I completely agree! I was pretty annoyed when my prestige dropped after a Sweet 16 last season. I think the only reason actually was that we went 23-9..it seems like W-L is too important. I mean I would argue that a team losing 2 extra non-conf games but going even 1 round farther in the NT has had a better season..and I'm not sure it gets treated that way. I really don't think a team should ever drop prestige for a Sweet 16 or better!

And of course like you said, its also way too "what have you done for me lately?" If you've won multiple NTs, then you should have to fall pretty hard to start dropping prestige IMO.

With my D1 Indiana team (under kendrik2), I went to the Sweet 16 last season and maintained my B prestige - I thought we should have jumped to at least a B+ considering we had to win the CT to make the tourney. This season, we go to the Final Four and finish the season ranked #2 and we jump to an A-, not to mention I do not qualify for the BC or UVA jobs. Once again, I thought our prestige would jump a little higher.

i disagree about killbatman....

when you go.....

sweet 16
final four
national champ
sweet 16
elite 8
sweet 16
elite 8

over the course of 7 seasons....

there is no way your prestige should drop to an A.

i think that an A should be much harder to get, but also harder to lose as well. i think its stupid how if you win one NT you jump to an A+ even if you never made the dance before.

same goes for losing it. if killbatman were to go one and done next season, i think he still deserves an A+. do it for a second season then there should be a drop.

i also think that if a new coach comes in prestige should be affected

I agrere, I think that long team sucess should play a more important role esp. at D-3 where the lure to move up is always there and I also agree that if a new coach comes in then the prestige should drop

i can see both sides of it...and i just went from an A+ to B+ in 2 seasons...

if anyone would/could have a true DIII dynasty it's Anderson...

but i had some ticket exchanges early on when i saw some pretty whacky prestiges about this very topic...WIS said (paraphrasing):

1. in RL there is almost no examples of true DIII dynasties as compared to the level of influence that prestige has in DI...e.g. every college basketball player knows Duke whether they play at a DIII or DI school...but not every college basketball player knows Anderson...

2. they wanted to make sure the DIII playing field is a bit more competitive to new comers...whether that's fair or not - it is a business and they don't want all their new coaches coming in and getting the snot kicked out of them...

i think i can understand the above but i would think with the low recruiting budgets we're already hampered anyway would help to take away any huge advantages to prestige at DIII...i don't agree with it...but i can udnerstand it...

additionally if they are going to do that - i would still like to see HCA have more impact...i know for a fact that some DIII programs in football and basketball have some very energetic and tough to play places that are just as tough as DI level HCAs...

good point - i did not notice differences between my recruits by much and Neumann's a few seasons ago when i was helping my brother get started...maybe a few talked to me that wouldn't talk to him and a few dropped early but nowhere near the pull or effect that it has at higher levels (nor should they be)...

for the most prestige seems to be more of a window dressing than anything else at DIII

its a huge difference from A- to A+. ...

in terms of numbers you may only 'see' and extra 8 recruits. but there's only 3 other schools that see those same recruits. and they are usually very good recruits.

so yea, in terms of numbers A- to A+ is not a big deal. but when you have little to no competition for the top few recruits its a huge advantage. you spend very little, so that if you do end up in a battle you can usually win.

wronoj you still out partying from UNC getting to the FF?