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

[goh]

USC and Ohio State with 6? Not up to date then. Why can't we edit this stuff?

[He1nousOne1]

Quote: Originally Posted by goh

USC and Ohio State with 6? Not up to date then. Why can't we edit this stuff?

Until Ohio State gets hits with any sanctions like USC did I do not see why they should be taken down as a program from 6. The coach messed up and some players did but as a program it will easily rebuild from such. It will still most likely be the team in the first ever Big Ten championship game. It still gets the cream of the crop of athletes in the north. Until we have proof On The Field that they are not a Six Star team then I do not see why they should drop. What happened was just a minor bump for OSU.

USC on the other hand had top talent Leave the school because of their sanctions and that killed their chances at recruiting top talent or getting a top coach so yes that drop in prestige is warranted.

[jhawk886]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

Imo 2*'s is a fairly accurate refelection of the state of KU football, in fact one could argue that KU should never have been granted 3* status in the first place (the Jayhawks have been playing fb since 1890; in all that time they have posted back to back bowl seasons just once). As for your "one bad season" argument, 2010 wasn't just a bad season-it was catastrophic: 3-9 (1-7 in conf) Lost 3-6 to FBS school North Dakota State at home; 1-7 in conference play last season (all seven losses by double digits, 5 of them by 28+).

If the entire spectrum of teams' prestige was based on the history of the individual programs, then yes, I would agree with you. But, as has already been established, other than the likes of Notre Dame & Texas, EA bases their prestige levels on recent performance. And within the past 6 years KU has 3 bowl victories with 1 of them being a BCS victory.

While turmoil in the program has hurt the program the past two seasons, it has not destroyed it (As evidenced by Gill bringing in the highest rated recruiting class in school history).

While last season was an **** failure, they should not have dropped to 2 stars. Another season like the last and yes, they maybe should.

One horrible season and losing to an FCS team should not have caused KU to fall. Did Texas or Florida who had comparable catastrophic seasons with MUCH
higher expectations drop? Did Virginia Tech who lost to an FCS team drop? No.

Their prestige system should be needs to be completely reworked. If they're going to make it more fluid and based on recent performance, then they need to do that for all schools (including Texas, Florida, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.) and follow those guidelines from season to season based on real life (AKA if their prestige system would've dropped Texas a star on the game due to a season like the Longhorns had last year, then they need to do it).

Otherwise, they need to make the system much more static and based more on historical performance with it taking a long time to increase program prestige.

[He1nousOne1]

A team like Texas or Florida has a bad year and they still remain the top team in their respected states when it comes to recruiting capability and the states of Texas and Florida are prime territory for top recruits so a bad year for them is easy to bounce back from.

A team like Kansas if it wants to rise in the ranks has to rely on recruiting heavily outside of its state thus bad performances have a much bigger affect on their ability to bounce back through recruiting so yes a school like Kansas will effectively drop in prestige quicker then a school like Texas or Florida. Its just the nature of the beast we call College Football.

[dickey1331]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhawk886

If the entire spectrum of teams' prestige was based on the history of the individual programs, then yes, I would agree with you. But, as has already been established, other than the likes of Notre Dame & Texas, EA bases their prestige levels on recent performance. And within the past 6 years KU has 3 bowl victories with 1 of them being a BCS victory. While turmoil in the program has hurt the program the past two seasons, it has not destroyed it (As evidenced by Gill bringing in the highest rated recruiting class in school history). While last season was an **** failure, they should not have dropped to 2 stars. Another season like the last and yes, they maybe should. One horrible season and losing to an FCS team should not have caused KU to fall. Did Texas or Florida who had comparable catastrophic seasons with MUCH higher expectations drop? Did Virginia Tech who lost to an FCS team drop? No. Their prestige system should be needs to be completely reworked. If they're going to make it more fluid and based on recent performance, then they need to do that for all schools (including Texas, Florida, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.) and follow those guidelines from season to season based on real life (AKA if their prestige system would've dropped Texas a star on the game due to a season like the Longhorns had last year, then they need to do it). Otherwise, they need to make the system much more static and based more on historical performance with it taking a long time to increase program prestige.

With Texas, Virginia Tech and ND they will rebound so 1 bad season won't hurt them but with Kansas you don't know. They are historical a bad program so I understand why they are a 2 star. Prestige shouldn't be a system thats the same for every program. It should take Texas much longer to drop than Kansas.


Do you really care where I sent this from?

[schumj]

I can see both sides when it comes to Kansas. If we are assuming they basically throw out most of history and only look at recent success with the exception of those listed, Kansas isn't much different then a team like say Stanford.

In the BCS era Stanford has only played in 2 BCS bowl, Kansas 1. Stanford has had 1 finish in the top 10, Kansas also has 1. They have both only had one 10 win season, and if you look at every weeks poll since 98 KU was ranked # 2 one week Stanford's highest ranking was #4.

I guess you can look at it two ways, Stanford overrated or KU underrated.

IMO if I were to say Kansas and Stanford who is more prestigious, I would probably say Stanford. But in recent success? Since 98 Stanford has won 70 games, Kansas has won 69?

[Gloves 82]

Quote: Originally Posted by schumj

I can see both sides when it comes to Kansas. If we are assuming they basically throw out most of history and only look at recent success with the exception of those listed, Kansas isn't much different then a team like say Stanford. In the BCS era Stanford has only played in 2 BCS bowl, Kansas 1. Stanford has had 1 finish in the top 10, Kansas also has 1. They have both only had one 10 win season, and if you look at every weeks poll since 98 KU was ranked # 2 one week Stanford's highest ranking was #4. I guess you can look at it two ways, Stanford overrated or KU underrated. IMO if I were to say Kansas and Stanford who is more prestigious, I would probably say Stanford. But in recent success? Since 98 Stanford has one 70 games, Kansas has won 69?

The problem with KU is that in the last 4 years, their record has gotten worse. 12-1, 8-5, 5-7, 3-9

Stanford has improved their record each year. 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1

[schumj]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gloves 82

The problem with KU is that in the last 4 years, their record has gotten worse. 12-1, 8-5, 5-7, 3-9 Stanford has improved their record each year. 4-8, 5-7, 8-5, 12-1

Good point! I didn't even notice the trend like that. But if you were to say there are two teams (with no names attached) and just say both are a 3* school and give those records would you say one should be a 2* now and the other a 4? Maybe, but I would say KU should be at least a 3 star and could live with Stanford and 4.

Not many teams have even played in a BCS Bowl let alone won one. And they got an at large bid, they didn't just win an average conference like UCONN.