego ST before he went to Michigan..

[The JareBear]

Please explain to me why Stanford isn't a six star team.