Let's talk about the Prestige Ratings in NCAA 12

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by Siggy778

Some of these are a bit absurd. Last time I checked: 6 stars: The elite programs that have years of tradition and a bunch of national championships. 5 stars: Some of the top schools in the past decade. May have even won a title or two in that span. Great schools, but not THE TOP. 4 stars: Respected teams that tend to be in the top 25 often but have had enough down years and inconsistencies in the past 10 years to keep them from being higher. 3 stars: Teams that find success once and awhile but struggle with consistency as they usually play second fiddle to larger in-state schools. 2 stars: Teams that traditionally dwell near the bottom of their division. Every couple of years they'll get a landmark win against an unsuspecting top 25 foe. 1 star: Bottom of the barrel. Very little has gone right for these teams. Here's the list, by the way. I have gripes with the following: Auburn- Should be 5 stars. Yes, they just won the national championship but they do not have the history of winning the other 6-star schools have. Don't let my allegiance to the Tide fool you. I don't mind AU like most Bama fans. When you live up north it just doesn't bother you as much. Oregon- Oregon has been great the past few seasons but they don't have the history or tradition of a 6-star program. Iowa- 5 stars? WHAT? That is absurd. They're not on the same level as Notre Dame, Nebraska, Michigan, Miami, etc. Wisconsin- Wisconsin always seems to quietly do well in the Big Ten as U of M and OSU get all the attention, but I don't consider them one of the premier programs in the country. This one, however, I have a weaker feeling about than the others. Michigan- 5 stars. Hmm, I live in Michigan and have always hated the Wolverines but I have to say that they're still a 6-star program in my book. Yes, they've struggled a lot as of late but they're still Michigan. The same could be argued for Notre Dame. Again, this is another one that doesn't bother me too much. FIU- These guys are moving up in the college football world. Last year they gave Texas A&M and Rutgers quite the battle. They even won a bowl game last year. Giving them that 2nd star would be justified.

FYI, your Tide shouldn't be a 6 star then. Auburn has more Bowl wins, SEC titles, Iron Bowl Wins, Heismans, Undefeated Seasons since Bear Bryant coached at Bama. That's 30 years. The only area Bama has more of anything (Besides probation) is a whopping one more title win in that time span. So yeah...while your team has a ton of wins from when 8 track tapes were in fashion, etc. there are a lot of programs that have been more successful since.


But eh.... whatever. Folks are gonna complain about the prestige ratings one way or the other.

I'll say this...

The way Auburn has been recruiting ever since Chizik got to AU, they certainly deserve 6 star prestige. And since that is pretty much the entire point of the prestige ratings....RECRUITING...no one can say Auburn hasn't been recruiting at an elite level the last 3 years under Chizik.

[KillerNuts]

Notre Dame has the 41st best win % this decade and 45th in the last five years. Obviously, there's a lot more to this than winning, but I certainly think a 5 star ranking is fair when they've performed that badly in recent years.

For the 6 star teams we've got these rankings over the same time periods...


Oklahoma- 2, 10
Alabama-43, 23
LSU- 7, 7
OSU-4, 2
Texas- 3, 5t
Florida- 9, 4
Oregon- 12, 12t
Auburn- 11, 15
USC- 6, 5t
PSU- 30, 12t

Alabama forfeited a bunch of games in this time span.

The 6 stars are pretty easy to defend, but instead of keeping it at 10 I think they should've left it at 7 with Oregon, Auburn, and PSU at 5 stars.

[TMJOHNS18]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

FYI, your Tide shouldn't be a 6 star then. Auburn has more Bowl wins, SEC titles, Iron Bowl Wins, Heismans, Undefeated Seasons since Bear Bryant coached at Bama. That's 30 years. The only area Bama has more of anything (Besides probation) is a whopping one more title win in that time span. So yeah...while your team has a ton of wins from when 8 track tapes were in fashion, etc. there are a lot of programs that have been more successful since. But eh.... whatever. Folks are gonna complain about the prestige ratings one way or the other. I'll say this... The way Auburn has been recruiting ever since Chizik got to AU, they certainly deserve 6 star prestige. And since that is pretty much the entire point of the prestige ratings....RECRUITING...no one can say Auburn hasn't been recruiting at an elite level the last 3 years under Chizik.

You really like bringing up those 30 year numbers lol.

If EA would allow us to edit prestige levels prior to starting a Dynasty then I think most people will be happy with them. The one thing I don't understand though is EA has a criteria for loosing/gaining prestige during your Dynasty yet year to year they don't follow that when rating to teams pre-release.

[AuburnAlumni]

The entire point of prestige in NCAA 12 is Recruiting. Bottom line. That's the only area that it is truly important in the game. Auburn is a hot commodity right now in recruits eyes. Have been ever since Chizik got there. Same with Chip Kelly at Oregon. Same with FSU with Jimbo, although FSU, even in their decade of sucktitude were still a "cool school" in recruits' eyes.

[TheGamingChef]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMJOHNS18

You really like bringing up those 30 year numbers lol. If EA would allow us to edit prestige levels prior to starting a Dynasty then I think most people will be happy with them. The one thing I don't understand though is EA has a criteria for loosing/gaining prestige during your Dynasty yet year to year they don't follow that when rating to teams pre-release.

Exactly this... why can't we edit these? Prestige is almost random, it seems, in some cases (Iowa comes to mind).

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMJOHNS18

You really like bringing up those 30 year numbers lol. If EA would allow us to edit prestige levels prior to starting a Dynasty then I think most people will be happy with them. The one thing I don't understand though is EA has a criteria for loosing/gaining prestige during your Dynasty yet year to year they don't follow that when rating to teams pre-release.

Well...your ilk loves bringing up the fact that Bama was a power way back in the friggin' 60s and 70s.

So was SMU. Hell Navy was great in the 40s. Who cares. Since most of you on this board were born, Bama hasn't been near the juggernaut Bama fans like to make them out to be.

For obvious reasons, most Bama fans hate it when we bring this up because the numbers over a looooooooooong period of time don't favor the god like reverence that Bama fans think of their school.

We aren't talking about a 5 year span here. Not 10. Not 15. Not even 20.

[Vortex12]

All homerism aside, Cal is deserving of higher than a three star. While Cal had a bad season last year, Tedford is still bringing in very high quality recruits, and already has the number 2 QB in the 2012 class verbally committed. I think Cal should be a four star at least.

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vortex12

All homerism aside, Cal is deserving of higher than a three star. While Cal had a bad season last year, Tedford is still bringing in very high quality recruits, and already has the number 2 QB in the 2012 class verbally committed. I think Cal should be a four star at least.

If nothing else, Cal's success in the last decade deserves a 4 star rating.