All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Missed PIT bid? Really?
5/17/2013 8:09 PM
Posted by smackawits on 5/17/2013 5:40:00 AM (view original):
colonels19, you are not looking (or understanding) the numbers.  #74 did not make the PIT.  #74!  10 spots out of the dance and they are sitting at home because teams THAT SCHEDULE WEAKER (in the Big 6 conferences) made the PIT with as few as 10 wins.  You say that happens in real life?  Please show me ONE instance of a PIT team in real life that made the tournament with 10 or 11 wins.  Please.  If you can state an instance, then I might have to reconsider how I feel.  Quit giving the Big 6 another advantage ($ they should not have, but a mid-major should) besides the recruit generation (which favors them also). 

You talk about scheduling cream-puffs.  Look at the ACC Allen team schedules for next year.  They are a joke, as they have been for many a season.  Plus, when one of their members has the gall to schedule another Big-6 team, their conference mates climb all over them in the conference forum for "scheduling too tough". 
Dude, RPI isn't the determinant anymore, it's the projection report.  Base level RPI isn't a very valuable tool, it misses a lot...it's just a big conglomeration of opponents records and opponents opponents records...it's rather easy to exploit and that's why something like the PR was created/finally shown.  FWIW, as I stated previously, 88th in the PR would have been more than enough in many seasons to make the PIT...I was very surprised that he didn't make it...someone must have thrown all the chalk away that season.

There is no .500 win percentage requirement in real life for the NIT, so why should their be one for the PIT?  The biggest difference between this game and RL is scheduling, RL teams aren't going to schedule 10 tough non-cons and/or be in a conference where everyone's RPI is 100 or better.  Your true colors and jetwildcat's seem to be coming through here, you're really griping about this because you're jealous of the Big 6 conferences...and again, if you use a system that's better/more developed than the PR, then you don't have these kinds of problems.  If my rankings were used...jet makes the PIT, period.

5/18/2013 6:18 AM
colonels...I agree with everything you say except for your insistence that no minimum win requirement should be present.  As shown, the PIT indeed did have a minimum win requirement at one time.  While the requirement was lifted on paper, the selection committee has not selected any team with less than a .500 record.  If WIS had a selection committee instead of a computer program, I could agree with you.  They don't, therefore a minimum requirement on wins makes sense.

True colors?  Yes, I think the new recruit generation killed the mid and low level DI teams.  No more Southerns, no more Cleveland States.  If the win requirement was established, then more mid level teams will make the PIT, therefore enhancing their prestige and giving them more money to "compete" against the better conferences in recruiting.  It also removes money from the Big-6 recruiting pools.  What is wrong with this?  Better competition is bad for the game?  It is not jealously, it is fairness that I am after.

I'm not saying someone should schedule 10 tough non-con games.  The ACC has developed a plan to schedule 10 CREAM PUFFS where they are favored by 70 points or more each game.  They all start conference play at 10-0.  Someone loses all their conference games and goes to the PIT.  This is ridiculous, and I fail to see how you cannot agree.  What happened to the ACC/Big Ten challenge?  gone to cream-puff land.  When someone actually schedules a non-con game against a Big-6 opponent, they get jumped all over on the conference forums by their conference mates.  

You referred to your ranking system....what is it (or did I miss it earlier in this thread?)?  If it is better, have you forwarded it to Seble?  
 
5/18/2013 10:52 AM
Were you talking about the PIT having a win requirement at one time or the actual NIT?

Hopefully I'll be able to understand the woes of D1 in less than a season here, so I'll be able to weigh in recruit generation in a bit.

And of course, since I do have my own ranking system, I think that it's the best, if not, then why would I bother?  My rankings can be viewed at www.bpisports.com and I've produced college basketball rankings since 2009.  They correctly predicted all the at-large teams for the 2013 NCAA tournament here and my explanation of my system is that it's an extension of the RPI that factors in point margin (I do have compile a ranking without margin as well, and they differ very little...jet's Loyola-MD team still would have made it in my system without margin).  This post is all over the place, so I'm going to post the explanation from my webby...

