All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?
5/19/2013 4:12 PM
I'll expand a little bit on what I said before.  The reason I hate sub .500 teams getting into the PT so much is that they don't have to actually accomplish anything during the regular season to get in.  Just schedule tough, lose the majority of their games, and they're still rewarded with post season money.  Again - Even though they accomplished nothing of value during the regular season.  As Coach Herm said - "You play to win the game."
5/19/2013 5:14 PM
That would be fine if worlds were full. But it's no more impressive to beat a sim than it is to lose to a human.
5/19/2013 5:47 PM
Posted by ll316 on 5/19/2013 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/17/2013 9:23:00 PM (view original):
The only real impact this would have would be to screw owners who are in very tough conferences with only decent or good teams, rather than great.

My lone team at the moment is in Tark, GLV. It has been the toughest Tark D2 conference for as long as I can remember, and has to be in the competition for toughest D2 (or even overall) conference, regardless of World.

This past season, all 12 teams made the postseason. Basically, those who were above .500 made the NT.

Those of us below .500 were ineligible for the NT (though RPI/projection would have had a couple of us in), so we were sent to the PIT. The D2 PIT final four this past season was 4 GLV teams.

We each had solid teams, much better teams than most owners in sim-filled conferences, and when we played them in the PIT, it showed. But, because we had so many very good/great teams in conference, it becomes nearly impossible for everyone to stay above .500.

So, because we're in an extremely strong conference, we're "penalized" by not being eligible as under-.500 teams for the NT, and that's fine. To go this step further and make us ineligible for ANY postseason tournament in favor of lesser teams who played weak schedules is absurd.
It's incredibly easy for schools to get to .500, regardless of how tough their conference is.  Know what you can do?  Stop scheduling for "good" losses in the non con.  If you're not good enough to win basketball games, you shouldn't be in the post season.  
Last season, Bellarmine (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=12157) went to the PI title game. Bellarmine also went 3-13 in conference.

Even if you schedule 10 sim cupcakes (which is hardly enjoyable or "good" for the World) you are not guaranteed a .500 record.

Here, even if Bellarmine had gone 10-0 in OOC (it didn't), that would have put it at 13-13 after the regular season.

Under the proposed rules, a conference tourney loss and it is under .500 and out of all post-season play, instead of in the Championship game of the PIT.

To the extent that WhatIf wants to provide incentives for certain type of scheduling, it'd be better off supporting competitive games between live owners, instead of a parade of massacres against SIMs because people *need* sure wins to have a chance of post-season play.
5/19/2013 8:34 PM

for clarification purposes, my argument only pertains to DI.  DII and DIII should be left alone.  And my argument is based on prestige factors and post-season money moreso than whether a 10 win team is better than a 21 win team in the PIT.  That was the least of my reasoning.  Its all about the prestige and money and finding a quick fix to minimally "close that gap" between the haves and have nots. 

I remember a day in real life before there was the internet and bracketology that there would be arguments against giving out NCAA bids to teams that couldn't finish .500 in conference.  but that's besides the internet game point which is explained above.

in the end its all just our opinions.  there is no necessary right or wrong so it need never get personal or angry boys.  gl in your seasons.

5/19/2013 8:47 PM
Raw wins and losses...I'm out...
5/19/2013 9:39 PM
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/19/2013 5:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ll316 on 5/19/2013 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/17/2013 9:23:00 PM (view original):
The only real impact this would have would be to screw owners who are in very tough conferences with only decent or good teams, rather than great.

My lone team at the moment is in Tark, GLV. It has been the toughest Tark D2 conference for as long as I can remember, and has to be in the competition for toughest D2 (or even overall) conference, regardless of World.

This past season, all 12 teams made the postseason. Basically, those who were above .500 made the NT.

Those of us below .500 were ineligible for the NT (though RPI/projection would have had a couple of us in), so we were sent to the PIT. The D2 PIT final four this past season was 4 GLV teams.

We each had solid teams, much better teams than most owners in sim-filled conferences, and when we played them in the PIT, it showed. But, because we had so many very good/great teams in conference, it becomes nearly impossible for everyone to stay above .500.

So, because we're in an extremely strong conference, we're "penalized" by not being eligible as under-.500 teams for the NT, and that's fine. To go this step further and make us ineligible for ANY postseason tournament in favor of lesser teams who played weak schedules is absurd.
It's incredibly easy for schools to get to .500, regardless of how tough their conference is.  Know what you can do?  Stop scheduling for "good" losses in the non con.  If you're not good enough to win basketball games, you shouldn't be in the post season.  
Last season, Bellarmine (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=12157) went to the PI title game. Bellarmine also went 3-13 in conference.

