All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?
5/20/2013 4:19 PM
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.
This is far from the truth. There are plenty of mid-majors that finish ahead of comparable Big 6 teams in the projection report.
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.
There's at least 27 games, not 10. It makes sense for a Big 6 team to schedule easier teams non-conference, as it will be tough to get wins in conference play. It's a poor idea for a team in a weak conference to do the same.

If you want to change things to make it tougher on Big 6 teams, I'm listening. If you want to make it easier for mid-majors that have 19 of their 21 wins versus awful teams to make the postseason, you lost me.

And really the PIT thing is small potatoes. If you want to have real change in the game, argue for cutting the postseason cash. Also, send tickets. Bantering here doesn't change things.
5/20/2013 8:57 PM
Posted by abitaamber on 5/20/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
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.
FWIW, there were 5 conference champions in the Northern Sun  D2 in Knight this year
5/20/2013 8:59 PM
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. 
This...I can't believe how people are basically just willing to throw SOS out the window for 14-13...wow, unreal.
5/21/2013 10:01 AM
FWIW, there were 5 conference champions in the Northern Sun  D2 in Knight this year

Not applicable to what I was suggesting.  Those 8-8 conference champions are not who I would protect, because other conference champions made the postseason.  If all 5 missed it, then the one with the highest RPI would get the nod. 
5/21/2013 10:02 AM
Posted by stinenavy on 5/20/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
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.
This is far from the truth. There are plenty of mid-majors that finish ahead of comparable Big 6 teams in the projection report.
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.
There's at least 27 games, not 10. It makes sense for a Big 6 team to schedule easier teams non-conference, as it will be tough to get wins in conference play. It's a poor idea for a team in a weak conference to do the same.

If you want to change things to make it tougher on Big 6 teams, I'm listening. If you want to make it easier for mid-majors that have 19 of their 21 wins versus awful teams to make the postseason, you lost me.

And really the PIT thing is small potatoes. If you want to have real change in the game, argue for cutting the postseason cash. Also, send tickets. Bantering here doesn't change things.
tougher on Big 6 and easier on mid-majors go hand-in-hand, don't they?

i agree that the PIT discussion is potatoes. clearly people care about their potatoes.
5/21/2013 10:23 AM
"...clearly people care about their potatoes."

Yes, perhaps the most surprising result of the poll is only 6% of respondents have voted "I don't care."

Though I guess if someone's going to click on the thread, they're predisposed to care about the subject.
5/21/2013 12:36 PM
a 14 point swing is something that Seble should definately be made aware of.
5/21/2013 2:40 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 5/20/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
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.
This is far from the truth. There are plenty of mid-majors that finish ahead of comparable Big 6 teams in the projection report.
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.
There's at least 27 games, not 10. It makes sense for a Big 6 team to schedule easier teams non-conference, as it will be tough to get wins in conference play. It's a poor idea for a team in a weak conference to do the same.

If you want to change things to make it tougher on Big 6 teams, I'm listening. If you want to make it easier for mid-majors that have 19 of their 21 wins versus awful teams to make the postseason, you lost me.

And really the PIT thing is small potatoes. If you want to have real change in the game, argue for cutting the postseason cash. Also, send tickets. Bantering here doesn't change things.
This. My first instinct was to support this poll, simply as a way to cut back on the power of mediocre/average Big 6 coaches who can still rack up postseason appearances almost every season. But this is the wrong way to try to solve that problem - it addresses one (very small) symptom but ignores the core issue. If the overall playing field for Big 6 conferences was altered - for example, by reducing postseason cash or softening / eliminating baseline prestige - that would create more balance in the overall game, which is a more meaningful goal than shifting around PIT appearances.
5/21/2013 4:04 PM (edited)
Posted by smackawits on 5/21/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):
a 14 point swing is something that Seble should definately be made aware of.
JHC, some of you think that the forum poll is now your birthright.

You're going to contact seble because 54% of 10% of the folks who play HD want a win requirement for the PIT?  GTFO man, you're off your effing rocker...this has to be a joke.

Again the last thing we need here are more rash decisions made based off of faulty/ridiculous/non-existent "logic", brought about by 1 guy who's butt hurt about his team not making the PIT

5/21/2013 4:41 PM
...and your existent logic is not faulty or ridiculous?  I thought you had matured a little since you started posting, but I'm seeing some of the "old" colonels in your statements on this.  Can't anyone have an opinion other than one you espouse? 
5/21/2013 4:49 PM
Posted by namshub on 5/17/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
If you can't win half your games you shouldn't be in the post-season unless you win your conference tourney.  Realistically, if you can win 7 non-conf. games you still don't have to finish .500 in your own conference to reach .500 overall.  If you can't do that you either don't know how to schedule or you're not good enough to play in the post-season.  If you know your in some mega-conference then schedule 9 or 10 wins so you only have to win 4 or 5 conference games.  The arguments put up against a .500 requirement that have been posted so far are very weak imo, especially at the DI level.  The benefit to mid-majors getting into the PIT at the DI level surely outweigh the Big 6 getting more post-season teams then they already do in the NT. 