TEAM SPORTS

 

There are 2 basic ranking formats for the major team sports, (baseball, basketball, football, hockey, soccer, etc) COLLEGE and PRO.  Both sets of rankings will display what each team did against each opponent they've played to date without predicting at all what will happen in the future.  A good dictionary definition would be: a summary of each team's overall results to date, analyzed on an individual game basis.  The factors in these ranking systems are as follows in order of importance...

 

1. Win/Loss

2. Opponent (Strength)

3. Point Margin

 

The COLLEGE format is used strictly for college team sports.  Each team is rated based upon the results they have accrued against their given schedule for that given season.  The strength of schedule factor is analyzed on an individual game basis and has been created in such a way that it reacts like a human poll does.

Also, all wins rate higher than all losses because if they didn't one is suggesting that winning and losing don't matter/are irrelevant, which is silly since the object of any game is to win.

I think I've contacted seble about it previously with a lukewarm response...I hadn't done so recently because from the few analyses I had done, the Projection Report seemed pretty much on par with my rankings, though with this happening now, I'm "off" it again.  Also if my system were to be used, I would want to be compensated somehow...I don't work for free.


5/18/2013 1:57 PM
Here's the thing: in reality, in the Allen example I've posted, the 10-17 Nebraska and 10-17 Wake Forest ARE, most likely, better than Loyola MD. They would each probably win 7 out of 10 games against Loyola. In theory, a proper ranking system will reflect this. I don't think the ranking system is broken.

PIT invites should not just be "the best teams left" it should be "the teams that have earned the PIT berth". I think Loyola and the other 21-9ish schools with better RPI's than Nebraska and Wake have earned the spot more. You can try and bastardize the ranking system to fit this OR you can put another layer into the selection process, i.e. a minimum win requirement.
5/18/2013 3:21 PM
colonel...I did mean the NIT rather than the PIT...sorry to be confusing.
5/18/2013 3:36 PM
Here's the record for each school vs each RPI bracket

  0-50 51-100 101-200 200+
Loyola 0-2 2 5 6 2 13-0
WF 2 13 3 3 4 1 1 0
Nebraska 2 16 2 1 4 0 2 0

None of the 3 are really postseason worthy. Obviously someone has to get in. Winning 21 games isn't impressive at all when 19 of them are vs 140+ RPI teams.
5/18/2013 3:44 PM
I think you really hurt yourself with your terrible non-conference schedule. You went with 4 good humans, then 6 pretty bad sim teams. When you're in a poor conference you have to schedule many competitive schools. Your own conference mate had it right at Marist, 9 user-owned teams with 7 in the top 100 RPI. I see you scheduled much better for next season.
5/18/2013 5:24 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/18/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing: in reality, in the Allen example I've posted, the 10-17 Nebraska and 10-17 Wake Forest ARE, most likely, better than Loyola MD. They would each probably win 7 out of 10 games against Loyola. In theory, a proper ranking system will reflect this. I don't think the ranking system is broken.

PIT invites should not just be "the best teams left" it should be "the teams that have earned the PIT berth". I think Loyola and the other 21-9ish schools with better RPI's than Nebraska and Wake have earned the spot more. You can try and bastardize the ranking system to fit this OR you can put another layer into the selection process, i.e. a minimum win requirement.
Having a minimum win requirement just makes an excuse for a ranking system that doesn't work properly/could work better...you want a patch, I want a fix...given how great some conferences are top to bottom, a minimum win requirement isn't needed.  An MWR would be a cheap, lazy copout for a "to be desired" WIS design/ranking system.  I'm aware that you don't want my ranking system in this thing, but if it ran the PR, you'd be PITing instead of pouting...
5/18/2013 11:10 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 5/18/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):
I think you really hurt yourself with your terrible non-conference schedule. You went with 4 good humans, then 6 pretty bad sim teams. When you're in a poor conference you have to schedule many competitive schools. Your own conference mate had it right at Marist, 9 user-owned teams with 7 in the top 100 RPI. I see you scheduled much better for next season.
usually I fill all my empty scheduling slots at some point during the conference tournament with road games against the best sims that i can find. Works with my Villanova team, since the big east is strong. does NOT work with mid-majors, clearly. i gotta get off my *** and find humans.
5/18/2013 11:11 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 5/18/2013 5:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/18/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing: in reality, in the Allen example I've posted, the 10-17 Nebraska and 10-17 Wake Forest ARE, most likely, better than Loyola MD. They would each probably win 7 out of 10 games against Loyola. In theory, a proper ranking system will reflect this. I don't think the ranking system is broken.

