NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

[schumj]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

Missouri deserves a 5* prestige more than Tennessee since it's based off the games you win and Missouri doesn't even deserve a 5* until they win a conference championship. Yes I know Tennessee has a better history, but prestige is based on the present in the game.

Last 5 years
Tennessee 37-28 overall 1-3 in bowl games
Missouri 48-19 overall 2-3 in bowl games

Prestige shouldn't be based on present it should be on present + history. Overall, Off and Def ratings are for present. Prestige is defined as high status or reputation achieved through success, influence, wealth, etc; renown. If you ask an average fan or anyone other than die hards who is more prestigious Tennessee or Missouri I am sure over half would say Tennessee.

[schumj]

Re: NCAA 12: TSO breaks down all 120 teams ratings and prestige

I'm still trying to figure out how my Nittany Lions are an A on offense. We lose out leading rusher for the last 4 years, our quarterbacks weren't great. Paul Jones was the best quarterback on our roster and he redshirted, but he obviously won't effect the ratings too much.

B+ at best on offense for us.

Although I think the QB's are a ? I think the running game is an upgrade, the WR's are great and a good OL. I do think B+ would be more appropriate but they are not going to be bad this year, and for all the talk Wisconsin is getting as a time to shine with the OSU situation, I think people need to pay attention to PSU. They are going to have one of the best Defenses in the nation and as long as the QB progresses (whichever one) they should be good.

[The JareBear]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

Prestige shouldn't be based on present it should be on present + history. Overall, Off and Def ratings are for present. Prestige is defined as high status or reputation achieved through success, influence, wealth, etc; renown. If you ask an average fan or anyone other than die hards who is more prestigious Tennessee or Missouri I am sure over half would say Tennessee.

I am sorry I just really disagree with this. Current quality of on-field play has to be a big chunk of that rating in the game or else actual wins and losses wouldnt mean anything.

[schumj]

Re: NCAA 12: TSO breaks down all 120 teams ratings and prestige

We finished around 32 in total D last year and were 2nd in the SEC in sacks and TFL...I think B+ is about right with 7 starters returning and a lot of seniors

next year is a different story however...

I agree. I think they are a player or two stepping up from A-. Bequette is nasty and IMO the most underated player in the SEC with Kentucky's Danny Trevathan. 2 LB's are nice and your SS is primed for a big year.

[schumj]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

That's a good point Gloves. Also, I believe Mizzou has produced more NFL first rounders than UT in that time span too (could be wrong)

Well since 2000 Tulane has as many 1st rounders as Notre Dame. Should they be equal then?

[The JareBear]

Re: NCAA 12: TSO breaks down all 120 teams ratings and prestige

I could spend all day arguing it, I am gonna bow out of this one. I just feel like there needs to be a bigger gap between Great defenses, Good defenses, and Decent defenses. Not every school should be rated the same just because they play in a big conference

[The JareBear]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

Well since 2000 Tulane has as many 1st rounders as Notre Dame. Should they be equal then?

That was just one stat and one aspect to look at on top of everything else. What is Tulane's record recently? How many big opponents have they beaten?

Probably not the same level as Notre Dame or Mizzou.

Mizzou has had a very successful run recently and been in NC title contention as well as Big 12 title contention

If history was all that mattered then Army and Navy would be 6* still and Miami would be a permanent 6* due to their dominance in the past 30 years or so. It changes year to year man, it should never stay the same just because of history. If you suck on the field your rating should go down. There should be a penalty or bonus or on field play year to year

[Sammidysam]

Haha Purdue got better than last year when they lost key star players like Ryan Kerrigan and Keith Smith. Although we'll never know if Purdue truly got better until the season is over.

[jhawk826]

Re: NCAA 12: TSO breaks down all 120 teams ratings and prestige

Minus the Robinson era, Cuse's history is pretty rich compared to schools they have ranked ahead of us. I see you went to SU as well and you're probably one of the people who never went to a game or knew we had a program until we won a bowl game in December. Laugh it up if you want to.

[Gloves 82]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

Prestige shouldn't be based on present it should be on present + history. Overall, Off and Def ratings are for present. Prestige is defined as high status or reputation achieved through success, influence, wealth, etc; renown. If you ask an average fan or anyone other than die hards who is more prestigious Tennessee or Missouri I am sure over half would say Tennessee.

I'm not saying it should be based on present, but in the game, it is. If you're a 6* in the game and finish ranked #29 one year, you'll go down to a 5*. That's where my argument was coming from. I would say Tennessee is more prestigious than Mizzou as well because they have a better history, but the game doesn't take history into account.

