The WSU prestige conundrum

[Cubs017]

Regardless of how successful teams have been, there is a certain prestige that comes with playing in an AQ conference. Kansas, WSU, etc. should all be at least 2*. They shouldn't be down there with Idaho and the like. They still have huge advantages over smaller schools.

[TDenverFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by WSUCougars

There's no getting around it. Yes, I am a Washington State fan, but it seems as though many objective fans of the NCAA series have since posted their thoughts on the subject matter: Why is WSU still a 1-star prestige school? The one and only BCS school listed as such. It makes zero sense. The last four Pac-12 teams to go to the Rose Bowl are Oregon, Stanford, USC, and Washington State. (2003) The Cougs won 10 games every year from 2001-2003. Sure, that was a decade ago. Plus with the addition of Mike Leach and 170 million dollars worth of stadium upgrades, wouldn't you think this team is at the VERY LEAST a 1 star? Thoughts?

I'm assuming you mean 2 star. Maybe you could argue they're a 2-star. But saying at the VERY LEAST they're a 2 star implies you could also give them 3* or 4* prestige, and that is kinda ridiculous.

Plus, being 1 of the last 4 PAC teams in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean much when their last berth was 10 years ago. Duke was the last ACC team in the Rose Bowl, should they be higher?

Also, I don't think Kansas deserves to be a 2*, and Duke maybe deserves a 2* simply because they made a bowl this year and sent some players to the NFL.

[CHIEFxxROCKEM]

Prestige has nothing to do with past success in this game. Prestige is all about recruiting in this game. Why? Don't know the answer to that.

[GruffyMcGuiness]

I don't think a team like WSU should be on the same level as Georgia State and South Alabama when this is their first year. They're 1* and WSU is 2*

[SlickRick11]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cubs017

Regardless of how successful teams have been, there is a certain prestige that comes with playing in an AQ conference. Kansas, WSU, etc. should all be at least 2*. They shouldn't be down there with Idaho and the like. They still have huge advantages over smaller schools.

Exactly, I agree with this and the OP all the way on this one

They should be at least a 2*

In my Online Dynasty, we start with 1* teams excluding Wash St. for the simple fact that they aren't a true 1* team.....Their in the PAC 12 an AQ conference, they have had some really good teams in the past, even though that was years ago

I've also noticed that more and more 1* dynastys are doing this around the web

Bottom line, put Wash St in the MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA and i think they'd win it almost every year

[dghustla]

Quote: Originally Posted by SlickRick11

Exactly, I agree with this and the OP all the way on this one They should be at least a 2* In my Online Dynasty, we start with 1* teams excluding Wash St. for the simple fact that they aren't a true 1* team.....Their in the PAC 12 an AQ conference, they have had some really good teams in the past, even though that was years ago I've also noticed that more and more 1* dynastys are doing this around the web Bottom line, put Wash St in the MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA and i think they'd win it almost every year

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.

[majesty95]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHIEFxxROCKEM

Prestige has nothing to do with past success in this game. Prestige is all about recruiting in this game. Why? Don't know the answer to that.

Thats untrue. View post #6

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ige-go-up.html

[Skulletor]

they're a 2 star program. but then again, EA made ND 6*, the same ND that has won a 2 bowl games since 1995, (and lets be honest, Sun Bowl and Hawaiian bowls are nice, but nothing special) and just got embarrassed in a national championship game