.

.

Table A. ESPN's Prestige Rankings - Public Comment

.

CriteriaESPN PtsRTC Suggested PtsJustification

.

National Title2530titles are what you play for - they should count significantly more than anything else

.

F22020no change

.

F4 1515no change

.

E8107.5an E8 appearance is nice, but the grand stage nationally is the F4; so these two criteria were too close in point attribution

.

S1655no change

.

R3233no change

.

R6411no change

.

#1 seedsna2#1 seeds are prestigious and get significant media attention during the NCAAs

.

Reg Season Conf Champ5"5 * conf multipliersee note below (*)

.

Conf Tourney Champ3"3 * conf multipliersee note below (*)

.

30+ wins55no change

.

20-29 wins1naremoved in favor of a more discrete breakdown

.

25-29 winsna325-29 wins is a fantastic season at any level

.

20-24 winsna120-24 is a good season and should not be rewarded equally as 25-29 wins

.

losing season 10+ wins-3-2similarly, a losing season at 14-16 is still a lot better than an 8-20 season in our eyes, esp. when discussing prestige

.

< 10 winsna-5terrible seasons are countered by 30+ win seasons

.

AP 1st Team33no change

.

AP 2d Team22no change

.

AP 3d team11no change

.

Wooden Awardna2the "face of the game" can mean more than a team's success in some years

.

NBA Top 10 Pick21this seems a little less important to us than ESPN thought

.

12-16 R64 upset22no change

.

loss to 12-13 team-2-2no change

.

loss to 14-16 teamna-5a major upset is losing to a 14-16 seed

.

NIT title21for coming in #66, you get the same point as if you'd made the Dance - we think that's fair

.

NIT berth1naremoved for reasons of complete absurdity

.

probation-3-3no change

.

overachieve by seednawins vs. expected (normalized)added to value those who overachieve in March (see note ** below)

.

underachieve by seednawins vs. expected (normalized)added to devalue those who underachieve In March (see note ** below)

.

"* - it's unfair to reward small conference schools the same point totals for winning weaker conferences, so we will use a multiplier based on conference NCAA Tourney success from 1985-2008

.

** - we're still figuring a way to normalize this based on our 1985-2007 data on NCAA Tourney overachieving and underachieving (which we'll update to include 2008)"

.