PIT invites should not just be "the best teams left" it should be "the teams that have earned the PIT berth". I think Loyola and the other 21-9ish schools with better RPI's than Nebraska and Wake have earned the spot more. You can try and bastardize the ranking system to fit this OR you can put another layer into the selection process, i.e. a minimum win requirement.
Having a minimum win requirement just makes an excuse for a ranking system that doesn't work properly/could work better...you want a patch, I want a fix...given how great some conferences are top to bottom, a minimum win requirement isn't needed.  An MWR would be a cheap, lazy copout for a "to be desired" WIS design/ranking system.  I'm aware that you don't want my ranking system in this thing, but if it ran the PR, you'd be PITing instead of pouting...
are you of the opinion that the PIT should have the absolute best teams and nothing more than that?
5/18/2013 11:22 PM
No, I want the other 32 teams chosen through a ranking system that makes sense, and since I do college basketball rankings, rankings that this year correctly picked/predicted all of the at-large teams in the NCAA tournament, I'd say best case scenario is my ranking system.  I think having a minimum win requirement cheapens the process and makes an excuse for a projection report that doesn't work as well as it should.

It's not about the best teams, it's about getting the teams into the PIT that had the best seasons of teams available, determined again by a solid ranking system.  I'm sorry, you're not going to be able to bollock me off of me wanting to use my system here, and it should be a system that you like/appreciate because all wins are rated higher than all losses, and moreover, your team gets in under my format.

5/19/2013 2:33 AM
just to be clear, if "my team" happened to be 10-17, i would not be fighting to be included in the PIT.

by the same token, isn't it still possible for a 10-17 team to have a "better season" than a 21-9 season? the argument is that NO team that finishes under 0.500 should get the invite, simply out of principle.

another point: it's very easy to develop a system that automatically pushes teams with losing records to the bottom of the list, you just have to abandon the whole "treat the season entirely as the sum of independent games" mantra.
5/19/2013 10:31 AM
man, if only we could find someone that could come up with another ranking system.  Colonels, do you know anybody?
5/19/2013 10:59 AM
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/18/2013 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 5/18/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):
I think you really hurt yourself with your terrible non-conference schedule. You went with 4 good humans, then 6 pretty bad sim teams. When you're in a poor conference you have to schedule many competitive schools. Your own conference mate had it right at Marist, 9 user-owned teams with 7 in the top 100 RPI. I see you scheduled much better for next season.
usually I fill all my empty scheduling slots at some point during the conference tournament with road games against the best sims that i can find. Works with my Villanova team, since the big east is strong. does NOT work with mid-majors, clearly. i gotta get off my *** and find humans.
It can DEFINITELY work with mid majors. Ive had very much success scheduling like that with my JSU team in P
5/19/2013 12:08 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/19/2013 2:33:00 AM (view original):
just to be clear, if "my team" happened to be 10-17, i would not be fighting to be included in the PIT.

by the same token, isn't it still possible for a 10-17 team to have a "better season" than a 21-9 season? the argument is that NO team that finishes under 0.500 should get the invite, simply out of principle.

another point: it's very easy to develop a system that automatically pushes teams with losing records to the bottom of the list, you just have to abandon the whole "treat the season entirely as the sum of independent games" mantra.
If my team was 21-9 and 19 of the wins were vs bad teams I wouldn't be fighting to be included into the PIT.
of 5
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Missed PIT bid? Really?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.