Even if you schedule 10 sim cupcakes (which is hardly enjoyable or "good" for the World) you are not guaranteed a .500 record.

Here, even if Bellarmine had gone 10-0 in OOC (it didn't), that would have put it at 13-13 after the regular season.

Under the proposed rules, a conference tourney loss and it is under .500 and out of all post-season play, instead of in the Championship game of the PIT.

To the extent that WhatIf wants to provide incentives for certain type of scheduling, it'd be better off supporting competitive games between live owners, instead of a parade of massacres against SIMs because people *need* sure wins to have a chance of post-season play.
I understand what you're saying, and part of me agrees with you.  But where's the incentive to actually coach if you're guaranteed a PT berth based on a high (high as in good) SOS?  When the bottom dwellers of super conferences get dragged along for the ride while accomplishing nothing in the regular season, that's just not fair.  Maybe if they dropped giving conference tourney money out, I'd agree that it should be the "best" (although I think far too much credit is given for losses vs. good teams).  But since they do hand out money, all you have to do is join a good conference and you're almost guaranteed a post season bid regardless of how good/bad your team is.
5/19/2013 9:49 PM
"But where's the incentive to actually coach if you're guaranteed a PT berth based on a high (high as in good) SOS?"

Don't disagree, but can't the same be said about scheduling 10 crappy sims? 
5/19/2013 10:00 PM
Posted by ike1024 on 5/19/2013 9:49:00 PM (view original):
"But where's the incentive to actually coach if you're guaranteed a PT berth based on a high (high as in good) SOS?"

Don't disagree, but can't the same be said about scheduling 10 crappy sims? 
It definitely can.  But isn't it harder to beat a crappy team than it is to lose to a good one?  
5/19/2013 11:20 PM
Not necessarily. At least not harder to make it a competitive game. And I'm for the no teams under 500 thing, by the way ...
5/19/2013 11:37 PM
Posted by ll316 on 5/19/2013 10:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ike1024 on 5/19/2013 9:49:00 PM (view original):
"But where's the incentive to actually coach if you're guaranteed a PT berth based on a high (high as in good) SOS?"

Don't disagree, but can't the same be said about scheduling 10 crappy sims? 
It definitely can.  But isn't it harder to beat a crappy team than it is to lose to a good one?  
It's harder to go 5-5 against a difficult schedule than 10-0 against sims. 
5/20/2013 12:09 AM
What it comes down to for me is that you have to favor either:

1. The teams at the bottom of good conferences
2. The teams at the top of weak conferences

And you have to reward either:

1. Scheduling the toughest losses available
2. Scheduling the toughest probably-wins available

I may be biased as I have spent more time coaching the low-majors than the Big 6 basement teams, but I think the Big 6 conferences help themselves enough. It's all about prestige in D1 (BTW, I do think this problem almost entirely applies to D1) and most of the low- to mid- major conferences have ONE or TWO teams that make postseason each year. Those teams hit B- prestige and monopolize the one NT berth, keeping the rest of the conference at C or worse until they leave. Then nobody takes that B- low-major team cuz nobody that qualifies for a B- bothers with the conference and another team takes the perch. Wouldn't be so bad if the cycle didn't take a full calendar year to refresh.
5/20/2013 12:13 AM
Posted by ike1024 on 5/19/2013 11:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ll316 on 5/19/2013 10:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ike1024 on 5/19/2013 9:49:00 PM (view original):
"But where's the incentive to actually coach if you're guaranteed a PT berth based on a high (high as in good) SOS?"

Don't disagree, but can't the same be said about scheduling 10 crappy sims? 
It definitely can.  But isn't it harder to beat a crappy team than it is to lose to a good one?  
It's harder to go 5-5 against a difficult schedule than 10-0 against sims. 
If you took equal teams, one at the bottom of the big east and one at the top of the metro-atlantic, the only way the metro team is ahead of the big east team on the projection report at the end of the year is if they absolutely NAIL their schedule; every loss to a juggernaut, every win a slight upset against a small conference dominator.
5/20/2013 12:15 AM
And to elaborate, if you schedule an all-road 10-0 not-completely-cupcake schedule from the Big 6, as it stands now, you are guaranteed to reach the postseason with a decent team. The same CANNOT be said for low-major teams of equal quality.
5/20/2013 12:59 AM
I can't speak to the D1 aspect of this, as I haven't coached there. Perhaps in D1 this sort of thing would make sense.

In D2 and D3 though, there's no way there should be a PIT requirement of a .500 record.
5/20/2013 1:45 PM
I like the compromise of all conference champions being guaranteed PT bids (take the one with the higher RPI in instances where both division champs miss out).    I think this balances it out a tad, without banning sub-.500 teams outright.
of 7
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?

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.