[schumj]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

That was just one stat and one aspect to look at on top of everything else. What is Tulane's record recently? How many big opponents have they beaten?

Probably not the same level as Notre Dame or Mizzou.

Mizzou has had a very successful run recently and been in NC title contention as well as Big 12 title contention

If history was all that mattered then Army and Navy would be 6* still and Miami would be a permanent 6* due to their dominance in the past 30 years or so. It changes year to year man, it should never stay the same just because of history. If you suck on the field your rating should go down. There should be a penalty or bonus or on field play year to year

I agree that current standing should effect the rating. But I have disagree with the idea Missou should be ahead of Tennessee. Technically last year is history but it should be a combo of history and recent success. I like how ESPN devised their rankings for most prestigious. You could easily take their same formula and come up with something for the last 20 years or 30 years instead of back to win the AP came out. But they would still be behind Tennessee.

Prestige - How a team is revered. Anyone older than 25 will know that Tennessee has had a Heisman Runner up, won a national championship and competed for multiple conference championships winning multiple in the last 20 years. What can Missouri say similar. That they have had a better record the last 5-8 years? They have not had a runner up or even come close to a Heisman. They have played in a few conf championships but have never came close to competing. And that one year they had a chance at playing in a NC and failed?

[Gloves 82]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

That was just one stat and one aspect to look at on top of everything else. What is Tulane's record recently? How many big opponents have they beaten?

Probably not the same level as Notre Dame or Mizzou.

Mizzou has had a very successful run recently and been in NC title contention as well as Big 12 title contention

If history was all that mattered then Army and Navy would be 6* still and Miami would be a permanent 6* due to their dominance in the past 30 years or so. It changes year to year man, it should never stay the same just because of history. If you suck on the field your rating should go down. There should be a penalty or bonus or on field play year to year

I think some history should be involved, but not only history

[schumj]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

I'm not saying it should be based on present, but in the game, it is. If you're a 6* in the game and finish ranked #29 one year, you'll go down to a 5*. That's where my argument was coming from. I would say Tennessee is more prestigious than Mizzou as well because they have a better history, but the game doesn't take history into account.

I can understand that point. The game's prestige formula is broken. Or what I should say is the game has a different idea of what prestige is then I do.

[sparkdawg777]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

Prestige shouldn't be based on present it should be on present + history. Overall, Off and Def ratings are for present. Prestige is defined as high status or reputation achieved through success, influence, wealth, etc; renown. If you ask an average fan or anyone other than die hards who is more prestigious Tennessee or Missouri I am sure over half would say Tennessee.

I've been going back and forth on this debate about prestige, and I have to agree with you. Especially looking at ND this is why they are a 5* in my eyes. They are a 6* in history and tradition (winning) but they have played down to the 4* level recently, that averages to a 5*.

Missouri on the other hand in my eyes is 3* (but rising close to 4 thanks to recent success) in history and tradition and a playing like a 5*. So it is close there.

Tennessee, man, good ole Tennessee that's a tough one because I would like to give you guys a 6* on history but the lack of success recently makes it hard to. But it's hard to forget what yall did a decade ago so I will always have at least a 5* respect for them but recently you guys have played down to 3*, that could average to the 4*.

South Carolina for instance would have a 3* history, and but their team this year is probably a 5*. There's your 4*

Clemson I would say has 4* history and team is 4* (bad year last year but year before made ACC Championship)


Does this way of grading sound fair?

[Wildcats302]

Re: NCAA Football 12 Team Ratings and Prestige Revealed (Tradition Sports Online)

Penn State being a 6 is a joke. I see that one poster saying drop Miami to a 4 from a 5...really? Penn State needs to be a 3 then sine they have 2 national titles ever, and Miami has 5...4 of them since Penn State's last title, coincidentally against Miami.

I think OSU should be a 6, Alabama a 6, FL a 6, LSU a 6, Oklahoma a 6, Texas a 6, and honestly beyond that, that's about it, unless you wanna put USC in the mix despite two straight sub par years and more to come with probation taking its toll on them no doubt.

The 6 teams I have as 6 stars has to do with what they have done in the past 5-10 years, as well as historically. I get what the Notre Dame fans are saying, but 23 years with no end in sight on winning a national title has to take a toll at some point. Same thing with Michigan, the last few years have been awful. If both of those were 6's, along with say a Nebraska, would I absolutely pitch a fit? No, but in my opinion they should not be until they have some 2-3 years of consistent BCS bowls and competing for a title, because the historical aspect is certainly there for all of them.