Major issues with new polls (with long-term dynasties)...

[Roger Kaputnik]

I had a dynasty with Pitt a while back (in 1.04). It seemed like no matter where I ended the previous season I was always unranked at the beginning of the next. Is this an SOS issue? By the way, a lot of the issues that have been reported in this thread can be fixed by editing the prestige rankings. Taking Purdue and a few other overranked teams down to more reasonable levels often yields more realistic results in the rankings.

[Toddzilla]

Editing the prestige rankings of the teams shound't be the solution to how poor the polls perform. No division 1-A team should be so prestigious as to be ranked with a 6-5 record. Never. This year we saw Tennessee get the benefit of the doubt early in the year when they were ranked at 3-3, but the polls quickly came to their senses and booted them the next week. This game should function appropriately taking current prestige into consideration.

[Roger Kaputnik]

[QUOTE=Toddzilla]Editing the prestige rankings of the teams shound't be the solution to how poor the polls perform. No division 1-A team should be so prestigious as to be ranked with a 6-5 record. Never. This year we saw Tennessee get the benefit of the doubt early in the year when they were ranked at 3-3, but the polls quickly came to their senses and booted them the next week. This game should function appropriately taking current prestige into consideration.[/QUOTE] You are confusing prestige with ranking. They are two different things.

[Toddzilla]

[QUOTE=Roger Kaputnik]By the way, a lot of the issues that have been reported in this thread can be fixed by editing the prestige rankings. Taking Purdue and a few other overranked teams down to more reasonable levels often yields more realistic results in the rankings.[/QUOTE] Um, no, I am crystal clear on the difference. I believe your statement above that suggests the solution to the problems with the polls is to edit the schools prestige (taken directly from your earlier quote) is misguided. The polling system should function properly whether or not Michigan or Purdue or Idaho is an 30 prestige or a 99 prestige, and whether or not they start the season #1 or unranked. Because once the season gets underway, the polls shouldn't measure how prestigious a school is, they should measure how good a school is. High prestige should only serve to give some teams the benefit of the doubt (see Notre Dame IRL), but even prestige shouldn't obscure the fact that a 5-4 team isn't one of the top 25 in the country.

[Piper]

[QUOTE=IrishHand]I've been a college football fan for about 20 years and I don't recall ever seeing a sub-.500 team in the top 25 in week 4, much less week 7. A preseason top 5 team might remain in the top 25 (although the bottom part of it) with a 1-2 start only as long as the 2 losses were to other top 10 teams. Barring that, you fall below .500 after 3 games and you should be on the outside looking in for at least 2-3 weeks.[/QUOTE] Valid point, but you don't have to look very far back for a sub-.500 team in the polls after four weeks. OU was beaten by TCU, nearly toppled by Tulsa, then handled by UCLA. Two of these games were nationally televised. Though these losses don't look near as bad now, at the time UCLA was the only team getting any respect, and then only because of the LA-based media. I seem to recall a 2-3 team getting votes (a Michigan, Miami, Fla St, etc...) in recent years.

[Arlie Rahn]

[QUOTE=srudoff]Arlie - does your logic recreate the polls every week or does it start with prior week's rankings and adjust after the games are run?[/QUOTE] It start's with the prior week and adjusts based on that week's performance. Thanks for all the great feedback here. You guys have raised some very good points and one of the main changes I am going to make is have more levels of wins and losses. This way, if you lose to a top 10 team, your fate is different than a top 20 team or unranked team. I am also going to stagger the drop a little more by loss and current position. As you guys stated, the polls are less static as you go down. Add in bigger drops for the higher number of losses and I think this may work. I'll keep you guys posted on how it goes.

[MizzouRah]

[QUOTE=Arlie Rahn]It start's with the prior week and adjusts based on that week's performance. Thanks for all the great feedback here. You guys have raised some very good points and one of the main changes I am going to make is have more levels of wins and losses. This way, if you lose to a top 10 team, your fate is different than a top 20 team or unranked team. I am also going to stagger the drop a little more by loss and current position. As you guys stated, the polls are less static as you go down. Add in bigger drops for the higher number of losses and I think this may work. I'll keep you guys posted on how it goes.[/QUOTE] Great news Arlie!

[mh2365]

[QUOTE=Miral]Ouch. I just finished my season with Rutgers with an 11-1 record. 9th best offense in nation, 15th best defense, and while the coaches voted me 17th, my 11-1 team didn't even crack the media top 25.:mad: Granted I had very very weak sos, but still how can an 11-1 team miss the top 25 on any poll.[/QUOTE] Three pages prior to your post describing the exact problem, with Arlie stating he was going to work on this for version 1.1.

[tcage]

It may be a problem, but i don't think the rankings make the game 'unplayable' personally. I know when i play NCAA 2006 on PS2 it's just as bad sometimes. One season had an 8-3 Michigan team playing for the National Title ahead of 11-1 Texas. The season I'm in now also has Texas ranked #18 despite being only 2-3 (ahead of 5-0 New Mexico and 5-1 Utah). I just consider it to be similar to real-life controversy when it comes to the polls, which are NEVER perfect (especially when it comes to the BCS ;))