All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > .500 Record Requirement for D1 Postseason(Poll)
5/14/2014 1:58 AM
Posted by bhansalid00 on 5/14/2014 1:39:00 AM (view original):
wildcat68, the exact same argument applies to the bottom-feeders in the most powerful conferences. Expect to go 3-13 in your conference, yet still somehow feel you deserve a post-season berth? Schedule 10 games you can actually win in non-conf. I don't think that's too much to ask when you have the recruiting cash and baseline benefits of being in a top conference. (And yes, I was at a mid-major, did schedule aggressively, and went to 3 staight postseasons, including upsetting a Pac-10 school in the NT. So I understand the flip side well.)
If a high-major team goes 13-13 (3-13), with only 2 top 100 wins and no top 50 wins, they're not getting into the PIT.
5/14/2014 2:02 AM
from the FAQ, here are the variables that are considered nowNational Tournament selection and seeding both rely on the same logic.

The logic for ranking teams for the postseason essentially calculates a score for each game on a team's schedule. This game score is determined by the following components:

  • Result (win or loss)
  • RPI rank of the opponent
  • Top 25 rank of the opponent (this rank is actually calculated and used for all teams, even beyond the top 25)
  • Score margin of the game
  • Location (home, away, or neutral court)
There is also consideration given to record over the final 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.

 

Once the tournament field has been determined, then the seeding process will begin, using the same evaluation logic. Some teams may be moved slightly in order to avoid same-conference matchups early in the tournament.

Once the National Tournament bids have been handed out, the PostSeason Invitational teams are selected using the same process.

5/14/2014 2:05 AM
I can see two different tweaks to address the PIT concern discussed in this thread

1. increase the value of wins in this formula - that would change the rankings generally in the Projection Report and hence in NT and PIT

or

2. apply a minimum number of wins or a minimum win percentage for PIT eligibility (as noted earlier, NT already requires .500) - something like 10 or 11 or 12 wins to get into the PIT

I would be fine with either of these.  I tend to like #1 as a more systematic solution, rather than a cutoff.....but either would address the OP


5/14/2014 2:14 AM
I guess I just feel like this is a solution looking for a problem. If people don't want a 9-18 team (or whatever) making the tournament, then schedule better, improve your RPI and S-curve placement, and beat them out.
5/14/2014 11:18 AM
I feel the formula is fine as is, so leave it alone. There is one minor correction to the NT .500 comment above. That applies to selections who did not win their CT. CT champion goes regardless of record. 
5/14/2014 12:23 PM
Posted by wildcat98 on 5/14/2014 2:14:00 AM (view original):
I guess I just feel like this is a solution looking for a problem. If people don't want a 9-18 team (or whatever) making the tournament, then schedule better, improve your RPI and S-curve placement, and beat them out.
Or just get in a power conference and have a slightly less terrible season.
5/15/2014 10:57 AM
Stine, this is out of curiousity and not an attack what-so-ever - was looking at the projection report in Naismith and was looking at who I was ahead of --- if your Oklahoma team finishes up 13-14,  sub .500, which very well could happen .... do you feel your team is deserving of a PIT bid?  I certainly do, that's a good team with no bad losses (100+ RPI)

http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Roster.aspx?tid=2451
5/15/2014 4:23 PM
I stated somewhere else in this thread that I want the change even though I'd be much more likely to be negatively effected by it. I have 5 Big Six schools and Utah, but Utah is at the point of making the NT yearly regardless, with either CT titles or NT at-large berths, so the change doesn't help ME at all.

I want to make it a better game, and I believe eliminating/reducing teams with 8-13 wins on the season from making the postseason is a reasonable goal.
5/15/2014 11:30 PM
I like the idea of making post-season more difficult for the Big Six conferences and more in line with real life results.   I think the .500 record is a reasonable solution.   In the Crum world I counted 19 teams that made the PIT with a sub .500 record in the last FIVE seasons (the worst being 9-19) and while I recognize this game doesn't ALWAYS need to mirror real life, looking at the Real Life Big Six conferences over the past 15 seasons only five times has a team made the NIT and finished the season under .500 (and only 1 of those entered the NIT under .500):

2012-2013  Texas 16-18
2004-2005 Missouri 16-17 (entered NIT at .500)
2002-2003 Villanova 15-16 (entered NIT at .500)
2001-2002 Arizona St 14-15 (entered NIT at .500)
1999-2000 Rutgers 15-16 (entered NIT at .500)

However, I'd like to see this change happen in conjunction with requiring a team finish .500 or better in conference (CT Champions excluded) in order to qualify for the NT.  Over the past 15 Crum seasons I counted 52 instances of teams receiving at large NT bids and finishing sub .500 in conference.  This includes 2 teams that went 4-12 in conference play and 5 teams that went 5-11.  Again comparing this to real life over the past 15 seasons at large bids have only been given to sub .500 conference teams 12 times and I don't believe any of those teams finished worse than 2 games under .500 (either 7-9 or 6-8). 




