The WSU prestige conundrum

[TheKnack]

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?

[dghustla]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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?

you have to be objective here. Sorry for the following. You say only 4 pac-12 teams have played in the Rose bowl since 2003, when USC and Oregon played for titles during that span. Some of those team qualifying for at large bids for other BCS games.

From 2004-present WSU record is 32-60. They haven't won more than 4 games a season in the past 5 years.

And their last bowl appearance was 2006. Which is also the last time they had a "winning" record (6-6).

Sorry again but that is the definition of a 1*.

Not saying it's you but every year ppl come out and want EA to be more strict with their rating system but never want their team to be on the strict side of it.

[VolPett]

I agree w/ the OP 1000%.

[majesty95]

I think you meant "at least a 2*" and I could see that. As was pointed out, they haven't had much success recently so there is an argument for them remaining a 1*. However, being in a BCS conference and having a recognizable coach could bump them up. I just think the argument isn't 100% compelling either way. Think of it this way tough, what does it take in the game to go from a 1* to a 2*? Have they done that recently?

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

Theres some 1 star schools who have had more recent success then WSU like ULL (2 straight bowl wins). Can you imagine if WSU had a higher prestige despite no winning seasons in nearly 10 years? I think WSU is just fine as a 1 star.

[jayhawkfan11]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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 would probably agree, only because KU is listed as 2 or 3* and in no way should they be. We haven't won a conference game in the Big 12 for 3 years, if that isn't 1* I don't know what is.

[Sutt0n]

I would probably agree, only because KU is listed as 2 or 3* and in no way should they be. We haven't won a conference game in the Big 12 for 3 years, if that isn't 1* I don't know what is.

I agree with the last part of your statement. Kansas should be a 1* maybe 2* because of that orange bowl season a few years ago. The problem WSU is facing is they have been terrible for 6 years. Most other teams thought of as awful in other bcs conferences (duke, vandy, Kentucky, etc) have had a decent season in the past 2 or 3 years.

[HozAndMoose]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

I agree with the last part of your statement. Kansas should be a 1* maybe 2* because of that orange bowl season a few years ago. The problem WSU is facing is they have been terrible for 6 years. Most other teams thought of as awful in other bcs conferences (duke, vandy, Kentucky, etc) have had a decent season in the past 2 or 3 years.

That Orange Bowl they didnt deserve?

[Cubs017]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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]

Re: The WSU prestige conundrum

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/team/schedule/_/id/265/washington-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]

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