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.)

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)

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.

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.

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). 

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.