The WSU prestige conundrum

[thedudedominick]

Quote: Originally Posted by BleedGreen710

They should make a larger prestige scale, like 1-10 stars instead of 1-6

This was my first thought when seeing this post. The difference between Alabama and South Alabama is not 5 successful seasons like it is in the video game. With the way real life works it takes about a decade of sustained success to really turn yourself into a household name. In the video game it takes 5 years to go from a 1* to a 6* program.

If they expanded the rating 1* to 10* there would really be seperation between the brand new FBS teams and the established powers.

With 120+ teams it's very tough to differentiate teams using only 6* of prestige. WSU definitely deserves to be a higher prestige than New Mexico State and Idaho, but should be below the 2* BCS teams that have had at least 1 year of success in the recent past.

[dghustla]

Quote: Originally Posted by SlickRick11

Washington State is (20-5) vs. Non AQ conference D-1 schools since the 2001-2002 Season and 7-0 vs. D-2 schools Your making up a bunch of what if they played this team this season scenarios, the stats I posted are FACTS Houston and UCF aren't playing Oregon, USC, Stanford, and UCLA every year either Maybe you should do your research

Every post in here is referencing this school since their last rosé bowl birth in 2003. Of course if you go back to 2001 they had more wins from 01-03 than they've had from 04-2013. In the last 3 years they are .500 against non AQ.
Which isn't saying much considering they've had 2 one win seasons and a 3 win season.


I do agree if posters feel that all AQ schools should be minimum 2*. But that rating wouldn't be based on the merit of the programs recent production.

[stormisbruin]

Quote: Originally Posted by dghustla

Please do research before posting statements like that. http://espn.go.com/college-football/...-state-cougars In 2012 they were drummed by BYU and eek'd out a 4 point win over Eastern Michigan. the MAC & WAC have had BCS busters the last few years who would have drilled this team. What makes you think that WSU could have beaten C-USA Houston or even UCF the last few years when they couldn't beat Oregon State? You may have a case with the Sun belt but FIU and ULL have fielded some competitive teams lately. I have nothing against WSU but over the last 6 years they have been without a doubt the worst AQ team. They are barely averaging 2 wins a season over the last 6 years. And have suffered numerous blowout losses. They are losing recruiting battles and have 0 buzz around the program from a national and conference perspective. If ppl think that every AQ team should automatically be at least 2* that is one thing. But to say they would be perennial champs in a NON-AQ conference is asinine. Someone above said theses rating have nothing to do with past seasons and only recruiting....then why do these prestige rating increase and decrease with on the field success in the dynasty? Bottom Line is all the other 2* teams have at least made a bowl game in the last 2 years. The criteria isn't that high. When WSU makes a bowl game they will be given a 2* rating.

I could go over this for a while but I'll just address a few of your points:

1. Colorado - has not played in a bowl game since 2007, has not won a bowl game since 2004, has not been to a BCS game since 2002, a year before WSU
2. Kansas - has not played in a bowl game since 2008
3. Indiana - has not been to a bowl game since 2007, has not won a bowl game since 1991
To say that all the other 2 star teams have at least made a bowl game the last two years in blatantly false. Maybe you're the one who should do some research.

What does a BYU game have to do with how well WSU would play in the MAC, Sun Belt, etc.? BYU does not play in a conference. Not sure why you cited FIU or ULL as the teams to beat in the Sun Belt either. Arkansas State has won the conference two years in a row, won 20 games over the last 2 years, and has produced two now SEC coaches. Seems like they're the power to beat there, not 3-9 FIU. Plus, his point was that WSU would win the conference, not demolish everyone in their path. Which I agree with. They wouldn't go undefeated, but they could win most of those conferences every year aside from the MWC.

Bottom line, WSU deserves much more than a 1 star. As someone else said, they don't deserve to be in the same ranking as South Alabama and Georgia State. They have a highly prestigious coach and upgraded facilities. They play in a major conference. They have a intriguing offense. They beat good teams (Washington). They're going to be much improved this year (5-6 wins). They deserve more than 1 star.

P.S. It doesn't look good for you when you cite a 4 point win over Eastern Michigan, when WSU didn't play Eastern Michigan.

[stormisbruin]

Quote: Originally Posted by War34Eagle

I can see the argument both ways, for 1 or 2 star. However, I definitely think it's not the biggest prestige "offense" in the game.

It will be soon. Takes time for Leach to get his guys in there and weed the troublemakers out (i.e. diva Marquess Wilson)

[War34Eagle]

Quote: Originally Posted by stormisbruin

It will be soon. Takes time for Leach to get his guys in there and weed the troublemakers out (i.e. diva Marquess Wilson)

I think you misunderstood me. I meant offense as like an infraction, not offense like QB, RB, and WR.

[stormisbruin]

Quote: Originally Posted by War34Eagle

I think you misunderstood me. I meant offense as like an infraction, not offense like QB, RB, and WR.

Ohhhhhhh gotcha man haha.

[The JareBear]

I see the argument that a BCS conference team shouldn't be a one star team, but honestly, terrible is terrible, and they've been terrible. I feel the same way about Kansas and CU.

[N51_rob]

Actually, I think we should steer this into one thread. Thanks.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...e-ratings.html