5/15/2014 11:47 PM
I agree Possumfiend
5/16/2014 3:16 AM (edited)
Posted by possumfiend on 5/15/2014 11:30:00 PM (view original):
I like the idea of making post-season more difficult for the Big Six conferences and more in line with real life results.   I think the .500 record is a reasonable solution.   In the Crum world I counted 19 teams that made the PIT with a sub .500 record in the last FIVE seasons (the worst being 9-19) and while I recognize this game doesn't ALWAYS need to mirror real life, looking at the Real Life Big Six conferences over the past 15 seasons only five times has a team made the NIT and finished the season under .500 (and only 1 of those entered the NIT under .500):

2012-2013  Texas 16-18
2004-2005 Missouri 16-17 (entered NIT at .500)
2002-2003 Villanova 15-16 (entered NIT at .500)
2001-2002 Arizona St 14-15 (entered NIT at .500)
1999-2000 Rutgers 15-16 (entered NIT at .500)

However, I'd like to see this change happen in conjunction with requiring a team finish .500 or better in conference (CT Champions excluded) in order to qualify for the NT.  Over the past 15 Crum seasons I counted 52 instances of teams receiving at large NT bids and finishing sub .500 in conference.  This includes 2 teams that went 4-12 in conference play and 5 teams that went 5-11.  Again comparing this to real life over the past 15 seasons at large bids have only been given to sub .500 conference teams 12 times and I don't believe any of those teams finished worse than 2 games under .500 (either 7-9 or 6-8). 




I don't think .500 should be the line for the PIT. I'd rather see them just add another tournament (CBI whatever) ought to be easier to just copy and paste that part of the code or whatever and re-title it (see how little I know about programming...ha) 

My main point is to say that comparing RL conferences to HD conferences for NT eligibility is not really similar. There are very few conferences IRL as deep as some of the very talented HD conferences. 
5/16/2014 8:37 AM
Posted by dacj501 on 5/16/2014 3:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by possumfiend on 5/15/2014 11:30:00 PM (view original):
I like the idea of making post-season more difficult for the Big Six conferences and more in line with real life results.   I think the .500 record is a reasonable solution.   In the Crum world I counted 19 teams that made the PIT with a sub .500 record in the last FIVE seasons (the worst being 9-19) and while I recognize this game doesn't ALWAYS need to mirror real life, looking at the Real Life Big Six conferences over the past 15 seasons only five times has a team made the NIT and finished the season under .500 (and only 1 of those entered the NIT under .500):

2012-2013  Texas 16-18
2004-2005 Missouri 16-17 (entered NIT at .500)
2002-2003 Villanova 15-16 (entered NIT at .500)
2001-2002 Arizona St 14-15 (entered NIT at .500)
1999-2000 Rutgers 15-16 (entered NIT at .500)

However, I'd like to see this change happen in conjunction with requiring a team finish .500 or better in conference (CT Champions excluded) in order to qualify for the NT.  Over the past 15 Crum seasons I counted 52 instances of teams receiving at large NT bids and finishing sub .500 in conference.  This includes 2 teams that went 4-12 in conference play and 5 teams that went 5-11.  Again comparing this to real life over the past 15 seasons at large bids have only been given to sub .500 conference teams 12 times and I don't believe any of those teams finished worse than 2 games under .500 (either 7-9 or 6-8). 




I don't think .500 should be the line for the PIT. I'd rather see them just add another tournament (CBI whatever) ought to be easier to just copy and paste that part of the code or whatever and re-title it (see how little I know about programming...ha) 

My main point is to say that comparing RL conferences to HD conferences for NT eligibility is not really similar. There are very few conferences IRL as deep as some of the very talented HD conferences. 

I get your point and think that some of this issue would be alleviated if there weren't so many SIM controlled teams but I also think you kind of prove the point.  That is "there are very few conferences IRL as deep as some of the very talented HD conferences."  Those conferences are a direct result of the many inherent advantages and benefits the game provides the Big Six - and are beyond the scope of what happens IRL.  This idea appears a minor curb to those inherent advantages and makes it a little more difficult for conferences to be that unrealistically deep and talented.

Keep in mind, my view on this issue isn't me whining about not making the PIT because my team wasn't good enough.  In fact, I'm arguing the opposite, that on three occasions my team shouldn't have earned post season play because we didn't earn it.

5/16/2014 9:55 AM
If finishing 21-8 (12-4) in a mostly sim conference was remotely as difficult as finishing 12-15 (6-10) in a full power conference, I'd support this. But it's not. So I don't.
5/16/2014 11:34 AM
I agree with wildcat. 
In Iba ACC, every coach is ridiculously good. we regularly have 10 make the NT. 
the problem is that the other 2-3 coaches (depending on the year) often go 9-1 or 10-0 out of conference and then get 1-2 conference wins. They finish under .500, but would be NT teams if they were in any other conference. 

They do NOT make the NT, and they shouldn't. But PIT is a good consolation prize and well deserved. They regularly make it far in the PT, though  they are low seeds (7-8 even) that have 10ish wins, thus proving they deserve to make it. 
5/16/2014 2:05 PM
Well hell those teams would make the NT if they weren't in a Big 6 conference? Great. Let's not play any regular season games and just throw teams into the NT based on overall team team rating (minus walk-ons).
of 12
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > .500 Record Requirement for D1 Postseason(Poll)

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.