Actually seems like a no-brainer.
seems the arguments for .500 teams being excluded are VERY VERY VERY WEAK then, by your standard. 

i agree with the poster who suggested a YES FOR D1 ONLY option be included in the poll. i could go for that, because d1 is so unbalanced already. but in d2/d3, no way. why shouldnt the best teams get in to create the most competitive competition? you want a competition to be competitive, its redundant, it goes without saying - so i think its very obvious the strong argument needs to be made FOR excluding teams who don't go .500, not the opposite. its really a somewhat ridiculous notion, along the lines of "give every kid who competed a trophy". in d1, the only reason i can palate that sort of crap is because there are so many problems already, making things pretty unbalanced, but that is clearly a 2 wrongs making a right situation, at best, IMO.

5/21/2013 4:57 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.  
why not require people to win over 50% then? over 55%? the whole point is that drawing some artificial line just makes no sense, theoretically. why not just pick the best teams? if there are good teams over .500, they should get in organically. if they suck ***, why give them a free lunch? any time you draw a line like this, you are going to cause worse teams to replace better ones, and i cant see the logic in that, unless there is some serious injustice you are trying to correct with a lesser injustice. 

if people dont like the ranking system, go after that. it seems most people are pretty darn happy with the projection report rankings, but im sure that isnt everybody. but conceptually, to favor artificial methods over an organic ranking system, it just seems crazy to me. clearly a step back, in my mind. if the ranking system is so bad, record is a better measure of quality, then fine - but i really dont think that is the case. and if people DO think that is the case, im curious, if there was this theoretical great ranking system in place, would you still push for artificial manipulation? and how can you defend that position?
5/21/2013 4:59 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/20/2013 12:13:00 AM (view original):
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.
this is not even remotely correct. you are saying equal quality teams, right? not even close... 
5/21/2013 5:01 PM
Posted by ll316 on 5/19/2013 4:12:00 PM (view original):
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."
after reading your expansion (after my own post), i would say i agree the crap teams in big 6 conferences are probably too high on the projection report. to me, that is a projection report issue, not a PIT .500 issue. i would be for modifying the projection report, penalizing the teams who really dont play well. but when you have a team just under .500 who has won some seriously quality regular season games, versus a 17-10 mid major who never beat anyone, i think the projection report gets it 100% right, and putting an artificial line on the PIT entry would be an injustice to that team.
5/21/2013 6:52 PM (edited)
Posted by smackawits on 5/21/2013 4:41:00 PM (view original):
...and your existent logic is not faulty or ridiculous?  I thought you had matured a little since you started posting, but I'm seeing some of the "old" colonels in your statements on this.  Can't anyone have an opinion other than one you espouse? 
I'm tired of seeing important decisions made because of 1 person griping about something that, ironically enough, they lost out on.  You're suggesting that seble should look at the poll numbers here...55% yes for 10% of the WIS population isn't ****, certainly not enough to warrant a change in my book, and I'm going to speak out and make it known.  The vibe I get here is that you want to send a ticket to Scott and say look at these numbers, change this, and sadly to say, I think he's dumb enough to do it.  I'm tired of things being executed here because of one side of an argument.

And yes the logic here is faulty, because by implementing a win requirement, you're inherently alienating and disregarding SOS.  I want to better the ranking system (again by which jet's team would have made the PI, with no win requirement mind you) so that Wins and schedule strength are weighed appropriately.  The difference in the solutions here are that a lot of you guys want a patch to make up for/excuse an average/poor system while I want to fix the system.  Yes the PI is the 2nd tier/lesser tournament, but any time that you suggest to a player to schedule easy (wins) so that you'll get rewarded just because you have a winning record, you're diminishing the challenge and the spirit of competition here...what your argument comes down to is raw wins, so as long as you get your 14 Ws, your 276th rated SOS doesn't matter...and that's dumb.

If people are going to go hard for this thing, you can damn well be sure that I'm going hard against it, because I know I'm being more logical here, I know and understand how ranking systems (should) work because I produce my own.  I've thought about and put more effort towards this than any/most of you have, and again to merely want a winning record to be the standard for the PI while disregarding SOS is rather/very naive and short-sighted.

Props to stinenavy, ike1024/isack, and gillispie in this thread as well.

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.